Knox_wine Water and Callimachean Polemics

7/30/2019 Knox_wine Water and Callimachean Polemics

1/14

Department of the Classics, Harvard University

Wine, Water, and Callimachean PolemicsAuthor(s): Peter E. KnoxReviewed work(s):Source: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 89 (1985), pp. 107-119Published by: Department of the Classics, Harvard UniversityStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/311271 .

Accessed: 18/05/2012 03:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Department of the Classics, Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toHarvard Studies in Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchuhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311271?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/311271?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dchu


2/14

WINE, WATER, ANDCALLIMACHEANPOLEMICSPETERE. KNOX

WE know very little about the detailsof the celebrateddreaminwhich Callimachuswas transportedto Helicon and received bythe Muses. Most of what we do know comes from the late anony-mous epigram,AP 7.42. For the rest we are left with a few fragmen-tary lines (fr. 2 Pf.) and the scatteredand often confusingreferencesto the scene in later literature.That ignoranceand the obvious impor-tance which the Roman poets attached to this missing portionof theAetia have provokeda flood of speculativecomment by scholars onthe significanceof the criticalterminologythat developed out of thisscene. Among the most important problemsin the interpretationofthe poetry of Callimachus'sadherentsat Rome are the source of hisinspirationin the dream and the specific poetic associationsof thestreams and fountains mentioned there. A closely related problemlies in the symbolismof wine and water as sources of poetic inspira-tion. What follows constitutes an attempt to sort out a few of thelines of evidence, and in the case of certain laterHellenisticepigramsto reassignsome of the polemicalcharacteristics f this symbolismtothe epigrammatists hemselves, whose contributionsin these mattersare more originalthan is generallycredited. A subsidiaryargument sthat Callimachus'scontemporariesshared a great deal more of theCallimachean creed than one might expect, given the hostilityapparent n the polemicalpronouncementsof the Aetia and the Hymnto Apollo. A case in point is found in the intensely Callimachean et-ting of Vergil's Sixth Ecloguewhere the initiation of Gallus finds acompellingparallelin a reference to the poet most closely identifiedwith anti-Callimachean oetry,Antimachusof Colophon.

I. Numquam isipotusThe epigrammatistAntipaterof Thessalonica s firmlydated to theAugustan period by references in his verse to his relationshipwithL. CalpurniusPiso, apparentlyhis patron. Antipater s represented n


3/14

108 Peter Knoxthe Palatine Anthologyby some 100 epigrams.' In general, he adopts alight-hearted tone suitable to the occasional nature of his verse. Hisactive dislike of pedantic poetry is documented in a particularly causticand allusive piece:

EvYEo'6-OL-X6KKaq '~ 0 Ka.Lacrvaq68ETE, 7rTOLVqTOV)KovaKavOokoy,vc,OV.EEpovApXLkbXOLOKat apcTEvo' paTp OwIpov

oa7TtvSo/,Ev"6 Kp7r7pO UXE0' 8pobTrag.(AP 11.20 = XX G-P)Although Callimachus is not specifically named, the allusion in line 4(cf. Call. H. 2.112 =rliaKo' lEpis) makes it clear that he is its prin-cipal target.2 Attacks on Callimachus and Callimachean poetry are notuncommon in epigrams of the Augustan period or after.3 An attractivefeature of Antipater's poem is his combination of the attack on pedan-tic poetry with the motif of water drinking, playing on the familiarimagery of Callimachus and holy springs. Antipater's piece has oftenbeen used in other contexts to argue that the distinction between wineand water as symbols for different sorts of poetic inspiration waswidely recognized in antiquity and, in particular, that it was familiar toCallimachus. So, for example, the following epigram by Antigonus iscommonly described as an allegorical attack on Callimachus: 4

1See A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Garlandof PhilipII (Cambridge1968) 20-21, on the difficulties nvolved in distributing pigramsbetweentheThessalonican nd the earlierpoet of the same namefrom Sidon.2Gow-Pageon line 1: "There is no indicationwho used any of these wordsbut the sneers are evidentlydirected,if not at Callimachushimself, at his fol-lowers and admirers." It is surelyworthmentioningthe attributiono Callima-chus of a fragmentaryhexameter in Et. Gen.containingthe word by K. Dil-they, De CallimachiCydippa Leipzig 1863) 14; cf. Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 755.Elsewherethe wordis found onlyat Lyc.48.3In much the same vein are the anti-Callimacheanpigramsof Philip, AP11.321, 11.347 (= LX-LXI G-P) and Antiphanes,AP 11.322 (=IX G-P).Callimachus,of course,has also his defenders,e.g., Crinagoras,AP9.545.4Thus Gow-Page (above n.1) 17; M. Rubensohn, "Gegen die Wasser-trinker,"Hermes26 (1891) 153-156; E. Reitzenstein,"ZurStiltheoriedes Kal-limachos,"Festschrift ichardReitzensteinLeipzig1931)56.


