This article was downloaded by [Universite De Paris 1]On 07 November 2012 At 0629Publisher Taylor amp FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954Registered office Mortimer House 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JHUK

Symbolae OsloensesNorwegian Journal of Greekand Latin StudiesPublication details including instructions forauthors and subscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloisosl20

Voice and Addressee in theMimetic Hymns of CallimachusGjert Vestrheim aa Dept of Linguistic Literary and Aesthetic StudiesUniversity of BergenVersion of record first published 11 Jun 2012

To cite this article Gjert Vestrheim (2012) Voice and Addressee in the MimeticHymns of Callimachus Symbolae Osloenses Norwegian Journal of Greek and LatinStudies 861 21-73

To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101080003976792012681156

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposesAny substantial or systematic reproduction redistribution reselling loansub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate The accuracy of any instructions formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss actions claims proceedings demand or costs or damages

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF

CALLIMACHUS

GJERT VESTRHEIM

DEPT OF LINGUISTIC LITERARY AND AESTHETIC STUDIES UNIVERSITY OFBERGEN

A close reading of the three ldquomimeticrdquo hymns shows that in none of them can anycredible interaction between voice and audience be reconstructed from the wordsof the poem Furthermore the voice of the poems cannot be assigned to a ldquomasterof ceremoniesrdquo nor to anyone else present on the occasions imaginedParadoxically this is what allows for the remarkably vivid recreation of festivaloccasions in these poems

11 Introduction

Although the Hymns of Callimachus are clearly modeled on the HomericHymns in terms of their metre epic diction and mythological subjectimportant differences between the two collections have long been recog-nised Callimachusrsquo Hymns I III and IV are comparatively close to theirHomeric models Their main subject is mythic narrative and theirvoice resembles that of an epic narrator Hymns II V and VI on theother hand differ profoundly from the Homeric Hymns These poemsconsist partly of mythic narrative partly of descriptions of festivaloccasions in which the speaker of the poem appears to take part

In an influential article from 1901 Ph-E Legrand1 pointed out that thesehymns cannot have been performed simultaneously with the cult acts theydescribe He drew attention to the fact that the neighing of horses thesinging of swans etc described in the poems are uncontrollable eventsand therefore the poems cannot have been composed to describe them orcomment upon them as they took place On the contrary the poemsevoke a situation that is necessarily different from that of the recitation itself

I will take this argument one step further The situations that theyinvoke are indeterminate they cannot be firmly located in place andtime No one would ever have spoken like this neither as preparedspeech (this is Legrandrsquos point) nor as improvisation These poemshttpdxdoiorg101080003976792012681156

Symbolae Osloenses 86 2012

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

cannot be read as poeticised transcripts of what anyone would actuallyhave said on any occasion At first glance they vividly recreate a festivaloccasion through the voice of a participant but on closer inspectionboth the action and the voice disintegrate and dissolve

I will however also argue that this does not allow any further conclusionsabout the performance of Callimachusrsquo poems The question of the voice inthe poem should be kept separate from that of the performance of the poemThe fact that the voice speaking in a poem cannot be readily identified withthe performer does not prove that the poemwas not performed at all In thecase of the mimetic hymns this means that although they cannot have beenperformed simultaneously with and as part of the ritual acts they describethey may nevertheless have been performed on the occasion of these ritualsas poetic recitals before or after the ritual itself

This was in fact suggested by Legrand himself and in his day it was verymuch the received opinion that the hymns were festival poetry Susemihltook it for granted that they were meant for declamation on festivaloccasions2 and later Couat and Cahen held similar views3 So didP M Fraser who supporting the view of Cahen regarded the hymnsas having been ldquoperformed on the occasion of a religious festivalthough outside the formal framework of the festival itselfrdquo4More recentlythe same view has also been defended by Alan Cameron5

The view of Callimachusrsquo audience as an elite of courtiers and intellec-tuals with no resemblance to the audience in the poems was only estab-lished by Herter Wilamowitz having been less categorical6 Herterrsquosview was accepted by scholars such as Friedlaumlnder and Lesky7 and inmost of the scholarship on the hymns since his day eg that ofA W Bulloch who states that the mimetic hymns ldquowere clearly writtenfor recitation before an educated audience associated with the royalcourt at Alexandriardquo8 This common opinion is based partly on generalassumptions about literary life in the Hellenistic era and partly on the lit-erary character of Callimachusrsquo poems which is supposed to have pre-cluded any public performance

A recent example of this view may be found in the work of ClaudeCalame who concludes a reading of Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollo withthe statement that ldquofar from being designed for ritual performancewithin the context of a festival for Apollo the poem is entirely devotedto the cult of learned poetry reserved for a privileged circle of literatirdquo9

This opinion is not confirmed by Calamersquos own discussion which is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

about Callimachusrsquo art and not about his audience but appears as a deus exmachina towards the end of his essay Besides he misstates the alternativesA ldquoprivileged circlerdquo is not the only alternative to ldquoritual performancerdquowhich is in any case not what Cameron Fraser et al propose

In his book Callimachus and His Critics Alan Cameron has questionedthe common opinion of Hellenistic literary life as divided between on theone hand a popular culture of theatres and public competitions and onthe other hand an elite culture restricted to the courts and libraries10

This view he claims is ldquopurely conjecturalrdquo and based on ldquonothingmore solid than a feeling that sophisticated and allusive poetry cannothave been publicly performedrdquo11 As he points out Pindar and Aeschylusare both although in different ways examples of the opposite

Callimachusrsquo use of the mimetic technique is an important aspect of hissophistication and for this reason deserves closer scrutiny My aim in thepresent study is to analyse the three hymns by asking the same questionsof each of them What do these texts tell us about the situations in whichthey pretend to be spoken and to what degree can these situations be recon-structed from this information What does the voice tell us about itself itsaudience the actions going on and its own impact on these actionsMy aimis not to show that the poems are not meant for ldquoritual performancerdquo (this isgenerally acknowledged) but to discuss the ritual performances that theyrepresent and how these are represented Although the subject has been fre-quently touched upon and occasionally discussed in some depth no suchsurvey has been attempted sinceWilamowitzwhose conclusions I will on anumber of occasions disagree with12

My argument will not primarily be about the performance of Callima-chusrsquo hymns but about the performances (choral ritual processional etc)that are represented in the hymns First I shall give a brief presentation ofthe terms mimesis and deixis as they are used in the literature on the hymnsand related poetry Next I shall discuss some likely models for Callima-chusrsquo hymns in archaic poetry before I proceed to my readings of thehymns themselves Finally I shall sum up my findings and discuss theirpossible relevance to the question of the performance of the hymns

12 Mimesis and deixis

In 1906 Richard Reitzenstein applied the term ldquomimeticrdquo to describe Cal-limachusrsquo hymns to Apollo Pallas and Demeter13 The use of this term

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

and of the term ldquodiegeticrdquo for its opposite rests on Platorsquos discussion ofmimesis and diegesis in Rep 392d-394c Here Plato points to the differ-ence between the parts of the epics in which Homer speaks in his ownvoice and those in which he speaks as if he were someone else ie thespeeches Homerrsquos speeches are spoken by characters in the narrativeand therefore imagined as taking place at a specific time and place Thenarration on the other hand is not situated in any specific context andthe narrator is anonymous and featureless The narrating voice can there-fore easily be identified both with the author and with any subsequent per-former of the poem This is also the case in Callimachusrsquo so-called diegetichymns In his mimetic hymns on the other hand the entire poem appearsto be the speech of someone present at a particular place and occasion14

In the scholarship onCallimachusrsquoHymns the term ldquomimeticrdquo has gainedgeneral acceptance but scholars differ as to how this term should be definedand which poems should be labeled ldquomimeticrdquo15 Annette Harder followedby A DMorrison regards a text or a passage as mimetic when ldquothe speakeris either addressing himself as a fictional character or addressing other fic-tional charactersrdquo16 This ldquoimplies a certain fixation in time and spaceThis fixation may get further emphasis through explicit references toitrdquo17 If on the other hand the fictional addressee within the text is oneldquowith whom the historical reader may identify himselfrdquo18 she considersthe text diegetic She claims that there are ldquoindications of a specific audi-encerdquo19 in Hymns I III and IV also and that therefore ldquonone of thehymns can be regarded as diegetic in all its aspectsrdquo20 The diegetic andmimetic modes then can both be present in the same text21

A narrower definition of mimetic poetry is offered by Winfried Albertwho includes the criterion of Szenerieveraumlnderung22 changes in the scenewhich the speaker not only observes but by which he is affected23 Thishowever raises new questions of definition Can the fictional speakerreport a change in the scene without being in some way affected by itAnd will the change have to be explicitly stated In Archilochus fr105W (Γλαῦχ᾽ ὅρα) 1-2 the speaker reports the signs of the gatheringstorm these are not described as a change from a previous state butthis is clearly implied Only in 3 does the speaker state his emotional reac-tion to these signs but one could hardly claim that the two previous versesare without affect

Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns are clearly mimetic both according toHarderrsquos criteria and to those of Albert In addition I will argue that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF

CALLIMACHUS

GJERT VESTRHEIM

DEPT OF LINGUISTIC LITERARY AND AESTHETIC STUDIES UNIVERSITY OFBERGEN

A close reading of the three ldquomimeticrdquo hymns shows that in none of them can anycredible interaction between voice and audience be reconstructed from the wordsof the poem Furthermore the voice of the poems cannot be assigned to a ldquomasterof ceremoniesrdquo nor to anyone else present on the occasions imaginedParadoxically this is what allows for the remarkably vivid recreation of festivaloccasions in these poems

11 Introduction

Although the Hymns of Callimachus are clearly modeled on the HomericHymns in terms of their metre epic diction and mythological subjectimportant differences between the two collections have long been recog-nised Callimachusrsquo Hymns I III and IV are comparatively close to theirHomeric models Their main subject is mythic narrative and theirvoice resembles that of an epic narrator Hymns II V and VI on theother hand differ profoundly from the Homeric Hymns These poemsconsist partly of mythic narrative partly of descriptions of festivaloccasions in which the speaker of the poem appears to take part

In an influential article from 1901 Ph-E Legrand1 pointed out that thesehymns cannot have been performed simultaneously with the cult acts theydescribe He drew attention to the fact that the neighing of horses thesinging of swans etc described in the poems are uncontrollable eventsand therefore the poems cannot have been composed to describe them orcomment upon them as they took place On the contrary the poemsevoke a situation that is necessarily different from that of the recitation itself

I will take this argument one step further The situations that theyinvoke are indeterminate they cannot be firmly located in place andtime No one would ever have spoken like this neither as preparedspeech (this is Legrandrsquos point) nor as improvisation These poemshttpdxdoiorg101080003976792012681156

Symbolae Osloenses 86 2012

21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

cannot be read as poeticised transcripts of what anyone would actuallyhave said on any occasion At first glance they vividly recreate a festivaloccasion through the voice of a participant but on closer inspectionboth the action and the voice disintegrate and dissolve

I will however also argue that this does not allow any further conclusionsabout the performance of Callimachusrsquo poems The question of the voice inthe poem should be kept separate from that of the performance of the poemThe fact that the voice speaking in a poem cannot be readily identified withthe performer does not prove that the poemwas not performed at all In thecase of the mimetic hymns this means that although they cannot have beenperformed simultaneously with and as part of the ritual acts they describethey may nevertheless have been performed on the occasion of these ritualsas poetic recitals before or after the ritual itself

This was in fact suggested by Legrand himself and in his day it was verymuch the received opinion that the hymns were festival poetry Susemihltook it for granted that they were meant for declamation on festivaloccasions2 and later Couat and Cahen held similar views3 So didP M Fraser who supporting the view of Cahen regarded the hymnsas having been ldquoperformed on the occasion of a religious festivalthough outside the formal framework of the festival itselfrdquo4More recentlythe same view has also been defended by Alan Cameron5

The view of Callimachusrsquo audience as an elite of courtiers and intellec-tuals with no resemblance to the audience in the poems was only estab-lished by Herter Wilamowitz having been less categorical6 Herterrsquosview was accepted by scholars such as Friedlaumlnder and Lesky7 and inmost of the scholarship on the hymns since his day eg that ofA W Bulloch who states that the mimetic hymns ldquowere clearly writtenfor recitation before an educated audience associated with the royalcourt at Alexandriardquo8 This common opinion is based partly on generalassumptions about literary life in the Hellenistic era and partly on the lit-erary character of Callimachusrsquo poems which is supposed to have pre-cluded any public performance

A recent example of this view may be found in the work of ClaudeCalame who concludes a reading of Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollo withthe statement that ldquofar from being designed for ritual performancewithin the context of a festival for Apollo the poem is entirely devotedto the cult of learned poetry reserved for a privileged circle of literatirdquo9

This opinion is not confirmed by Calamersquos own discussion which is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

about Callimachusrsquo art and not about his audience but appears as a deus exmachina towards the end of his essay Besides he misstates the alternativesA ldquoprivileged circlerdquo is not the only alternative to ldquoritual performancerdquowhich is in any case not what Cameron Fraser et al propose

In his book Callimachus and His Critics Alan Cameron has questionedthe common opinion of Hellenistic literary life as divided between on theone hand a popular culture of theatres and public competitions and onthe other hand an elite culture restricted to the courts and libraries10

This view he claims is ldquopurely conjecturalrdquo and based on ldquonothingmore solid than a feeling that sophisticated and allusive poetry cannothave been publicly performedrdquo11 As he points out Pindar and Aeschylusare both although in different ways examples of the opposite

Callimachusrsquo use of the mimetic technique is an important aspect of hissophistication and for this reason deserves closer scrutiny My aim in thepresent study is to analyse the three hymns by asking the same questionsof each of them What do these texts tell us about the situations in whichthey pretend to be spoken and to what degree can these situations be recon-structed from this information What does the voice tell us about itself itsaudience the actions going on and its own impact on these actionsMy aimis not to show that the poems are not meant for ldquoritual performancerdquo (this isgenerally acknowledged) but to discuss the ritual performances that theyrepresent and how these are represented Although the subject has been fre-quently touched upon and occasionally discussed in some depth no suchsurvey has been attempted sinceWilamowitzwhose conclusions I will on anumber of occasions disagree with12

My argument will not primarily be about the performance of Callima-chusrsquo hymns but about the performances (choral ritual processional etc)that are represented in the hymns First I shall give a brief presentation ofthe terms mimesis and deixis as they are used in the literature on the hymnsand related poetry Next I shall discuss some likely models for Callima-chusrsquo hymns in archaic poetry before I proceed to my readings of thehymns themselves Finally I shall sum up my findings and discuss theirpossible relevance to the question of the performance of the hymns

12 Mimesis and deixis

In 1906 Richard Reitzenstein applied the term ldquomimeticrdquo to describe Cal-limachusrsquo hymns to Apollo Pallas and Demeter13 The use of this term

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

and of the term ldquodiegeticrdquo for its opposite rests on Platorsquos discussion ofmimesis and diegesis in Rep 392d-394c Here Plato points to the differ-ence between the parts of the epics in which Homer speaks in his ownvoice and those in which he speaks as if he were someone else ie thespeeches Homerrsquos speeches are spoken by characters in the narrativeand therefore imagined as taking place at a specific time and place Thenarration on the other hand is not situated in any specific context andthe narrator is anonymous and featureless The narrating voice can there-fore easily be identified both with the author and with any subsequent per-former of the poem This is also the case in Callimachusrsquo so-called diegetichymns In his mimetic hymns on the other hand the entire poem appearsto be the speech of someone present at a particular place and occasion14

In the scholarship onCallimachusrsquoHymns the term ldquomimeticrdquo has gainedgeneral acceptance but scholars differ as to how this term should be definedand which poems should be labeled ldquomimeticrdquo15 Annette Harder followedby A DMorrison regards a text or a passage as mimetic when ldquothe speakeris either addressing himself as a fictional character or addressing other fic-tional charactersrdquo16 This ldquoimplies a certain fixation in time and spaceThis fixation may get further emphasis through explicit references toitrdquo17 If on the other hand the fictional addressee within the text is oneldquowith whom the historical reader may identify himselfrdquo18 she considersthe text diegetic She claims that there are ldquoindications of a specific audi-encerdquo19 in Hymns I III and IV also and that therefore ldquonone of thehymns can be regarded as diegetic in all its aspectsrdquo20 The diegetic andmimetic modes then can both be present in the same text21

A narrower definition of mimetic poetry is offered by Winfried Albertwho includes the criterion of Szenerieveraumlnderung22 changes in the scenewhich the speaker not only observes but by which he is affected23 Thishowever raises new questions of definition Can the fictional speakerreport a change in the scene without being in some way affected by itAnd will the change have to be explicitly stated In Archilochus fr105W (Γλαῦχ᾽ ὅρα) 1-2 the speaker reports the signs of the gatheringstorm these are not described as a change from a previous state butthis is clearly implied Only in 3 does the speaker state his emotional reac-tion to these signs but one could hardly claim that the two previous versesare without affect

Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns are clearly mimetic both according toHarderrsquos criteria and to those of Albert In addition I will argue that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

cannot be read as poeticised transcripts of what anyone would actuallyhave said on any occasion At first glance they vividly recreate a festivaloccasion through the voice of a participant but on closer inspectionboth the action and the voice disintegrate and dissolve

I will however also argue that this does not allow any further conclusionsabout the performance of Callimachusrsquo poems The question of the voice inthe poem should be kept separate from that of the performance of the poemThe fact that the voice speaking in a poem cannot be readily identified withthe performer does not prove that the poemwas not performed at all In thecase of the mimetic hymns this means that although they cannot have beenperformed simultaneously with and as part of the ritual acts they describethey may nevertheless have been performed on the occasion of these ritualsas poetic recitals before or after the ritual itself

