Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:45:41.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Callimachus, Conon and Ptolemy: an Alexandrian epigram between geography and astronomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2024

Filippomaria Pontani*
Affiliation:
Ca’ Foscari University, Venice
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A neglected, anonymous and undated epigram on the world map of Ptolemy’s Geography, here critically edited for the first time on the basis of all existing manuscripts, proves a rare case of reception of Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice, with an emphasis on the bonds between geography and astronomy, and with so-called ‘geographical astrology’. It may stem from Late Antique Alexandria.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies

I. A neglected epigram on Ptolemy’s Geography

Ptolemy’s Geography has inspired a handful of Greek epigrams, among which no less than five by the great scholar Maximos Planoudes († ca. 1305), who famously rediscovered the Geography in Byzantium;Footnote 1 hardly any of these, however, are transmitted in manuscripts alongside Ptolemy’s text itself.Footnote 2 The sole exception is a seven-line poem that, like Planoudes’ epigrams 6–8 Taxidis, celebrates a geographical diagram of the world.

This hexameter text, which has attracted virtually no scholarly attention,Footnote 3 appears at the end of no less than 25 manuscript witnesses of Ptolemy’s Geography, all obviously later than Planoudes, and belonging to seven different families of the so-called Ω recension in Schnabel’s classification.Footnote 4 Below I present the text (admirably and consistently preserved in the older manuscripts, and therefore in no need of a proper apparatus criticus),Footnote 5 a working translation and a list of the manuscript witnesses.

Ἐν γραμμαῖς τὸν κόσμον ἀριθμηθέντα νόησον·

ἄρκτους, ὠκϵανόν, δύσιν, ἀντολίην τϵ νότον τϵ,

χϵῖμα, θέρος, φυσικάς τ᾽ ἀτραποὺς σκολιάς τϵ κϵλϵύθους,

Αἰθίοπάς τ᾽ ἀδρανϵῖς, Γϵρμανῶν δύσμορα φῦλα,

Σαυρομάτας χοίροισιν ἐοικότας ἠδὲ καὶ αὐτῆς

αἰνομόρου Σκυθίης χαλϵπὸν γένος, ἄχρις ἐς ἠῶ

Ἰνδῶν τϵ Σηρῶν τϵ· τὸ γὰρ πέρας ἀντολίης γῆς.

Behold the world arithmetically disposed in a diagram:

the Bears, the Ocean, the Sunset, the Sunrise and the South,

the winter, the summer, the natural roads and the winding paths,

the weak Aithiopians, the unlucky tribes of the Germans,

the Sarmatians similar to pigs, and the rude race

of doomed Scythia, all the way to the dawn

of the Indians and the silk people, for that is the limit of the eastern land.

The families and manuscripts are:Footnote 6

- α: v = Londiniensis Burney 111, fol. 114r (late 14th century, Constantinople), and its apograph A = Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 388, fol. 149v (1435–1437, Constantinople); likely from A (the codex used by Erasmus for the editio princeps of the Geography in 1533) derives the copy of the epigram in fol. 22r–v of Vaticanus Barberinianus Graecus 74, a collection of Byzantine poetry compiled by the erudite Vatican librarian Leone Allacci in the 17th century;

- ζ: Z = Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 314, fol. 223r (1460–1470, Crete: Michael Apostolis), its apograph E = Parisinus Graecus 1403, fol. 225v (1472–1473, Crete: Michael Apostolis) and E’s apograph H = Parmensis Palatinus 9, fol. 205r (post-1473, Crete: Antonios Damilas);Footnote 7

- κ: K = Istanbul, Seragliensis G.I.57, fol. 122r (fragmentary) (1295–1303, Constantinople);

- ν: f = Parisinus Coislinianus 337, fol. 264r (early 14th century, Constantinople);

- ρ: C = Parisinus Supplementi Graeci 119, fol. 231v (early 14th century, Constantinople); V = Vaticanus Graecus 177, fol. 240v (early 14th century, Constantinople) and its apograph p = Marc. Gr. 388, fol. 101r (ca. 1453, Italy: John Rhosos); R = Marcianus Graecus 516, fol. 116r (14th century: Andreas Telountas); other possible members of this family (but the philological evidence is too slim) may be Scorialensis Graecus Ω.I.1, fol. 182r (anno 1523, Carpi: Donato Bonturellio) and Bodleianus Laudianus 52, fol. 77r (anno 1568, Venice: Antonios Episkopoulos);Footnote 8

- ψ: U = Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 82, fol. 110v (1295–1303, Constantinople), its apograph d = Laurentianus Conventi soppressi 626, fol. 104v (ante 1434, Florence), d’s apographs m = Vindobonensis historicus Graecus 1, fol. 98v (anno 1454, Florence: John Scoutariotes) and D = Parisinus Graecus 1402, fol. 71v (15th century, Florence: John Scoutariotes), as well as m’s apograph Bodleianus Archivi Seldeniani B 45, fol. 176v (anno 1482, Buda: John Athesinos);Footnote 9

- ω: O = Laurentianus 28.49, fols 110v–111r (early 14th century, Constantinople), its three apographs s = Ambrosianus D 527 inf., fols 89v and 2v (ca. 1361–1381, Constantinople), S = Laurentianus 28.9, fol. 132r (early 15th century, Florence) and Vaticanus Reginensis Graecus 82, fol. 166v (early 16th century, Rome?: Michael Rhosaitos); S in turn has two apographs, B = Laurentianus 28.38, fol. 177v (early 15th century, Florence) and P = Laurentianus 28.42, fol. 147v (anno 1445, Florence: Demetrios Kykandyles); finally, codex Vaticanus Barberinianus Graecus 163, fol. 231v (15th century, Florence: John Scoutariotes) is an apograph of B.Footnote 10

In a number of manuscripts the epigram is written as prose, with no distinction of lines, although they are mostly separated by dots. A title, στίχοι ἡρωϊκοὶ ϵἰς τὴν Πτολϵμαίου Χωρογραφίαν, ‘Hexameters on Ptolemy’s Chorography’ (but manuscript R gives Γϵωγραφίαν, ‘Geography’, probably a learned conjecture by Andreas Telountas) appears in just two of the families (α and ρ; family ζ has στίχοι ἡρωϊκοί), and is probably secondary: the term χωρογραφία rather than γϵωγραφία is particularly absurd in light of the discussion on the disciplines of learning in Ptol. Geog. 1.1 (and of the title unanimously transmitted by manuscripts Γϵωγραφικὴ Ὑφήγησις, ‘Geographical Instruction’), but it corresponds to what we find in the 12th-century scholar John Tzetzes.Footnote 11

More importantly, in virtually all manuscripts the epigram either immediately follows (ψ and manuscript C) or, more commonly, precedes (α, κ, ν, ρ, ω) the hotly debated subscription by a mysterious Alexandrian engineer named Agathodaimon, who presents himself as the producer of a world map:

ἐκ τῶν Κλαυδίου Πτολϵμαίου γϵωγραφικῶν βιβλίων ὀκτὼ τὴν οἰκουμένην πᾶσαν Ἀγαθὸς Δαίμων Ἀλϵξανδρϵὺς μηχανικὸς ὑπϵτύπωσα.Footnote 12

I, the engineer Agathodaimon from Alexandria, drew the entire oikoumenē on the basis of the eight books on geography by Klaudios Ptolemaios.

