On one hand, Archilochus’ “political” overtones were probably hard to elude (G. B. D’Alessio, Callimaco, I: Inni, Epigrammi, Ecale; II: Aitia, Giambi e altri frammenti, Milan, 1996, I p. 16-17) and his passionate love for the drunk Muse made him a far less appealing model. On the other hand, Hipponax’ choliamb was the only meter, among those employed by archaic iambographers, that retained its “true” iambic ring while becoming fashionable early in the third century: cf. A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, Oxford, 1999, p. 6-7.
This does not mean that these poems represent a historical portrait of the author and his experience, since the way we think of the author is always a construction: see A. D. Morrison, “Advice and Abuse: Horace, Epistles 1 and the Iambic Tradition”, p. 33-35, MD 56, 2006, p. 27-46.
This succession is not fortuitous but probably stretches back to Callimachus himself, as most scholars today would agree: see A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 271-295; G. Morelli, “Giambografia”, p. 28-29, in Da Aἰών a Eikasmós. Atti della giornata di studi sulla figura e l’opera di E. Degani, Eikasmós Studi 8, Bologna, 2002, p. 15-30; B. Acosta-Hughes, “Aesthetics and Recall: Callimachus frs. 226-9 Pf. Reconsidered”, CQ 53, 2003, p. 478-489; A. D. Morrison, “Advice and Abuse: Horace, Epistles 1 and the Iambic Tradition”, op. cit., p. 29-61.
M. L. West, Studies in Greek Elegy and Iambus, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte 14, Berlin and New York, 1974, 29.
It is not by chance that Archilochus, instead of Hipponax, was the source for Horace’s Epodes, Horace’s most “genuinely iambic” work: cf. A. Cucchiarelli, La satira e il poeta. Orazio tra Epodi e Sermones, Biblioteca di MD 17, Pisa, 2001, p. 168-179; A. D. Morrison, “Advice and Abuse: Horace, Epistles 1 and the Iambic Tradition”, op. cit..
Hipponax himself may have mentioned the story, but with Myson winning first prize (cf. fr. 63 W and R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, p. 48, PCPhS 43, 1997, p. 41-52). Callimachus’ Hipponax offers a different version, with a possible aetiological overtone: Thales dedicated the cup to Didymaen Apollo, after receiving it twice (cf. M. Depew, “ἰαμβεῖον καλεῖται νῦν: Genre, Occasion, and Imitation in Callimachus, frr. 191 and 203 Pf.”, p. 319, TAPhA 122, 1992, p. 313-330).
Scholarship on this poem is exhaustive, and it is not my aim to give a full account of it; cf., most recently, E. Livrea, “Sul primo Giambo di Callimaco”, Eikasmos 17, 2006, p. 171-176; M. Di Marco, “Baticle nel Giambo 1 di Callimaco”, in A. Martina, A.-T. Cozzoli (ed.), Callimachea II. Atti della seconda giornata di studi su Callimaco, Università Roma Tre, 15 maggio 2005, Roma, 2007; M. Rosen, Making Mockery. The Poetics of Ancient Satire, Oxford, 2007, p. 176-188. On Hipponax cf. E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, Bari, 1984 (repr. Spudasmata 89, Hildesheim, Zürich, and New York, 2002), passim; T. M. Compton, Victim of the Muses, op. cit., p. 59-68.
Cf. R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit., p. 47-48.
Only the Diegesis says that this is the setting of the poem. We have no positive confirm in our text, even if one may argue that the apparition of ghost or dreams is at home in such a temple.
Cf. v. 6-7 and schol. Flor. ad loc.; R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, Oxford, 1949, p. 162. Alternatively, the point of the reference could be their huge number.
I adopt A. Kerkhecker’s text throughout. Another, if more sarcastic, bird-comparison is found in Timon Phlias. SH 786 = fr. 12 Di Marco. Cf. A. Ardizzoni, “Riflessioni sul primo giambo di Callimaco (Fr. 191 Pfeiffer)”, GIF 32, 1980, p. 145-155. In Arat. Ph. 916-917 κέπφοι (cf. here l. 6) fly εἰληδά, an adverb which may also mean “by coiling around” (Antiphil. AP 9.14.6 = GP 970), which may resonate with Callimachus’ passage as well.