This was in fact suggested by Legrand himself and in his day it was verymuch the received opinion that the hymns were festival poetry Susemihltook it for granted that they were meant for declamation on festivaloccasions2 and later Couat and Cahen held similar views3 So didP M Fraser who supporting the view of Cahen regarded the hymnsas having been ldquoperformed on the occasion of a religious festivalthough outside the formal framework of the festival itselfrdquo4More recentlythe same view has also been defended by Alan Cameron5

The view of Callimachusrsquo audience as an elite of courtiers and intellec-tuals with no resemblance to the audience in the poems was only estab-lished by Herter Wilamowitz having been less categorical6 Herterrsquosview was accepted by scholars such as Friedlaumlnder and Lesky7 and inmost of the scholarship on the hymns since his day eg that ofA W Bulloch who states that the mimetic hymns ldquowere clearly writtenfor recitation before an educated audience associated with the royalcourt at Alexandriardquo8 This common opinion is based partly on generalassumptions about literary life in the Hellenistic era and partly on the lit-erary character of Callimachusrsquo poems which is supposed to have pre-cluded any public performance

A recent example of this view may be found in the work of ClaudeCalame who concludes a reading of Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollo withthe statement that ldquofar from being designed for ritual performancewithin the context of a festival for Apollo the poem is entirely devotedto the cult of learned poetry reserved for a privileged circle of literatirdquo9

This opinion is not confirmed by Calamersquos own discussion which is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

22

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

about Callimachusrsquo art and not about his audience but appears as a deus exmachina towards the end of his essay Besides he misstates the alternativesA ldquoprivileged circlerdquo is not the only alternative to ldquoritual performancerdquowhich is in any case not what Cameron Fraser et al propose

In his book Callimachus and His Critics Alan Cameron has questionedthe common opinion of Hellenistic literary life as divided between on theone hand a popular culture of theatres and public competitions and onthe other hand an elite culture restricted to the courts and libraries10

This view he claims is ldquopurely conjecturalrdquo and based on ldquonothingmore solid than a feeling that sophisticated and allusive poetry cannothave been publicly performedrdquo11 As he points out Pindar and Aeschylusare both although in different ways examples of the opposite

Callimachusrsquo use of the mimetic technique is an important aspect of hissophistication and for this reason deserves closer scrutiny My aim in thepresent study is to analyse the three hymns by asking the same questionsof each of them What do these texts tell us about the situations in whichthey pretend to be spoken and to what degree can these situations be recon-structed from this information What does the voice tell us about itself itsaudience the actions going on and its own impact on these actionsMy aimis not to show that the poems are not meant for ldquoritual performancerdquo (this isgenerally acknowledged) but to discuss the ritual performances that theyrepresent and how these are represented Although the subject has been fre-quently touched upon and occasionally discussed in some depth no suchsurvey has been attempted sinceWilamowitzwhose conclusions I will on anumber of occasions disagree with12

My argument will not primarily be about the performance of Callima-chusrsquo hymns but about the performances (choral ritual processional etc)that are represented in the hymns First I shall give a brief presentation ofthe terms mimesis and deixis as they are used in the literature on the hymnsand related poetry Next I shall discuss some likely models for Callima-chusrsquo hymns in archaic poetry before I proceed to my readings of thehymns themselves Finally I shall sum up my findings and discuss theirpossible relevance to the question of the performance of the hymns

12 Mimesis and deixis

In 1906 Richard Reitzenstein applied the term ldquomimeticrdquo to describe Cal-limachusrsquo hymns to Apollo Pallas and Demeter13 The use of this term

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

and of the term ldquodiegeticrdquo for its opposite rests on Platorsquos discussion ofmimesis and diegesis in Rep 392d-394c Here Plato points to the differ-ence between the parts of the epics in which Homer speaks in his ownvoice and those in which he speaks as if he were someone else ie thespeeches Homerrsquos speeches are spoken by characters in the narrativeand therefore imagined as taking place at a specific time and place Thenarration on the other hand is not situated in any specific context andthe narrator is anonymous and featureless The narrating voice can there-fore easily be identified both with the author and with any subsequent per-former of the poem This is also the case in Callimachusrsquo so-called diegetichymns In his mimetic hymns on the other hand the entire poem appearsto be the speech of someone present at a particular place and occasion14

In the scholarship onCallimachusrsquoHymns the term ldquomimeticrdquo has gainedgeneral acceptance but scholars differ as to how this term should be definedand which poems should be labeled ldquomimeticrdquo15 Annette Harder followedby A DMorrison regards a text or a passage as mimetic when ldquothe speakeris either addressing himself as a fictional character or addressing other fic-tional charactersrdquo16 This ldquoimplies a certain fixation in time and spaceThis fixation may get further emphasis through explicit references toitrdquo17 If on the other hand the fictional addressee within the text is oneldquowith whom the historical reader may identify himselfrdquo18 she considersthe text diegetic She claims that there are ldquoindications of a specific audi-encerdquo19 in Hymns I III and IV also and that therefore ldquonone of thehymns can be regarded as diegetic in all its aspectsrdquo20 The diegetic andmimetic modes then can both be present in the same text21

A narrower definition of mimetic poetry is offered by Winfried Albertwho includes the criterion of Szenerieveraumlnderung22 changes in the scenewhich the speaker not only observes but by which he is affected23 Thishowever raises new questions of definition Can the fictional speakerreport a change in the scene without being in some way affected by itAnd will the change have to be explicitly stated In Archilochus fr105W (Γλαῦχ᾽ ὅρα) 1-2 the speaker reports the signs of the gatheringstorm these are not described as a change from a previous state butthis is clearly implied Only in 3 does the speaker state his emotional reac-tion to these signs but one could hardly claim that the two previous versesare without affect

Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns are clearly mimetic both according toHarderrsquos criteria and to those of Albert In addition I will argue that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

about Callimachusrsquo art and not about his audience but appears as a deus exmachina towards the end of his essay Besides he misstates the alternativesA ldquoprivileged circlerdquo is not the only alternative to ldquoritual performancerdquowhich is in any case not what Cameron Fraser et al propose

In his book Callimachus and His Critics Alan Cameron has questionedthe common opinion of Hellenistic literary life as divided between on theone hand a popular culture of theatres and public competitions and onthe other hand an elite culture restricted to the courts and libraries10

This view he claims is ldquopurely conjecturalrdquo and based on ldquonothingmore solid than a feeling that sophisticated and allusive poetry cannothave been publicly performedrdquo11 As he points out Pindar and Aeschylusare both although in different ways examples of the opposite

Callimachusrsquo use of the mimetic technique is an important aspect of hissophistication and for this reason deserves closer scrutiny My aim in thepresent study is to analyse the three hymns by asking the same questionsof each of them What do these texts tell us about the situations in whichthey pretend to be spoken and to what degree can these situations be recon-structed from this information What does the voice tell us about itself itsaudience the actions going on and its own impact on these actionsMy aimis not to show that the poems are not meant for ldquoritual performancerdquo (this isgenerally acknowledged) but to discuss the ritual performances that theyrepresent and how these are represented Although the subject has been fre-quently touched upon and occasionally discussed in some depth no suchsurvey has been attempted sinceWilamowitzwhose conclusions I will on anumber of occasions disagree with12

My argument will not primarily be about the performance of Callima-chusrsquo hymns but about the performances (choral ritual processional etc)that are represented in the hymns First I shall give a brief presentation ofthe terms mimesis and deixis as they are used in the literature on the hymnsand related poetry Next I shall discuss some likely models for Callima-chusrsquo hymns in archaic poetry before I proceed to my readings of thehymns themselves Finally I shall sum up my findings and discuss theirpossible relevance to the question of the performance of the hymns

12 Mimesis and deixis

In 1906 Richard Reitzenstein applied the term ldquomimeticrdquo to describe Cal-limachusrsquo hymns to Apollo Pallas and Demeter13 The use of this term

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

and of the term ldquodiegeticrdquo for its opposite rests on Platorsquos discussion ofmimesis and diegesis in Rep 392d-394c Here Plato points to the differ-ence between the parts of the epics in which Homer speaks in his ownvoice and those in which he speaks as if he were someone else ie thespeeches Homerrsquos speeches are spoken by characters in the narrativeand therefore imagined as taking place at a specific time and place Thenarration on the other hand is not situated in any specific context andthe narrator is anonymous and featureless The narrating voice can there-fore easily be identified both with the author and with any subsequent per-former of the poem This is also the case in Callimachusrsquo so-called diegetichymns In his mimetic hymns on the other hand the entire poem appearsto be the speech of someone present at a particular place and occasion14

In the scholarship onCallimachusrsquoHymns the term ldquomimeticrdquo has gainedgeneral acceptance but scholars differ as to how this term should be definedand which poems should be labeled ldquomimeticrdquo15 Annette Harder followedby A DMorrison regards a text or a passage as mimetic when ldquothe speakeris either addressing himself as a fictional character or addressing other fic-tional charactersrdquo16 This ldquoimplies a certain fixation in time and spaceThis fixation may get further emphasis through explicit references toitrdquo17 If on the other hand the fictional addressee within the text is oneldquowith whom the historical reader may identify himselfrdquo18 she considersthe text diegetic She claims that there are ldquoindications of a specific audi-encerdquo19 in Hymns I III and IV also and that therefore ldquonone of thehymns can be regarded as diegetic in all its aspectsrdquo20 The diegetic andmimetic modes then can both be present in the same text21

A narrower definition of mimetic poetry is offered by Winfried Albertwho includes the criterion of Szenerieveraumlnderung22 changes in the scenewhich the speaker not only observes but by which he is affected23 Thishowever raises new questions of definition Can the fictional speakerreport a change in the scene without being in some way affected by itAnd will the change have to be explicitly stated In Archilochus fr105W (Γλαῦχ᾽ ὅρα) 1-2 the speaker reports the signs of the gatheringstorm these are not described as a change from a previous state butthis is clearly implied Only in 3 does the speaker state his emotional reac-tion to these signs but one could hardly claim that the two previous versesare without affect

Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns are clearly mimetic both according toHarderrsquos criteria and to those of Albert In addition I will argue that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

and of the term ldquodiegeticrdquo for its opposite rests on Platorsquos discussion ofmimesis and diegesis in Rep 392d-394c Here Plato points to the differ-ence between the parts of the epics in which Homer speaks in his ownvoice and those in which he speaks as if he were someone else ie thespeeches Homerrsquos speeches are spoken by characters in the narrativeand therefore imagined as taking place at a specific time and place Thenarration on the other hand is not situated in any specific context andthe narrator is anonymous and featureless The narrating voice can there-fore easily be identified both with the author and with any subsequent per-former of the poem This is also the case in Callimachusrsquo so-called diegetichymns In his mimetic hymns on the other hand the entire poem appearsto be the speech of someone present at a particular place and occasion14

In the scholarship onCallimachusrsquoHymns the term ldquomimeticrdquo has gainedgeneral acceptance but scholars differ as to how this term should be definedand which poems should be labeled ldquomimeticrdquo15 Annette Harder followedby A DMorrison regards a text or a passage as mimetic when ldquothe speakeris either addressing himself as a fictional character or addressing other fic-tional charactersrdquo16 This ldquoimplies a certain fixation in time and spaceThis fixation may get further emphasis through explicit references toitrdquo17 If on the other hand the fictional addressee within the text is oneldquowith whom the historical reader may identify himselfrdquo18 she considersthe text diegetic She claims that there are ldquoindications of a specific audi-encerdquo19 in Hymns I III and IV also and that therefore ldquonone of thehymns can be regarded as diegetic in all its aspectsrdquo20 The diegetic andmimetic modes then can both be present in the same text21

A narrower definition of mimetic poetry is offered by Winfried Albertwho includes the criterion of Szenerieveraumlnderung22 changes in the scenewhich the speaker not only observes but by which he is affected23 Thishowever raises new questions of definition Can the fictional speakerreport a change in the scene without being in some way affected by itAnd will the change have to be explicitly stated In Archilochus fr105W (Γλαῦχ᾽ ὅρα) 1-2 the speaker reports the signs of the gatheringstorm these are not described as a change from a previous state butthis is clearly implied Only in 3 does the speaker state his emotional reac-tion to these signs but one could hardly claim that the two previous versesare without affect

Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns are clearly mimetic both according toHarderrsquos criteria and to those of Albert In addition I will argue that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

these poems have two features which set them apart from previousmimetic poetry First the voice interacts with the scene Not only doesit react to and comment on changes in the scene the scene seems torespond to its words as well Second the voice is not character-textEven though the poems invoke specific occasions the voice cannot beidentified with any particular speaker on these occasions and conse-quently the actions taking place cannot be credibly reconstructed theycannot be strictly determined in time and place The mimetic hymns alladdress an internal audience but not in the way that anyone actuallypresent on the imagined occasion would have done

In this respect the hymns differ not only from previous poetry but alsofrom the work of Callimachusrsquo contemporary Theocritus Theocritusrsquo dra-matic monologues such as Id 2 and 3 are spoken in character throughoutand only in Id 2 are there some slight indications of interaction whenSimaitharsquos speech briefly takes account of the actions (apparently the hes-itation) of her slave Thestylis (18-19) Neither the reconstruction of thevoice nor that of the action in these poems present the kind of problemswith which we shall be confronted in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns

Since the time of Legrand an important subject for the scholarship onthe hymns has been the reconstruction of the occasions they depict Whois speaking What is happening Where does it happen And who takespart The material for these reconstructions has been the use of deicticlanguage in the hymns ie language pointing to something as presentI you this here now etc These pointers have been used to determine eg which part of the Hymn to Apollo represents the song of the chorusand who makes up the audience in the Hymn to Demeter Since Legrandrsquosconclusions have been generally accepted this discussion has not beenabout the actual audiences and performances but about the internal ones

This distinction between the actual and internal audiences which haslong been recognised on a practical level in the scholarship on thehymns corresponds to the distinction in linguistic theory between deixisad oculos and deixis ad phantasma The first kind points to extra-textualfacts the second does not but they can both appear in the same textand be indistinguishable in form The difference is not one of expressionbut of context In the words of C J Fillmore ldquoThe essential characteristicof deictic expressions is that their semantic values depend on the real-world context in which they are utteredrdquo24

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Deictic theory also emphasises the difference between the here and nowof the composition of a text (coding time) and that of its performance(receiving time)25 a difference which results in what GB drsquoAlessio hastermed ldquonecessary fictionalityrdquo and which is ldquoimplied by the fact thatwe are dealing with a text composed beforehand and not with a piece ofordinary conversationrdquo In lyric poetry the deictic language usuallypoints to the receiving time not to the coding time ldquoThe text is designedto work as if it were part of a canonical enunciation situation (face-to-face)hellip This happens in virtually all the texts usually classed as monodiclyricrdquo26 Choral lyric sometimes works in the same way although ittends to be more complicated since ldquofrequently the temporal origo isset before the moment of the performancerdquo27 so that ldquoa song is describedas starting after its actual performance has startedrdquo28

Nancy Felson uses ldquooscillationrdquo as a metaphor for this more complexuse of deixis ldquotime references may oscillaterdquo between ldquoencoding timeand decoding or reception timerdquo29 This she argues should not be con-sidered a weakness since ldquothe resultant participation in the process ofmaking meaning intensifies [the audiencersquos] response to what they hearmaking them work harder and therefore becoming all the moreengagedrdquo The ldquodisplaced deixisrdquo therefore offers ldquoample compensationfor the loss of original immediacyrdquo30

As I will argue in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns there is a similar oscil-lation of voice Unlike in a conventional dramatic or narrative text thereare no marked shifts between voices and the same voice therefore has toaddress both the internal audience and the reader of the poem In additionthis voice must at the same time pretend to be interacting with the internalaudience and explain this interaction to the reader As a consequence thissingle voice becomes indeterminate it cannot be located strictly in timeand place and the occasion invoked cannot be clearly reconstructedThese ldquooscillationsrdquo of the voice the uncertainty about what exactly isgoing on in the poem is a means to engage the audience more effectivelyno less so for pointing away from the actual circumstances of theperformance

13 Models in epic and lyric poetry

Addresses to specific audiences are frequent in archaic poetry and so is theconstruction of a voice with recognisable features Sometimes this voice is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

that of the poetrsquos persona while the addressees are his companions (egTheognisrsquo Kyrnos and Archilochosrsquo Glaukos)31 and in these cases thedeixis on the first performance could have been interpreted as ad oculosIn the tradition of these poems however the voices of Archilochos andGlaukos would inevitably become deixis ad phantasma just like stock char-acters such as Timokreon of Rhodes (Simonides AP 7348) or Charon thecarpenter (Archilochos fr 19W) In other cases however the voiceaddressee and occasion constructed in the poem are clearly ad phantasmathey are not those of the original performance nor of any subsequent oneI shall offer a few examples

In Archilochus fr 105W and Alcaeus fr 326LP the speaker presentshimself as being on board a ship in the first case while a storm is gatheringand in the second while it is blowing These are highly unlikely occasionsfor poetic performances and therefore the deixis referring to them must beconsidered as ad phantasma (An allegorical reading eg of the ship as thepolis has no bearing on this issue) In both these poems we have whatHarder calls ldquoa certain fixation in time and spacerdquo and this fixation is cer-tainly not to the time and space of the poetic performance

Just like deictic references to time and place addresses to specific personscannot be taken as evidence for the performance Glaukos in fr 105W is acase in point his presence would not be necessary for the performance ofthe poem The same goes for Hesiod and his frequent addresses to hisbrother Perses Since Perses (if he ever existed at all) would hardly showup to be castigated at his brotherrsquos recitals these addresses cannot tell us any-thing about the poemrsquos audience they too are deixeis ad phantasma

