No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Emendations to Callimachus
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Pfeiffer accepts without hesitation Buttmann's correction 
, but Schneider (Callimachea, i. 353 ff.) has proved, with immense and unassailable erudition, that neither 
are touchable. Cahen, more prudently than Pfeiffer, leaves the lectio tradita
in the text, naturally with a crux.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1962
References
page 212 note 1 Cf. p. 213, note 1.
page 212 note 2 On 
‘saepissime cum adjectivis et adverbiis’ cf. Thes., s.v., 1989 D, 1990 C, and Passow5, s.v., 1, b. Whatever the explanation of the process (cf. Passow's discussion) 
in this construction came to mean ‘so very’, ‘so sehr’, where so is used emphatically, without an explicit correlative: in other words, 
has become the equivalent of 
adeo. In Epigr. 61. 1 Pf. 
, as rightly understood by Pfeiffer, means adeo: it is to be connected with 
(=‘not any longer so very fit’), as I have tried to demonstrate in Hermes xc (1962). This usage of 
is not unknown to Callimachus’ rival, Apollonius Rhodius, cf., e.g., Argon. 1. 296 
‘adeo vehementer’ Shaw, = 
scholiast ad loc. In our passage, 
means either ‘prorsus elinguis’, ‘so completely, utterly dumb’, or, if we prefer to supplement the correlation, ‘so dumb (as the goddess had just declared he would be)’. In the epigram quoted above the correlation would be, correspondingly, ‘so fit (as the Centaur was)’. Cf. also Hymn 4. 114 
(incidentally note the same Wortstellung as in Epigr. 61. 1, i.e. an adverb, 
, between 
and the adjective) = ‘always so very swift’, or ‘always so swift (as they are on the present occasion)’; in Aet. 1. 1. 16 Pf. 
probably means ‘so much sweeter’, or ‘so much sweeter (as the canons of art render diem)’, cf. 1. 17; for another way of supplementing the 
cf. Pfeiffer ad. loc. Cf. Theocr. 25. 80, Mosch. 4. 7 and 87.
page 212 note 3 ‘Prorsus elinguis’, Shaw. That one poet is echoing the other appears doubtless, as the lexical coincidences show: we cannot say, however, who is imitating whom. As is almost invariably the rule in such cases, variatio has been used in the process of imitatio: Callimachus used 
, whereas Apollonius preferred its synonym 
, which, coupled with an adjective (like 
, cf. L.S.J., s.v. 
III, i), had acquired precisely the same meaning as we have shown eS8e to have done: we might supplement ‘so elinguis (as he had become through fear)’. The semantic development in question, fully reached in Alexandrian Epic, is clear in the passages listed in Thes., s.v. 
, 2587 D: cf. in particular Rumpel, Lex. Theocr., s.v. 
, 2; add Nic, . Alex. 436,Google ScholarTher. 19, 278 and 420;Google ScholarOpp. Hal. 3. 469.Google Scholar For the post-Homeric usage of 
the article in L.S.J, is useless. Apollonius is, in the passage under discussion, more faithful to Homer dian Callimachus, because 
in Homer is coupled with negative adjectives 
; cf. Ap. Rh. Arg. 3. 805Google Scholar
, ‘effuse prorsus’ Shaw; 3. 1250 f., where the intensive 
is coupled with 
‘prorsus inflexibilis’, Shaw), whereas 
, in the sense ‘so sehr’, is used by Homer with verbs (cf. Capelle, , Wörterb. zu Hom., s.v.).Google Scholar Cf., however, Ap. Rh. Arg. I. 1290Google Scholar
(‘ita quietus’, Shaw), 3. 769 
(‘omnino quiete’, Shaw), 3. 53 
(‘after so long’; ‘longum adeo post’, Shaw). The adverb 
, lit. ‘tiius’, ‘like that’, developed its strengthening value (as opposed to its contrary meaning, = ‘merely’: for a parallel development of both senses in 
, strengthening and diminishing, cf. L.S.J., s.v. 
, III and IV) when coupled with verbs or adjectives which admitted of the interpretation ‘like that’, ‘thus’ ‘so sehr’, instead of ‘merely’. For example, Homer's 
(Od. 12. 284) could be taken to mean ‘noch so jung (wie er eben jetzt ist)’, i.e. a mere youth, or ‘ganz jung’, ‘völlig jung’, cf. Capelle, op. cit., s.v. 
