No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
‘Death’, Doxography, and the ‘Termerian Evil’ (Philodemus, Epigr. 27 Page = A.P. 11.30)*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
The text of this poem, already corrupt in the Palatine, has had a turbulent history over the last two centuries. Here is Page's version, the translation in Gow–Page, and my own somewhat expanded apparatus: I who in time past was good for five or nine times, now, Aphrodite, hardly manage once from early night to sunrise. The thing itself, – already often only at half-strength, – is gradually dying. That's the last straw. Old age, old age, what will you do later when you come to me, if even now I am as languid as this.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1991
References
1 Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L., The Greek Anthology. The Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams, i (Cambridge, 1968), p. 367.Google Scholar
2 Sider, D., ‘Notes on Two Epigrams of Philodemus’, AJP 103 (1982), 208–13Google Scholar; cf. pp. 211–13.
3 Gow–Page ii, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 399.
4 E.g. by Kaibel, quoted by Gow-Page: ‘iam ego uere patior Termerium illud malum’. They did not quote him further, but should have: ‘Nam non quoduis malum est Termerium sed quod quis ea corporis parte patitur qua antea peccauerat’, Philodemi Gadarensis Epigrammata, Index Scholarum in Universitale Litteraria Gryphiswaldensi per semestre aestiuom anni 1885 a die 15 mens. April. habendarum (Greifswald, 1885), p. 22.Google Scholar
5 Sider, op. cit. (n. 2), 212–13, and 213 n. 15 for parallels for a play on κεφαλή/φαλλός.
6 Sider, op. cit. (n. 2), 212.
7 Gow-Page, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 399. At A.P. 7.465.2 there is a clear vegetative metaphor at work, which is not the case here.
8 Sider, op. cit. (n. 2), 212.
9 Cf. Thuc. 1.64.2; 4.96.4; 7.79.5; Anaxagoras fr. 33 Diels-Kranz; Aristot. H.A. 692b15; at Prot. 329b4, Gorg. 449b8, and elsewhere, Plato uses it to describe the gradual progress of Platonic dialectic. The Ibycus (which produced the above examples) reveals that the phrase, rather rare before the Roman period, becomes very common in the medical writers and is often used to describe the gradual progress of disease, etc.
10 The Ibycus supports this, showing πολλάκις ἥδη frequently in Theognis, Euripides, Thucydides, Plato, Theophrastus, Menander, in the orators, and constantly in later Greek. When the cluster occurs (forming a single unit) with a post-positive particle, that particle always comes between the two adverbs (as here), and is never postponed to follow ἥδη: so πολλάκις μν ἥδη at Plato, Gorg. 508d5; Thuc. 3.37.1; Men. Perik. 267; Galen, , De sanitate tuenda 6.190Google Scholar; πολλάκις δ ἥδη at Theophr. Hist. Plant. 8.10.3; Arrian, Cyn. 16.3.1; Oppian, Halieut. 3.510; πολλάκις γάρ ἥδη at Gorgias T. 22 (Diels–Kranz); Plato, Gorg. 456bl; Dio Chrys. Orat. 15.12; Galen, de usupartium 3.157, 359, 900 (in each of these categories I have omitted further examples from later Greek).
11 The expression, which does not appear in Plutarch, is explained and defined aetiologically by Pausanias at 4.17.4: it was the fate of Neoptolemus, after killing Priam on the altar of Zeus Herkeios at Troy, to be slain himself by the altar of Apollo in Delphi. He concludes: κα π τοτου τ παθεῖν ποῖν τις κα ἒδρασε Nεοπτολμειον τσιν νομάζουσι. It is hard to say whether άπ τούτου is temporal (‘thenceforward’ – so the Loeb), temporal/causal (‘from this occurrence’), or even refers to Neoptolemus himself (‘they name it after him’). In fact, there may be more than one nuance to the words. I am evading the very difficult issue concerning competing versions and details of this myth, within the Pindaric corpus and elsewhere, since it does not directly affect the status of the proverb. On this subject, see Lloyd-Jones, H., ‘Modern Interpretation of Pindar: the Second Pythian and Seventh Nemean Odes’, JHS 93 (1973), 109–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. pp. 131–2; and most recently Woodbury, L., ‘Neoptolemus at Delphi: Pindar, Nem. 7.30ff.’, Phoenix 33 (1979), 95–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the matter will be treated by Rutherford, I. in a forthcoming book on Pindar's Paeans (Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