Finally the voice of the poem may be ad phantasma as well Even thepoetic personae sharing the poetrsquos name are imaginary to some degreeand it is therefore far from obvious that the I of such a poem as Sapphofr 1LP performed by Sappho herself should be considered an exampleof deixis ad oculos However there are more clear-cut cases We are toldby Aristotle (Rhet 3 1418) that the voice in one of Archilochosrsquo poems( fr 19W) is the carpenter Charon in another ( fr 122W) it is a fathertalking about his daughter while in Alkaios fr 10LP (ἔμε δείλαν) thespeaker is evidently female While the voice in many archaic poems isrecognisable as that of the poetrsquos persona in these poems it is recognisablythat of someone else nor would it have been identified with the performeron any subsequent occasion Such imaginary voices are a common featureof epigram as well sepulchral epigrams are often spoken in the first person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

by the deceased himself but never by the individual who ordered it andpaid for it32

Deictic language also occurs in epic poetry Hesiod has already beenmentioned another peculiar case is the Homeric Hymn to Apollo Here(v 166-76) uniquely in the Homeric Hymns the voice addresses a particu-lar audience namely a chorus of maidens on Delos and then goes on toidentify itself as a blind man from Chios who is the greatest of all poets ieHomer As it is generally agreed that this hymn is later than Homer thevoice is comparable to that of Archilochosrsquo carpenter It is ad phantasmasince it can be identified neither with the author nor with any other per-former of the poem Nor can the address to the maidens have been adoculos the chorus would hardly have been present as a body to receivethe poetrsquos praise during the recital (even though its members may havebeen among the audience) Finally the self-description of the poet asHomer means that the temporal deixis will have been ad phantasma aswell Even if recited at the Delian festival it would have indicated the fes-tival in the past not in the present

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo seems to prefigure Callimachusrsquo mimetichymns in important ways It uses the epic idiom to describe a public fes-tival occasion in the form of address and exhortations to a particular groupby a particular voice and just as in the mimetic hymns this voice couldnever be identified as that of the poet or the performer Like the addressesin the mimetic hymns the address to the Delian maidens is an example ofdeixis ad phantasma On the other hand the poem does not record howthe maidens respond to the exhortation such interaction is the innovationthat sets Callimachusrsquo poems apart

To complete the picture the similarities of structure between themimetic hymns and the Homeric Hymn to Apollo ought to be mentionedas well Unlike the other Homeric Hymns the one to Apollo does notcontain a single narrative but two loosely connected ones both prefacedby an independent ldquotypical scenerdquo (2-13 and 182-206) and by addresses tothe gods with rhetorical aporia over which subject to choose (14-29 and207-15) The two parts of the hymn have the same structure33 but to anaudience of listeners this would probably be less striking than its frequentand unpredictable change of subject and even of addressee particularly itsaddressing not only the god but an imagined audience as well These arealso features that we find in the mimetic hymns

GJERT VESTRHEIM

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem would have presented itself as being by Homer and thereforeof great age but being performed at Delos it would also have affirmed thatthe present festival had been celebrated in Homerrsquos day As words spokenin a distant past on the same occasion it will have affirmed the dignity andimportance of the festival connecting the present with the past and thusachieving what Bruno Snell considered a hallmark of archaic lyric poetrythe ldquoErhoumlhung der Gegenwartrdquo34

To affirm the dignity of the occasion is precisely the purpose of chorallyric and in this genre we find extensive use of deictic language both adoculos and ad phantasma A characteristic feature of choral lyric is self-descriptions on the part of the chorus as in Pindarrsquos Paeans II and IVMary Lefkowitz compares these two poems and concludes

In both the chorus on entering explains its present function identifies itselfmore fully by describing its homeland and relates myths about its homelandStrangely enough choral self-description seems just as necessary before a localaudience as before an audience of strangers35

In Pindarrsquos Theban partheneion ( fr 94M) the self-description is moredetailed than in the two paeans as the maidens ldquotend to describe them-selves rather than their countryrdquo36 and this tendency is even stronger inAlcmanrsquos partheneion ( fr 1P) of which the better-preserved part consistsalmost entirely of self-description Lefkowitz concludes that both poemsldquomake the sort of topical references to themselves and to the other partici-pants in the ceremony that could be fully appreciated only by a local audi-encerdquo37 In other words these references are examples of deixis ad oculos

Pindarrsquos epinikia differ from this general pattern Although they containpassages that appear to be in the voice of the chorus (and are marked as suchin the scholia) the first person regularly refers to the poet while the manydeliberations on the choice of subject point towards the composition of thepoem and not to its performance ie to the encoding time rather than thereceiving time In Py1056 and Is 247 this deliberating I is even depicted aswriting Furthermore the performance is frequently referred to as a futureevent38The temporal deixis in these cases is clearly ad phantasma and onlywith great caution should it be used as evidence for the performance

This strongly suggests thatwe shouldbe careful about attempting to recon-struct the performance from the personal deixis the question of the poetic Imust be distinguished from the question of performance Mary Lefkowitzfails to make this distinction when she claims that the question ldquoWho is

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos Odesrdquowould have been easily answered ldquoif only we couldinterview Pindar or be present at one of the celebrations at which his victoryodes were performedrdquo39 This would only solve the question of who sang theodes not the question of the poetic IFurthermore just as the temporal deixiswithin a single poem may move between the composition and the perform-ance so too we cannot expect the entities you and I to be fixed and unmovingeither In other words we should not take for granted that there is both adeterminate speaker and addressee in these works

Such wariness has been the rule in recent Pindaric scholarship turningagainst Lefkowitzrsquos view that ldquothere is no change of speaker within an epi-nikion or a pure choral songrdquo and her view that - in spite of the passagesattributed to the chorus in the scholia - ldquothere is no choral lsquoIrsquo in Pindarrsquos epi-nician odesrdquo but only a ldquobardicrdquo I referring to Pindar himself 40 As arguedbyM J Schmid among others the presence of both a bardic I and a choral Iin the same poem is not a problem that needs to be solved by denying theexistence of one or the other Instead hewarns against the ldquocontinuousmis-interpretations of the speaker as a person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo41

This turn in Pindaric scholarship offers fresh reasons for a reexamina-tion of the same question in Callimachusrsquo mimetic hymns Here the dis-tinction between voice and performer has long been recognised but it hasbeen taken for granted that the voice should be interpreted as in Schmidrsquoswords ldquoa person instead of a rhetorical constructrdquo As I will argue suchinterpretations cannot be maintained Just as in Pindar the voice ldquooscil-latesrdquo its purpose is not to faithfully reproduce how any single personwould have spoken on a particular occasion even though it evokes anoccasion and the actions taking place there

The dichotomy between the public occasional poetry of Pindar and thesupposedly purely literary poetry of Callimachus may be less certain thanpreviously thought On the one hand Pindar may have composed withreperformance in view42 On the other hand Callimachus too may havecomposed for public performance on festival occasions43 Callimachusrsquopoems are designed to function independently of the occasions theyrefer to but arguably this is also the case with some of Pindarrsquos poems

21 The Hymn to Apollo description

Geographically the Hymn to Apollo (hAp) is firmly placed in Callimachusrsquohometown Cyrene the occasion is a festival for that cityrsquos principal deity

GJERT VESTRHEIM

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Apollo Karneios and the voice has even been identified as that of Callima-chus himself44 The date of the poem remains uncertain and so does theidentity of the king to which it refers in 26 He is identified in thescholia as Ptolemy III in which case the hymn cannot be prior to his acces-sion in 246 but the scholiastrsquos identification may be guesswork It is cau-tiously accepted by Pfeiffer but doubted by Wilamowitz who considersboth Ptolemy III and his father Ptolemy II to be possible candidates45

Alan Cameron on the other hand questions the assumption that the kinghas to be a Ptolemy and suggests that he is Magas who establishedhimself as king of Cyrene after the death of Ptolemy I and remained inpower until he died in 25046 The hymn may thus be attributed to anystage in Callimachusrsquo career

The hymn begins in medias res without invocation or anything resem-bling the formulaic openings of the Homeric Hymns The scene is set infront of the temple of Apollo (in Cyrene it later turns out) wherevarious omens show that the god is near The voice describes theseomens (the nodding palm the singing swan the shaking temple andlaurel) and interprets them as signs of the godrsquos epiphany cautiously atfirst (3 καὶ δή που) then more confidently (7 ὁ γὰρ θεὸς οὐκέτι μακράν)Between the description and the interpretation of the omens the voiceorders (or wishes for) the unworthy to leave (2) the doors of the templeto open (6-7) and some young men to begin (or possibly prepare) thechorus (8) In addition there is a question to an unnamed addressee (4οὐχ ὁράᾳς) and a gnome (9-10) After this the voice addresses the goddeclaring that ldquowerdquo shall see him ὀψόμεθ᾽ ὦ Ἑκάεργε (11) ie the indirectepiphany is interpreted as a sign that a direct epiphany will followHowever no direct epiphany occurs In 8 some young men were urgedto begin their song and dance 12-15 repeat this wish and 16 tells us thattheir music-making has begun the voice stating its approval of thechorus ldquobecause the cithara (χέλυς) is no longer silentrdquo

In 17 the listeners are addressed and told to keep religious silence (17εὐϕημεῖτ᾽ αίοντες ἐπ᾽ Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ) Up to this point the subjecthas been that of seeing the god and the signs of his arrival now itchanges to that of hearing his song In lines 18-24 we find a series ofexamples occasioned by this demand for silence Nature keeps silentwhen humans sing of Apollo just as it does when confronted with thegodrsquos epiphany Song and epiphany then both occasion the sameresponse and so appear to be related phenomena In 25 an unidentified

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

group is called upon to cry the ritual cry ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε After this thevoice (now in the singular) declares its loyalty to the king equating thisloyalty to reverence for the gods ὃς μάχεται μακάρεσσιν ἐμῷ βασιλῆιμάχοιτο ὅστις ἐμῷ βασιλῆι καὶ Ἀπόλλωνι μάχοιτο (26-7) The voicethen goes on to speak about the chorus in the third person concludingwith a rhetorical question τίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31)

The next part of the poem (32-96) consists of a series of descriptions ofand narratives about Apollo partly with the god in the second person (69-84) Lines 65-96 tell the story of the foundation of Cyrene and in thecourse of this narrative the voice clearly defines itself as CyreneanApollo told Battos about ldquomy townrdquo (65 ἐμὴν πόλιν) and promised citywalls to ldquoour kingsrdquo (68 ἡμετέροις βασιλεῦσιν cfr 26-27 ἐμῷ βασιλῆι)and the use of the name Karneios for Apollo is ldquomy heritagerdquo (71 αὐτὰρἐγὼ Καρνεῖον ἐμοὶ πατρώιον οὕτω) To anyone familiar with theHomeric Hymns the verse-beginning αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ particularly when follow-ing an address to the god (69 ὤπολλον) would suggest a closing formulabut instead the narrative continues now with the god in the secondperson In 80 he is invoked ἱὴ ἱὴ Καρνεῖε πολύλλιτε Only once in 32-96 is the second person used of anyone else namely in 35 where Delphiis presented as evidence for the godrsquos wealth to an unspecified addresseeΠυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο

In 97 the ritual cry that was mentioned in 21 ordered in 25 and utteredin 80 is finally reported as heard ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν There follows thestory of the origin of this cry (97-104) and then the most famous passageof the hymn the story of Apollo kicking Phthonos and declaring his pre-ference for the holy spring over the Assyrian river (105-112) The hymnends with a short address to the god resembling some of the typicalcloses in the Homeric Hymns with the greeting χαῖρε and with a shortwish (113) χαῖρε ἄναξ ὁ δὲ Μῶμος ἵν᾽ ὁ Φθόνος ἔνθα νέοιτο

22 The Hymn to Apollo the action

In 7-8 two important events are declared to be imminent a divine epi-phany and a choral song The omens taking place in 1-5 can be interpretedin themselves as an indirect epiphany ie as signs of the godrsquos presencealthough he himself remains invisible Still in 7-8 they are interpretedas promises that more will follow the god will become visible ie adirect epiphany will take place However the poem never tells us that

GJERT VESTRHEIM

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

this actually happens47 At the same time as the epiphany is predicted it isannounced (with an imperative in 8 ἐντύνασθε) that a choral performancewill take place and in 16 we are told that the musicians have already startedplaying But just as in the case of the epiphany the poem never tells uswhen (or indeed if) the song begins There is no marked shift of voicewe are not told which part of the poem is supposed to represent thesong The mimetic frame eventually vanishes from view in favour of a nar-rative and this narrative may be interpreted as part of the song of thechorus but it is far from obvious when this song begins and when it ends

As Peter Bing has pointed out the poem contains ldquono introductory orclosing formulae hellip nothing comparable to quotation marksrdquo48 and thevoice seems to address both the fictitious audience and the reader at thesame time there is a ldquoblurring of the lines between the audience in thepoem and that outside itrdquo49 Nevertheless he attempts to decide wherethe quotation marks ought to be ldquoWe must still determine howeverhow to construe the voicing of the verses falling roughly between thecommand to the chorus at 25 and the return to the frame at 97rdquo50 Wil-liams and Wilamowitz acting with less circumspection agree to define32-96 as the song although according to Wilamowitz this is the song ofthe chorus while according to Williams it is sung by Callimachushimself51 I will argue that such a division of the poem is neither necessarynor even possible As Schmid observed about Pindar the voice is ldquoa rhe-torical constructrdquo and one should not attempt to interpret ldquothe speaker as apersonrdquo52

If a division should be drawn at all it should instead be after 16 where itis stated that the lyre is no longer silent The following demand for silencein 17 would then be the beginning of the song since it seems highly unli-kely that someone else should demand silence as the music starts and thengo on talking himself On the contrary 17-31 can easily be read as part ofthe song Here the opening demand for religious silence (εὐϕημεῖτ᾽) is fol-lowed by mythic exempla of such silences (18-24) a call to utter the ritualcry ἱὴ ἱή (25) a gnome followed by argument (25-27) and a statement thatwhile Apollo will honour the chorus the chorus will sing of him (28-30)The abundance of material leads to a rhetorical question ἔστι γὰρ εὔυμνοςτίς ἂν οὐ ῥέα Φοῖβον αείδοι (31) Although differently expressed this is thesame opening topos as in The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19 and 207 πῶς τ᾽ἄρ σ᾽ ὑμνήσω πάντως εὔυμνον ἐόντα

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

There is nothing in 17-31 that seems improbable in the mouth of achorus it mainly contains mythic examples gnomes and wishes alltypical subjects for choral song As the words of someone interactingwith the chorus on the other hand whether it be a conductor a priestor a master of ceremonies it seems highly confused Admittedly thevoice refers to itself in the singular in 26-27 but it does so in 65 as wellwhich is generally agreed to be part of the choral song A change in thefirst person from singular to plural does not necessarily imply a changeof speaker The same goes for the reference to the chorus in the thirdperson in 28-30 A chorus may speak of itself in the third person andtherefore this does not imply a change of voice Unlike in 16 whichrecords the response to the imperative in 8 no response to the imperativesin 17 is recorded while the response to the imperative in 25 occurs in 97(provided one wishes to interpret this as a response to that imperative itdoes not necessarily need to be understood as such) There is no inter-action recorded in this part of the poem

I see no reason why the imperative ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε in 25 should be asBing claims a ldquocommand to the chorusrdquo53 rather than a part of the song ofthe chorus this imperative would be perfectly possible as part of a choralsong and as such would elicit no response from the audience If on theother hand the order is spoken not by the chorus but by some sort ofmaster of ceremonies and (like the order in 8) is supposed to be carriedout immediately such an appeal to utter a simple ritual cry would makemore sense if addressed to the larger audience than to the chorus itselfIrrespective of its addressee if the order is intended to elicit a responseit seems strange that the cry ἱὴ ἱή is not repeated until 80 and not recordedas heard until 97

If the beginning of the song can be moved forward to 16 how about theend The verses 97-113 contain only a single deictic expression (addresses tothe god excluded) namely the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομεν of 97 This is takenby Wilamowitz Williams and Bing to signal the end of the song and thereturn to the mimetic frame However this reading is based on theassumption that the ἱὴ ἱὴ ϕθέγγεσθε of 25 also belongs to the frameand that 97 records the response of the audience to the order in 25 If25 is ascribed to the song instead there is no reason why 97 cannot bepart of the song as well If so the choral song must go on at least until104 but neither there nor at any later point is there any suggestion of achange of voice any ldquoquotation marksrdquo On the contrary the chorus

GJERT VESTRHEIM

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

itself is the most obvious candidate to utter the apology for the shortness ofits song in 105-112 and then to salute the god in 113

This argument can be extended to include 1-16 since this section cancertainly be part of the song of a chorus just as it is part of Callimachusrsquopoem The important point is that deictic language does not necessarilyrelate to the scene of performance it does not have to be ad oculos Thisis generally admitted among scholars as far as Callimachusrsquo poem is con-cerned but it is of course equally valid for the song that is imagined asbeing performed within the poem To quote drsquoAlessio on choral lyriconce more ldquofrequently the temporal origo is set before the moment ofthe performancerdquo54 Both spatial and temporal deixeis are unreliableThey may be part ad oculos and part ad phantasma and we cannotknow from the text itself which is which

This is the Achillesrsquo heel of the very concept of mimetic poetry If Cal-limachusrsquo poem can contain the deixis ad phantasma of 1-5 so can the ima-gined choral song Any reconstruction of the imaginary scene has topresuppose that at least some of the words which to us are deixis ad phan-tasma have to be deixis ad oculos there But why should they And if someof the words should be imagined as ad oculos on an imaginary event howcan we know which words they are Of course if some words are ad oculosthen even the words spoken ad phantasma still would have to make senseon the occasion where the text is spoken but this is cold comfort as long aswe cannot know which words are supposed to be ad oculos