This world map must be the same one for whose production instructions are given by Ptolemy in Geography 7.5–7.Footnote 13 Given that our epigram evidently describes a world map, and that it consistently features in close proximity to a subscription referring to the ὑποτύπωσις (‘template’) referred to by Ptol. Geog. 7.4.14,Footnote 14 one may well surmise that the two texts originally went hand in hand (their respective positions may vary, as in ψ and C, but their proximity is a constant). Agathodaimon cannot be dated with any degree of precision, but he certainly lived prior to Alexandria’s fall to the Arabs (641), most likely some time between the third and the fifth century CE.Footnote 15 A date in late antiquity is also entirely compatible with the metrical facies of the epigram,Footnote 16 as well as with its linguistic features (see below sections IIIII);Footnote 17 indeed, it ties in well with the taste for hexameter (rather than elegiac) that surfaces in Greek epigrammatic poetry in the third century CE.Footnote 18 But whereas exact date and authorship of this ‘traditional allographic paratext’Footnote 19 are bound to remain obscure, the epigram’s literary texture, with its undeclared but unmistakable Alexandrian flavour, has more to tell.

II. Callimachean intertexts

The topos of ‘seeing’ is common in connection with Ptolemy’s world map: it represents, for instance, the thematic backbone of Planoudes’ epigrams 4 and 6. In line 1 of our epigram, Ἐν γραμμαῖς τὸν κόσμον ἀριθμηθέντα νόησον, however, the occurrence of the locution ἐν γραμμαῖς together with a verb of seeing (the imperative νόησον, which also implies a wider act of ‘perception’, ‘understanding’, that may spill over to the deeper comprehension of Ptolemy’s own text, see, for example, νόησον in Aristotle, Problema bovium 11) unmistakably conjures up a ‘parody’ of the famous incipit of Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice (Aitia 4, fr. 110.1 Pf. = 110.1 Harder = 213.1 Massimilla):

Πάντα τὸν ἐν γραμμαῖσιν ἰδὼν ὅρον ᾗ τϵ φέρονται …

Having observed the whole sky divided in lines, and the movements …

Miraculously preserved by a quotation in the Milan papyrus of the Diegeseis (P.Mil.Vogl. I.8, col. V.40; first published in 1934), this verse is the only extant line from the proem to the Lock, itself entirely lost except for two lines (commonly identified as lines 7–8) quoted by the scholia to Aratus’ Phainomena (scholia in Aratum 146, p. 147.15 Martin = fr. 110.7–8 Pf. = 110.7–8 Harder = 213.7–8 Massimilla):Footnote 20

†η† μϵ Κόνων ἔβλϵψϵν ἐν ἠέρι τὸν βϵρϵνίκης

βόστρυχον, ὃν κϵίνη πᾶσιν ἔθηκϵ θϵοῖς.

Conon saw me in the sky, the lock of Berenice

which she dedicated to all the gods. (tr. Harder (Reference Harder2012) 1.289)

Even if the exact wording of these lines has sometimes been called into question,Footnote 21 we can be relatively sure that the speaking lock of Berenice’s hair opened this aition by narrating how it had been discovered in the sky (ἔβλϵψϵν ἐν ἠέρι) by the Alexandrian astronomer Conon of Samos, who had previously seen (ἰδών) the entire heavenly vault (τὸν ὅρον) in a diagram (ἐν γραμμαῖσιν).Footnote 22 Modern translations are not always clear on this point,Footnote 23 and it is true that ἐν γραμμαῖσιν (a reference to the lines dividing the sky into regions and connecting stars on charts)Footnote 24 might be taken either with ἰδών (as opposed to ἐν ἠέρι in line 7: this is clearly the way our epigrammatist also understands it in his imitation) or, in a more obvious if semantically less satisfying syntax, as an attribute of τὸν ὅρον:Footnote 25 in either case, the fact remains that Callimachus started his elegiac poem by praising Conon’s activity as a map-maker of the sky.

As can be gleaned from the comparison with Catullus’ poetic translation of the Lock in his carmen 66,Footnote 26 the opening lines of Callimachus’ aition (the extant line 1 and the lost 2–6) were devoted to the presentation of Conon’s astronomical wisdom, clad in a clever effect of suspense that illuminates his ‘savoir total’:Footnote 27 that our epigram on Ptolemy’s Geography uses a similar number of lines (7) to celebrate the extraordinary achievement of another Alexandrian scientist might thus not be entirely the fruit of chance. Above all, if we consider the blend of ‘scientific and mythical allusion’,Footnote 28 we can see that in Catullus 66 (and so in Callimachus?) lines 2–4 of the poem list the natural elements studied by Conon (constellations, solar eclipses, parapēgmata, all topics on which Conon had written important treatises known to Ptolemy and more widely in the Imperial age)Footnote 29 and then lead on to the myth of Selene (the moon) and Endymion in the following couplet. So, too, lines 2–3 of our epigram list the cardinal points and the geographical elements to be found in Ptolemy’s map, and then lines 4–7 introduce by name certain populations that can be traced and found on the same map. It is particularly interesting that precisely the same combination of astronomy and mythology (as a pivotal part of Aratus’ didactic poetry and of the Alexandrian pairing of literature and science) lies at the heart of the intertextual appropriation of the Lock’s incipit recently detected by Richard Hunter in two first-century inscribed poems from Tenos and Corcyra.Footnote 30

For those lacking the skill and self-confidence of Joseph Scaliger and Eric Arthur Barber,Footnote 31 it is hard to speculate as to what line 2 of Callimachus’ Lock may have looked like, particularly given the uncertainty about the correlative implied by τϵ in line 1 (another object of ἰδών in the accusative, another participle coordinated with ἰδών, for example ϵὑρών or Barber’s δαϵίς, as in Catull. 66.2 comperit?).Footnote 32 Still, it is highly probable that the subject of φέρονται was ἀστέρϵς or ἄστρα, and that like Catullus 66 the line contained a reference to the stars’ ortus and obitus, or rather ἀντολίαι and δύσιϵς.Footnote 33 It may be no coincidence that both of these words also appear in line 2 of our epigram on Ptolemy, albeit with the different, geographical, meaning of ‘east’ and ‘west’ in the singular.Footnote 34

In other words, it looks as if, however we wish to reconstruct the incipit of Callimachus’ Lock, the author of our epigram followed its pattern quite closely, thus deserving to be defined as its only Greek testimonium (with the possible exception of the aforementioned inscriptions); among the Romans, as demonstrated long ago by Albio Cesare Cassio,Footnote 35 line 1 inspired Virgil’s reference to Conon in Ecl. 3.40–41 Conon et—quis fuit alter, | descripsit radio totum qui gentibus orbem.