; with verbs of feeling, 
‘thus’ could be taken to mean not only ‘frustra’, but also ‘so sehr’: in Arg. 2. 880Google Scholar either meaning would do, but in Arg. 3. 773Google Scholar the meaning ‘so sehr’ is clear (cf. Wellauer ad Arg. 2. 880:Google Scholar Apollonius is most likely to have read 
, and not 
, in II. 6. 55 and 21. 106.
page 213 note 1 I had at first thought that the tachy-graphical suprascript sign for ω, in 
, might have been simply left out by the copyist; but initial ω was not represented by ∼, cf. Lehmann, , Die tachygr. Abkürz., p. 36).Google Scholar In the Ptolemaic cursive, ωδ looked something like σσ: cf. specimens in Thompson, , Introd. to Gr. and Lat. Pal., Greek Cursive Alphabets, No 1 (facing p. 190).Google Scholar Another corruption in a Callimachean Hymn (3. 213) I have emended and shown to have originated in Ptolemaeic cursive in C.R. N.s. xii (1962).Google Scholar Such corruptions may well have arisen when the author's own manuscript in cursive was transcribed by professional copyists into the literary script.
page 213 note 2 This is the MSS. reading.
page 214 note 1 The word 
does not seem to mean anywhere, in Epic, ‘sinew’, but Mair doubtless based his argument upon Hom, . I1. 8. 328,Google Scholar where 
was taken by some as equivalent to 
(cf. L.S.J., s.v. 
, 5): Callimachus might well have wanted to show to us that he accepted this interpretation of the word in the Homeric line in question.
page 214 note 2 The image ‘he wasted to the sinews’ would be undeniably strange in itself.
page 214 note 3 
was already conjectured by Valkenaer, ‘qui et ipse statuit 
esse nervos et fere non diversas ab 
et propterea pro 
scripsit 
’ (Schneider, , op. cit. 386).Google Scholar
page 214 note 4 Cf., e.g., Ap. Rh. 2. 200 f. 
page 215 note 1 This etymology is attested in ancient lexicographers: in Et. M. 94. 17Google Scholar
refers to Iros, cf. Ebeling, Lex. Horn., s.v. 
.
page 215 note 2 Schneider's interpretation is accepted, however dubiously, in L.S.J., s.v. 
II. 2: but the aspect of 
is clearly punctiliar, and therefore the verb (or any of its compounds) could not be used of the process of swelling, which, in the case of Erysichthon's belly, cannot but have been a durative, slow one. The imperfect 
can only be explained (cf. the attestations of this tense in Veitch, Gr. Verbs 4, s.v. 
) as iterative (i.e. = ‘twitch, quiver, throb’). The sensitivity to the aspect of 
(and its compounds) remained clearly felt till late in Greek, cf., e.g., the iterative imperfect in Heliodorus 8. 9. 14 as opposed to the punctiliar aorists in 1.28.1; 3. 17. 2; 5. 8. 355. 22. 4; 5. 25. 1; 5. 32. 6; 7.21.2; 8.9. 16; 8. 11.3; 9.25. 1; 10.9.3; 10. 10. 1; 10. 16. 1.
page 215 note 3 Cf. L.S.J., s.v. 
Callimachus must have considered 
as a synonym of Hom. 
, which is used absolutely at Il. 15. 571;Google Scholar in other words, he derived 
.
page 215 note 4 After reaching this conclusion I have found that it had already been arrived at by Schaefer, cf. Thes., s.v. 
1538 B.
page 215 note 5 This expansion remained permissible in Epic until late: Nonnus, for instance, coined 
.
page 215 note 6 The same process is visible at 6. 68, where the general meaning of 
(‘unwearying’, L.S.J.; cf. in particular Capelle op. cit., s.v.), well illustrated by the words 
, is made more specific by 
, v. 67: Erysichthon was wretched, because he was ill. Callimachus is, of course, offering to us one of his Homeric interpretations: in certain Homeric attestations of 
he evidently recognized, within the general meaning ‘rastlos’, a more specific one, ‘elend’, cf. Capelle, loc. cit.