Perhaps one should not underestimate a possible, ironical reference to Delphic bee-maidens, cf. S. Scheinberg, “The Bee Maidens of the Homeric Hymn to Hermes”, HSCPh 83, 1979, p. 1-28, and C. Sourvinou-Inwood, “The Myth of the First Temples at Delphi”, CQ 29, 1979, p. 231-251. On Delphians cf. Aristoph. fr. 705 K-A.
A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., 32; see also M. R. Falivene, “Callimaco serio-comico: il primo Giambo (fr. 191 Pf.)”, in R. Pretagostini (ed.), Tradizione e innovazione nella cultura greca da Omero all’età ellenistica. Scritti in onore di Bruno Gentili, Roma, 1993, p. 911-925; L. Bergson, “Kallimachos, Iambos I (Fr. 191 Pf.), 26-28”, Eranos 84, 1986, p. 11-16.
Il. 16.641-644, which recall Il. 2.469-471. As R. Janko, The Iliad:A Commentary (General Editor G. S. Kirk), IV: Books 13-16, Cambridge, 1992, p. 393 ad loc., aptly observes, “the pastoral detail that milk is most copious in spring clashes poignantly with the martial context; milk is an innocent liquid and the flies seem harmless, but Homer knew that they can cause decay”, cf. Achilles’ fear in 19.23-27. See also schol.bTIl. 2.469a (I p. 282 Erbse) and Il. 17.570-572 for a warrior compared to a blood-sucking fly.
G. B. D’Alessio, Callimaco, op. cit., II p. 581 n. 13 quotes Od. 11.34-43, 632-633; Cratin. Archilochi fr. 2 K-A οἷον σοφιστῶν σμῆνος ἀνεδιφήσατε.
Cf. Il. 16.259-65; J. T. Kakridis, “Σφήκεσσιν ἐοικότες ἐξεχέοντο (Π 259-267)”, in his Homer Revisited, Lund, 1971, p. 138-140; M. Davies, J. Kathirithamby, Greek Insects, London, 1986, p. 75-79.
Callim. Γραφεῖον fr. 380 Pf.; Leonid. Tar. AP 7.408 = 58 G-P (Hippon. T 16 Dg). For this same image cf. Gaetul. AP 7.71 (= 197 ss. Page 1981), on Archilochus; Philipp. Thess. AP 7.405 = 34 G-P and Alcae. Mess. AP 7.536 = 13 G-P on Hipponax (TT 16-17 Degani, cf. most recently M. Rosen, “The Hellenistic Epigrams on Archilochus and Hipponax”, in P. Bing, J. S. Bruss (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram Down to Philip, Leiden and Boston, 2007, p. 459-476); Babr. Prol. Myth.; E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 178-181. In Callimachus and in Leonidas’ epigram we have the same association of wasp’s and dog’s “virtues” (cf. βαΰξας, AP 7.408.3); cf. also Hera’s insult against Athena as κυνάμυια, “dog-fly”, i.e. “shameless fly”, in Il. 21.421.
See R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., ad loc.; L. Bodson, “Le coutelas delphique, ou l’imprévisible renommée”, MPhL 3, 1978, p. 25-43. Herod. 8.71-72 employs similar imagery in portraying the reception of his own work at the hands of his colleagues: τὰ μέλεα πολλοὶ κάρτα, τοὺς ἐ̣μ̣οὺς μόχθους, / τιλεῦσιν ἐν Μούσηισιν.