12 The Loeb so takes the phrase, and in this is supported by the following γάρ.
13 Most other references to Termerus or ‘Termerian trouble’ (Philippus of Theangela FGrHist 741 F 3 ap. Schol. Eur. Rhes. 509; Jul. Or. 7.210d; Lucian, Lex. 11; Suidas s.v. ερμειε; Paroem. Graec. i.162, ii.215) give no explanation, but in those instances which deal with the actual κακά, we are dealing with huge (though generally unspecified) problems or troubles, not punishments. For some other late references, not very relevant to the present discussion, see Türk, G., ‘Termeros’, RE 5A (1934), 731.Google Scholar
14 Dübner, (Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, ii [Paris, 1872], p. 364)Google Scholar quotes Jacobs for the correction τοτ’ αὐτ and the following explanation: ‘referas τοτ’ αὐτ ad ἔν: et illud unum momento temporis exiguo. Nam debiles uiri uel non possunt, uel, si forte possunt, rem breui tempore absoluunt, uix percepta et imperita uoluptate’. Jacobs, F. made the correction in his Animadversiones in Epigrammata Anthologiae Graecae 3.2 (Leipzig, 1803), p. 471Google Scholar (in the section ‘Addenda et Emendata’). In his edition of 1814 (Anthologia Graeca ad fidem codicis olim Palatini nunc Parisini ex apographo Gothano, ii [Leipzig, 1814], p. 328Google Scholar) he merely obelizes, οἳμοι κα τοτο *καταβραχ. And in his edition of 1794 (Anthologia Graeca sive Poelarum Graecorum Lusus ex recensione Brunckii, i [Leipzig, 1794], p. 73Google Scholar), as the title suggests, he had printed the text of Brunck, who accepted Reiske's φθίνει μοι κα τοτο.
15 Brunck, , however (Analecta Veterum Poetarum Graecorum, ii [Strasburg, 1773], p. 86)Google Scholar, printed φθίνει μοι κα τοτο καταβραχ. My colleague, Ian Rutherford, without awareness of these editions, had also thought τοτο τ ερμριον might be the subject of θνήισκει.
16 It was introduced in the sixth edition of 1869; Kaibel's edition, or more likely Paton's Loeb of 1918, led to the addition of ‘dub.’ after ‘membrum uirile’ in LSJ9 (1940).
17 G. Kaibel, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 21–2.
18 Cf. above, p. 131; Sider refers elsewhere to Kaibel, but does not address his objection to so taking the phrase.
19 Ovid's source is unmistakeable: 17–18 (‘quae mihi uentura est, siquidem uentura, senectus, cum desit numeris ipsa iuuenta suis?’) is virtually a translation of Philodemus' third distich, while the first and second are represented respectively by 23–6 (‘at nuper bis tlaua Chloide, ter Candida Pitho, ter Libas officio continuata meo est; exigere a nobis angusta nocte Corinnam, me memini numeros sustinuisse nouem’) and 65–6 (‘nostra tamen iacuere uelut praemortua membra turpiter hesterna languidiora rosa’). Cf. also Gow–Page ii, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 398–9.
20 For ‘pars pudenda’ (of which this is a poeticising) = ‘penis’, cf. Adams, J. N., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London, 1982), p. 45Google Scholar; also parlicula.
21 Kaibel, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 21.
22 For support he refers to various epigrams where there is no actual word for ‘penis’: A.P. 12.216 (Strato) where it is called ρθή (with πσθη or σάθη understood); 12.232 (Scythinus) ρθν νν ἕστηκας, νώνυμον;
23 No editor or commentator tells where Pauw published his emendation, and I have simply been unable to find the reference.
24 The instances were provided by the Ibycus. In two cases (A.P. 9.618.2, 680.4) we find τοτο τ λουτρν also beginning at the medical caesura of the hexameter, as the subject of a followin ἒχει.