page 216 note 1 
Schol. Gr. in Hom. Il., ed. Dindorf, , iv. 274.Google Scholar
page 216 note 2 
, Schol. Townl., ed. Maas, , ii. 363.Google Scholar
page 216 note 3 One cannot help noticing their semantic connexion with Erysichthon's predicament (Od. 15. 407–8Google Scholar
; Il. 21. 463 ff.Google Scholar
. Callimachus is making use of the topos 
, as appears from 11. 66–67 
. Cf. the scholiast, on Od. 15. 407–8Google Scholar (= Schol. Gr. in Hom. Od., ed. Dindorf, , ii. 617)Google Scholar: 
(= Hes. Op. 241).Google Scholar
page 216 note 4 As 
can qualify adjectives.
page 216 note 5 All my quotations from Philo are according to Leisegang's Index (i.e. volume, page, and line of Cohn-Wendland's edition).
page 217 note 1 Much better are the articles in Thes. and in Pape-Sengebusch.
page 217 note 2 Quotations from the volumes of the series ‘Griech. christl. Schriftsteller’: Orig. 2. 280. 14 
2. 340. 
; Eus. I. 8. 18 
I. 204. 29 
(opp. to 
); 6. 179. 2 
6. 211. 29 
(conj. for 
) 
Clem. Alex. 2. 155. 12 
(opp. to 
, which is 
); Philo (in all the passages the adjective means ‘perishable’ as opposed to God's nature) 3. 132. 21 
Cf. also Boissonade, , in Eunap. p. 243Google Scholar (now add Philod, . Mart. 38Google Scholar
page 217 note 3 Cahen, (Callim. et son auvre poétique, P. 535) has best exemplified the poet's love for precision of diction, which at times became even trap grande.Google Scholar
page 217 note 4 This is the meaning of the adjective in the epigram as all interpreters have recognized (Cahen, Mair, Waltz). In this sense the adjective is not attested before Callimachus (cf. L.S.J., s.v., 2): cf. Cahen, op. cit. 492 and 500 f., for similar cases 
.
page 217 note 5 For such cases in the Hymns cf. Cahen, , op. cit. 491Google Scholar (
au sens physiologique’), 493 (
, words pertaining to the ‘vocabulaire scientifique d'Aristote’); cf. also pp. 491, 494, for words used by Callimachus and attested in Hippocrates or Galen.
page 218 note 1 For a list of passages in which the reader may find, as he pleases, coincidence or ‘versteckte Kritik’ between Apollonius and Callimachus, cf. Mair's, A. W. Introduction to his Loeb edition of Callimachus, p. 23.Google Scholar It will be noted that Apollonius used 
(Arg. 1. 1325),Google Scholar whereas Callimachus, if we follow the papyrus reading with Pfeiffer, preferred 
, the plural 
in the sense ‘human skin’, accepted by Apollonius on Homer's authority (Od. 5. 426, 435;Google Scholar 12. 46: cf. Capelle, op. cit., s.v.) is refused by Callimachus who employs the singular 
.
page 219 note 1 The meaning of 
in Callimachus has been clarified by Bentley, cf. Schneider, , op. cit. 423;Google Scholar cf. also Engl, streetwalker, Germ. Gassendirne, Ital. passeggiatrice. Bentley proposed 
for the much discussed 
in Epigr. 45. 1Google Scholar Pf.: the conjecture is palaeographically excellent 
: I cannot understand Schneider's misgivings in this respect, cf. his apparatus to Epigr. 46) and was indeed received into the text by Dübner, but cannot be accepted, as Schneider has shown, on account of Callimachus' own statement in Epigr. 28. 3Google Scholar Pf. Wilamowitz, as his punctuation implies 
, took 
as a vocative, but 
does not exist. Cahen prints 
(‘tu seras pris, tu peux fuir, Ménécrates’) and notes, on ‘tu peux fuir’: ‘texte et sens incertain’; Beckby rightly takes 
as a compound verb and renders ‘lauf nur, Menekrates, fort, ich krieg’ dich!’ Both these interpretations, whilst correctly understanding the nature of the imperative (see below), fail to clearly account for the preverb 
Pfeiffer admits: 
(sic AP) non intellego’. In reality, the text is sound, and 
is very aptly used by the poet. The verb 
implies a notion of escaping from a danger, cf., e.g., 
Pl. Lg. 677 B: Callimachus means ‘you may well go on fleeing (note the present imperative; Menecrates was a reluctant lover, not a 
from the 
(sensu erotico) which I am going to do to you: you will change your mind, and come to me’. The imperative, as Beckby and Cahen have seen, is concessive; the value of the preverb did not escape Mair, who, on the other hand, did not recognize the concessive nature of the imperative (‘flee and save thyself, Menecrates!’).