Soon after a sacrifice, cf. Pind. Pae. 6.112-120 Maehler (= D6 Rutherford), N. 7.40-42 ᾤχετο δὲ πρὸς θεόν, κτέατ᾽ ἄγων Τροΐαθεν ἀκροθινίων· ἵνα κρεῶν νιν ὕπερ μάχας ἔλασεν ἀντιτυχόντ᾽ ἀνὴρ μαχαίρᾳ (“He went to the god, bringing the possession of first-fruits from Troy, where a man struck him with a sword as he struck back over a fight about shares of meat”). Cf. schol. Pind. N. 7.62a φασὶ τοῦ Νεοπτολέμου θύοντος τοὺς Δελφοὺς ἁρπάζειν τὰ θύματα, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς· τὸν δὲ Νεοπτόλεμον δυσανασχέτως ἔχοντα διακωλύειν· αὐτοὺς δὲ διαχρήσασθαι αὐτὸν ξίφη ἔχοντας; I. Rutherford, Pindar’s Paeans. A Reading of the Fragments with a Survey of the Genre, Oxford, 2001, p. 313-315.
R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit.
D. L. Clayman, Callimachus’ Iambi, Mnemosyne Suppl. 59, Leiden, 1980, p. 16; cf. A.-T. Cozzoli, “Il I giambo e il nuovo ἰαμβίζειν di Callimaco”, p. 140-141, Eikasmos 7, 1996, p. 129-147.
This the case, for example, in Herod. 4.72-74, where Cynno praises the painter Apelles saying “Yes, Phile, the hands of the Ephesian Apelles are truthful in every line, nor would you say ‘That man looked at one thing but rejected the other’” (transl. I. C. Cunningham), οὐδ᾽ ἐρεῖς “κεῖνος / ὤνθρωπος ἒν μὲν εἶδεν, ἒν δ᾽ ἀπηρνήθη” (l. 73-74). This passage is suspected by B. M. Palumbo Stracca, “Eronda ipponatteo (Mim. IV, v. 72-78)”, RCCM 48, 2006, p. 49-54, of strong Hipponactean influence. Further examples of the formula in W. Headlam, Herodas:The Mimes and the Fragments, ed. by A. D. Knox, Cambridge, 1922, p. 206 ad loc. On Alcmaeon cf. Eur. Alcmae. Psoph. fr. 65-73, Alcmae. Corinth. 73a-87a Kannicht.
Cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, Polyeideia. The Iambi of Callimachus and the Archaic Iambic Tradition, Hellenistic Culture and Society 35, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 2002, p. 54-55. I am less sure that these lines “amount to a satirist’s apologia for his psogoi against critics”, as M. Rosen, Making Mockery. The Poetics of Ancient Satire, op. cit., p. 184, suggests.
After R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., p. 170, A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 44-45 mentions Hor. Serm. 1.4.33-38 and Epod. 6.11-14, where the satirist is compared to an angry bull by people who show no interest in poetry and by himself, in this invoking Hipponax as his very model. Yet in Iamb 1.79 βάλλει cannot mean “he butts”, as A. Kerkhecker upholds, since lunatics regularly throw stones, cf. J. Diggle, Theophrastus: Characters, Cambridge, 2004, p. 375 n. 86; R. L. Hunter, Eubulus: The Fragments, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 24, Cambridge, 1983, p. 189 (both with further references). Cf. also Hor. Sat. 2.7, where Horace appears in his own persona as freedman, and his wise slave Davus is frightened by his reaction: aut insanit homo aut versus facit (v. 117).
People from Corycus (l. 82) were believed guilty of divesting the sailors of information and passing it along to neighbouring cities, cf. A.-T. Cozzoli, “Il I giambo e il nuovo ἰαμβίζειν di Callimaco”, op. cit., p. 137. Again, we are reminded of a similar feature of the iambicist, the propensity to accuse other men of unfairness (cf. Hor. Sat. 1.4.65-72); alternatively, the reference could be to plagiarism: cf. A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 45-46; E. Lelli, Critica e polemiche letterarie nei Giambi di Callimaco, Alessandria, 2003, p. 43. Even more problematic is the interpretation of l. 82-83, where someone “alone chose the Muses /… eating green figs”: cf. A.-T. Cozzoli, “Il I giambo e il nuovo ἰαμβίζειν di Callimaco”, op. cit., p. 131-140, with further bibliography.