4/14

Wine, Water, and Callimachean Polemics 109apyvplE7 KP7VrV /.E 7Ty OVKETL' [aKpa CPOwuTa

I3aTpaXovotlrrpav EoXEVE trOo'Tay6o'Lv*KELgat8L

'' iv Ni'Ukatl, KElVaL' 4dl, o' EAvalwXOpo',7rT' CAlO,7Epcov OVo/oEVO'TaYaooLv.6qj 7TrOT' i AtLvv'OVEKClaua.. 4?EVTVE^ &8opinvovcnv avqvov m pova gar,VopEVOL.(AP 9.406 = I G-P)

A simpler interpretation is possible, one that assumes the frog to be afrog and not a poet,5 but only likely if it can be shown that the polem-ical associations of wine and water were not commonplace.It has been asserted that the use of wine and water to representdifferent approaches to poetry is found as early as the fifth centuryB.C6The only passage to support this contention is a trimeter of Cra-tinus incorporated into a later epigram, and the evidence it provides isfar from clear:

oLotXaE x'ot ITELTv Lt kO

"V&18opEITLVCOVOv'8Eva&vTE'KOL' rO-V.(Nicaen. AP 13.29.1-2 = fr. 199 K)

Wine as an aid to composition is attested as early as Archilochus,7 andthe association of this practice with early poets is apparentlytraditional.8 On the other hand, we have no evidence that any pre-Alexandrian poet espoused the virtues of water as a source of inspira-tion.9 If Cratinus is making a polemical point, then all that can be

5The epigram,as Gow-Pagenote, is relatedto "Plato"AP 6.43 on anotherfrog-shapedtem.6E.g., A. Kambylis,Die Dichterweihe nd ihreSymbolik Heidelberg1965)119; J. C. Bramble, Persiusand the Programmaticatire (Cambridge1974)48-49; N. B. Crowther,"Water and Wine as Symbolsof Inspiration,"Mnem.32 (1979) 5 n.20.7 Fr. 120 W ( = Ath. 628a) cb Atwovo-ov avaKTO'4 Kahakb apfaL /iXho I

o26a 8sLpaCLp3oov Lvq rTvyKEpayvvo~E~Lpvaq. Cf. also Ar. Ran. 354ff.8 E.g., Homer (Hor.Epist.1.19.6), Alcaeus (Ath. 10.429a), Aristophanes(Ath. 10.429a),Anacreon(Ath. 10.429b), Aeschylus(Plut. Quaest.Cony.622e;Ath. 10.428f.).9The argumentthat Pindar's references to springs (e.g., 0. 6.84-87, I.6.74-75) are not relevantseems to me well taken. He is not concernedwithdrinkingfrom springsfor inspiration: f. W. Kroll, Studien um VerstandniserromischenLiteraturStuttgart1924) 29 n.13; Kambylis (above n.6) 113-115.Of course, Pindar'sreferences to springscould be interpreteddifferently bylater poets; cf. M. Poliakoff, "Nectar, Springs,and the Sea," ZPE39 (1980)


5/14

110 PeterKnoxextractedfrom these lines is a distinctionbetween the inspiredcompo-sition of good poetry (co46v) associatedwith wine and all the rest,that is, bad poetry. It is after all more than likely that he is makinguse of his well-known fondness for the grape for humorouspurposes.10 n any event, in the absence of supportingevidence wecannot take this fragmentas confirmationof the fifth-centurypolemi-cal associationsof wine andwater.For our purposes it is obviously of less importanceto determinewhether a recognizableset of poetic associationsfor wine and waterdid exist in the fifth centurythan it is to ascertainwhether this sym-bolism was importantfor Callimachus himself.11There is only onereference in the fragmentsto the traditionalassociation of poetryandwine in a vague allusion to Archilochus: o70o /,ELOvrrX7yo4polUov 'APXLXOXov, fr. 544 Pf. However, this is apparently only areference to Archilochus's own statement and tells us nothing aboutCallimachus's attitude toward his work.12 But taken together withanother fragmenton Archilochus, it has suggested to some that hisassessmentof the earlierpoet was negative:

EhXKVrcE8PLL,vE XXovvv't'X TEEVTp'OVO4lqKrlo,6rr' a,4OTE'pCOpv8' Oibv XELor-T.ta-ro(fr. 380 Pf.)