page 219 note 2 Women who, like Porphyris, , A.P. 6. 172,Google Scholar performed the Bacchanalia on the permitted religious dates were otherwise quite respectable bourgeois ladies. Agathias, , A.P. 6. 74, plays on the difference between the rites of Dionysus and those of Aphrodite.Google Scholar
page 220 note 1 Cf. Pfeiffer ad loc.: ‘tertius 
deesse videtur’ (italics mine); his laudable caution is not shared by Schneider (loc. cit.): ‘nemo satis attendit, quod mihi propter metrum carminis certissimum videtur, post v. 4 excidisse versum minorem’ (italics mine).
page 220 note 2 I think that 
is, in all probability, a pun on Aeschylus’ 
Dübner (in his commentary on A.P. 13. 24)Google Scholar has already drawn our attention to epithets like 
referred to things: one might add that 
(of a muzzle, A.P. 6. 246)Google Scholar is a most enlightening example. The specific mention of the 
was rightly felt as necessary by Callimachus (cf. A.P. 5. 199.Google Scholar 5 
, 6. 272. 2 
, cf. also 6. 201) because 
alone was ambiguous: cf. Waltz ad A.P. 6. 292.Google Scholar 1 and Bühler, , Hermes, Einzelschr. xiii. 117 f.Google ScholarOlivieri, (Epigrammatisti Greci, (Naples, 1949), p. 66)Google Scholar does not seem to know that the brassière-motif was common.
page 220 note 3 Either of Simon herself (cf. A.P. 6. 208,Google Scholar with Waltz's note) or of Aphrodite (as Schneider believes, cf. A.P. 9. 605).Google Scholar On the ‘miniatures obscenes, qu'on employait fréquemment comme ex-voto’, cf. Waltz on A.P. 6. 17.Google Scholar
page 220 note 4 There is no doubt amongst the commentators (Jacobs, , Animadv. i. 1. 387;Google Scholar Waltz and Beckby ad loc.; cf. also Crusius, , Untersuch. zu den Mim. des Her., p. 129, n. 3)Google Scholar that in A.P. 6. 21.Google Scholar 5 
means 
(on the 
motif cf. Lucian, , Amor. 28Google Scholar
Dial. Mer. 5. 4Google Scholar
cf. also, on 
omitted ‘ut 
’ by Herodas, Herzog's Index, s.v., in Crusius’ Teubner edition). In all probability 
in A.P. 16. 17.Google Scholar 1 (a licentious parody of A.P. 6. 13)Google Scholar denotes the same objects, cf. Waltz on the 
at A.P. 6. 37. 3.Google Scholar
page 220 note 5 The book is now the property of King's College Library.
page 220 note 6 The final syllable 
is long by position, as in Callim, . Epigr. 20. 3Google Scholar Pf., and Manetho, 3. 200.
page 221 note 1 The evidence offered by Hesychius 
is most important, and enables us to reconstruct the history of the gloss: the Coan word must have been picked up from the local dialect, and given literary dignity, by some poet living on, or familiar with, the island (Theocritus? Philitas? Herodas?), whom Callimachus is here echoing. 
was hastily dismissed as a ‘glossa corrupta’ in Thes., s.v., but today one rightly refrains from such hurried methods (cf. L.S.J., s.v.; Latte, in his edition of Hesychius, leaves the word unaltered; cf. also Lobeck, , Proleg., p. 36).Google Scholar An etymologically satisfactory explanation of the gloss is hardly possible: Schmidt (cf. his apparatus to Hesychius) wanted to emend it to 
taken in its proper sense, = ‘she-dragon'. If, as seems more probable, 
is, somehow, connected with 
taken in its metaphorical meaning (on 
of prostitutes cf. L.S.J., s.v.), since dissimilatory λ from ρ was not uncommon (cf., e.g., Thumb-Kieckers, Handb. griech. Dial. § 187. 25), may we think of Femassimilation 
followed by dissimilation 
page 221 note 2 We have already noted that A.P. 6. 17Google Scholar is a parody; cf. Waltz's Notice to the sixth book of the Anthology, in his Budé-edition, pp. 18 ff.