Two questions arise at this point: why did our epigrammatist choose Callimachus, and why did he choose Conon? As for the first issue, it may be recalled that Callimachus’ Aitia was not only the masterpiece of Alexandrian verse but, as recent scholarship has recognized, a fundamental text in the shaping of the new, Hellenistic geopolitical horizon. While it did not envisage or imply a coherent and systematic description of the world, through its manifold references to local myths and tales the Aitia embodied the Ptolemaic ambition to encompass and foster the Panhellenic heritage by recentring it around its new political and cultural capital, Alexandria.Footnote 36 From this perspective, the choice of the Aitia as a primary intertext for an epigram devoted to a map (and a book) bound to revolutionize (once again, from Alexandria) the geographical knowledge of the world seems natural. Whether this resonance also implied political overtones (the relationship between science and power, the shaping of a world-leading authority, etc.) is difficult to say given the lack of a more precise date for our epigram. Yet, in narrower disciplinary terms, the epigram seems to evoke Conon in order to define Ptolemy’s epistemological role at the crossroads of geography and astronomy.

III. Geography and astronomy

We have seen that the allusion to the Lock was an act of literary homage to the most important poet of the Alexandrian age,Footnote 37 and particularly to the last part of his masterpiece the Aitia (our epigram also in some way ‘rounds off’ the Geography). But this allusion also served to create a direct connection between Conon and Ptolemy, and thus between the disciplines of geography and astronomy, a mutual bond that lay at the heart of Ptolemy’s scientific agenda and writing:Footnote 38 Ptolemy’s other main scientific achievement, the Almagest or μαθηματικὴ σύνταξις, was the standard reference work on ancient astrothesy (see particularly 7.5–8.1), and it included a brief reference to the Lock of Berenice.Footnote 39

Both geography and astronomy had recourse to diagrams (γραμμαί, essentially the same lines on the ‘outer’ sphere of the sky and on the ‘inner’ sphere of the earth)Footnote 40 and to mathematical calculus: this explains the otherwise surprising choice of the participle ἀριθμηθέντα in line 1 of our epigram: the verb does not mean ‘to count’, ‘to number’ here (κόσμος is a conspicuously uncountable noun), but rather ‘to describe through numbers’, much as the method of geography is presented vis-à-vis that of chorography in Geography 1.1.6–7.Footnote 41

Both geography and astronomy produced two-dimensional visual representations of a large surface: Ptolemy himself described the technical and epistemological difference between sketching an external, overarching surface that can be comprehended by the human eye (such as the sky), and that of the earth on which we live, which no human being can possibly view in its entirety.Footnote 42 But even more importantly, the two representations are so inextricably linked (one sphere being contained in the other), that it is impossible to consider them separately, as Ptolemy argues in Geography 1.1.8.Footnote 43 Moreover, the geographical elements enumerated in lines 2–3 of our epigram are closely connected to Ptolemy’s doctrine.

First of all (I owe this point to Fabio Guidetti), the mention of the Ocean in line 2 interrupts the canonical quadripartite enumeration of the cardinal pointsFootnote 44 by adding an element that has a special role in the Geography as a case of explicit denial of earlier doctrine: the Ocean is, for Ptolemy, exclusively what we call the Atlantic (in all its various parts),Footnote 45 not the all-encircling river that surrounds the entire oikoumenē,Footnote 46 as was the case for example in Dionysius the Periegete, who famously started his own geographical poem precisely from the Ocean (line 3 μνήσομαι Ὠκϵανοῖο βαθυρρόου, ‘I shall name deep-flowing Ocean’). Therefore, its mention between the north (ἄρκτοι) and the west (δύσις) represents an accurate description of Ptolemy’s image of the world, and a statement of belief in Ptolemy’s doctrine.

Furthermore, line 3 of our epigram lists the two tropics (χϵῖμα and θέρος evidently do not stand for the respective seasons,Footnote 47 but for the χϵιμϵρινός τροπικός and the θϵρινὸς τροπικός, Capricorn and Cancer, respectively), whose exact position is discussed as a pivotal element in Ptolemy’s refutation (by means of astronomical arguments) of Marinos’ world map and geographical projection in Geog. 1.7–9: as a matter of fact, one of the main conclusions of Ptolemy against Marinos was that the oikoumenē did not stretch south as far as the Tropic of Capricorn, but only to the so-called Anti-Meroe parallel.Footnote 48 As for the following φυσικαὶ ἀτραποί and σκολιαὶ κέλϵυθοι, while they have been interpreted as purely astronomical features (the tropics and the ecliptics),Footnote 49 it is more likely that they refer to the natural roads leading from one continent to the other, and to the winding paths of rivers or other physical features: these certainly figured to some extent in the world map, as documented by Geog. 7.5.5–7. Moreover, σκολιάς τϵ κϵλϵύθους looks like an explicit verbatim quotation from Dionysius’ Periegesis 62–63 (ὑμϵῖς δ᾽ ὦ Μοῦσαι σκολιὰς ἐνέποιτϵ κϵλϵύθους, | ἀρξάμϵναι στοιχηδὸν ἀφ᾽ ἑσπέρου Ὠκϵανοῖο, ‘And you, o Muses, tell the twisted paths, / In linear course from Ocean in the west’),Footnote 50 where this rather obscure expression refers to the paths of the rivers and gulfs deriving from the Ocean,Footnote 51 and features at the beginning of the poet’s invocation to the Muse, a ‘second proem’ as it were.Footnote 52

Finally, in Ptolemy’s view, geography and astronomy work together in what is called ‘geographical astrology’, namely the doctrine that informs a large section of his Tetrabiblos (or Apotelesmatica), and according to which the ethos and customs of each population depend on the physical characteristics of the land it inhabits, as well as on the zodiacal signs presiding over it. This combination, which is instrumental to the presentation of the southern European peoples as ‘normal’ and the ‘marginal’ peoples as variously eccentric (see Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.2), lies behind lines 4–7 of our epigram. On the one hand, the choice of the populations named here closely matches the paragraph of Ptolemy’s Geography listing the limits of the known world,Footnote 53 the only significant deviation being the reference to the Γϵρμανοί instead of the βρϵττανοί or other northern peoples (a choice for which I have no real explanation, the idea of a reference to the central role of Magna Germania in the political and ethnic turmoil of the late Imperial age being highly speculative).Footnote 54 By contrast, the more or less conventional attributes accompanying each population find no match in the Geography (where ethnographic interests are altogether absent), but prove often (though not always) comparable with the relevant paragraphs of the Tetrabiblos: the weak Aithiopians,Footnote 55 the unhappy Germans,Footnote 56 the wild Sarmatians,Footnote 57 the rude Scythians,Footnote 58 the ‘extreme’ Indians and silk people,Footnote 59 who live on the edge (πέρας) of the known world.Footnote 60