Note, nevertheless, the poem’s very last words in POxy 1011, τῷ κύσῳ (v. 98), which may denote Hipponactean αἰσκρολογία, not necessarily λοιδορία. Cf. E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 47-48; E. Livrea, “Sul primo Giambo di Callimaco”, op. cit. The gratuitousness of genuine Hipponactean blame is reproached by Eustath. ad Il. 464.8 (I 734.1-5 van der Valk).
The locus classicus on iambiké idéa is Aristot. Poet. 1449a-b; cf. also Proleg. de comoedia 11b (p. 40 Koster) and M. Sonnino, “Insulto scommatico e teoria del comico in un simposio alessandrino del 203 a.C. (Polibio 15.25.31-33)”, in R. Nicolai (ed.), Ῥυσμός. Studi di poesia, metrica e musica greca offerti dagli allievi a L. E. Rossi per i suoi settant’anni, SemRom Quad. 6, Roma, 2003, p. 283-301.
In commenting on this poem, A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 44, argues for a distinction between Hipponax, who can indulge in taunts and mockery, and Callimachus, who does not “compromise his own superior refinement” or demean “his own fastidious detachment”: “Individuals [in l. 16-25] were not named. This generality invites us to find the author among Hipponax’ audience. Iambicists are explicitly mentioned (21). Callimachus, it seems, includes himself among the victims of this poem (34)”. Contra M. Rosen, Making Mockery. The Poetics of Ancient Satire, op. cit., p. 182 n. 14; B. Acosta-Hughes, “Callimachus, Hipponax and the Persona of the Iambographer”, MD 37, 1997, p. 205-216; Polyeideia, op. cit., p. 53-59 (cf. also E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 45). Given his traditional harshness, in Hellenistic epigram (cf. n. 51) “only the foolhardy (or very virtuous) would go anywhere near the tomb of Hipponax” (R. L. Hunter, The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome, Roman Literature and its Contexts, Cambridge, 2006, p. 12-13 n. 22). In appropriating his very persona, Callimachus may be implying his moral excellence.
A similar fable is to be found indeed in the Aesopic collection. Unlike Archilochus, Hipponax seems to have never used fable in his work, and its adoption here may represent an innovation in iambic genre as practiced by the poet of Ephesos.
Cf. Vit. Aesop. G. 97, 99, W. 97, 133; Pl. 282, 300; Fab. 465 Perry ap. Max. Tyr. Or. 19; Xen. Mem. 2.7.13; A. Wiechers, Aesop in Delphi, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 2, Meisenheim, 1961, p. 10.
On the much discussed τραγῳδοί in l. 12, cf. A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 54 n. 37, with further bibliography.
So R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., p. 172-173 ad l. 4 f. and 6 ff.
The fox and the eagle: Archil. fr. 172-181 W2; cf. Aesop. Fab. 1 Perry and T 101 Perry ap. Hermog. Progymn. 1 (Αρχίλοχος δὲ τὸν τῆς ἀλώπεκος, scil. μῦθον). It is not certain that such fable was directed against Lycambes: cf. K. Latte, “Zeitgeschichtliches zu Archilochos”, p. 387 n. 2, Hermes 92, 1964, p. 385-390. The fox and the ape: Archil. fr. 185-187 W2 cf. Aesop. Fab. 81 Perry. On the fox’s κακουργία cf. Sopat. Progymn. fr. 1 Rabe; in Themist. Or. 22 (278c) the fox always tricks stronger animals.