page 221 note 3 On the basis of Hesychius' 
(cf. Schmidt's note ad loc.) we might suspect that there existed a Nebenform 
(which had specialized in the obscene meaning?) and leave 
unchanged in the text; but, since cases of erroneous spelling like 
are attested in papyri (v. L.S.J., s.v.) it is better to correct 
.
page 221 note 4 The origin of the corruption is not difficult to explain: in the group 
, the syllable 
was ligatured, and 
was misread as 
; confusion between 
and η is of course common.
page 221 note 5 Cf. in particular Krüger-Pökel, , Griech. Sprachlehre, i. 25 (Leipzig, 1873), P. 111Google Scholar (= § 50. 8 Anm. 4): 
the treatment of adverbs used attributively is not satisfactory in Kühner-Gerth, i. 594. 6. Excellent treatment of attributive uses in general in Svensson, A., Der Gebrauch des bestimmten Artikels in der nachklassischen griechischen Epik (Lund, 1937).Google Scholar
page 221 note 6 The 
were not only used by respectable ladies, as Herodas vi shows, and by Lesbians, 
(Lucian, , Amor. 28;Google ScholarDial. Mer. 5),Google Scholar but they appear to have been very popular amongst prostitutes, most probably because these, no longer being able to derive any personal pleasure out of their intercourse with clients equipped with normal-sized membra, sought a remedy by procuring abnormally large 
. On the fact that such articles could be ordered to measure Aristophanes plays with his 
on the use of 
by ‘Hetären’ (who oiled their instruments, in order to facilitate an otherwise difficult insertion), cf. in particular Licht, H., Sittengesch. Griech. ii. 30;Google ScholarErgänzungsbd., p. 39 f., 182,Google Scholar cf. also p. 249; cf. Kraiker, , Jahrb. d. arch. Inst, xliv (1929), 174.Google Scholar
page 222 note 1 On such calembours—frequent in the Anthology generally—cf., for Callimachus' epigrams, Cahen's edition, p. 132, n. 2, and p. 136, n. 1.
page 222 note 2 Both 
meant primarily ‘frame of wicker-work’; there was semantic coalescence also in certain specialized meanings (cf., e.g., L.S.J., s.v. 
, II ‘eyelashes’, and s.v. 
, II, 6).
page 222 note 3 We cannot of course rule out the eventuality that 
as well, alongside 
, had acquired the specialized obscene sense = 
: certain of its known specialized meanings (e.g. L.S.J., s.v., II. 4 and 5) are attested only once.
page 222 note 4 On the various designations of the 
cf. Headlam-Knox on Herodas 6. 19.
page 222 note 5 On 
cf. the statements of ancient etymologists: Et. Gud., s.v. 
; Et. Magn., s.v. 
; Hesychius, s.v. 
, 441–2 Schmidt; ‘Suidas', s.v. 
; Orion, p. 42. 24 Sturz (the most accurate, cf. L.S.J., s.v. 
, v). There is no doubt, I think, that 
sensu obscaeno meant primarily, and with extreme probability exclusively, the 
. The ancient lexicographers, connecting 
. with leather shields and tents, explain its obscene meaning as 
: if applied to female genital organs, this would be nonsense (cf. the clumsy explanations attempted in Et. Gud. and Et. Magn.), whereas the meaning 
fits the 
perfectly (cf. Larcher's note on Orion, loc. cit., and Crusius, , Philol. Supplementb. vi [1893], 284);Google Scholar if we accept the modern etymological explanation of the obscene sense (from 
= pole, stake: v. L.S.J., s.v. 
, V; Frisk, Griech. Etym. Wörterb., s.v.; Olivieri on Epich., fr. 174 = 235 Kaibel [to the evidence add 
from Et. Magn., s.v. 
, and 
from Eust, . Od. 22. 184Google Scholar = ii, p. 278 ed. Weigel]) this also fits the 
admirably. The confusion with the female genital organ apparent in Et. Magn., Et. Gud., Hesychius, Eustathius, loc. cit., and App. Prov. i. 72Google Scholar (= i. 390. 15 Leutsch-Schneidewin) can be explained either as a subsequent extension in the use of the word, or, much more plausibly, as a mistake of the lexicographers, who—except for the more accurate Orion!—were misled by the fact that exclusively women used the 
. Perhaps 
were really dedicated in temples: cf. the statement in App. Prov., loc. cit., which is supported by Petronius, , Sat. 138;Google Scholar cf. Crusius, , Untersuch. zu den Mim. des Her., p. 128.Google Scholar