IV. Conclusion

By interweaving reminiscences of Callimachus and Dionysius the Periegete, by establishing a link with the geopolitical dimension of the Aitia, by finding inspiration in Ptolemy’s doctrine and by indirectly paying tribute to Conon, our epigram on the world map of the Geography boasts so many links to Alexandrian science and literature that it is hard to imagine that it could have been written anywhere else but in the Egyptian capital. That its author may have been the same Agathodaimon who proudly defines himself as Ἀλϵξανδρϵύς in the subscription to the work and to the map, may be more than a simple guess.

Footnotes

1 Nobbe (Reference Nobbe1843) xxxii–xxxiv. Taxidis (Reference Taxidis2017) 87–102 (Epigr. 5–9); Pontani (Reference Pontani2012).

2 Planoudes’ epigrams (otherwise preserved in manuscripts of a different nature) do appear in manuscripts Londiniensis Burney 111 and Vaticanus Palatinus Graecus 388 of the Geography (sigla v and A, see below; Vaticanus Graecus 1411 and Ambrosianus N 289 sup. only contain extracts. See Taxidis (Reference Taxidis2017) 38–43).

3 The most recent editions are Nobbe (Reference Nobbe1843) xxxiv (from Vindobonensis historicus Graecus 1, see below m) and Stückelberger and Graßhoff (Reference Stückelberger and Graßhoff2006) 920–21. The epigram is repeatedly mentioned (as Anhang 7, see p. 138) in the invaluable descriptions of Ptolemy’s manuscripts provided by Burri (Reference Burri2013). It ought to have been mentioned among the ‘ausserptolemäische Hinweise’ to the circulation of Ptolemy’s world map in Mittenhuber (Reference Mittenhuber2009) 321–42.

4 Schnabel (Reference Schnabel1938); Schmidt (Reference Schmidt1999) 8–15. Many apographs stem from the popularity of the Geography in humanist Italy, on which see Gautier Dalché (Reference Gautier Dalché2009) and the bibliography quoted in Gentile (Reference Gentile2019). A new, thorough philological investigation of this manuscript tradition is badly needed, as the preliminary results of Burri (Reference Burri2013) show abundantly (see especially pp. 84–88).

5 Among a number of clerical mistakes irrelevant to the constitutio textus (some of which are listed below in the footnotes to the individual families), I single out what looks like a bold and fantastic conjecture by the 15th-century Cretan scribe Michael Apostolis in line 7 (it is carried by the entire ζ family, and curiously implies that the eastern land has no end): Ἰνδῶν τϵ Σηρῶν τ᾽· οὐ γὰρ πέρας ἀντολίης γῆς (see below section III for the importance of πέρατα of the known world in this context).

6 Several of these families embrace other manuscript witnesses of the Geography, not listed here because, for whatever reason, they lack our epigram. Most of the codices are described in Burri (Reference Burri2013), to which I refer the reader: I add in the footnotes some more recent bibliography, with no ambition to completeness (the Pinakes website, pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr, provides further information for each codex). I select in the footnotes only the most important errors, without drawing any general stemma or any overarching conclusion about the genealogy of the text of the Geography itself. I am grateful to Renate Burri for reproductions of manuscripts K and Bodleianus Laudianus Graecus 52.

7 On manuscript H and this ‘Cretan’ family (whose genealogy is very clear) see Burri (Reference Burri2021) with further bibliography. On the reading in line 7 see above n.5.

8 The philological relationships between the members of this family remain unclear. The dating of manuscript R is still controversial, oscillating between 1320 and 1360–1380 (the watermarks are ambiguous, but that on fol. 141 is certainly a fleur type 3976 Mošin-Traljić, anno 1318).

9 Manuscript U has minor mistakes such as φύλα (l. 4) and ἡῶ (l. 6), largely inherited by its apographs. On dDm and this family see Gentile (Reference Gentile2019) 221–23; Martinelli Tempesta (Reference Martinelli Tempesta2012) 520.

10 The derivation of sSBP, Reginensis and Barberinianus from O (on which Burri (Reference Burri2013) 314 casts some doubt) is guaranteed for the epigram by the material damage suffered by O (line 2 χϵῖμα is not clear, line 3 φυσικά[ς τ᾽ ἀ]τραπούς has a rasura; see also the mistakes κϵλϵυθούς (l. 3), ἀνατολίης (l. 7)), and variously inherited by the later manuscripts (for example S omits χϵῖμα and the scarcely legible ἐς ἠῶ Ἰνδῶν in lines 6–7, it has ἀνατολικῆς in line 7 and adds its own mistake in l. 4 φύλλα, inherited by its apographs); Barberinianus Graecus 163 shares B’s σηνῶν for Σηρῶν in line 7; in Reginensis Graecus 82 (watermark similar to ancre type 22 Harlfinger, Rome 1523) a second hand corrects the mistakes in line 3, and the Agathodaimon subscription (see immediately below) is omitted altogether.

11 See Tzetzes’ scholion to his own Historiae 11.396.890 Leone ἴαμβοι ἐμοὶ ἐκ τῆς ϵἰς τὴν Πτολϵμαίου Xωρογραφίαν μϵταφράσϵως (‘my own iambi, from the metaphrasis of Ptolemy’s Chorography’). On this, and on the early Byzantine reception of Ptolemy’s Geography before Planoudes, see d’Agostini (Reference d’Agostini2021).

12 The first-person ὑπϵτύπωσα is beyond doubt the form that emerges from the manuscript tradition, since ὑπϵτυπώσατο is a correction by a later hand in manuscript O (more on O’s hands and final folios in a forthcoming study by Olivier Defaux), and ὑπϵτύπωσϵ surfaces only in few later manuscripts: see Burri (Reference Burri2013) 138–39 (with further bibliography on the subscription), contra Schnabel (Reference Schnabel1938) 93.

13 In section III we shall come back to these crucial chapters of book 7 (on which see Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 3–5): their connection with this subscription and with the epigram is also apparent from the peculiar textual layout of families ω and ζ, where epigram and subscription (the latter is omitted in family ζ) feature after a bizarre abridgement of Geog. 7.1–4, dealing with the regions of the Far East, and ending on the populations of Taprobane/Ceylon (explicit Ναναγηροί: on this curious ‘résumé’, whose earliest witness is manuscript O; see Burri (Reference Burri2013) 136). It is clear that epigram and subscription refer to the same Weltkarte described out in Geog. 7.5.