Even if we do not pursue this line of thought but instead interpret 1-16as words directed to the audience at a religious celebration these verses stillpresent us with serious difficulties (which multiply if 17-31 are included asnoted above) They cannot be the words of a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo Amaster of ceremonies knows in advance what will happen while thisvoice clearly does not since its expectance of a direct epiphany is not ful-filled but turns out to be a false interpretation of the signs Besides at theimagined celebration the description of the omens would be superfluoussince the audience would have been able to see and hear these things forthemselves Even worse it would be inappropriate since the omensought to be met with reverential silence It is hard to imagine anyonespeaking like this as a response to the omens ie to imagine thesewords as deixis ad oculos and yet any attempt to reconstruct the occasionhas to imagine them as such

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

To conclude we are faced with a series of actions and a series of utter-ances that cannot be construed to form a determinate whole no matterhow we attempt to assign the various lines of the poem to various speakersIt seems impossible to decide who speaks in the poem by way of its deicticlanguage and equally impossible to reconstruct the actions taking place init Rather than attempting as Bing and others have done ldquoto construe thevoicing of the versesrdquo55 I conclude that the voicing does not construe

I have argued elsewhere that the hymn puts forward epiphany as a meta-phor for poetry and that this metaphor entails the sacrifice of realism56

The ldquosong of Apollordquo (Ἀπόλλωνος αοιδῇ 17) is the song of the chorus itis this (and by extension Callimachusrsquo poem) that will make the godvisible to us This is why the voice continues to speak during theomens stating that ldquowerdquo shall see Apollo and even urges the chorus notto be quiet in Apollorsquos presence (11-13) it is through the chorus (and tous through the poem) that he becomes present This metaphor claimsthe identity of two things that are different in appearance chorus and epi-phany and therefore cannot be imagined realistically Therefore it shouldnot surprise us that any attempt to read the poem realistically ie as whatone or more persons would have said on a specific occasion is doomed tofail However this does not mean that the poem itself fails As argued inthe introduction ldquooscillationrdquo between different persons and differentpoints in time is not necessarily a weakness and we may still try to deter-mine the limits within which this oscillation takes place

23 The Hymn to Apollo voice and addressee

Wilamowitz claims that the speaker throughout the poem is in fact Cal-limachus using the opportunity to defend himself and his view of artnoting that in part of the poem he speaks through the chorus57 Thisidentification of the speaker as Callimachus does not solve the problemsof the mimetic hymn since the speech is in any case presented by itsdeictic language as delivered to a specific audience on a specific occasionand Wilamowitz goes on to assign various parts of the poem to variousvoices 32-96 is the song of the chorus58 while the ἱὴ ἱη in 97 is theritual cry of everyone present59 he refers to the voice in 97-113 as ldquoderDichterrdquo although he considers 105-12 to be an afterword outside ofthe mimetic frame60 Williams in contrast defines 32-96 as ldquothe hymnproperrdquo sung by Callimachus61 while the verses 1-31 belong to the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquospeakerrdquo62 or ldquonarratorrdquo63 In other words while they both regard 32-96 asthe song they do not agree about who sings it Williams assigns it to Cal-limachus himself Wilamowitz to the chorus

The voice refers to Cyrene as ldquomy townrdquo (65) and declares its loyalty tothe king (26-7) but it also refers to the former royal house of Cyrene theBattiads as ldquoour kingsrdquo (68) Williams claims that these are biographicalreferences to Callimachus himself and takes 68 to mean ldquothe kings ofour family ie of the Battiad house of which Call was a member hellip hestresses his kinship again in 71rdquo64 In my opinion this interpretation ishighly implausible In a poem declaring loyalty to the king it wouldhardly be suitable for the poet to boast of his descent from the formerroyal house since that might easily be construed as a challenge to thepresent ruler (or at least as a reminder that he is an upstart) Battos andhis descendants like the present king would be ldquoour kingsrdquo to all Cyre-neans These expressions do not give the voice an identity of its ownrather they emphasise what all those present on the imagined occasionhave in common This voice speaks on behalf of a group

Rather than being an affront to the king the mentioning in the samepoem of the present king as ἐμῷ βασιλῆι (26-7) and the past kings as ἡμε-τέροις βασιλεῦσιν (68) is a means to connect the present to the past andthus to legitimise the claim of the new royal house by associating itwith the townrsquos mythical founder Although the last Battiad king wasdeposed in the mid-fifth century this use of the Battiad house for propa-ganda purposes suggests that its memory must have had some standing inCyrene at this later date if not the use of the former royal house as Gegen-bild (to use Snellrsquos term65) for the present king would have beensubversive

The nature of the collective to which the voice belongs is disputed thediscussion concentrating on the first verses of the poem The voice wishesfor the unworthy (αλιτρός 2) to leave states that Apollo only shows himselfto those who are ἐσθλός (9) that anyone who sees him is great (10 microέγας)anyone who does not is λιτός (10) and that ldquowe shall see him and never beλιτοίrdquo (11) According to Williamsrsquo interpretation this means that the epi-phany is ldquowitnessed only by the electrdquo66 Bing on the other hand dis-tinguishes between the λιτοί and the αλιτροί ldquoThe λιτοί can evidentlynot be equated with the αλιτροί who were banished from the scenealtogether in 2rdquo The crowd he concludes consists of both λιτοί andἐσθλοί and only the latter will see the god ldquothe impious had already

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

been warned to keep away (2) But even among those remaining ie evenamong the pious not all will see Apollo Those so favoured are the eliterdquo67

This distinction is not made explicit by the text The voice says ldquowerdquonot ldquothe chosen among usrdquo and it does not state whether anyonepresent actually is λιτός or αλιτρός The wish in 2 does not necessarilymean that anyone present is αλιτρός Even less does it imply that theyhave been present until now but are now being expelled It is unlikelythat anyone would have left after hearing this warning (those to whomit applied would presumably have had the good sense not to show up inthe first place) In any case they would not have gone far before theclaim in 11 that ldquowerdquo shall see the god There is no reason why the voicein 11 should not be speaking on behalf of all those present who areἐσθλοί (9) as opposed to those absent who are λιτοί (10) or evenαλιτροί (2)

This is not to deny the existence of what Karen Bassi has termed ldquothepoetics of exclusionrdquo68 Callimachus pretends to exclusiveness but ironi-cally he does so on behalf of a collective which is extended to includeall his readers by the use of a first person plural with which they mayeasily identify His wish for the unworthy to leave is not a means of divid-ing the audience but of defining the character of those present on the ima-gined occasion He does the same thing in hPal 51-52 where a Pelasgianman is warned against unwittingly seeing the goddess this does not implythat men were present at the celebration rather it explains why they werenot In the same way I take the οὐχ ὁράᾳς of hAp 4 to express a wish toshare the experience rather than a suspicion that so-and-so is incapable ofsharing it Like Πυθῶνι κε τεκμήραιο in 35 it can be read as directed bothtowards the audience in the poem and towards the readerlistener who isthus invited to share in the excitement of the imaginary scene

The voice identifies itself with the internal audience by including it inthe first person plural and by speaking of shared experiences and expec-tations and it never in any way sets itself apart from the audience towhich it speaks It does not assert itself as an individual with personalviews and experiences nor does it divide its audience into differentgroups On the contrary it expresses the experiences and values of everyonepresent at the same time speaking to and for the group with which it ident-ifies The you and I are practically identical The voice is a means to rep-resent the collective celebrating Apollorsquos festival and this collectiversquosexperience of the festival and to do so in a way that will engage the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

readerlistener to share the experience The collective is Cyrenean it ispresent at a religious celebration in Cyrene it affirms its loyalty to theking and it believes itself to be ἐσθλός since it expects to see the godThese are the limits within which the voice and addressee oscillatelimits which are wide enough to leave room for Callimachus himself aswell He too is a Cyrenean loyal to the king and will certainly havebeen no stranger to the major religious festival of his hometown

And yet this ldquocollectiverdquo voice bears all the hallmarks of ldquoCallimacheanrdquodiction The voice may speak for a collective but paradoxically it does soin a highly personal manner Although the voice of the poem is not that ofCallimachus himself its audience will not have been ignorant of who hewas and the relevance of his own personwill have been confirmed by the poe-tological statement of 105-113 In the words of Cameron ldquono onewhowas notalready familiar with the specialised polemical connotations of lsquospringrsquo andlsquoenvyrsquo in the Callimachean lexicon could have made head or tail of itrdquo69

As Cameron points out this ldquopersonal messagerdquo is ldquomediated obliquelyand enigmaticallyrdquo avoiding the use of the first person There is no deicticlanguage in the story of Phthonos and Apollo (105-112) but the deixis ofthe previous parts of the poem is still valid here The festival song and epi-phany and the voice of the Cyrenean all come together to create a contextfor this story Callimachus chooses a religious celebration as the setting forhis poetological statements and by means of the ldquoCallimachean lexiconrdquoand the Cyrenean setting he signals the relevance of his own person to theinterpretation of the poem This is in itself no stranger than Alcaeus choos-ing a storm at sea for the expression of his political views although Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique is much more complex

24 The Hymn to Apollo conclusion

The voice in the Hymn to Apollo has little in common with the traditionalepic narrator While the voice of an epic narrator speaks of things past to anunspecified audience this voice speaks in the present to the audience at aparticular place and occasion which in the course of its speech it describesin some detail Nevertheless its speech cannot be construed as the words ofanyone present and taking part in the action on this occasion nor does itoffer us a clear picture of what is going on Ironically a conventional epicvoice mixing narrative and reported speech could easily have paintedsuch a picture telling us exactly what happened and who said what

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Callimachusrsquomimetic voice fails to do this Instead the deictic languageinvites the reader or listener to identify with the addressees of the poemand imagine himself as part of the action thereby sacrificing both charac-terisation and narrative efficiency The voice cannot be determined itldquooscillatesrdquo and this oscillation also leaves room for the poetrsquos ownperson to play a part It is worth noting that the most obvious modelsfor such oscillating voices in archaic poetry are to be found in the choralpoetry of Pindar arguably such a voice would be particularly suitable torepresent a choral performance

It is the paradoxical nature of the mimetic voice that to create a pretenceof interaction it has to speak continually even when silence is required onthe scene it evokes as in this poem All information has to pass through thisvoice and therefore the voice is strained its words have to appear as if it isdirected towards those present on the imagined scene and not towards theunknowing readerlistener As we shall see in all three mimetic hymns thevoice is under the same strain In the hymn to Apollo the demands are evenhigher The voice is under the strain not only of speaking both to the readerlistener and to the imagined audience in addition its imagined audience isboth that of a song and that of an epiphany

31 The Bath of Pallas description

Like the Hymn to Apollo the Bath of Pallas has a ritual context and aspecific geographic location the place is Argos while the occasion is thebathing of the image of Athena in the river Inachos The location inDoric Argos is emphasised by the use of a Doricised version of the epiclanguage Callimachus uses the same language in his Hymn to Demeter(which has no named geographic location) but not in the Hymn toApollo (although it is set in Doric Cyrene) The metre is also an unusualone for a hymn elegiac distichs instead of hexameter Bulloch arguesthat this is less original than it might seem by pointing to the existenceof ldquoshort hymnal addresses and invocationsrdquo in elegiacs70 and by remind-ing us that elegy ldquowas the vehicle of adhortatio and public address and inthis respect was an entirely suitable form for one to exhort her co-cele-brants on the virtues of Athenardquo71 Such addresses and exhortationsmake up an important part of the poem

The poem begins in medias res addressing the λωτροχόοι τᾶς Παλλάδος(1) In the following the speaker states that he has heard the neighing of the

GJERT VESTRHEIM

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

sacred horses and that this means that the goddess is ready to come (2-3)The resemblances with the Hymn to Apollo might tempt one to read theneighing of the horses as an omen but such a reading is not necessaryit need not mean more than that the carriage has arrived and the idolcan be brought out In 4 the audience is addressed again this time asξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες ldquoblonde (female) Pelasgiansrdquo (ie Argives72)While the first address referred to their role in the festival this secondone refers to their ethnic and civic status The women were first told tocome out (1 2 ἔξιτε) now they are told to make haste (4 σοῦσθε)

In 5 the voice changes to the third person and there follows the first ofseveral narratives Even after the battle with the Giants Athena did notwash herself until after she had washed her horses (5-12) The address isresumed in 13-17 with instructions to the women who are again referredto as λωτροχόοι (15) and as Ἀχαιιάδες (13) This ethnic noun does notintroduce a different group rather it is part of a game of erudition Calli-machus makes a point of ignoring the distinction between Pelasgian andAchaean Argos which was followed by Apollonios Rhodios73 Oncemore the women are told to come (13 ὦ ἴτ᾽) and they are instructedthat they should not bring perfume and mirrors since Athena is alwaysbeautiful The address is broken up by the parenthetical verse 14 wherethe voice states that it hears the creaking of axles just like the neighingin 2 this may but need not be read as an omen

The address is followed in 18-26 by a mythological explanation for theinstructions even for the judgment of Paris the goddess refused to use amirror but only used plain oil In 27-32 a new address instructs thewomen as to what they should bring for Athena just olive oil and agolden comb Then in 33-4 the voice addresses Athena herself and callson her to come out telling her that here is company to her likingκαταθύμιος ἴλα this company is described as παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν It remains uncertain whether the voice belongs to one ofthis company or to someone outside it

In the narrative that follows (35-42) Athena features in the secondperson The voice tells us that the shield of Diomedes is carried in the pro-cession and then explains the origin of this custom In 41-2 the goddess isidentified with the idol σὲ δέ δαῖμον απορρώγεσσιν ἔθηκεν ἐν πέτραιςIn 43-4 she is once more hailed and implored to come out (44 ἔξιθ᾽)Further instructions follow in 45-54 with four different addressees thewater-carriers (ὑδροϕόροι 45) the town (ie the people) of Argos (45)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the female slaves (47) and a Pelasgian man (51) presumably pars pro toto forall men The addresses all concern instructions occasioned by the festivalThe ὑδροϕόροι are told not to draw water (but the address to them isbroken off before it is completed) The town is told to drink from thefountains not from the river The female slaves are told to bring waterfrom the springs of Physadeia or Amymone (ie not from the river)and the man is warned against seeing the goddess In 55 Athena isaddressed once more and implored to come out πότνι᾽ Ἀθαναία σὺ μὲνἔξιθι But the voice then goes on to state that ldquoin the meantimerdquo it willtell the women a story which the speaker has not made up himselfμῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ᾽ ἑτέρων (56)

The following narrative which makes up the larger part of the poem(57-136) begins with an address to the girls (57 παῖδες) but goes on to elab-orate on the warning to the men in 51-4 It tells the story of how Teiresiasinadvertently saw Athena naked and therefore was blinded Towards theend of the story the voice pauses to address the audience as λωτροχόοι(134) From this we may infer that the λωτροχόοι of 134 (and of 1 and15) should be identified with the παῖδες of 57 since the narrativersquos audiencewill presumably be the same at the end as at the beginning

After the end of the narrative in 136 the poem returns to the mimeticframe and claims that Athena now comes ἔρχετ᾽ Ἀθαναία νῦν ατρεκές(137) Then the κῶραι (138) are told to receive her with acclamationprayers and cries (137-9) In 140 the voice itself addresses the goddesswith the greeting χαῖρε and a prayer to protect Argos In 141-2 χαῖρε isrepeated and connected to the occasion (the removal and return of theidol from the temple) χαῖρε καὶ ἐξελάοισα καὶ ἐς πάλιν αὖτις ἐλάσσαις ἵππως The poem then ends with another short prayer for the goddessto protect ldquothe estate of the Danaansrdquo ie Argos καὶ Δαναῶν κλᾶρονἅπαντα σάω

32 The Bath of Pallas the action

In the Bath of Pallas just as in the Hymn to Apollo we find a voice thatappears to be speaking to the assembly at a specific ritual at a specificplace This time the scene is set outside the temple of Athena in Argosand the occasion is made clear in the title of the poem Throughout thepoem the instructions given are mainly of a negative kind and they donot offer much help in determining the actions taking place In 15-17

GJERT VESTRHEIM

42

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the λωτροχόοι are told not to bring certain objects the incomplete order tothe ὑδροϕόροι in 45 too is an order not to do something just like the orderto the city not to drink from the river (46) and to the men not to watch (51-2) No particular action has to be taken to obey these orders and thereforethey are not of much help in reconstructing the scene The order to theslaves does demand action but implies that they just like the mencannot be present at the celebration and so this order is only of use indetermining the audience not the actions taking place on the scene

The orders in 1-4 to ldquocome outrdquo and to ldquohurryrdquo and in 13 to ldquocomerdquo havebeen interpreted in different ways Kleinknecht following Cahen inter-prets the verb ἐξιέναι in 1 as a technical term for walking in a procession74

Bulloch arguing against this points out that ldquothe instructions whichfollow the summons concern what equipment the women should bringand are more appropriate to celebrants leaving their homes than to pro-cessors who have already assembledrdquo and concludes that the women arenot in the same place as the horses until Athena herself is called uponin 33 ldquothe women have been in process of assembling in response to theopening summons ldquo75 He claims that this allows a better reconstructionof the ritual occasion than Kleinknechtrsquos but neither of these solutionsallows a realistic reading the women are either at home in which casethey cannot hear the call to come to the celebration or they are presentand in that case instructions about what to bring are useless

29-32 and 137-9 both contain instructions of a more specific characterIn the first of these passages the κῶραι are told to bring Athena plain oiland a comb of gold in the second they are told to hail the goddess asshe arrives Bulloch as quoted above claims that instructions aboutwhat to bring ought to be given before the celebrants leave their housesbut the women would hardly keep golden combs in their houses and inany case only a single comb is required To the imagined audience inthe poem these words can only be taken as an affirmation of what thewomen are already doing but to those of us reading or listening to thepoem they are a means to inform us about the ritual We cannot knowwhere the objects are brought from but we may conclude that it isdone by some of the κῶραι on behalf of all of them otherwise theywould not have been addressed in this way

