No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Callimachus and Conopion1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In his monumental edition of Callimachus, R. Pfeiffer has questioned the authenticity of three epigrams. More than fifty years ago U. v. Wilamowitz- Moellendorff had rejected Ep. 33 and Ep. 36 4; but Pfeiffer seems to be the first critic to exclude Ep. 63 (= Anth. Pal. 5. 23) from the collection of Callimachus' epigrams. Although he sets forth his objections in a long footnote, none of the reviewers has so far discussed this point.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1956
References
page 225 note 2 Callimachus, edidit Pfeiffer, R. (Oxford, 1953), ii. 81, 90, 99.Google Scholar
page 225 note 3 In his third edition of the epigrams (1907), 8; as an imitation of Hegesippus, , Anth. Pal. 7. 320;Google Scholar but the last editor of the Greek Anthology, Waltz, P., maintains its authenticity, Anth. Gr. iv (1938), 190.Google Scholar
page 225 note 4 Wilamowitz, , Hermes (1877), 346;Google ScholarHellen-istische Dichtung, i (1924), 133,Google Scholar n. 3; but A. S. F. Gow, on Theocr. Id. 5. 106 and Ep. 22. 2 attributes it to Callimachus.
page 225 note 5 Herter, H., Gnomon (1954), 76;Google ScholarRostagni, A., R.F.I.C. (1954), 191 f.,Google ScholarBarber, E. A., C.R. (1954), 228.Google Scholar
page 225 note 6 Editio princeps by Ianus Lascaris (1494).
page 225 note 7 Editio princeps by Ph. Brunck, Anal. Vet. Poet. Gr. (1772 ff.), see Pfeiffer, , op. cit. p. xciv.Google Scholar
page 225 note 8 It is not absolutely certain whether this epigram is spurious, above, n. 3.
page 225 note 9 Geffcken, J., R.E., Suppl. v (1931),Google Scholar col. 841 takes Palladas' authorship for granted; Peek, W., R.E. xxxvi (1949), col. 160 leaves the question open.Google Scholar
page 225 note 10 Geffcken, , loc. cit., see below, p. 91, n. 11.Google Scholar
page 225 note 11 Geffcken, loc. cit.; Weinreich, O., Würzb. Jbb. für die Altertumswissenschaft (1946), 116;Google ScholarSmall, S. G. P., Yale Class. Studies (1951), 100; 112; see below, p. 91, n. 1.Google Scholar
page 226 note 1 ‘Planude avait plus d'ingeniosité que d'exactitude’, Waltz, Anth. Gr. i (1928), p. 1;Google Scholar Planudes' anthology is based on the collection of Constantine Cephalas, but not on our manuscript of that work (Heidelberg. Gr. 23 + Paris. Suppl. Gr. 384), Wendel, C., R.E. xl (1950), col. 2236.Google Scholar
page 226 note 2 Call. Ep. 46. 6.
page 226 note 3 Wilamowitz, , Hellen. Dicht. i (1924), 171.Google Scholar
page 226 note 4 e.g. Anth. Pal. 5. 9; 12; 14; 22; 27, etc.
page 226 note 5 Similar names formed with the prefix Rhodo are often literary fiction, see Barigazzi, A., Rendic. 1st. Lomb. lxxv (1941–1942), 429.Google Scholar
page 226 note 6 On his theory of style in eeneral see Reitzenstein, E., Festschr. R. Reitzenstein (1931), 23 ff.Google Scholar
page 226 note 7 But 
(passim) and 
(Ep. 48. 6), 
(Ep. 32. 2) occur; as in Ep. 63, the last word is used proverbially (cf. Plato, Rep. 8. 563 d; Cic. ad Att. 6. 9. 3).
page 226 note 8 e.g. Ep. 25. 5 f. 
, Ep. 8. 6 
, etc.
page 226 note 9 Or Meleager? (Geffcken, , R.E. xxix [1931], col. 483),Google Scholar but Bickel, E., Paideia (1952), 272,Google Scholar follows the attribution of the MS. and ascribes it to Philodemus.
page 226 note 10 Recently dated by Keydell, R., Hermes (1952), 500 around A.D. 100.Google Scholar
page 227 note 1 Geffcken, , Jbb. Phil. Suppl. xxiii (1897), 65;Google ScholarR.E. xxiv (1925),Google Scholar col. 2029; Knauer, O., Asklepiades von Samos (Diss. Tübingen, 1933), 44.Google Scholar
page 227 note 2 This is, to use the proper rhetorical term, not only Anadiplosis, but also Polyptoton; a similar arrangement is found in Meleager, , Anth. Pal. 5. 171.Google Scholar
page 227 note 3 ‘Bucolic’ repetition is found in Ep. 22. 3, see Pfeiffer's note on Fr. 27. 1; a well-known example of this technique is Sappho, Fr. 120 D.2 (cf. Demetr. Phal. De Eloc. 146).