14 The general representations of the world are presented by Ptolemy in the important statement of Geog. 7.4.14 ἐπϵὶ δὲ ὑπϵδϵίξαμϵν ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς συντάξϵως, πῶς ἂν καταγράφοιτο τὸ ἐγνωσμένον τῆς γῆς μέρος ἐπί τϵ σφαίρας καὶ ἔτι ϵἰς ἐπίπϵδον ἐπιφάνϵιαν, ὁμοίως τϵ καὶ συμμέτρως ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα τοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς στϵρϵᾶς σφαίρας καταλαμβανομένοις, ἁρμόζϵι δὲ ταῖς τοιαύταις τῆς ὅλης οἰκουμένης ἐκθέσϵσιν ὑπογραφήν τινα κϵφαλαιώδη παραθέσθαι πρὸς ἔνδϵιξιν τῶν καθόλου θϵωρουμένων (‘But since we demonstrated at the beginning of the compilation how the known part of the earth could be mapped on a globe, and also on a plane surface, in a way that is, as far as possible, both similar [in appearance] and proportionate to the things that are comprehended on the solid globe, it is appropriate to add to these portrayals of the whole oikoumene a summary caption that will indicate the things that are generally seen [in the map]’, tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 108).

15 See Mittenhuber (Reference Mittenhuber2009) 322–23; Gautier Dalché (Reference Gautier Dalché2009) 17–18; Dilke (Reference Dilke1987a) 271–72. Burri (Reference Burri2013) 139 goes so far as to suggest that Agathodaimon may have been an assistant of Ptolemy himself; on diagrams in Ptolemy’s manuscripts see the overview in Burri (Reference Burri2018).

16 The text shares none of the typical uncertainties of Byzantine prosody and metre: the short initial α in ἀτραπός (l. 3) and ἀδρανής (l. 4) is unusual (for the former see Anth. Pal. 6.314.2 = Page (Reference Page1981) 544 and the third-century CE Anthologiae Appendix, epigr. dedicatoria, 319.6 Cougny; I cannot find any parallel for the short α in ἀδρανής in poetry, but that α is in fact short by nature, and only lengthened by position). No ‘law’ is violated except Naeke’s in line 4 (where we also find a rare contraction of the third biceps: but the Häufung of proper names must be taken into account); six hexameter patterns are used, including one (ssddd in line 7) not admitted by Nonnus and his school: see West (Reference West1982) 152–57; Agosti and Gonnelli (Reference Agosti and Gonnelli1995) 375.

17 The only certain intertext, apart from Callimachus (line 1: see section II) and Dionysius the Periegete (lines 3, 4: see section III), might be Quintus of Smyrna, if he is indeed the source of the clausula in line 6, ἄχρις ἐς ἠῶ (Quint. Smyrn. Posthomerica 6.177, 10.259, where the locution carries a temporal, not a spatial, meaning however).

18 The best account is still Wifstrand (Reference Wifstrand1933) 155–77 (one is reminded particularly of the famous epigram Anth. Pal. 9.198 on Nonnus).

19 The terminology is taken from Demoen (Reference Demoen2019) 74–75: our epigram is certainly a ‘book-epigram’, even if it refers more directly to a map rather than to the book itself.

20 They were first detected by Angelo Poliziano, Miscellanea 1.68: see Cattaneo (Reference Cattaneo2017) 244–46; Pontani (Reference Pontani2011) 93–96.

21 See Bing (Reference Bing2009) 72–75.

22 Ὅρος is properly the ‘boundary’ of the universe, hence the heavenly vault: see Bickel (Reference Bickel1941) 101 (‘die äußerste Kugelschale der Sphaira, die die Fixsterne trägt’); Cassio (Reference Cassio1973) 329 n.1; Marinone (Reference Marinone1984) 103–04 ad loc., who also rejects in Catullus 66.1 (see immediately below) the emendation limina, proposed by Rehm, and potentially still attractive).

23 See especially Asper (Reference Asper2004) 173: ‘Als er den ganzen Sternenhimmel in seinen Zeichnungen betrachtet hatte’. Rawles (Reference Rawles2019) 116: ‘He who observed the whole firmament delineated and the movements’. Harder (Reference Harder2012) 1.289: ‘Observing the whole sky as divided by lines’. Massimilla (Reference Massimilla2010) 208: ‘Avendo guardato nei disegni tutto lo spazio celeste’. D’Alessio (Reference d’Alessio2001) 523: ‘Avendo in disegni l’orizzonte tutto veduto’. Trypanis (Reference Trypanis1978) 81: ‘Having examined all the charted (?) sky’. Less persuasive is Berrey (Reference Berrey2017) 2: ‘Looking at every boundary in the lines’.

24 See Berrey (Reference Berrey2017) 2: ‘both the imaginary visual lines which connect the fixed stars in the heavens as well as a star-chart drawn on papyrus’. As a technical term, γραμμή occurs in Dionys. Per. 236, Leonidas, Anth. Pal. 9.344.1 and elsewhere: see Pfeiffer (Reference Pfeiffer1965), Massimilla (Reference Massimilla2010) and Harder (Reference Harder2012) ad loc.

25 See Harder (Reference Harder2012) 2.802. The former interpretation is suggested by Pfeiffer (Reference Pfeiffer1965) 112 and embraced, for example, by Marinone (Reference Marinone1984) 105 and Massimilla (Reference Massimilla2010) 467.

26 Among the caveats against the risks of automatically projecting Catullus’ wording onto Callimachus, see particularly Bing (Reference Bing2009) 65–82 and Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (Reference Acosta-Hughes and Stephens2012) 229–33.

27 Catull. 66.1–6: Omnia qui magni dispexit lumina mundi, | qui stellarum ortus comperit atque obitus, | flammeus ut rapidi solis nitor obscuretur, | ut cedant certis sidera temporibus, | ut Triuiam furtim sub Latmia saxa relegans | dulcis amor guro deuocet aërio. On the stylistic effect of this incipit see Videau (Reference Videau1997) 39–40.

28 Gutzwiller (Reference Gutzwiller1992) 373–74.

29 See in particular the mentions of Conon in Ptolemy, Phaseis p. 14.16 Heiberg etc. concerning the φάσϵις ἀπλανῶν ἀστέρων (the passages are listed by Marinone (Reference Marinone1984) 109); Sen. QNat. 7.3.3 (defectiones solis seruatas ab Aegyptiis collegit); Probus, On Virgil’s Eclogues 3.40 (libros de astrologia septem reliquit). For a detailed analysis of the scientific doctrines evoked in Catull. 66.3–6 see Marinone (Reference Marinone1990) 102–05 and (Reference Marinone1984) 108–10 and 112–14.