25 The text is that of Beckby, accepted from the Palatine. The MSS of Theocritus have essentially a different poem, and Gow–Page, , The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams, i (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar print that version, as Gow did at Theocritus, i (Cambridge, 1965), p. 244Google Scholar = Epigr. 10 (with ννα for ἃνθετο and θήκε for τοτο). It looks as if we could be dealing even with two genuine but slightly different epigrams, and should not choose between the two.
26 The poem is assigned to Plato by Diogenes Laertius (3.33), while the Palatine has the lemma Mουσικίον, the Planudean Mουσικίον οἱ δ Πλάτωνος. Its relationship to Philodemus 27 is uncertain: cf. Reitzenstein, R., Epigram und Skolion (Giessen, 1893), p. 182Google Scholar ‘seinem Charakter nach könnte es sehr wohl erst um Beginn der Kaiserzeit oder kurz vorher entstanden sein’; id., ‘Plato s Epigramme’, NGG (Berlin, 1921), p. 54.Google Scholar
27 This is parallel in the rhythm it sets up, if not exactly in syntax, since δωνκατον is in fact a predicate adjective.
28 For parallel forms in -εριον, see Kretschmer-Locker, , Rücklaüfiges Wörterbuch der griechischen Sprache2 (Göttingen, 1963), p. 166Google Scholar: διφθριον, κρησριον, πατριον πτριον, and χριον, and th e Ibycus adds μητριον at Heliod. Aelh. 7.10.3.
29 Petersen, W., Greek Diminutives in -ιον (Weimar, 1910), pp. 173–8.Google Scholar
30 So Aristoph. Ach. 404–5 Eὐριπδη, Eὐριπδιον, ὑπάκουσον. Philostratus (Epist. Erot. 38) refers to the well-known Glycera of Menander as Гλυκριον and at Misog. fr. 280 Kö. Bentley suggested χαῖρ’ ὦ Гλυκριον where Priscian (18.251) has unmetrical χαῖρ’ ὦ γλκερα. Meineke and Körte, however, accept Porson's ὦ χαῖρε, Гλύκερα. On this type of diminutive, cf. Petersen, op. cit. (n. 29), p. 175. There is clearly flexibility in the formation of these diminutives which, given their intensely colloquial nature, must have been far more numerous than our surviving texts can indicate. Philodemus may even have formed it (without strict linguistic accuracy) after, e.g., ιμάριον (Meleager, Epigrr 59–62 Page), or παιδάριον, which occurs at [Plato] A.P. 9.39.4 in the same position, and with τοτο τό (for the chronological issue, see above, p. 134).
31 That is, if we accept, as many do, the suggestion of Friedrich, G. concerning the ‘Socration’ addressed in Cat. 47 (Catulli Veronensis Liber [Leipzig and Berlin, 1908], p. 228)Google Scholar: ‘Wir haben nach dem Wortlaut unseres Gedichtes keinen Grund, uns den Socration anders vorzustellen als den Philodemus von Gadara, der auch bei Piso in Macedonien war, Graecus facilis et ualde uenuslus (Cic. in Pis. 70)’. If this is so, then the name will have perhaps been for Catullus and his group a fine coterie nickname: ‘Little Socrates who was fond of nouns in -ιον’.
32 Given the nature of Greek society, we will not often find diminutives for ‘penis’; exceptions are found at Aristoph. Thesm. 254, 515 πόσθιον (where the actual diminutive force is also felt), and Clouds 197 πραγμάτιον (where the diminutive is perhaps more affectionate, ‘my little thing’); on these see Henderson, J. J., The Maculate Muse (New Haven and London, 1975), pp. 109, 116Google Scholar. Those who so wish will add to these two ληκύθιον, for the controversy on which see most recently and conveniently (with further bibliography) Henderson, J. J., ‘kωδάριον: a Reply’, Mnemosyne 27 (1974), 293–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Penella, R. J., ‘kωδάριον a Comment’, Mnemosyne 27 (1974), 295–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar. We could add μόριον (in Latin perhaps = ‘particula’, for which see Adams, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 45), which is properly if not effectively a diminutive, and Latin ‘mentula’ is also worth mentioning.