T. M. Compton, Victim of the Muses, op. cit., p. 348. The fact that the fox was Archilochus’ mask was well acknowledged by Plato: πρόθυρα μὲν καὶ σχῆμα κύκλῳ περὶ ἐμαυτὸν σκιαγραφίαν ἀρετῆς περιγραπτέον, τὴν δὲ τοῦ σοφωτάτου Ἀρχιλόχου ἀλώπεκα ἑλκτέον ἐξόπισθεν κερδαλέαν καὶ ποικίλην (Plat. Resp. 365c 3-6). A similar image is the cicada in fr. 223 W, which may be significant for Callimachus’ Aetia prologue as well. There is a scholarly consensus on Archilochus’ “irrelevance” as a model in the Iambi, as it should expected in a book which draws in particular from Hipponax (cf. W. Bühler, “Archilochos und Kallimachos”, in Archiloque. Sept exposés et discussions, Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 10, Vandœuvres and Geneva, 1963, p. 225-247, and E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 45). We may detect some traces of the poet from Paros (for instance the meter of Ia. 12, labelled as “Archilochean” by metrical treatises), which rather imply the refusal of his fury.
On Aesop cf. T. M. Compton, Victim of the Muses, op. cit., p. 19-40; on the adoption of his figure in the Iambi cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, R. Scodel, “Aesop poeta: Aesop and the Fable in Callimachus’ Iambi”, in M. A. Harder, R. F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker (ed.), Callimachus II, Hellenistica Groningana, 7, Leuven, Paris and Dudley (MA), p. 1-21.
Vit. Aesop. G. 110.
In the Mnesiepes inscription, for example, Archilochus was wronged by Parians, who “believed that they had been insulted in intolerable iambic invective”. Soon after this they were victims of impotence, and Apollo told them the only available cure was to grant Archilochus the honour he deserved (E1 III in D. Clay, Archilochos Heros. The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis, Cambridge (MA) and London, 2004, p. 104-110). Aesop was forced by Delphians to throw himself down from a rock like a pharmakós. Delphians were then struck by famine, and they had to grant Aesop heroic honours (T 25 Perry = T 1 in D. Clay, Archilochos Heros. The Cult of Poets in the Greek Polis, op. cit., p. 127-128). In another tradition Aesop enjoyed a second life, cf. Plat. Com. fr. 70 K-A and Ptol. Chenn. ap. Phot. Bibl. 191 p. 152b 11-3 Αἴσωπος ἀναιρεθεὶς ὑπὸ Δελφῶν ἀνεβίωσε, καὶ συνεμάχησε τοῖς Ἕλλησι περὶ Θερμοπύλας, cf. K.-H. Tomberg, Die Kaine Historia des Ptolemaios Chennos. Eine literarhistorische und quellenkritische Untersuchung, Diss. Bonn, 1967, p. 188-189 n. 133. We do not know anything similar about Hipponax, but many fragments refer to the Targelia and the expulsion of pharmakoí, cf. fr. 37 W = 46 D ἐκέλευε βάλλειν καὶ λεύειν Ἱππώνακτα, 6 W/D, 5 W = 26 D, 7 W = 27 D, 8 W = 28 D, 9 W = 29 D. A very similar figure is Socrates who, despite his ugliness, was the wisest of mortals. It is noteworthy that Eur. Palam. TrGF fr. 588 ἐκάνετ᾽ ἐκάνετε τὰν πάνσοφον, <ὦ Δαναοί,> τὰν οὐδὲν ἀλγύνουσαν ἀηδόνα μουσᾶν was considered already by Heraclides Ponticus as a reference to Socrates’ death. On Socrates (and Plato’s dialogues in general) as possible models of irony for the Iambi, cf. R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit.; S. Stephens, “Literary Quarrels”, in A. Martina, A.-T. Cozzoli (ed.), Callimachea II, Atti della seconda giornata di studi su Callimaco, Università Roma Tre, 15 maggio 2005, Roma, 2007; for the Aetia, B. Acosta-Hughes, “The Cicada’s Song: Plato in the Aetia”, ibidem.