31 Scaliger (Reference Scaliger1615) 86–88; Barber (Reference Barber1936).

32 See Massimilla (Reference Massimilla2010) 468.

33 See Pighi (Reference Pighi1951) 43, whose defence of the transmitted habitus for obitus in Catullus is, however, best forgotten.

34 On the popularity of the formula ἀντολίαι δύσιές τϵ (which may well have first occurred in Callimachus), cf. Ypsilanti (Reference Ypsilanti2018) 293 on Crinagoras, Anth. Pal. 16.61.1. Scaliger (Reference Scaliger1615) 86 had φάσιας … καὶ δύσιας. It should be remarked that the same ἀντολίη comes back in l. 7 as an adjective (a very rare construct: see Nonnus, Dion. 25.98 with the noun ἀρούρῃ). I refrain from suggesting here that the reference to the sun and its flammeus nitor (Catull. 66.3) may have inspired the use of θέρος in l. 3, which has a rather different astronomical meaning, namely the Tropic of Cancer (see below); but it is indeed true that the tropics are implied in the annual φάσϵις of the constellation of the Lock as described in ll. 67–68 of Callimachus’ poem: see Massimilla (Reference Massimilla2010) 468.

35 Cassio (Reference Cassio1973).

36 See Asper (Reference Asper2011); Acosta-Hughes and Stephens (Reference Acosta-Hughes and Stephens2012) 148–203. On Conon’s role in particular see Berrey (Reference Berrey2017) 1–4.

37 On the importance of Callimachus in later Greek poetry see De Stefani and Magnelli (Reference De Stefani and Magnelli2011), especially 550–57 on his popularity among imperial authors; Hollis (Reference Hollis2002).

38 See, for example, Gautier Dalché (Reference Gautier Dalché2009) 20: ‘La Géographie ne se comprend pleinement que dans un contexte culturel où l’astrologie est fortement présente: les cartes de Ptolémée déploient l’espace réglé et mesuré où s’exercent et se comprennent les influences planétaires et astrales’.

39 See Marinone (Reference Marinone1984) 34–38.

40 Gautier Dalché (Reference Gautier Dalché2009) 20: ‘les cercles qui constituent le réseau de coordonnées terrestres étant la projection sur la sphère terrestre des cercles de la sphère céleste’. See Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 6–7.

41 Ptol. Geog. 1.1.6–7 ἐμποιϵῖ γὰρ καὶ διὰ ψιλῶν τῶν γραμμῶν (X: γραμμάτων Ω) καὶ τῶν παρασημϵιώσϵων δϵικνύναι καὶ τὰς θέσϵις καὶ τοὺς καθόλου σχηματισμούς. Διὰ ταῦτα ἐκϵίνῃ (sc. τῇ χωρογραφίᾳ) μὲν οὐ δϵῖ μϵθόδου μαθηματικῆς, ἐνταῦθα δὲ τοῦτο μάλιστα προηγϵῖται τὸ μέρος (‘it enables one to show the positions and general configurations [of features] purely by means of lines and labels. For these reasons, [regional cartography] has no need of mathematical method, but here [in world cartography] this element takes absolute precedence’), tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 58.

42 Ptol. Geog. 1.1.9 τὴν δὲ γῆν διὰ τῆς ϵἰκόνος, ὅτι τὴν ἀληθινὴν καὶ μϵγίστην οὖσαν καὶ μὴ πϵριέχουσαν ἡμᾶς, οὔτϵ ἀθρόαν οὔτϵ κατὰ μέρος ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐφοδϵυθῆναι δυνατόν (‘the earth through a portrait, since the real [earth], being enormous and not surrounding us, cannot be inspected by any one person either as a whole or part by part’), tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 59. It is precisely this apparent adynaton, which Ptolemy’s magnum opus attempts to overcome, that inspires Planoudes’ Epigr. 7 Taxidis ϵἰς πόλον ϵἰ γαίηθϵν ἴδῃς, ἅμα πάντα δοκϵύϵις, | ϵἰς χθόνα δ᾽ οὐρανὸν ϵἰσαναβάς, ἅμα πᾶσαν ἂν ϵἶδϵς. | Νῦν οὖν πᾶσαν ὁρῶν ἅμα γῆν ἔμϵν ἐς πόλον οἴου. Interestingly, precisely this image of ‘looking from above’ pushed Barrett (Reference Barrett1982) to defend the transmitted despexit (p. 136: ‘an omniscient astronomer who can survey the whole universe merely by looking down at his charts’) for Calfurnius’ conjecture dispexit in Catullus 66.1. On the issue of ‘bird’s-eye view’ in geographical representations see Lightfoot (Reference Lightfoot2014) 120–26.

43 ‘Thus the first thing that one has to investigate is the earth’s shape, size, and position with respect to its surroundings [i.e. the heavens], so that it will be possible to speak of its known part, how large it is and what it is like, and moreover under which parallels of the celestial sphere each of the localities in this [known part] lies (ὑπὸ τίνας ϵἰσὶ τῆς οὐρανίου σφαίρας παραλλήλους). From this last, one can also determine the lengths of nights and days, which stars reach the zenith or are always borne above or below the horizon (τοὺς ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὑπὸ γῆν ἀϵὶ φϵρομένους), and all the things that we associate with the subject of habitations’ (tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 58).

44 For example Gregory of Nazianzus, Carmina 1.2.1.129 (Patrologia Graeca 37.532.5) ἀντολίη τϵ δύσις τϵ, νότου πλϵυρή, βορέου τϵ …; Oracula Sibyllina 3.26 (cf. 8.321 and Anth. Pal. 16.369.1) ἀντολίην δϵ δύσιν τϵ μϵσημβρίην τϵ καὶ ἄρκτον.

45 See Ptol. Geog. 2.2.1 Ὠκϵανὸς Ὑπϵρβόρϵιος (North Atlantic), 2.2.4 Δυτικός (Atlantic), 2.2.6 Οὐϵργιούιος (Celtic Sea), 2.2.8 Ἰουέρνιος (Irish Sea), 2.3.1 Δουκαληδόνιος (North Atlantic), 2.3.4 Bρϵττανικός (The English Channel), 2.3.5 Γϵρμανικός (Baltic Sea), 2.6.3 Καντάβριος (Cantabrian Sea), 2.7.2 Ἀκουιτάνιος (Cantabrian Sea), 3.5.1 Σαρματικός (Baltic Sea).