33 Trygonion is an interesting name, perhaps related to our subject. It means ‘little dove’ and has erotic associations: Epigr. 26 Page is a difficult poem, but Gow–Page accept Paton's view (rendered sensible by his emendation of μφ γυναικν to μιγυναίκων [another μι compound] in line 5) that is an epitaph for his Trygonion, an emasculated priest of Cybele (Gallus) who, when he was ‘alive’, ‘alone among the effeminates adored the Cyprian's rites and took to the seductions of a Laïs’ (trans. Gow–Page). Are we dealing with a ‘dove’ that has become reduced in the same way as Termerion in Epigr. 27? For columba = ‘penis’, cf. G. Giangrande ap. Howell, P., A Commentary on Book One of the Epigrams of Martial (London, 1980), pp. 122–3Google Scholar; Nadeau, Y., ‘Catullus' Sparrow, Martial, Juvenal and Ovid’, Latomus 43 (1984), p. 862Google Scholar; Thomas, R. F., ‘Sparrows, Hares and Doves: “Source Criticism” and the limits of plurality’Google Scholar (forthcoming issue of Helios on Catullan criticism).
34 In the name Mentula in Catullus 94, 105, 114 and 115, we perhaps have an inverted parallel for Termerion.
35 Virgil's reworking of the Homeric lines is tantalizing: Numanus Remulus' taunt of the Trojans at Aen. 9.617 (‘o uere Phrygiae, neque enim Phryges’) is set in the context of reminiscence of Cat. 63 and its treatment of the emasculation of Attis; cf. 617–18 ‘ite per alta Dindyma’ etc.
36 On the artistic desirability of such distinct repetition, see D. R. Shackleton Bailey on Horace's ‘rura…rura’ (Odes 4.5.17–18) in Profile of Horace (London, 1982), pp. 137–8.Google Scholar
37 In other poems treating impotence as the death of the penis, the death has actually occurred: Scythinus, A.P. 12.232 (νεκρòν πεκρμασο); Automedon, A.P. 11.29.3–4 ( πρìνκαμπἠς ζσα, νεκρά μηρν πσα δδυκεν ἓσω); here cf. the proximity of the language to that of Philodemus (ó πρíν / πρíν) – and the two epigrams are juxtaposed in the Anthology (11.29–30). For these, and for Latin parallels, including Ovid, Am. 3.7.65 ‘praemortua membra’ (above, n. 19), see Giangrande, G., ‘Catullus' Lyrics on the Passer’, Mus. Phil. Lond. 1 (1975), p. 140Google Scholar. I have suggested elsewhere (op. cit., n. 33) that in Meleager 65 Page ( = A.P. 7.207), where Phanion's hare uses θνἠισκω = τθνηκα, there may be an obscene level of the same sort. For in this sense see Gow-Page, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 374, on Leonidas of Tarentum 70.4; also Smyth (Greek Grammar) § 1887a.
38 OLD s.v. otherwise has only Sen. Con. 1.7.9; Apul. Met. 6.26, and the Ibycus adds only a second instance from Apuleius, Met. 1.14.6.
39 For Catullus' clear use of erotic language in Poem 50 (whether metaphorical or otherwise matters not for the present purposes), see most recently Burgess, D. L., ‘Catullus c. 50; the Exchange of Poetry’, AJP 107 (1986), 576–86.Google Scholar
40 Cf. Kroff, W., C. Valerius Catullus3 (Stuttgart, 1959), p. 60Google Scholar, where the connection to Ovid, Am. 3.7 is also made. I will perhaps be forgiven a sortée into the realm of the biographical fallacy if I note that Epigr. 27 is likely to have a lower terminus of c. 60 b.c. (since Philodemus, born c. 110, presents himself as not yet old; cf. 5–6), while Catullus' poetic production (even if Lesbia is Clodia Metelli and Poem 83 therefore predates the death of Metellus in 59) is confined to the decade of the 50s. From In Pis. 68–72 it is clear that Philodemus had produced a considerable corpus of epigrams by the year 55.