On the “multiple inspiration” of Callimachus’ Iambi cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, R. Scodel, “Aesop poeta…”, op. cit., p. 19: “Each of the models evoked in the collection provides a precedent for some aspects of the enterprise, but none is complete in itself”. The importance of Plato’s dialogues for Callimachus has been the focus of very promising research: cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, “The Cicada’s Song: Plato in the Aetia”, op. cit.; S. Stephens, “Literary Quarrels”, op. cit.
I will not give full details of the questions arising from this poem. I hope to deal with this elsewhere.
Cf. Men. Adelph. 2 fr. 10 K-A.
It is generally assumed that the narrator is the lover. Even though the Diegesis does not shed any light on this, the assumption is most probably correct: cf. the use of first person narrative in l. 26-33, and in particular l. 29 καὶ γαμβρὸν̣ ἠ̣ξ̣ί̣ω̣σ̣ε̣ κ̣α[ὶ] φίλο̣ν θέσθαι (with von Arnim’s supplements), where γαμβρός means “lover”, cf. LSJ9s.v. IV and most recently E. Livrea, “Callimachi Iambus III”, ZPE 146, 2004, p. 47-52 ad loc.; E. Lelli’s “genero” is unconvincing (Critica e polemiche letterarie nei Giambi di Callimaco, op. cit., p. 94).
A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 80. This paradoxical wish has been much debated recently. For R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., p. 176, it expresses the speaker’s wish for deliverance from sexual desire, while A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 79-80, remains convinced that it refers to the wealth of Galli, but this interpretation is awkward and without clear evidence (Rhet. Her. 4.62 divitias suas iactat sicut Gallus e Phrygia, being more about wildness than about wealth). For E. Lelli, Critica e polemiche letterarie nei Giambi di Callimaco, op. cit., p. 100, it is related to a “lower” Muse (“al mestiere di poeta e letterato… vengono specularmente opposte le professioni di ballerino di Cibele o cantore ai festivals”); E. Livrea, “Callimachi Iambus III”, op. cit., p. 51 suggests l. 34-38 are actually spoken by Euthydemus. We are probably on safe ground in attributing them to the speaker himself, who complains about his worship using sexually ambiguous images: better to be an emasculated worshipper of Cybele or a woman crying a (dead) man, than to be a devotee of Muses deserted by Euthydemus (for a wealthier man).
In this respect this poem is far from contemporary cynic poetry. They share themes and images which may suggest common Hipponactean ispiration (cf. Phoenix of Colophon), but they differ strongly in the evaluation of poverty. Cf. E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 40-41 and 53.
On the poem’s structure, cf. A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 111-115 (here quoted at p. 114); L. Edmunds, “Callimachus Iamb 4: From Performance to Writing”, in A. Cavarzere, A. Aloni, A. Barchiesi (ed.), Iambic Ideas. Essays on a Poetic Tradition from Archaic Greece to the Late Roman Empire, Lanham et al., 2001, p. 77-98. This is a sophisticated development of the persona loquens, a feature of iambic poetry particularly relevant to Archilochus (cf. A. Pippin Burnett, Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, London, 1983, p. 99). Callimachus is fond of such plays on the ambiguity of voice, cf. the Bath of Pallas and the analysis offered by A. D. Morrison, “Sexual Ambiguity and the Identity of the Narrator in Callimachus’ Hymn to Athena”, BICS 48, 2005, p. 27-46.
Cf. l. 77 and Hec. fr. 248 Pf. = 36 Hollis, l. 84 and Del. 321-322. These references make it difficult to consider Ia. 4 an early poem (pace Cameron on this).
“O fair one in all things, [as] the swan [of Apollo] you sang the fairest of my features at the end” (l. 44-46, transl. B. Acosta-Hughes).
Archilochus: A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 113-115; Hipponax: L. Edmunds, “Callimachus Iamb 4: From Performance to Writing”, op. cit., p. 86-88.
Cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, Polyeideia, op. cit., p. 191 n. 62, for further bibliography.