46 See Gisinger (Reference Gisinger1937) 2334–35. Ptol. Geog. 7.7.4 ὡς πϵριρρέοντος αὐτὸ τοῦ Ὠκϵανοῦ μηδαμόθϵν …

47 As for example in a line with a similar incipit: Oracula Sibyllina 14.299 χϵῖμα θέρος ποιϵῖ (see also 8.426–27).

48 See Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 37–38; Dilke (Reference Dilke1987b) 184.

49 Thus Stückelberger and Graßhoff (Reference Stückelberger and Graßhoff2006) 921 n.88. On these elements see Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 11–13.

50 See Lightfoot (Reference Lightfoot2014) 203 and 278.

51 A terrestrial ‘pendant’ to the star orbits, the caeli meatus (Verg. Aen. 6.849, with Cassio (Reference Cassio1973) 331) described in lines 1–2 of the Lock?

52 Vox (Reference Vox2002).

53 Geog. 7.5.2: ‘It is bounded to the east by the unknown land that is situated next to the eastern peoples of Great Asia, [namely] the Sinai and the people in Serike (ἐν τῇ Σηρικῇ); to the south likewise by the unknown land that encloses the Sea of India and surrounds Aithiopia south of Libye (this [part of Aithiopia] is called the country of Agisymba); to the west by both the unknown land surrounding the Aithiopian Bay of Libye and the adjacent Western Ocean (δυτικῷ Ὠκϵανῷ), which lies next to the most western parts of Libye and Europe; and to the north by the continuation of the Ocean that contains the islands of Britain and the most northern parts of Europe …, and by the unknown land that is situated next to the most northern countries of Great Asia, [namely] Sarmatia, Skythia, and Serike’ (tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 108–09, my emphasis; see also 20–22).

54 But see Geog. 2.3.5 and 2.11.1 for the proximity of Germany to the Ocean.

55 See Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.2.2 ‘contracted in form and shrunken in stature (τὰς μορφὰς συνϵσπασμένοι καὶ τὰ μϵγέθη συντϵτηγμένοι), sanguine of nature, and in habits for the most part savage’ (tr. Robbins (Reference Robbins1940) 123), but also Ps.-Alexander, Problemata 2.6.9 (of the Aithiopians) ‘these come from a very hot region, and are therefore cowardly, vile, and dark (δϵιλοί ϵἰσι καὶ ἄνανδροι καὶ μέλανϵς)’.

56 We have here a mixture between a generic tragic expression (Soph. Aj. 784 δύσμορον γένος), the specific descriptions of the Germans in Dionysius the Periegete (285 λϵυκά τϵ φῦλα … ἀρϵιμανέων [v.l. ἐρισθϵνέων] Γϵρμανῶν) and in Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.3.15 ἀγριώτϵροι καὶ αὐθαδέστϵροι καὶ θηριώδϵις (‘fiercer, more headstrong, and bestial’, tr. Robbins (Reference Robbins1940) 135).

57 Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.3.36 ‘more ungentle, stern, and bestial’ (μᾶλλον ἀνήμϵρα καὶ αὐστηρὰ καὶ θηριώδη, tr. Robbins (Reference Robbins1940) 147). A specific hint to their eccentric eating habits is provided by Nicolaus of Damascus FGrH 90 F103f = Nicolaus the Paradoxographer, fr. 6 Giannini. It must be admitted, however, that such a strongly negative appreciation as ‘similar to pigs’ has to my knowledge no parallel in extant sources.

58 Ptolemy, Apotelesmatica 2.2.4 λϵυκοί τϵ τὰ χρώματα καὶ τϵτανοὶ τὰς τρίχας τά τϵ σώματα μϵγάλοι καὶ ϵὐτραφϵῖς τοῖς μϵγέθϵσι καὶ ὑπόψυχροι τὰς φύσϵις, ἄγριοι δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ τοῖς ἤθϵσι διὰ τὴν ὑπὸ τοῦ κρύους συνέχϵιαν τῶν οἰκήσϵων (‘white in complexion, straight-haired, tall and well-nourished, and somewhat cold by nature; these too are savage in their habits because their dwelling-places are continually cold’, tr. Robbins (Reference Robbins1940) 123). The adjective αἰνόμορος recalls the δύσμορα φῦλα in line 4 (see also Anth. Pal. 9.210.8 αἰνομόρους Σαρακηνούς; Nonnus, Dion. 17.174 about the Ἰνδοί), and χαλϵπὸν γένος may be a quotation from Oppian (Halieutica 1.174, about rats).

59 See, for example, Strabo 11.11.1 (p. 516.27 C.) μέχρι Σηρῶν καὶ Φρυνῶν; Dionys. Per. 752 ἔθνϵα βάρβαρα Σηρῶν; and particularly Ptol. Geog. 7.5.13 τὸ μὲν ἀνατολικὸν πέρας τῆς ἐγνωσμένης γῆς ὁρίζϵι μϵσημβρινὸς ὁ γραφόμϵνος διὰ τῆς τῶν Σινῶν μητροπόλϵως (‘the eastern limit of the known world is bounded by the meridian drawn through the metropolis of the Sinai’, tr. Berggren-Jones (Reference Berggren and Jones2000) 110). The traditional identification of the Σῆρϵς, the ‘silk people’, with the Chinese has been challenged in favour of other populations living in Central Asia and the Far East: see Radt (Reference Radt2008) 294–95.

60 The physical πέρατα of the ἐγνωσμένη γῆ are explicitly evoked in Ptol. Geog. 7.5.12–14. On the peculiar variant reading of line 7 in the ζ family see n.5 above.