The part played by these objects in the ritual remains uncertain and sodoes the part played by Diomedesrsquo shield (35) although we may infer thatthey will somehow be presented to the goddess during the ritual The plain

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

oil may be for anointing the statue76 The comb on the other hand cannothave served any practical purpose77This object need not be modeled uponany actual cultic practice it may simply be a prop designated by Callima-chus to suggest once again that a direct epiphany is taking place surelythe goddess herself would use a golden comb

Only in 137-9 do we find positive instructions to the κῶραι to be carriedout by them all on the scene of the ritual They are ordered to hail thegoddess The instructions in 29-32 on the contrary concern actionsthat must have been initiated by some of them before the crowdassembled The remaining instructions are either addressed to thoseabsent (47-8 51-2) negative (ie prohibitive 13-7 45 45-6) or namingthe audience without implying any specific action (1-4 13) These instruc-tions do not offer much help in reconstructing the actions taking placeThe orders to come to come out and to hurry are too general to be ofmuch use whereas the orders to bring certain objects tell us somethingabout the nature of the occasion but less than if we had known who isto complete them where and when The instructions in 137-9 on theother hand are to be carried out immediately by all those addressed asthe goddess comes They are to welcome her with acclamation prayersand cries In the last verses (140-2) the voice identifies itself with thewomen it has addressed by doing the same thing as it has instructedthem to do namely hailing Athena as she arrives

The narratives offer even less help than the addresses for reconstructingritual detail although they do contain aitia for some aspects of the ritual18-28 explains the use of plain oil while 38-42 explains the presence of theshield of Diomedes 5-12 on the other hand does not inmy view tell us any-thing about the ritual although Bulloch interprets this narrative as an aitionfor part of the ceremony ldquoWe must assume thathellip the bathing of the pro-cessional horses was an important first stage in the Argive ritualrdquo78 Suchexact correspondences between myth and ritual would hardly be necessaryIn a case like this the only test we can apply is the question whether anacting-out of the mythic model seems probable in the context and in myview it does not As pointed out by Wilamowitz the draught animalswould hardly have been bathed together with the statue79 Concerningthe main narrative it adds nothing more to our picture it is not relevantfor any local or aetiological reason but is rather intended as a moralexemplum

GJERT VESTRHEIM

44

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Although many details remain obscure we do at least recognise whatsort of ritual is taking place it is the cleansing of the goddessrsquos imagewhich for this purpose is brought in procession to a nearby river by anexclusively female group of worshippers Such bathing of statues wasaccording to Robert Parker ldquonot rare in Greek cultrdquo and ldquoto someextent a practical necessityrdquo He claims that we should not seek anysingle explanation for the various rituals ldquobecause an image-bath mayimitate any of the various motives that an actual goddess might have forbathingrdquo and that as opposed to eg the pre-nuptial bathing of Hera atPlataea the bath of Pallas seems to be ldquosimply taken for bathingrsquos sakerdquojust like its mythical precedents in 5-12 and 70-7480

33 The Bath of Pallas the audience

The voice of the poem is imagined as speaking to an audience on a specificoccasion and it addresses a series of different persons Still these addres-sees need not belong to the audience at the occasion imagined ie thedeictic language need not be imagined as ad oculos The voicersquos speechmay be addressed only to parts of the imagined audience or it may beaddressing someone who is imagined as absent As I will argue thismust be the case in the addresses to the αἱ δῶλαι in 47 and the Πελασγέin 51

Bulloch finds ldquono strong reason to think that the ceremony or any part ofit was restricted to women of a particular class or agerdquo81However the slavesare given no role to perform in it On the contrary in 47 they are told to goand bring water from the springs of Physadeia (location unknown) orAmymone (almost five miles from the city)82 This order should not betaken literally Five miles is quite a walk with a heavy burden of water andsurely it would be better to bring sufficient amounts of water from theriver on the day before the festival And if drinking water (or water forother uses) had to be brought from the springs this would have been thecase on any other day aswell The ordermay simply be taken as an elaborationon the ban on river water in 45-6 but I would suggest that like thewish for theἈλιτροί to leave in hAp 2 it is rather a means to explain why the slaves are notthere and thus to define the audience by elimination The slaves wouldhardly be summoned at the start of the ceremony just to be told to go forwater elsewhere Furthermore the description of the audience as παρθενικαὶ

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

45

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

μεγάλων παῖδεςἈρεστοριδᾶν (34) could not possibly refer to slaves (althoughadmittedly it does not expressly refer to the whole audience)

This reading is supported by the subsequent address to the Pelasgianman Πελασγέ presumably a pars pro toto for all men who are warnedagainst unwittingly seeing the goddess naked How can they avoid thisif they are to be present at her bath Once more the function of theaddress is to explain why and to confirm that the addressee is notpresent Neither the slaves nor the men are mentioned again and as faras the men are concerned the following myth about Athena is addressedto an exclusively female audience (56 ταῖσδ᾽ 57 παῖδες) Besides thismyth contains a warning to the men to keep away from the bath of thegoddess and therefore could serve as an aition to explain their absenceI conclude that both addresses to the slaves and to the menmust be ima-gined as ad phantasma Neither men nor slaves are present on the occasion

Apart from the men and the slaves and the goddess herself the voiceaddresses the λωτροχόοι (1 15 134) the ξανθαὶ hellip Πελασγιάδες (4) theἈχαιιάδες (13) the κῶραι (27 138) ὑδροϕόροι (45) and παῖδες (57) inaddition it states the presence of παρθενικαὶ μεγάλων παῖδες Ἀρεστοριδᾶν(34) All these terms seem to refer to the audience or parts of it and onemight suspect that different groups are addressed at different times but notwo terms are mutually exclusive and there are no clear indications thatthey refer to different groups Indeed the use of the terms ldquoPelasgiansrdquo(4) ldquoAchaeansrdquo (13) and ldquoArestoridsrdquo (34) here do not refer to differentpeoples they are clearly all poeticisms for ldquoArgivesrdquo and so refer to allthe women present on the occasion83

The same seems to be the case with the κῶραι and παῖδες In 27 theκῶραι are addressed in the course of a narrative while the main narrativeis introduced by an address to the παῖδες in 57 (who are exclusively femaleas the ταῖσδ᾽ of 56 shows) and ends with an address to κῶραι in 138 Theaddressee of a narrative ought to be the same at the end as at the beginningBesides in 138 the addressees are told to welcome the goddess with criesprayers and acclamation and such an appeal would presumably bedirected towards the whole audience

The instruction to bring pure oil and a golden comb in 29-32 alsoappears to be addressed to the κῶραι in 27 but this does not suggestthat only those actually carrying the objects are κῶραι The offerings arebrought on behalf of all those taking part in the festival This use of theterm suggests that the κῶραι make up the entire audience and so does

GJERT VESTRHEIM

46

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the lack of any reference to married women throughout the poem Thedescription of the audience as παρθενικαὶ hellip παῖδες in 34 suggests thesame although not conclusively so since such an expression as Bullochargues may also be used of married women84 On the other hand whobut the virgin daughters could be more suitable company καταθύμιοςἴλα (33) for Athena85 Like the men and the slaves married womenseem to be excluded

It seems likely that the κῶραιπαῖδες are identical to the λωτροχόοι whoare addressed in 1 15 and 134 at least there are no indications that theλωτροχόοι are not κῶραιπαῖδες or that they make up a separate groupamong them In 1 and 15 they are addressed with imperatives of a generalkind without any demands for actions that would set them apart fromthe rest of the crowd the first one being a simple ἔξιτε and the second alist of things not to bring The address to λωτροχόοι in 134 is followed byone to κῶραι in 138 without any suggestion of a distinction between thetwo Both κῶραι and λωτροχόοι are addressees for instructions as well as nar-ratives The narratives presumably would be addressed to the entire audi-ence instructions might perhaps be given to a more restricted group butthe instructions to both λωτροχόοι and κῶραιπαῖδες are of a kind thatwould apply to all those present Furthermore in 1-4 and 13-17 theλωτροχόοι are also addressed with ethnic denominations (ΠελασγιάδεςἈχαιιάδες) that apply to the whole audience We may infer that all thosepresent are λωτροχόοι

The identification of the ὑδροϕόροι remains uncertain They areaddressed only once (45) with an order that is broken off and thereforewe do not know whether the ban on their drawing water is supposed tobe a general one or whether it only concerns specific places times oruses As Bulloch notes ὑδροϕόροι cannot be another word for theslaves αἱ δῶλαι in 47 ldquoThe article defines the class δῶλαι lsquothose whoare slavesrsquo and where simple δῶλαι might have been in apposition toὑδροϕόροι distinguishes a new group af addresseesrdquo86 The ὑδροϕόροιhe suggests are ldquonot just the slaves who are referred to in the nextcouplet but any women perhaps who are not initiatesrdquo87 If so the μὴβάπτετε of 45 would presumably mean that the uninitiated includingthe slaves are barred from the river on the day of the festival This fitsneatly with the order to the slaves in 47-8 to draw their water from thesprings as argued above this order should not be taken literally but asan indication that they are not present by the river

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

47

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Still it seems rather odd that at a bathing ritual those who are notadmitted should be known as the water-carriers particularly since wehave evidence elsewhere for ὑδροϕόρος as a religious office and for festivalscalled ὑδροϕορία88 Therefore it seems reasonable to interpret ὑδροϕόροιas a term for participants in the festival The instruction μὴ βάπτετε in45 may apply to drawing water from the river for non-ritual use or ondrawing (and using) water from anywhere else on the day of the festivalIn this case it would be effectively contrasted by the order to the absentslaves to draw non-sacred water elsewhere The bathing ceremonymeans that the river cannot be totally out of bounds for everybody andit may be the task of the ὑδροϕόροι to carry water for the goddess as partof the ritual Whether ὑδροϕόροι is synonymous to λωτροχόοι or desig-nates a particular group among them seems impossible to decide

Clearly this is all designed to confuse but in retrospect when readingthe text with supporting evidence from elsewhere it is possible to deter-mine the nature of the audience with some certainty It appears to befemale Argive and virgin but not much else can be deduced from thepoem And yet the voice by whom they are spoken to and consequentlythe actions in which they take part cannot be strictly determined as Iwill presently argue

34 The Bath of Pallas the voice

According to Deubner the voice in the hPal belongs to a priest whileaccording to Wilamowitz it is the ldquoFestordnerrdquo the master of ceremonies89

Similar views are held by ErbseMcKay and Bulloch90Kleinknecht claimsthat it is the poet himself who speaks throughout the poem but also that hestyles himself as an archaic αοιδός and only once in 55 as a master of cer-emonies91 That the speaker is the poet is in one sense obvious (he is theauthor of the text) and in another misleading (the poem is neverthelessfiction) That he styles himself as an αοιδός is a surprising conclusionsince a conventional αοιδός refers to himself or to the occasion only invery general terms (except in the Homeric Hymn to Apollo) That the styleof a master of ceremonies should only occur in 55 is equally surprising

Recently realistic readings along the lines of Deubner and Wilamowitzhave been attempted by Maria Vamvouri Ruffy and by HartmutWulfram Ruffy interprets the speaker as a master of ceremonies92 andWulfram as both priestess and master of ceremonies Wulfram even

GJERT VESTRHEIM

48

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

claims that to a fair extent the occasion can be reconstructed from thepoem In his reconstruction the priestess is standing at the gate of ahigh wall surrounding the temple she is in complete control of theaction and her storytelling has a natural place at this stage of the festival93

There are serious impediments to reconstructions such as Wulframrsquos tothe celebrants at the festival the descriptions of neighing horses (2-3) andcreaking axles (14) are as superfluous as those of the singing swan andshaking temple in the Hymn to Apollo as those present can see and hearsuch phenomena for themselves The instructions about what to bringand not to bring do not serve any practical purpose since the crowdmust already have assembled to hear them Besides such instructionsought to be given before the goddess is called upon Furthermoreunlike a master of ceremonies the voicersquos control of the events remainsuncertain and the readerrsquos expectations are constantly frustrated An epi-phany appears to be imminent but then fails to take place The voicerepeatedly invokes the goddess but she (or her idol) does not arriveThe invocations are interspersed with instructions to the audiencewhich ought to have been given already and with short narratives Theinstructions themselves are deliberately puzzling eg telling the water-car-riers not to carry water and then breaking off the address before it is com-pleted After the request in 55 (ἔξιθι) the voice suddenly declares that ldquointhe meantimerdquo it will tell the women a story Apparently Athena can waitIn the first part of the hymn suspense is sustained by the frequent changebetween addresses and short narratives and by the repeated call to ldquocomeoutrdquo first addressed to the women and then to Athena herself In contrastto this for the duration of the Teiresias narrative the mimetic frame dis-appears altogether the narrative absorbing all interest94

A D Morrison although he uses the terms ldquoreligious officialrdquo andldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo to describe the voice points to the ldquodeliberateambiguity of speaker and speakerrsquos sexrdquo and - more cautiously than Klein-knecht - to ldquoseveral aspects which point us to a narrator closely groundedupon the author Callimachusrdquo95 but this authorial voice manifests itselfonly in the use of scholarly asides and in the claim to build on sourcesin 56 (μῦθος δ᾽ οὐκ ἐμός αλλ ἑτέρων) not - as in the Hymn to Apollo -by polemical statements or references to the authorrsquos country andfamily This points in the same direction as my own reading The voiceis ambiguous this ambiguity also extends to its sex and it may even (asin the hAp) involve the authorrsquos own biographical person

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

49

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

The poem only makes sense as a poem and not as the words of anyonespeaking on the imagined occasion The ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo is there-fore a superfluous concept since the voice of a poem is not a person but arhetorical construct One might argue that the words of a master of cer-emonies could be part ad oculos part ad phantasma but even then theparts that were ad phantasma would still have to make sense on thatoccasion and as argued above in this case that would be hard toimagine Finally the Achillesrsquo heel of the concept of mimetic poetryremains the same as in the Hymn to Apollo if we accept that the voicespeaking during the imagined event speaks both ad phantasma and adoculos how can we reliably distinguish between the parts that make upeither kind of speech

As in the hAp the voice does not offer much information about itselfIn the final lines it seems to identify itself with the girls by means of acommon prayer but it never says ldquowerdquo in any way and its relationshipto the audience as to the occasion on which it speaks remains vagueThis voice like that in the Hymn to Apollo is not that of a ldquomaster of cer-emoniesrdquo nor is it the voice of anyone else It is a rhetorical construct atool to convey information about an imaginary event to the unknowingreaderlistener and this need to convey information determines thenature of the material At the same time the speech has to seem plausiblein the mouth of someone present sharing the anticipation of the audienceand taking part in the action as it unfolds This makes it difficult to presentinformation in the straightforward manner of a conventional ldquoOlympicrdquonarrator

35 The Bath of Pallas conclusion

As in hAp the voice in hPal is under the strain of having to supply infor-mation to the readerlistener by means of a constant flow of words while atthe same time appearing to be speaking to the audience in the poem Theconsequences are the same an ldquooscillatingrdquo voice the loss of characteris-ation and narrative efficiency but also an invitation to the readerlistenerto ldquowork harder and therefore becoming all the more engagedrdquo96 In hApthe voice was also under the strain of having to bridge the gap betweenritual and epiphany In hPal the beginning of the poem also suggeststhat an epiphany may be taking place but not in the same unambiguousway as in hAp the neighing horses and creaking axles may be signs of an

GJERT VESTRHEIM

50

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

indirect epiphany but they need not be and they are not explicitly inter-preted as such Epiphany requires a different response from ritual butsince the epiphanic nature of the occasion is only hinted at the voicedoes not have to respond to it

While in hAp the narrative middle section could be read as a represen-tation of the song of the chorus no such explanation for the narratives canbe given in hPal The ritual takes up only a minor part of the poemserving as a frame for the narratives which fill almost three fourths of itSuch storytelling is foreign to the situation depicted in the mimeticframe but nevertheless these stories serve to interpret the ritual eventstaking place in the frame

In this respect the storytelling of hPal resembles that of hAp Ratherthan that of a master of ceremonies the voice is that of an ideal spectatorinterpreting the events with the same tools as those of a chorus preemi-nently gnome and narrative The narratives offer material for interpretingthe ritual describing the nature of the goddess explaining details of ritualand ndash most importantly ndash juxtaposing the joyous experience of the festivecrowd with the punishment for seeing the goddess unawares This is thesort of material that would be suitable for a chorus singing on the occasionLike the Hymn to Apollo the speech of this voice can be imagined as per-formed on the occasion of the festival it depicts but only in the form of apoem and not as part of the interactions it conjures up

41 The Hymn to Demeter description

The Hymn to Demeter shares the Doricised language of the Bath of Pallasbut not its elegiac metre Unlike in the other two hymns epiphany is not asubject in this poem nor does it share the same hectic atmosphere On thecontrary although the women in this poem are waiting too the atmos-phere is one of serenity and calm an atmosphere that is reinforced byan unusually low proportion of enjambed verses97

While in the hPal the action of the mimetic frame takes place in Argosand in the hAp it takes place in Cyrene in the hDem no specific place iseither named or otherwise implied The claim of the scholiast that theritual takes place in Alexandria and is of Athenian (ie Eleusinian)origin is unlikely to be anything but mere speculation Hopkinson refer-ring to the account of Fraser concludes that ldquothe evidence for actualmysteries at Alexandria modeled on the Eleusinian rites is therefore

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

51

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

significantly meagerrdquo98 Also Cyrene Cnidus and Cos have been suggestedas locations but in all three cases evidence is lacking99 Nor does thedialect offer any clues although Doricised it has no identifiable local fea-tures Wilamowitz sensibly remarks that if Callimachus had a particularplace in mind he would have made use of it100