page 227 note 4 The terminology of this epigram suggests a parody on the Stoic distinction between 
and 
, see Kaibel, G., Hermes (1897), 267 f.;Google ScholarHoelzer, V., De Poesia Amat. a Com. Att. Exculta (1899), 59 f.Google Scholar Its final line, v. 6 
reminds one of the Antanaklasis in Ep. 51.4 
page 227 note 5 Knauer, , op. cit. 44.Google Scholar
page 227 note 6 P. Maas in Gercke-Norden, , Einleit. in die Altertumswissenschqft, i (1927), fasc. 7, pp. 22–32Google Scholar and ‘Nachträge’, 8 f.; on the metric of Callimachus' epigrams in particular see the observations of Müller, K., Die Epigramme des Antiphilos von Byzanz (1935), 22 ff.Google Scholar
page 227 note 7 Maas, ibid. 30 f.; Herter, H.: R.E. Suppl. v (1931), col. 444 f.Google Scholar
page 227 note 8 Norden, E., P. Vergilius Maro, Aeneis, Buch VI 3 (1934), 422.Google Scholar
page 228 note 1 A similar example is Anyte, Anth. Pal. 7. 202. 3; on this epigram see Luck, G., Museum Helveticum (1954), 179 f.;Google Scholar on the metrical problem Herrlinger, G., Totenklage um Tiere in der antiken Dichtung (1930) 18;Google ScholarKnauer, op. cit. 43.Google Scholar
page 228 note 2 e.g. Hy. 4. 156 
page 228 note 3 Fr. 43. 62 
(see Pfeiffer's note), and Hy. 5. 61 
hiatus would be improbable in an elegiac poem, see Pfeiffer's note and his re marks Add. ad vol. II, p. 125.Google Scholar
page 228 note 4 Ep. 62. 2, Hy. 5. 71 and perhaps Fr. 43. 62 (above, n. 3), see Pfeiffer's note on Fr. 535.
page 228 note 5 Anth. Plan. 7. 139 = Anth. Pal. 5. 19; Anth. Pal. 5. 22 = Anth. Plan. vii. 147.
page 228 note 6 Anth. Plan. 7. 141 = Anth. Pal 5. 35. 9 f. (vv. 1–8 omitted verecundiae gratia); Anth. Plan. 7. 142 = Anth. Pal. 5. 36, etc.
page 228 note 7 An interesting case is discussed by Boas, M., Rhein. Mus. (1907), 68 ff.,Google Scholar but his con clusions are not valid, see Luck, G., op. cit. 173;Google Scholar on this type of error in general Waltz, P., op. cit., p. li,Google Scholar n. 4 who quotes our epigram as an example.
page 228 note 8 Geffcken, , N. Jbb. (1917), 103,Google Scholar n. 1; Luck, , op. cit. 170 f.Google Scholar
page 228 note 9 This imitator tried to cover his lack of originality by the artificial position of words in v. 4, cf. Leon. Tar. Anth. Pal. 6. 154; Knauer, , op. cit. 40;Google Scholar and in general Norden, , op. cit. 393–8.Google Scholar
page 228 note 10 Luck, , op. cit. 173.Google Scholar
page 228 note 11 Ibid.
page 228 note 12 The antithesis Hades–Hymenaeus: see Anth. Pal. 7. 486; 490; 649.
page 229 note 1 But Rufinus does not like girls who use perfume, see Anth. Pal. 5. 18, and only in Marcus Argentarius do we find the metony-mical use of 
see Anth. Pal. 5. 113; 118; Weinreich, loc. cit., for another example see below, n. 11.
page 229 note 2 On this type of poem see Copley, F. O., T.A.P.A. (1942), 96 ff.;Google ScholarMaas, P., R.E. xxxvi 2 (1949), col. 1202;Google Scholar Maas, incidentally, does not question the Callimachean author ship of our epigram.
page 229 note 3 See in general Knauer, , op. cit. 20;Google ScholarWilhelm, A., Wiener Studien (1949), 140 f.;Google ScholarSmall, , op. cit. 118;Google ScholarLa Penna, A., Athenaeum (1949), 152,Google Scholar and add to their lists Anth. Pal. 12. 160 (anon.).
page 229 note 4 Call. Fr. 195. 22 (see Dawson, C. M., A.J.P. 1946, p. 14;Google Scholar 27) 
perhaps summing up a series of obscure threats is a rather distant and inconclusive parallel.
page 229 note 5 Anth. Pal. 5. 21; 27; 74; 76; 103. The image of the grey hair is characteristic for Rufinus, see Anth. Pal. 5. 21 (an imitation of Strato, Anth. Pal. 12. 229, see Keydell, , op. cit. 499);Google Scholar 76; 103.
page 229 note 6 Weinreich, O., Die Distichen des Catull (1926), 53 ff.Google Scholar with a list of similar ‘Hassepigramme’.
page 229 note 7 Boas, M., Philol. (1914–1916), 15 f.Google Scholar and others have attributed this epigram to Honestus, but see Keydell, loc. cit.
page 229 note 8 Call. Ep. 43; Asclep., Anth. Pal. 12. 35.
page 229 note 9 See above, p. 89, n. 4.
page 229 note 10 On this parallel see Leo, F., Plautinische Forschungen 2 (1912), 155.Google Scholar
page 229 note 11 See Waltz, P., Anth. Gr. ii (1928), 46,Google Scholar n. 3. The same motif appears in Anth. Pal. 5. 95. 1, an epigram which Planudes, no doubt be cause he noticed this resemblance, attributes to Rufinus; this is another striking example of a ‘learned’ conjecture proved wrong (Geffcken, , loc. cit. [n. 8]).Google Scholar
page 230 note 1 Totum carmen ceteris Rufini epp. in AP servatis paulum praestare mihi videtur (Pfeiffer, ad loc.).