References

Acosta-Hughes, B. and Stephens, S. (2012) Callimachus in Context (Cambridge)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agosti, G. and Gonnelli, F. (1995) ‘Materiali per la storia dell’esametro nei poeti cristiani greci’, in M. Fantuzzi and R. Pretagostini (eds), Struttura e storia dell’esametro greco 1 (Rome) 289–434Google Scholar
Asper, M. (2004) Kallimachos. Werke (Darmstadt)Google Scholar
Asper, M. (2011) ‘Dimensions of power: Callimachean geopoetics and the Ptolemaic Empire’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus and S. Stephens (eds), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden and Boston) 155–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, E.A. (1936) ‘The Lock of Berenice: Callimachos and Catullus’, in Greek Poetry and Life: Essays Presented to Gilbert Murray on His Seventieth Birthday, January 2, 1936 (Oxford) 343–63Google Scholar
Barrett, A.A. (1982) ‘Catullus 66.1: dispexit or despexit?’, RhM 125, 135–37Google Scholar
Berggren, J.L. and Jones, A. (2000) Ptolemy’s Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters (Princeton and Oxford)Google Scholar
Berrey, M. (2017) Hellenistic Science at Court (Berlin and Boston)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, E. (1941) ‘Der Kallimachospapyrus “Die Locke der Berenike” und Catull als Übersetzer’, RhM 90, 81146 Google Scholar
Bing, P. (2009) The Scroll and the Marble (Ann Arbor)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burri, R. (2013) Die Geographie des Ptolemaios im Spiegel der griechischen Handschriften (Berlin and Boston)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burri, R. (2018) ‘Some notes on the tradition of the diagrams (and maps) in Ptolemy’s Geography’, in R. Ceceña (ed.), Claudio Ptolomeo. Geografía (capítulos teóricos) (Mexico City) 219–49Google Scholar
Burri, R. (2021) ‘Michele Apostolio e la produzione di manoscritti di contenuto geografico: il Parm. Pal. 9 nel suo contesto’, Scripta 14, 5160 Google Scholar
Cassio, A.C. (1973) ‘L’incipit della Chioma callimachea in Virgilio’, RFIC 101, 329–32Google Scholar
Cattaneo, G. (2017) ‘Angelo Poliziano e gli Scholia vetera ad Apollonio Rodio’, Medioevo e Rinascimento n.s. 28, 237–64Google Scholar
d’Agostini, C. (2021) Mapping Empires: Re-appropriations of Ptolemy’s Geography from the 12th to the 15th Century (Ph.D. Diss. Odense)Google Scholar
d’Alessio, G.B. (2001) Callimaco. Aitia, Giambi, frammenti elegiaci minori (Milan)Google Scholar
Demoen, K. (2019) ‘Epigrams on authors and books as text and paratext’, in M. Kanellou, I. Petrovic and C. Carey (eds), Greek Epigram from the Hellenistic to the Early Byzantine Era (Oxford) 66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, C. and Magnelli, E. (2011) ‘Callimachus and later Greek poetry’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus and S. Stephens (eds), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden and Boston) 534–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilke, O.A.W. (1987a) ‘Cartography in the Byzantine Empire’, Ptolemy’, in J.B. Harley and D. Woodward (eds), The History of Cartography 1 (Chicago) 258–75Google Scholar
Dilke, O.A.W. (1987b) ‘The culmination of Greek cartography in Ptolemy’, in J.B. Harley and D. Woodward (eds), The History of Cartography 1 (Chicago) 177–200Google Scholar
Gautier Dalché, P. (2009) La Géographie de Ptolémée en occident (IVe–XVIe siècle) (Turnhout)Google Scholar
Gentile, G. (2019) ‘La Cosmographia di Ptolomeo’, in S. Martinelli Tempesta, D. Speranzi and F. Gallo (eds), Libri e biblioteche di umanisti (Milan) 209–32Google Scholar
Gisinger, F. (1937) ‘Okeanos’, RE 17.2, cols 2308–49Google Scholar
Gutzwiller, K. (1992) ‘Callimachus’ Lock of Berenice: fantasy, romance, and propaganda’, AJPh 113, 359–85Google Scholar
Harder, A. (2012) Callimachus: Aetia (2 vols) (Oxford)Google Scholar
Hollis, A.S. (2002) ‘Callimachus: light from later antiquity’, in L. Lehnus, G. Bastianini, C. Calame and F. Montanari (eds), Callimaque (Vandœuvres and Geneva) 35–57Google Scholar
Hunter, R. (forthcoming) ‘Epigraphical evidence for the Aratean tradition’, in R. Hunter, K. ní Mheallaigh and J. Lightfoot (eds), Aratus and Aratean Reception (Berlin and Boston)Google Scholar
Lightfoot, J.L. (2014) Dionysius Periegetes: Description of the Known World (Oxford)Google Scholar
Marinone, N. (1984) Berenice da Callimaco a Catullo (Rome)Google Scholar
Marinone, N. (1990) ‘Conone, Callimaco e Catullo’, in Analecta Graecolatina (Bologna) 101–05Google Scholar
Martinelli Tempesta, S. (2012) ‘Nuovi codici copiati da Giovanni Scutariota’, in F. Bognini (ed.), Meminisse iuvat: studi in memoria di Violetta de Angelis (Pisa) 519–48Google Scholar
Massimilla, G. (2010) Callimaco. Aitia, libro terzo e quarto (Pisa and Rome)Google Scholar
Mittenhuber, F. (2009) Text- und Kartentradition in der Geographie des Klaudios Ptolemaios (Bern)Google Scholar
Nobbe, C.F.A. (1843) Claudii Ptolemaei Geographia (Leipzig; repr. Hildesheim 1990)Google Scholar
Page, D.L. (1981) Further Greek Epigrams (Oxford)Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, R. (1965) Callimachus, Vol. 1: Fragmenta (Oxford)Google Scholar
Pighi, G.B. (1951) ‘Emendationes Catullianae’, RhM 94, 4245 Google Scholar
Pontani, F. (2011) ‘Callimachus cited’, in B. Acosta-Hughes, L. Lehnus and S. Stephens (eds), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden and Boston) 93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontani, F. (2012) ‘Esametri nonniani e mappae mundi: l’epigramma di Massimo Planude per la Geografia di Tolomeo’, in C. Gallazzi, B. Kramer and S. Settis (eds), Intorno al Papiro di Artemidoro II. Geografia e cartografia (Milan) 197–217Google Scholar
Radt, S. (2008) Strabons Geographika, Vol. 7: Buch IXXIII: Kommentar (Göttingen)Google Scholar
Rawles, R. (2019) Callimachus (London)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, F.E. (1940) Ptolemy: Tetrabiblos (Cambridge MA and London)Google Scholar
Scaliger, J. (1615) Poemata Graeca versa ex Lat. Ital. et Gall. (Leiden)Google Scholar
Schmidt, N.G. (1999) Die Nebenüberlieferung des 6. Buchs der Geographie des Ptolemaios (Wiesbaden)Google Scholar
Schnabel, P. (1938) Text und Karten des Ptolemäus (Leipzig)Google Scholar
Stückelberger, A. and Graßhoff, G. (2006) Klaudios Ptolemaios. Handbuch der Geographie (2 vols) (Basel)Google Scholar
Taxidis, I. (2017) Les épigrammes de Maxime Planude (Berlin and Boston)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trypanis, C.A. (1978) Callimachus: Aetia, Iambi, Lyric Poems (Cambridge MA and London)Google Scholar
Videau, A. (1997) ‘Catulle élégiaque: la “Boucle de Bérénice”’, REL 75, 3863 Google Scholar
Vox, O. (2002) ‘Dionigi Alessandrino e Apollonio Rodio: cornici innodiche’, Lexis 20, 153–70Google Scholar
West, M.L. (1982) Greek Metre (Oxford)Google Scholar
Wifstrand, A. (1933) Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos (Lund)Google Scholar
Ypsilanti, M. (2018) The Epigrams of Crinagoras of Mytilene (Oxford)Google Scholar