Although the place cannot be identified the occasion appears to be thefestival of the Thesmophoria as Legrand Wilamowitz and Hopkinsonsuggest101 but there is no conclusive evidence and Walter Burkert inhis discussion of this festival does not refer to the hymn thus presumablynot accepting it as evidence In the Hymn to Demeter unmarried girls aretaking part (118) and according to Burkert the Thesmophoria was a festivalfor married women ldquoChildren ndash other than infants ndash stay away as dovirgins the status of hetairai and slave women is unclearrdquo102 Howeverhis source for the exclusion of virgins is Callimachusrsquo Aetia fr 63P onthe Attic Thesmophoria which suggests that this may have been an excep-tion to the general rule Whether or not the festival should be labeled asthe Thesmophoria this label is of limited value for the interpretation ofthe poem as it does not add much information which the poem doesnot give us itself There were local variations to the celebration of the fes-tival and so the evidence for the Athenian festival the one we know bestcannot be uncritically applied However the festival certainly shares anumber of features with the Thesmophoria It is a festival for Demeteronly women take part the festival includes fasting and it is concernedwith securing a good harvest

The poem begins with an address to a group of women in 1 they aretold to greet Demeter (ἐπιϕθέγξασθε γυναῖκες the imperative recallingthat of hAp 25 ϕθέγγεσθε) in 2 follow the words of the greeting theyare to give her Δάματερ μέγα χαῖρε πολυτρόϕε πουλυμέδιμνε This greet-ing is of a kind familiar from the Homeric Hymns where it is a topos ofclosure χαῖρε with the godrsquos name and epithets In 3 some or all of thewomen are addressed as βέβαλοι and told to watch the returningκάλαθος the holy basket from the ground In the next two verses 4-6a similar order follows ldquodonrsquot look from the roof or from aboverdquo thistime addressed to all the females (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνά) including thosewho are fasting The change to first person plural in 6 identifies thevoice as being part of the group of fasting women In 7 the voicechanges to the third person describing the scene Hesperos the eveningstar has appeared from the clouds and this occasions a question

GJERT VESTRHEIM

52

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

ldquoWhen will it [ie the basket] arriverdquo103 The mention of Hesperos thenprompts a change from the ritual present to the narrative past effectedby way of a relative clause attached to the godrsquos name a technique wellknown from the Homeric Hymns (7-9) Ἕσπερος ἐκ νεϕέων ἐσκέψατο(πανίκα νεῖται) Ἕσπερος ὅς τε πιεῖν Δαμάτερα μῶνος ἔπεισεν ἁρπαγί-μας ὅκ᾽ ἄπυστα μετέστιχεν ἴχνια κώρας This seems to imply that theappearance of the evening star and the arrival of the κάλαθος signal theend of the fast

In 10-11 Demeter herself is addressed as πότνια and asked how her feetcould carry her to the limits of the world Like the relative clause in 8 thisquestion too is an opening topos The question is so detailed that it effec-tually becomes a narrative in the second person a narrative that is contin-ued in the following verses where the subject is Demeterrsquos quest for herstolen daughter In 17 this second person narrative is broken off and thesubject rejected not because it is untrue (as in Callimachusrsquo Hymn toZeus 8-9 and 60f) but ostensibly because it is sad it ldquobrought tears toDeordquo Possibly the reason behind this is because it is taboo undercertain circumstances to mention Persephone by name104 In any casethe break-off serves to confirm the truthfulness of the rejected narrative105

As demonstrated by Therese Fuhrer such break-offs and refusals arecharacteristic of Pindar106 At the same time the hortative subjunctiveμὴ μὴ ταῦτα λέγωμες brings to mind the openings of the HomericHymns ᾄσομαι μνήσομαι etc although here it is in the plural and inthe negative refusing the subject rather than presenting it saying notldquoI will sing ofrdquo but ldquolet us not speak ofrdquo

This refusal is followed by three suggestions for alternative subjectsDemeter as lawgiver Demeter as inventor of agriculture and thirdly thesubject that is eventually chosen namely Demeterrsquos punishment of Ery-sichthon107 All three alternatives are introduced by the same comparativekallion and there is no argument for the superiority of the third althoughit is motivated by the parenthetical ἵνα καί τις ὑπερβασίας αλέηται (22)108

As opposed to the Pindaric break-off technique which states that a namedalternative is impossible and thus restricts the material available this tech-nique emphasises the wealth of material The following narrative aboutErysichthon takes up verses 24-115 the greater part of the poem Thewhole narrative is in the third person except for an apostrophe of oneof the characters in 83 (and possibly in 25 τίν but the passage is corrupt)

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

In 116-7 Demeter is addressed with a prayer taking its subject from thepreceding narrative followed by a statement that motivates the prayer andwhich might be called a gnome Δάματερ μὴ τῆνος ἐμὶν ϕίλος ὅς τοιαπεχθής εἴη μηδ ᾽ ὁμότοιχος ἐμοὶ κακογείτονες ἐχθροί In the HomericHymns prayer and gnome are common as closes but in our poem theclose is a false one or at least partly so Although they conclude the nar-rative the prayer and gnome do not conclude the poem but are followedby a return to the mimetic frame in 118-138

In 118-19 the audience is addressed as παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι and told towelcome the goddess with the same words as in the beginning (2 = 119) Inthe following (120-27) the voice once again identifies with the women (as in6) using the first person plural and various features of the scene are all inter-preted as signs of future happiness that the κάλαθος arrives that the group iswalking barefoot and bareheaded that the baskets of the λικνοϕόροι are fullof gold Changing to the third person in 128-32 the voice sets out the dutiesof the different groups among the women The τελεσϕορεῖς109 shouldfollow the procession to the town hall while the ατελέστοι shouldproceed to the shrine of Demeter Those who are over sixty pregnant orin pain110 need only follow until they are tired

134-8 offer the greeting χαῖρε to the goddess and a prayer to her for peaceand prosperity Both χαῖρε and prayer are closes familiar from theHomericHymns just like the prayer and gnome of 116-7 but the prayer in Callima-chusrsquo hymn is more extensive than in any of theHomeric Hymns In 134 thegreeting χαῖρε θεά καὶ τάνδε σάω πόλιν is a quotation (although Dori-cised) from the close of hHom 13 (to Demeter) but Callimachus omitsthat hymnrsquos ἄρχε δ ᾽ αοιδῆς and extends the first prayer into the nextverse by adding ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ ἔν τ᾽ εὐηπελίᾳ He then continues with aseries of imperatives111 The poem ends with a final prayer in 138 ἵλαθίμοι followed by epithets This too is of a type known from the HomericHymns112 As in 116-17 the subject of the prayer is related to the occasionsince both are concerned with agriculture

As opposed to the two other mimetic hymns the Hymn to Demeterquickly leaves the mimetic frame in favour of a narrative section returningto the frame only towards the end In the two other hymns the hectic andunruly atmosphere as well as the sense of the godrsquos epiphany being immi-nent is partly created by the numerous changes between frame and narra-tive As suits the calm and serene mood of the present hymn these changeshave here been reduced to a minimum the frame is left in 8 and it is not

GJERT VESTRHEIM

54

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

returned to until 118 After 23 the poem offers a single continuous narra-tive113 Just as in the two other hymns the return to the frame is signaled byquotations or other phrases that echo the beginning of the poem Theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε in 1 also appears in 118 2 is identical to 119while the παῖς and γυνά of 5 correspond to the παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαιof 118

42 The Hymn to Demeter the action

Since the narrative section remains undisturbed by references to themimetic frame our attempt to reconstruct this frame must rely on thefirst (1-7) and last (118-138) parts of the poem Here as in the two otherhymns we find that the voice appears to be speaking to an audienceassembled for a religious celebration but in the Hymn to Demeter thereis no choral song and no suggestion that an epiphany is taking place

It is even doubtful whether there is any interaction between voice andaudience 1-2 is an imperative relating to future actions but we are nottold that the audience responds to the order 3-6 is also in the futureOnly in 7 is the voice expressly describing a change in the scene andresponding to it stating that the evening star (Hesperos) shines fromthe clouds This prompts the narrative which takes the evening star asits point of departure After the end of the narrative the order is repeatedin 118-9 (suggesting that it has not yet been carried out) but we are nottold anything about the audiencersquos response this time either

In the following lines (120-33) the procession is described and explainedin the present tense but it is not clear whether this procession is a responseto the words of the voice The point at which the procession starts movingcannot be determined It may already have been on the move in 1 or itmay have been prompted by the appearance of the evening star (and thevoicersquos recognition of it) in 7-9 or by the (repeated) order in 118-9 butin none of these cases is a realistic reading possible The appearance ofthe evening star is also the point of departure for the narrative and it ishard to imagine either this or the description of the procession in 120-33as being spoken to the procession as it moves

Further in spite of the present tense this description is not necessarily astatement that the procession is taking place here and now The voice maybe imagined as responding to the actions as they take place but it may alsobe imagined as describing and explaining these actions in advance in other

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

words speaking ad phantasma This would make a realistic reading poss-ible but at the cost of the interaction with the audience

In any case there is not much ritual detail to be reconstructed from thispoem The only action taking place among the members of the audiencein 1-7 is waiting and fasting (ie inaction) while 120-33 suggest that theywill soon be ndash or perhaps already are ndash walking in a procession This pro-cession will also include the holy basket drawn by four white horses (120)for which the women were still waiting in 1-7 As Wilamowitz points utthe voice speaks only of rules that should be generally observed114 but stillthese general instructions tell us something about the various groupstaking part in the festival and about their relationship to the voice andto this I will presently turn

43 The Hymn to Demeter the voice

Wilamowitz and Hopkinson both agree that the voice is not that of amaster of ceremonies but they seem to differ in their opinion of itsrelation to the audience According to Hopkinson ldquothis nebulous anduncharacterised voice is above and outside the ceremonyrdquo115 Wilamowitzon the other hand states that ldquoder Redner befindet sich mit auf der Straszligegeht barfuszlig und barhaupt 125 hat gefastet 5rdquo116 I suspect that this dis-agreement is illusory Hopkinsonrsquos point being that the voice does notinteract with the audience Wilamowitzrsquos that it expresses the experiencesof the audience but both agreeing that it does not differ from its audience

It might well be part of the task of a master of ceremonies to announce aset of rules even if these rules are familiar to everyone participating andthere is nothing inherently impossible about the instruction to theassembled festival crowd that no one should look from above (4) Eventhe description of the procession in 120-33 may be accounted for if weaccept it as being uttered in advance of the procession itself The storytell-ing on the other hand at a point when we have already been told that thebasket is arriving would be highly implausible in the mouth of a master ofceremonies or anyone else Equally implausibly there are no indicationsthat the audience is carrying out the orders On the contrary the audienceis told to repeat the verses 2 and 119 but unlike the ἱὴ ἱὴ παιῆον ακούομενof hAp 97 there is no suggestion that they actually do so

Only in the conventional closing prayers (116-7 and 138) does the voicespeak in the singular even the priamel-like break-off and proposals for

GJERT VESTRHEIM

56

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

different subjects in 17ff are in the plural This is not a nosism to createvariation since the plural is the rule in this poem while the singular ofthe prayers is the exception Rather it is a means of emphasising the col-lective sharing the story not the person telling it This differs from thetypical voice of epic poetry which does not refer to its audience whileit refers to itself if at all in the singular117

Wilamowitz points to this use of the plural throughout the poem andconcludes that ldquoes redet auch eigentlich kein einzelnerrdquo and that ldquodasdeutet vielmehr darauf daszlig sich die wartenden Frauen die Zeit mitGeschichten von ihrer Goumlttin vertreibenrdquo118 This seems to me to be anattractive interpretation He makes an exception though for the prayerἵλαθί μοιhellip in the final verse of the poem which according to him is inthe voice of the reciting poet For my part I cannot see any necessity toconstrue this prayer the last of a series as the words of another voiceand there are no ldquoquotation marksrdquo to support such a reading The useof the singular surely cannot be a definitive argument as 116-7 is also inthe singular

The voice speaks to and identifies itself as part of a group of women It isclearly female but it lacks any features that set it apart from the otherwomen it can only be defined insofar as the collective can be definedIn other words voice and audience cannot be distinguished I will nowturn to the various groups which comprise the audience as a whole

44 The Hymn to Demeter the audience

The initial addresses are of γυναῖκες (1) βέβαλοι (3) and then of womenand girls including those whose hair is unloosed (5 microὴ παῖς μηδὲ γυνὰμηδ᾽ ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν) and those who are fasting (6 microηδ᾽ ὅκ᾽ αϕ᾽αὑαλέων στομάτων πτύωμες ἄπαστοι) In 118 the return to the mimeticframe is signaled by an address to παρθενικαί and τεκοῖσαι correspondingto the παῖς and γυνά of 5 While the τεκοῖσαι in 118 are addressed with theimperative ἐπιϕθέγξασθε as in 1 because of a lacuna we do not knowwhichimperative was addressed to the παρθενικαί The order need not have beenvery different and the two imperatives may have complemented ratherthan contrasted each other119 Presumably both groups are told to utterthe words of welcome which are the same as in the beginning of thepoem (2 = 119) In both these verses a conventional greeting to thegoddess is addressed not to her but to the audience which is told to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

utter these same words ndash though we are not subsequently told that thisactually happens

In the following lines the voice identifies itself with a collective (121 ἁμίν)and interprets the ritual as a sign of its future prosperity It goes on to statethat ldquowe walk the city barefoot and bareheadedrdquo (124 απεδίλωτοι and ανά-μπυκες the latter surely corresponds to the ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν of 5) In 126it changes to the third person in order to describe a specific group among theparticipants the λικνοϕόροι and then in 128 it distinguishes between theατελέστοι and the τελεσϕορεῖς ndash the latter group including some that areover sixty and some that are pregnant (128-132) In the final greeting andprayer the voice first includes the whole city (in the third person) in itsprayer τάνδε σάω πόλιν ἔν θ᾽ ὁμονοίᾳ (134) before it ends with a prayerin the first person singular ἵλαθί μοι (138)

The women in the procession are divided into two groups the τελε-σϕορεῖς (129) and the ατελέστοι (128) in Hopkinsonrsquos translation initiatesand uninitiated The nature of this ldquoinitiationrdquo if indeed that is the righttranslation remains uncertain Although men were barred from the ritualsand the Thesmophoria thus had an air of secrecy about it we do not hearof such a distinction between the women taking part in the festival else-where120 The Thesmophoria was not as far as we know a festival ofinitiation but it was a festival of fertility and I will therefore suggestthat ατελέστοι should be taken to mean ldquounmarriedrdquo121 In this case theτελεσϕορεῖς would have to be the married women or possibly themothers

Girls also take part in the celebration The address to the γυναῖκες in 1should probably be taken to include them as well since they are not men-tioned in contrast since the same order is addressed to both women andgirls in 118-9 and since both groups are mentioned together in 5 receivingthe same instructions The instructions in 1-6 to chant the refrain and notto look from above then are to all the assembled women and girls butacknowledging one distinction between them some are fasting (6ἄπαστοι) while others are not From the wording of 5 it seems certainthat this distinction does not coincide with that between παῖς and γυνάnot all the women are fasting but only those with unloosed hair Thesewould presumably not include the old the ill and the pregnant whoare mentioned in the last part of the poem and excused from followingthe procession all the way Whether there are further limitations seemsimpossible to decide with any certainty

GJERT VESTRHEIM

58

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hopkinson believes the fasting women to be the initiates the τελεσϕορ-εῖς of 129 ldquoInitiates may not look down on the procession even if theyhave followed ritual practicerdquo122 Like Legrand before him123 he also ident-ifies them with the ανάμπυκες of 124 ldquoThough ἄμπυξ is strictly only adecorative frontlet ανάμπυκες surely excludes any other head-piecerdquo124

As I have suggested above these τελεσϕορεῖς may be identical to themarried women but in any case it seems probable that those who werefasting would make this known by wearing their hair loose As Hopkinsonpoints out this was a common symbol of ldquodistraction grief mourningrdquoand could serve to ldquoimitate Demeterrsquos unkempt state as she wandered theearth in her search for Persephonerdquo125 To this 124 also adds another detailthey are απεδίλωτοι barefoot The wording does not distinguish betweenthe απεδίλωτοι and the ανάμπυκες and it seems most probable that thesetwo groups are identical

The alternative explanation is to identify the women with loose hair asan age group or social group such as widows prostitutes or (accepting thescholiastrsquos explanation to 5 μὴδ᾽ ἥτις ἄγαμός ἐστιν) unmarried girls iegirls of marriagable age126 To me this seems unconvincing The expressionldquowomen and girlsrdquo in 5 is clearly exhaustive it includes all females and itseems odd that a further division by age should be introduced as an after-thought by way of a relative clause Besides while unbound hair is a con-ventional sign of grief it was not a conventional sign of social status in theGreek world 127 and the aorist would suggest that the hair has beenunbound for the occasion

Such a sign of shared grief might be expected to be shown by all thewomen taking part in the festival but if fasting is not universal amongthem (and the presence of the old the ill and the pregnant suggeststhat it is not) Legrand and Hopkinson are probably right in interpretingit as the sign of those who have been fasting If so the ἃ κατεχεύατοχαίταν of 5 are identical to the ἄπαστοι of 6 the voice in 6 speaking onbehalf of only part of the collective This supports the identification ofthem with the ανάμπυκες and απεδίλωτοι of 124 since it makes iteasier to accept that there too the voice speaks only for part of thecollective

The ατελέστοι are not allowed to follow the procession the whole way(128) while those who are pregnant or ill need only follow as far as theyare able to (130-3) Concerning τελεσϕορεῖς in good health 129-30 statesthat only αἵτινες ἑξήκοντα κατώτεραι have to follow all the way to the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

goddess (ie to her sanctuary) According to Hopkinson this means thatldquoonly those under sixty may witness the mysteriesrdquo128 In the light of theexemptions for reasons of health that follow I think it reasonable to readthe age limit of sixty years in the same way like the ill and the pregnantthose over sixty are not forbidden to follow all the way but neither arethey obliged to follow the procession to its end