Cf. G. B. D’Alessio, Callimaco, op. cit., I p. 17-8. This facet has apparently been underestimated by most scholars. In the most recent discussion of this poem, M. Rosen, Making Mockery. The Poetics of Ancient Satire, op. cit., p. 204-205, argues that the bramble/Simus is responsible of not understanding the literary nature of the neikos between the trees: “Without such an understanding, poetic satire once again appears to be simply an unpleasant, indecorous, even scandalous form of ‘real-life’” (p. 205); “The fable… functions as an epideixis for Simus of a proper literary psogos” (p. 200).
One might even quote Odysseus’ reply to Thersites in Il. 2.245-247: καί μιν ὑπόδρα ἰδὼν χαλεπῷ ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ· / “Θερσῖτ᾽ ἀκριτόμυθε, λιγύς περ ἐὼν ἀγορητής, / ἴσχεο, μηδ᾽ ἔθελ᾽ οἶος ἐριζέμεναι βασιλεῦσιν” (“with an angry glance scolded him with harsh words, saying: ‘Thersites of reckless speech, clear-voiced talker though you are, restrain yourself, and do not think to be the sort of person who may quarrel with kings’”).
Cf. Alcae. Mess. AP 7.536 = 13 G-P, Hippon. T 17 Dg. On the reception of the two iambicists in the epigram tradition cf. now M. Rosen, “The Hellenistic Epigrams on Archilochus and Hipponax”, op. cit. Interestingly, the Diegesis labels the bramble as “old”, βάτος παλαιά (Dieg. 7.12). Old age is a standard feature of traditional figures: Hipponax, for example, is “old” (πρέσβυς) also in the epigram by Alcaeus just quoted and he should be probably identified with the old man in Herondas’ dream as well (Mim. 8), cf. especially v. 75-79 (Hippon. T 47 Dg) and E. Degani, Studi su Ipponatte, op. cit., p. 51-53; L. Di Gregorio, Eronda: Mimiambi (V-XIII), Biblioteca di Aevum(ant) 16, Milan, 2004, p. 366-381. On old age as “recognisable poetic code”, cf. R. L. Hunter in M. Fantuzzi, R. L. Hunter, Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge, 2004, p. 74-76.
The name is given by the Diegesis, but it might be just a trope, cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, Polyeideia, op. cit., p. 193-194.
Two lines in the margin of l. 117 in POxy 1011 apparently mark the conclusion of the poem and “totius partis iambicos trimetros claudos continens” (R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., p. 184 ad loc.). Cf. L. Edmunds, “Callimachus Iamb 4: From Performance to Writing”, op. cit., p. 79-80.
One may reasonably argue that there is no harsh break between Ia. 4 and 5, given the latter’s imagery and partially choliambic meter.
Partially anticipated by Iambus 12: cf. M. Giuseppetti, “Il Giambo 12 di Callimaco, occasione e allusività giambica”, Paideia 61, 2006, p. 207-225.
The charges in this speech have often been taken as serious. There is a strong possibility, though, that the critic’s words are styled with very Callimachean irony (cf. l. 40). Cf., in particular, R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit., p. 41-45.
While discussing about Socrates’ trial, Euthyphro tells the philosopher that even he himself has been charged of madness when he foretells what is going to happen, and no doubt this is due to the phtoneros nature of the Athenians (Plat. Euth. 3b9-c5). Socrates’ reply is significant: Athenians get angry if a wise man tries to teach others to be as wise as he is.
Ion the poet, proficient in polyeideia (Dieg. 9.34-36); Ion the rhapsode, one of the characters in Plato’s Ion; Ion the ancestor of the Ionians: cf. R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit.
Cf. R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit.; B. Acosta-Hughes, Polyeideia, op. cit., p. 97.
A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 265.
A reference to the past fits better the aorist ἠγάπησαν in l. 51.
Cf. the rich notes in A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 266-267. On tattooing add C. P. Jones, “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity”, JRS 77, 1987, p. 139-155. Cf. also Ia. 4.22 and R. Pfeiffer, Callimachus, I: Fragmenta, op. cit., p. 179 ad loc. It is not certain that κἠμέ (l. 53) implies the speaker is the victim of the attacks.