Two groups in the audience remain The λικνοϕόροι (126) and theβέβαλοι (3) The basket-bearers λικνοϕόροι are only mentioned in 126They must belong to the τελεσϕορεῖς since the others will not take partin the last part of the procession Like the other τελεσϕορεῖς they are pre-sumably barefoot bareheaded and fasting in addition they are carryingbaskets

Hopkinson identifies the βέβαλοι in 3 with the ατελέστοι in 128 explain-ing the address to them as follows ldquoHere non-initiate participants in the fes-tival are forbidden to look down on the procession ndash a precaution againsttheir glimpsing sacred objects carried in the kalathosrdquo129 The transferredmeaning of βέβαλος ldquoimpurerdquo or ldquouninitiatedrdquo certainly supports thisidentification of the two terms But why then is this warning immediatelyrepeated in 4 (not verbatim but in essence) and this time addressed to thewomen and girls in general Since this second address must also include theuninitiated the first address is strictly speaking superfluous It makes senseto address different persons in turn or to address the same person by differ-ent names but less so to give the same instructions first to a part of a collec-tive and then to the whole collective (particularly when those mentionedfirst and in particular are of lower rank) Besides there is nothing tosuggest a change of grammatical subject in 4 and the subject for αὐγάσσησθε(4) surely must include the ἄπαστοι of 6

This suggests instead that all the women are βέβαλοι If not only thecontents of the two warnings are identical but the addressees are aswell the repetition makes sense as variation The change of tense fromfuture indicative in 3 to aorist subjunctive in 4 fits the same pattern asthey are both ways of expressing an imperative (the aorist imperative in1 adds further variation) The future in 3 need not be read as imperativebut may simply be stating what is about to happen while 4 gives aninstruction about how to respond ldquoyou are going to see the basket fromwhere you stand do not attempt to look at it from aboverdquo This wouldin no way rule out my view that 3-4 are addressed to all the womenThis view that the women are all βέβαλοι is shared by Legrand130

GJERT VESTRHEIM

60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

I conclude that all the women are βέβαλοι They are divided along twolines one between τελεσϕορεῖς and ατελέστοι (128-9) and one betweenthose who have fasted and those who have not Among the τελεσϕορεῖςsome have fasted and will walk the whole way to the temple these arethe ἃ κατεχεύατο χαίταν (5) ἄπαστοι (6) απεδίλωτοι καὶ ανάμπυκες(124) The τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their duties are mentionedin 130-2 Of the ατελέστοι none will proceed to the temple and presum-ably none have fasted nor are they barefoot or bareheaded This leaves uswith four groups (a) the ατελέστοι who will only follow as far as the townhall (b) the τελεσϕορεῖς who are excused from their full duties and willfollow as far as they are able to (c) the τελεσϕορεῖς who will proceedthe whole way to the temple and who are set apart by being barefootand bareheaded signs that they have fasted (d) the λικνοϕόροι a groupchosen among the τελεσϕορεῖς who will carry the baskets to the shrine

As in the hPal it is possible in retrospect to determine the nature of theaudience with some certainty What cannot be satisfactorily determinedon the other hand is the nature of the voice and its dealings with the audi-ence The voice is to quote Hopkinson once more ldquonebulous and unchar-acterisedrdquo and it remains unclear whether its words elicit any responses

45 The Hymn to Demeter conclusion

Although the mimetic frame takes up a smaller and more clearly definedpart of theHymn to Demeter than of the two other poems in principle thedifficulties with which we are confronted are the same Here too the voicehas to supply the readerlistener with information while at the same timeappear to speak to the audience in the poem - whose needs are of coursedifferent And here too the voice cannot bear the strain it cannot at thesame time be imagined as the voice of anyone taking part in the actionAdmittedly this voice is not dealing with uncontrollable events such astrembling laurels neighing horses and the epiphanies of gods but it isimpossible to determine its relationship to the audience and the proces-sion and its prolonged storytelling at this point in the proceedingscannot be accounted for as the speech of a master of ceremonies nor ofanyone else

I have suggested that the storytelling in the two other hymns is that ofan ideal spectator interpreting the event with the tools of a chorus pre-eminently gnome and narrative Such a reading also seems to fit the

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Hymn to Demeter The narrative is not unrelated to the occasion in whichit is embedded Even though the cultic rituals call to mind the rape ofPersephone this is only briefly and elliptically referred to (8-17) themain narrative is a reflection on transgression and divine punishmentwhile it also describes the effects of hunger The grotesque and comicaspects of the story in no way detract from this they are also present inthe version of Persephonersquos rape in the Homeric Hymn to Demeterwhich speaks of the jesting of Iambe (202-5)

My reading can easily be reconciled with Wilamowitzrsquo interpretationthat the women shorten the time with stories about the goddess whilethey are waiting The poem recounts these stories not word for wordbut in an ideal form not as anyone would have told them on the occasionbut in an ideal voice

51 Conclusion

It has been generally acknowledged since Legrand that the mimetic hymnswere not written to be performed as deixis ad oculos during the actions theydescribe What I have argued in addition is that their deictic languagedoes not allow us to reconstruct either a determinate voice (eg that ofa ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo) or a determinate set of actions The words ofthese texts cannot be construed as the words of anyone taking part inthe imagined actions whether as planned or as improvised speech noteven if parts of the deictic language are supposed to be ad phantasma onthe imagined occasion

This does not allow any certain conclusions about the performance ofthe hymns It does not rule out the possibility that they were performedat the places and for the occasions to which they refer The deicticlanguage would nevertheless be ad phantasma since it would be meaning-ful outside of its immediate context The mimetic hymns differ in thisrespect from such poems as Alcman fr 1 where at least part of thedeixis is clearly intended ad oculos referring to the persons who originallyperformed the song

The use of fictional voices and addressees is not Callimachusrsquo inventionthis is common in archaic poetry as well What distinguishes Callimachusrsquomimetic hymns from previous poetry is the way they describe a series ofactions via a voice that appears to be taking part in them but which oncloser inspection turns out not to be identifiable with any imaginable

GJERT VESTRHEIM

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

participant The inherent difficulty with this technique is to keep up thepretence of participation as this voice is the readerlistenerrsquos sole source ofinformation about the imagined events hence ldquooscillationsrdquo in the voicecan hardly be avoided The benefit is that it can be used to create avivid sense of presence even if (or perhaps particularly if) the deicticlanguage points away from the actual circumstances of the performance

The alternative would have been a mixed composition of narrative anddirect speech but this would have given a completely different impressionBy eliminating the narrator Callimachus spans the divide between his audi-ence and the events of the poem and by using a mimetic voice he avoids thequestions that an epic narrator is bound to answer namely ldquowho is speak-ingrdquo and to a lesser degree ldquowhererdquo and ldquoto whomrdquo The mimetic tech-nique heightens the intensity but lessens the precision it does not show usthings as they are but as they appear

It is tempting to draw a parallell between Callimachusrsquo mimetic tech-nique and developments in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic sculptureEarly Classsical sculpture still retains the quadrifacial frontality so character-istic of the Archaic period it is worked in planes from the four cardinal pro-files and consequently a composition such as the Doryphoros can easily berendered into relief During the Classical period this quadrifacial frontalityis gradually dissolved and the relief-like quality disappears as plane gives wayto recession as the guiding principle of the composition131 This eventuallyleads in the Hellenistic period to a style that is in the words of John Board-man ldquoin some respects more livelyrdquo but ldquoto no appreciable degree more life-likerdquo while at the same time the Classical occupation with an ldquoideal normfor the human bodyrdquo gives way to an art that is ldquovery striking though not sostrictly correctrdquo132 The same observation was made in antiquity Pliny theelder attributes to Lysippos (active ca 370-315) the statement that whilehis predecessors had made men as they really were he made them as theyappeared to be (ldquoab illis factos quales essent homines a se quales viderenturesserdquo)133

Such sculpture is best appreciated not in certain planes and from fixedpoints of view but by a moving onlooker exploring the image from con-tinually changing angles experiencing the appearance of the object ratherthan contemplating its essence For this purpose anatomical and math-ematical correctness can to a degree be sacrificed In the same way Calli-machusrsquo mimetic technique sacrifices coherence of voice and action inorder to engage the readerlistener directly in a way that earlier poetry

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

(and epic poetry in particular) does not Callimachus draws us into thepoem just as the Apoxyomenos makes us move constantly around itThe aim of the mimetic technique is neither to describe its subject norto contemplate its meaning but to mimic its appearance

The contrast with Homer is striking In Homer every character andevery action stands out clearly in sharp profile described in the thirdperson by an almost invisible narrator but these actions and charactersare recollected from a distant past In the mimetic hymns on the otherhand the action is made present by the use of deictic language by thevoice engaging in interaction with various addressees so to speak en faceas compared to Homerrsquos profiles But this presence is confusing the in-your-face present cannot be grasped as clearly as Homerrsquos profiles of thepast As in real life the best view of things is not necessarily up close

Notes

1 Legrand (1901)2 Susemihl (1891-2) II 3583 Couat (1882) 207 Cahen (1929) 2814 Fraser (1972) II 916 (n 289) referring to Cahen (1929) 2815 Cameron (1995) 656 Herter (1931) col 434 Wilamowitz (1924) I 182 and II 157 Friedlaumlnder (1933) 35 Lesky (1971) 7938 Bulloch (1985) 8 For an overview of the discussion see Cameron (1995) 63-709 Calame (2005) 87

10 Cameron (1995) 24-70 In particular cf 49-50 with reference to Gentili (1988)11 Cameron (1995) 3012 Wilamowitz (1924) remains an important starting-point for my discussions In

addition I shall frequently refer to the commented editions of Williams (1978)Hop-kinson (1984) and Bulloch (1985) I shall use the text of Pfeiffer (1949-53) throughoutMorrison (2007) is mainly occupied with the narrator and not with the situation inwhich this narrator is embedded cf Vestrheim (2011)

13 Reitzenstein (1906) 15714 Admittedly the beginning of the ldquodiegeticrdquo Hymn to Zeus implies a setting at a sym-

posium but there is no description of not to speak of interaction with this setting15 Albert (1988) 3-1716 Harder (1992) 386 citing Pfister (1988) 20 ff Also Morrison (2007) 10917 Harder (1992) 38618 Harder (1992) 38519 Harder (1992) 38720 Harder (1992) 384

GJERT VESTRHEIM

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

21 A similar conclusion is drawn by Falivene (1990) 3 125 She concludes that thehymns represent ldquogradi diversi della mimesirdquo

22 Albert (1988) 2423 Albert (1988) 15 ldquoMimetische Gedichte sind solche Gedichte in denen eine als Spre-

cher auftretende Person sich in zusammenhaumlngender Rede aumlussert und hellip auf einefortlaufende Handlung Bezug nimmt die sich in ihrer Gegenwart abspielt und vonder sie sich betroffen fuumlhltrdquo

24 Fillmore (1997) 61 quoted in Felson (2004) 25325 As defined by Green (1992) 126-7 ldquocoding time is the time at which the utterance is

lsquotransmittedrsquo content time is the time (or times) to which the utterance refers andreceiving time is the time when the utterance is received by the addressee ordecoderrdquo Cf also Levinson (1983) and Levinson (1992)

26 drsquoAlessio (2004) 26927 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27128 drsquoAlessio (2004) 28529 Felson (2004) 25730 Felson (2004) 26031 I shall not be concerned here with apostrophes ie with addresses that turn away from

the audience towards the characters in the narrative or towards the muses and thegods but only with addresses directed towards an audience that is imagined asbeing visibly present when the words that make up the poem are spoken

32 Cf Vestrheim (2010)33 The one is modeled upon the other although there is no general agreement about

which part is the older Cf West (1975) and Janko (1982) 13234 Snell (1975) 5735 Lefkowitz (1963) 18836 Lefkowitz (1963) 18837 Lefkowitz (1963) 19138 Although the ldquoenkomiasticrdquo future is so conventional that the meaning of its tem-

poral deixis is a moot point Cf Bundy (1962) 21 ldquoThe laudatorrsquos use of thefuture indicative in the first person hellip never points beyond the ode itself and itspromise is often fulfilled by the mere pronunciation of the wordrdquo Cf also Slater(1969) and drsquoAlessio (2004) 271

39 Lefkowitz (1995) 13940 Lefkowitz (1963) 235 and 225 Subsequently she has also questioned the assumption

that the epinikia were sung by a chorus identified with the κῶμος and claimed thatat least some of the odes may have been performed by a single voice cf Lefkowitz(1988) (1991) and (1995) Cf also Davies (1988)

41 Schmid (1998) 151 Cf also Felson (1999) and drsquoAlessio (1994) 120 ldquohellip sometimeswhen dealing with undetermined statements referring to the performance there isreally no point in trying to lsquoidentifyrsquo who is speaking hellip Pindarrsquos odes do notseem to aim at a dramatic or mimetic consistencyrdquo The same point is made byFelson (2004) 263 ldquothe actual goal of epinician deixis is not unequivocally to

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

refer to something or somebody but rather to create ambiguity and inclusivenessrdquoFor an overview of the debate with Lefkowitz cf Felson (1999) 11

42 Cf Currie 2004 and Morrison (2007) 37-4243 Cameron (1995) 63-7044 Wilamowitz (1924) II 77 Williams (1978) 6545 Pfeiffer (1949-53) II xxxviii-xxxix Wilamowitz (1924) II 7746 Cameron (1995) 408-947 I am not satisfied with the solution of Nisetich (2001) xxxvi who claims that 105-113

fulfils the expectation of an epiphany simply by stating that Apollo ldquohas been on thescene for some timerdquo A god can certainly not appear on the scene without his pres-ence being acknowledged

48 Bing (1993) 187 He is supported by Morrison (2007) 127 who although he ident-ifies a ldquomaster of ceremoniesrdquo speaking in 6 8 17 and 25 nevertheless suggests ldquothatwe should take the command in v 25 and the attention to the chorus which followsit as engineering a deliberate ambiguity about the speakersinger of the rest of thehymnrdquo

49 Bing (1993) 18650 Bing (1993) 18851 Wilamowitz (1924) 83 and 85 Williams (1978) 352 Schmid (1998) 151 Huumlbner (1992) 281 first makes the same point as I ldquoUumlberhaupt

entzieht sich die 1-31 gegebene Situation einer liturgisch ordnenden FestlegungrdquoBut he then draws the conclusion that the speaker ldquospielt die Rolle des Fanatikersder vom Rande des Geschehens aus lehrhaft kritisierend und kommentierend unddie Anwesenden apostrophierend in eine einseitige Beziehung zu ihnen tritthellipSein hysterischer pausenlos vorwaumlrtsdraumlngender Wortschwall ist die das GanzeGedicht als Einheit erfassende hellip Grundidee des Werkesrdquo Nevertheless he explainslines 85-96 as ldquoeine dem Autor sich aufdraumlngende Nebenbemerkungrdquo This readingof the speaker as a fanatic cannot be easily reconciled with the way the speakerborrows features from the author himself including his poetological concerns

53 Bing (1993) 18854 drsquoAlessio (2004) 27155 Cf n 5056 Vestrheim (2002)57 Wilamowitz (1924) II 78 ldquoNeben dem Dichter erscheint ein Chor von Knabenrdquo but

also ldquoin diesem Hymnus spricht ja der Dichter aus eigener Personrdquo Cf also 77 and79

58 Wilamowitz (1924) II 83 and 8559 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8560 Wilamowitz (1924) II 8561 Williams (1978) 3 ldquoa song (this is indeed the hymn proper) sung by Callimachusrdquo62 Williams (1978) 3563 Williams (1978) 15 23 and 2864 Williams (1978) 65 Cameron (1995) 408 also interprets this as a reference to the Bat-

tiads Wilamowitz (1924) II 79-80 on the contrary claims that since at this point in

GJERT VESTRHEIM

66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

the narrative the Battiads are already arriving on the future site of Cyrene thepromise of a walled city cannot be to them and that it is concerned with theroyal house of Callimachusrsquo own time ldquoUnmoumlglich kann das auf die Besitzergrei-fung Kyrenes durch Battos und seine Nachfolger gehen denn die konnte derGott nicht versprechen da sie bereits einziehenrdquo (79) This seems to me unpersua-sive although they have now found the place the god may well give them a promisethat they shall keep it Besides a promise to the Ptolemies seems wholly unlikely atthis point to whom would it have been uttered Nor can I agree with Wilamowitzthat because of the infamous end of the dynasty the Battiads ought not to have beenspoken of they remained an important part of the townrsquos history their ancestorbeing honoured as the townrsquos mythical founder

65 Snell (1975) 57 ldquoDer Mythos vor allem der durch die epische Dichtung gelaumlutertestellt neben das irdische Geschehen ein goumlttliches oder heroisches Gegenbild undgibt so dem Vergaumlnglichen Sinn und Bedeutungrdquo

66 Williams (1978) 367 Bing (1993) 18568 Bassi (1989)69 Cameron (1995) 44070 Bulloch (1985) 3571 Bulloch (1985) 3472 Bulloch (1985) 11573 Bulloch (1985) 115 and 122-374 Cahen (1930) 219f Kleinknecht (1939) quoted from Skiadas (1975) 21175 Bulloch (1985) 11176 On the anointing of statues see Steiner (2001) 112 and Donohue (1988) 38-977 As pointed out by Wilamowitz (1924) II 15 the xoanon had no hair that needed

combing78 Bulloch (1985) 11679 Wilamowitz (1924) II 1580 Parker (1983) 27-881 Bulloch (1985) 1082 Bulloch (1985) 15583 Cf n 7384 Bulloch (1985) 145 ldquoπαρθενική stands not uncommonly in apposition with other

nounsrdquo and ldquoπαρθένος + genitive = lsquodaughterrsquo is a regular poeticismrdquo85 Though admittedly in 69 the same word καταθύμιος is used of Teiresiasrsquo mother

Chariclo86 Bulloch (1985) 15587 Bulloch (1985) 154 The λωτροχόοι he takes to be either ldquothe bath officials specifi-

callyrdquo or if participation in the festival was restricted ldquoall who qualified as initiatesrdquo(10)

88 LSJ sv We also know of an official of the Cabiri at Didyma and a priestess of Aph-rodite at Sicyon called λουτροϕόρος see Bulloch (1985) 110 with further references

89 Wilamowitz (1924) II 14

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

90 Erbse (1955) 413 McKay (1962) 55-6 Bulloch (1985) 3 ldquoThe speaker the samethroughout the poem is presumably an official or priestessrdquo

91 Kleinknecht (1975) 270 ldquohellip kann kein Zweifel bestehen daszlig hier wie anderwaumlrtsder Dichter selbst spricht der sich uumlber seinen Stoff vernehmen laumlszligt Daszlig seine Per-soumlnlichkeit im uumlbrigen im Dunkel bleibt - man braucht sie darum nicht gleich mitWilamowitz ldquocharakterlosrdquo zu schelten - ist Stilwille des Dichters der sich damit alsfruumlhgriechischer Aoumlde gebaumlrdetrdquo Further concerning ldquodie besonders feierlich gestal-tete Athenaanrufungrdquo in 55 ldquoDer Dichter geht dabei in der vorgestellten Kultpersoneines Festordners ChorfuumlhrersHymnologenHierokeryx oder wie wir ihn nennenwollen scheinbar ganz aufrdquo

92 Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 57 ldquoLe locuteur nrsquoassume pas la position drsquoun aegravede maisplutocirct drsquoun maicirctre de ceacutereacutemonie qui adresse une seacuterie drsquoordres aux participant(e)s tout en leur donnant les signes de lrsquoeacutepiphanie imminente de la diviniteacuterdquo Cfalso Vamvouri Ruffy (2004) 219

93 Wolfram (2008) 141 (ldquoPriesterinrdquo) 144 (ldquoFestordnerinrdquo) 158 (ldquoweitgehend rekon-struiert werdenrdquo) 143 (ldquoKallimachosrsquo Sprecherin muszlig lsquojanuskopfartigrsquo im Torber-eich einer solchen Einfriedung stehenrdquo) 148 (ldquoDie Sprecherin allein ist es die dengenauen Zeitpunkt des Aufeinandertreffens bestimmtrdquo 149 (ldquoder wohlkalkulierteSinn der innerhalb der Logik eines Epiphanierituals einer solch ausgewachsenenRetardation zuwaumlchstrdquo) The hyper-realism of this approach is shown in hisattempt to calculate the time it would take to tell the story in 57-136 (almostseven minutes 148)

94 Cmp Erich Auerbachrsquos essay on Odysseusrsquo scar (Od 19393-466) where he arguesthat the digression relaxes the tension rather than creating suspense since the digres-sion fills the readerrsquos mind completely and the main narrative is temporarily forgot-ten (Auerbach (1946) 6-7)

95 Morrison (2007) 160-1 Heath (1988) 87 reaches a similar conclusion ldquoCallimachushas intentionally left the identity vague The poet has let his own identity blur withthe participant in his imaginary festivalrdquo

96 Cf n 3097 The proportion of verses without enjambment is the highest and that of verses with

necessary enjambment the lowest not only among Callimachusrsquo hexametricalhymns but also when compared to Homer the Hesiodic poems (TheogonyWorks and Days Shield) and the Homeric Hymns Cf McLennan (1977) 137 andRichardson (1974) 331

98 Hopkinson (1984) 35 referring to Fraser (1972) II 338 (n 86)99 For references and refutations see Hopkinson (1984) 37-39 Nor am I convinced by

the more recent attempt by Muumlller (1987) 77-87 to identify the topography of thetown depicted in the hymn as that of Cyrene

100 Wilamowitz (1924) II 29101 Wilamowitz (1924) II 26 Legrand (1901) 290 Hopkinson (1984) 35-6 warns that ldquowe

should not look for exact correspondences with known details of Attic ritual ndash theκάλαθος for instance is not known to have played a part in the Athenian Thesmo-phoriardquo I agree with his general observation but concerning the κάλαθος there is

GJERT VESTRHEIM

68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

iconographic evidence to support its use in the Athenian ritual Burkert (1985) 242(referring to Deubner (1932) 250 pl 35 nr 4) points out that ldquoon the CalendarFrieze the Thesmophoria are represented by a woman who carries a closed basketon her headrdquo

102 Burkert (1985) 242103 I follow Schneider and most subsequent editors (including Hopkinson) in putting

the question in parentheses This makes better sense as it is the women who arewaiting for the basket while its arrival can be of no consequence to HesperosHopkinson (1984) 87 refers to and refutes a third interpretation put forward byWilamowitz (1925-6) 238 who ldquowhile accepting the parenthesis made Hesperosthe subject of νεῖται (lsquoDurch Wolken lugt der Abendstern Wann endlich wirder leuchtenrsquo) but the tense of ἐσκέψατο suggests that the star has appeared onceand for allrdquo

104 Hopkinson (1984) 95 Sandin (2008) 19105 As it also does in Aetia fr 75 4-9106 Fuhrer (1988) The places in Pindar that she discusses and compares to Callimachus

are Ol 135f Ol 935-41 Ne 514-18 Ol 1391107 Due to a lacuna in 23 our text lacks the description of this third subject but the

lacuna must have contained a reference to the story of Erysichton which beginsin the following verse

108 Cmp The Homeric Hymn to Apollo 19-25 and 207-15109 The reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορέας is a conjecture (anon Bern and Th Bentley) sup-

ported byWilamowitz Bulloch et al Pfeiffer prints but marks as corrupt the manu-script reading τὰς δὲ τελεσϕορίας

110 βαρεῖαι which might mean ldquoheavy with agerdquo or ldquoheavy with childrdquo cf Hopkinson adloc but since both these meanings have already been covered Hopkinsonrsquos trans-lation ldquoafflictedrdquo seems to me the more probable

111 As Hopkinson has pointed out 136 resembles Sappho fr 104LP and he suggests thatthe anaphora of ϕέρε may be a traditional one Here however this anaphora is mixedwith another one of ϕέρβε and with a single instance of οἶσε

112 The prayer ἵληθ᾽ is used as a close in hHom 117 208 and 234 while in 3165 (endingthe Delphic part of the hymn) we find ἄγεθ᾽ ἱλήκοι Prayers are also used as closes inhHom 2 6 10 11 13 15 22 24 25 26 30 and 31

113 According to Hopkinson the ldquoframerdquo or ldquoritualrdquo consists of 1-23 and 116-38 thusleaving a narrative exactly twice the length of the frame (92 verses compared to 23+ 23 = 46) These 92 verses do make up the main narrative but I cannot agree thatall the remaing parts of the poem should be assigned to the mimetic frame Thereis no mention of the scene and the audience after 7 (the first person plural in 17refers solely to the narrator) while the return to the frame takes place at 118 ratherthan 116 since 116-7 consist of a closing prayer and gnome

114 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 ldquowas allgemein beobachtet werden muszligrdquo115 Hopkinson (1984) 3116 Wilamowitz (1924) II 24 Cf also 33 ldquoDie Prozession kommtrdquo117 Cmp the first verse of the Odyssey and the openings of the Homeric Hymns

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

118 Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 I cannot see any need to construe this single prayer the lastof a series as the words of another voice The use of the singular surely cannot be adefinitive argument as 116-7 is also in the singular

119 Some manuscripts have scribal supplements (ἄσατε δεῦρ᾽ ἴτε χαίρετε) while the editioprinceps has εἴπατε Schneider conjectures εἰ δ ᾽ ἄγε andWilamowitz ἄρχετε None ofthese imply any strong contrast between women and girls

120 Burkert (1985) 242 relates that ldquoin Mykonos the women citizens have access toDemeter without further ado but strangers are admitted only after an initiationrdquoThis however can hardly be the distinction that Callimachus had in mind sincein that case the ldquoinitiatesrdquo would have to be the foreigners while the locals wouldbe ldquouninitiatedrdquo in their own cult The point of such an initiation as at Mykonoswould be to admit the strangers to the festival not to give them a privileged status

121 Given by LSJ as the probable meaning of the word in another text122 Hopkinson (1984) 82123 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3124 Hopkinson (1984) 176125 Hopkinson (1984) 83 The reference is to Richardson (1974)126 The scholiastrsquos reading is rejected by Legrand but supported by others including

Wilamowitz (1924) II 25 n 1 For further references see Hopkinson (1984) 82127 Hopkinson (1984) 83 ldquoOur information on ancient hairstyles hardly bears out the

restriction of a particular style to a particular social or peer grouprdquo128 Hopkinson (1984) 178129 Hopkinson (1984) 79130 Legrand (1901) 290 n 3 considers the women with loose hair to be those who have

been fasting but who nevertheless ldquosont obliges agrave autant de reserve que le reste desβέβαλοιrdquo

131 The opposition between plane and recession is one of the key concepts of Woumllfflin(1915)

132 Boardman (1995) 11133 NatHist xxxiv 65

ReferencesAlbert Winfried (1988) Das mimetische Gedicht in der Antike Frankfurt aMAuerbach Erich (1946)Mimesis Dargestellte Wirklichkeit in der abendlaumlndischen LiteraturBern

Bassi Karen (1989) ldquoThe Poetics of Exclusion in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA119 219ndash231

Baumbach M A Petrovic and I Petrovic (eds) (2010) Archaic and Classical EpigramCambridge

Bing Peter (1993) ldquoImpersonation of Voice in Callimachusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo TAPhA123 181ndash198

Boardman John (1995) Greek Sculpture The Late Classical Period LondonBulloch A W (ed) (1985) Callimachus The fifth Hymn Cambridge

GJERT VESTRHEIM

70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Bundy Elroy L (1962) Studia Pindarica I BerkeleyBurkert Walter (1985) Greek Religion Cambridge MassCahen Eacutemile (1929) Callimaque et son oeuvre poeacutetique ParisCahen Eacutemile (1930) Les hymnes de Callimaque Commentaire explicatif et critique 1930Calame Claude (2005)Masks of Authority Fiction and Pragmatics in Ancient Greek Poeticstr Peter M Burk Ithaca and London

Cameron Alan (1995) Callimachus and His Critics PrincetonCouat Auguste (1882) La poeacutesie alexandrine sous les trois premiers ptoleacutemeacutees ParisCurrie Bruno (2004) ldquoReperformance Scenarios for Pindarrsquos Odesrdquo in Mackie (2004) 49-69

drsquoAlessio G B (1994) ldquoFirst-Person Problems in Pindarrdquo BICS 39 117ndash139drsquoAlessio G B (2004) ldquoPast future and present past Temporal deixis in Greek Archaiclyricrdquo Arethusa 373 267ndash294

Davies M (1988) ldquoMonody choral lyric and the tyranny of the hand-bookrdquo CQ 3852ndash64

Deubner Ludwig (1932) Attische Feste BerlinDonohue A A (1988) Xoana and the Origins of Greek Sculpture AtlantaErbse Hartmut (1955) ldquoZum Apollonhymnos des Kallimachosrdquo Hermes 83 411ndash428Falivene Maria Rosaria (1990) ldquoLa mimesi in Callimaco Inni II IV V e VIrdquo QUCCNS 36 103ndash128

Felson Nancy (1999) ldquoVicarious Transport Fictive Deixis in Pindarrsquos Pythian FourrdquoHSPh 99 1ndash31

Felson Nancy (2004) ldquoIntroductionrdquo in Felson (2004) 253-266Felson Nancy (ed) (2004) The Poetics of Deixis in Alcman Pindar and Other Lyric(Arethusa 373)

Fillmore C J (1997) Lectures on Deixis StanfordFraser P M (1972) Ptolemaic Alexandria I-II OxfordFriedlaumlnder Paul (1933) ldquoVorklassisch und Nachklassischrdquo in Jaeger (1933) 33-46Fuhrer Therese (1988) ldquoA Pindaric Feature in the Poems of Callimachusrdquo AJP 109 53ndash68Gentili Bruno (1988) Poetry and its Public in Ancient Greece tr A Thomas ColeBaltimore

Green Keith (1992) ldquoDeixis and the Poetic Personardquo Language and literature 1 121ndash134Harder M Annette (1992) ldquoInsubstantial voices Some Observations on the Hymns ofCallimachusrdquo CQ 42 384ndash394

Heath John R (1988) ldquoThe Blessings of Epiphany in Callimachusrsquo lsquoBath of PallasrsquordquoClassical Antiquity 7 72ndash90

Herter Hans (1931) ldquoKallimachosrdquo RE volsupp 5 StuttgartHopkinson N (ed) (1984) Callimachus Hymn to Demeter CambridgeHuumlbner U (1992) ldquoProbleme der Verknuumlpfung in Kallimachosrsquo Apllonhymnosrdquo Hermes120 280ndash290

Jaeger Werner (ed) (1933) Das problem des Klassischen und die Antike LeipzigJanko Richard (1982) Homer Hesiod and the Hymns CambridgeKleinknecht Hermann (1939) ldquoΛΟϒΤΡΑ ΤΗΣ ΠΑΛΛΑΔΟΣrdquo Hermes 74 300ndash350Lefkowitz Mary (1963) ldquoΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΓΩ The First Person in Pindarrdquo HSPh 67 177ndash253

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

Lefkowitz Mary (1988) ldquoWho Sang Pindarrsquos Victory Odesrdquo AJPh 109 1ndash11Lefkowitz Mary (1991) First-person fictions Pindarrsquos poetic ldquoIrdquo OxfordLefkowitz Mary (1995) ldquoThe First Person in Pindar Reconsidered - Againrdquo BICS 40NS 2 139ndash150

Legrand Ph-E (1901) ldquoProblegravemes alexandrins 1 Pourquoi furent composeacutees les hymnesde Callimaquerdquo Revue des eacutetudes anciennes 3 281ndash312

Levinson Stephen C (1983) Pragmatics CambridgeLevinson Stephen C (1992) ldquoDeixisrdquo International Encyclopedia of Linguistics I 343ndash344Oxford

Lesky Albin (1971) Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur 2 Aufl Bern and MunichLobel Edgar and Denys Page (eds) (1955) Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta OxfordMackie C J (ed) (2004) Oral Performance and its Context LeidenMcKay K J (1962) The Poet at Play The Bath of Pallas LeidenMcLennan G R (1977) Callimachus Hymn to Zeus RomeMorrison A D (2007) The Narrator in Archaic Greek and Hellenistic Poetry CambridgeMuumlller Carl Werner (1987) Erysichthon Der Mythos als narrative Metapher imDemeterhymnos des Kallimachos Mainz

Nisetich Frank (tr) (2001) The poems of Callimachus OxfordPage Denys L (ed) (1962) Poetae Melici Graeci OxfordParker Robert (1983) Miasma Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion OxfordPfeiffer Rudolf (ed) (1949-53) Callimachus I-II OxfordPfister M (1988) Das Drama MunichReitzenstein R (1906) Hellenistische Wundererzaumlhlungen LeipzigRichardson N J (1974) The Homeric Hymn to Demeter OxfordSandin Paumlr (2008) ldquoHerodotus Dionysus and the Greek death taboo The HomericHymn to Demeter and the construction of the lsquochthonicrsquo in Greek literary traditionrdquoSO 83 2ndash17

SchmidMichael J (1998) ldquoSpeaking personae in Pindarrsquos epinikiardquo Cuadernos de filologiaclasica Estudios griegos e indoeuropeos 8 147ndash184

Skiadas Aristoxenos D (ed) (1975) Kallimachos (Wege der Forschung 296) DarmstadtSlater W J (1969) ldquoFutures in Pindarrdquo CQ 19 86ndash94Snell Bruno (1975) Die Entdeckung des Geistes vierte neubearb Aufl GoumlttingenSteiner Deborah Tarn (2001) Images in Mind Statues in Archaic and Classical GreekLiterature and Thought Princeton and Oxford

Susemihl Franz (1891-2) Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit I-IILeipzig

Vamvouri Ruffy Maria (2004) La fabrique du divin Les Hymnes de Callimaque agrave lalumiegravere des Hymnes homeacuteriques et des Hymnes eacutepigraphiques Liege (KernosSupplement 14)

Vestrheim Gjert (2002) ldquoThe Poetics of Epiphany in CallimachusrsquoHymns to Apollo andPallasrdquo Eranos 100 175ndash183

Vestrheim Gjert (2010) ldquoVoice in sepulchral epigramsrdquo in Baumbach (2010) 61-78Vestrheim Gjert (2011) ldquoAD Morrisonrdquo The Narrator in Archaic Greek and HellenisticPoetry Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007rdquo AHBOR 1 14ndash16

GJERT VESTRHEIM

72

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012

West Martin L (ed) (1971-2) Iambi et elegi Graeci I-II OxfordWest Martin L (1975) ldquoCynaethusrsquo Hymn to Apollordquo CQ 25 161ndash70Wilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1924) Hellenistische Dichtung I-II 2 verb Aufl BerlinWilamowitz-Moellendorff Ulrich von (1925-6) Reden und Vortraumlge I-II Berlin

Williams Frederick (ed) (1978) Callimachus Hymn to Apollo OxfordWolfram Hartmut (2008) ldquoRaum und Zeit in Kallimachosrsquo Hymnos Auf das Bad derPallasrdquo Goumlttinger Forum fuumlr Altertumswissenschaft 11 135ndash160

Woumllfflin Heinrich (1915) Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe Muumlnchen

VOICE AND ADDRESSEE IN THE MIMETIC HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ite D

e Pa

ris

1] a

t 06

29 0

7 N

ovem

ber

2012