Hes. Op. 195-200. Cf. B. Acosta-Hughes, Polyeideia, op. cit., p. 98; G. B. D’Alessio, “Intersezioni callimachee: Callimaco, Esiodo, Virgilio, Persio”, p. 147-150, in A. Martina, A.-T. Cozzoli (ed.), Callimachea I. Atti della prima giornata di studi su Callimaco (Roma, 14 maggio 2003), Roma, 2006, p. 137-162.
φαύλοις ὁμι[λ]εῖ[ν (l. 58), which in a sense might recall the comic characters as being φαυλότεροι than real people in Aristot. Poet. 1449a 32-34.
A. Kerkhecker, Callimachus’ Book of Iambi, op. cit., p. 267 and n. 99 considers π̣α̣ρέπτησαν (l. 58) to be gnomic aorist, but this also may be proper aorist: the poets have reached their last age, just as in Hesiod, and the Muses’ flight is definitive (cf. also l. 51). Cf. Aratus’ myth of Dike in Ph. 133-134 with A. Schiesaro, “Aratus’ Myth of Dike”, MD 37, 1996, p. 9-26.
In Pind. Pyth. 2.54-56, “abusive Archilochus” is depicted as “fattening himself with strong words and hatred” (εἶδον… τὰ πόλλ᾽ ἐν ἀμαχανίᾳ ψογερὸν Ἀρχίλοχον βαρυλόγοις ἔχθεσιν πιαινόμενον), here the poets οὐδὲν πῖον, ἀ[λλὰ] λιμηρά / ἕκαστος ἄκροις δακτύλοις ἀ̣π̣ο̣κνίζει (l. 60-61, which recall also l. 21). Cf. G. B. D’Alessio, “Intersezioni callimachee: Callimaco, Esiodo, Virgilio, Persio”, op. cit., p. 146-147; Archil. fr. 125 W; Semon. fr. 7.6 W; Anan. fr. 5.9 W; A. Pippin Burnett, Three Archaic Poets: Archilochus, Alcaeus, Sappho, op. cit., p. 58-59. The interpretation of the Pindaric passage is much discussed: cf. most recently C. G. Brown, “Pindar on Archilochus and the Gluttony of Blame (Pyth. 2.52-56)”, JHS 126, 2006, p. 36-46. The verb πιαίνω is used in the Iliad in the descriptions of the dogs injuring the corpses of the heroes fallen on the battlefield, cf. G. Nagy, The Best of the Achaeans. Concepts of the Hero in Archaic Greek Poetry, Baltimore, 19992, p. 226; M. Graver, “Dog-Helen and Homeric Insult”, CA 14.1, 1995, p. 41-61; cf. also Bacch. Ep. 3.67-68 εὖ λέγειν πάρεστιν ὅσ|[τις μ]ὴ φθόνῳ πιαίνεται (this reading is due to the second corrector: ϊαινεται Π, cf. also Hesych. s.v.). It is interesting to observe that Pindar has to refrain from δάκος ἀδινὸν κακαγοριᾶν (P. 2.53). The word δάκος is etymologically connected with the verb δάκνω, “to bite”: it is probably not by chance that the Delian cult referred to in Ia. 13.60-62 involved biting of the sacred tree, cf. Call. Del. 322-323 πρέμνον ὀδακτάσαι ἁγνὸν ἐλαίης / χεῖρας ἀποστρέψαντας. Cf. also D. Steiner, “Slander’s Bite: Nemean 7.102-105 and the Language of Invective,” JHS 121, 2001, p. 154-158.
If so, does this refer as well to his own condition of poverty, at least implicitly?
R. L. Hunter, “(B)ionic man: Callimachus’ iambic programme”, op. cit., p. 41. On the questions, cf. most recently E. Lelli, Callimachi Iambi XIV-XVII, Roma, 2005, even though I do not share his conviction that fr. 226-229 Pf. are “Iambi 14-17” tout court.Haut de page