The passageperhapssuggests that Callimachushad reservationsaboutthe content of Archilochus'spoetry, but this by no means rules outapprovalof his style. The example of Horace is instructive:numeros

41-47. Phrynichusr. 69 K ( = Ath. 2.44d),which s adduced y Crowther(above n.6) 5 n.20,does mentiona certainLampsacusthe musician?)s awaterdrinker, ut thecontexts obscure, ndthis s a slenderhread n whichto hanga school.10Theragments fromCratinus'lvrlvr (cf. fr. 203K-A);and Cratinus'sfondness or drinkwas also a target or Aristophanes:.g., Pax 700-703.Compare lso the similarphrasing f Nicias'sprotestat Eq. 88 rr 8''v/IE6O)V Xp)o-rTOV7T fPovXhEvoaLtr'v&;p, whichmeetswith mmediateejection.Similarly, orace'soneintheopeninginesof Epist. .19 s ironic ndhiscriti-cismis directed ot ata particularchoolof poetrybut at thosewhoslavishlyimitate even the mannerismsof theirliterarybetters(o imitatores,eruum ecus,1.19.19);cf. E. Fraenkel,Horace Oxford1957)340." So Kambylis above n.6) 118ff.,but the more sober assessmentofCrowtheraboven.6)5 pointso theoppositeonclusion.12See above n.7.


6/14

Wine, Water,and Callimachean olemics 111animosqueecutusI Archilochi, on reset agentiauerbaLycamben,Epist.1.19.24-25.13In short, the single reference to the association of wine and poetryconveys no hint of polemic. Indeed, it is difficultto see how Callima-chus could use wine and water in and of themselves to designateopposing concepts of poetry. It is surely relevant that the Augustanpoets appealto Bacchusas a poet's god.14 So far as we know (or maysuspect), water derives its symbolicimportance or Callimachus romthe initiation scene in the first book of the Aetia.15Water, in fact, hassignificanceas a symbol of inspirationonly if it comes from a sacredfountain (rTlaKo9 41 iEp^ H. 2.112) to which Callimachus has spe-cial access. It is only Callimachus's enemies who extend thesignificanceof this metaphorby turningCallimachus nto a teetotalerfor the sake of ridicule. In particular, t appearsto have been thenovel contribution of the epigramwhich served as the startingpointfor this discussion. Antipater'sattack on water drinkingpoets drawson the same themes deployed by the same poet in a nonliterarypiecein which he takes issue with abstinence and its adherentson moralgrounds.16

91ov.OL X'7itda8&v 4OI3Ep'r1 (7-tqc OiaS kaXa-oovcopVOvoUTV4EXWVOLa? 7cpt oKOTEXWO,oiS'av vaorpaarTIT7, gya oipavo cb0 KaKov &vipa

13In fact Callimachus'sreference elsewhere to #q86.. 'ApXLh6XovLLKa(LOvv6mLvlo (fr. 384.37-39 Pf.) may reflect not only epinicianconvention butalso a positiveassessment of Archilochus n at leastsome respects.14Cf. esp. Prop. 2.30.37-40, 3.2.9, 4.1.62, 4.6.75; and see Nisbet andHubbard's ntroductorynote to Hor. C. 2.19. Callimachus,however, does notassociateDionysus with poetry in general:fr. 191.7 is suggestiverather thanconclusive and Ep. 8 refers to a dramaticcontest where the reference toDionysusis conventional.15In fr. 178.15-20 Pf., the conversation between Callimachus and thestrangerfrom Icus, the poet urges the moderateconsumptionof wine, tem-pered with conversationas well as water. In an interesting discussion, RuthScodel, "Wine, Water, and the Anthesteria n CallimachusFr. 178 Pf.," ZPE39 (1980) 37-40, shows how Callimachus vokes the myth of Erigoneto sug-gest the dangersof wine. But it is unlikelythat a literarypoint is beingmadehere or that the passageplays upon the alleged polemicalassociationsof wineand water, as Scodel seems to suggest (39 n.9). The learned reference is inCallimachus'sbest manner,but, to me at least, the context seems exclusivelyaetiological.16For the themecomparePlut. Mor.612d;Mart.1.27;10.48.21-24.


7/14

112 PeterKnox

i'apf co Kat iOcov .wgv'govaq i&8porrO'a4.(AP 11.31 = XXXVII G-P)It is only possible to find a literarypoint in this or other epigramsonthe same theme if we acceptthat the identificationof Callimachusas awaterdrinker was commonplaceby the end of the first centuryB.C.-an unlikelyassumption,as we have seen." That Callimachusdid notview himself in this light is attestedby his own epitaph:

BaTT&18Ecorapa&4LpaOE'paEL4r8a E .v &o'otv8jVEL OTO'9, EV ' OlVCf)KIPLLa uvyyEkalaL.(Ep. 35 Pf.)But his innovative use of waterimagery n the initiationscene on Hel-icon provideda handle for Antipater,whose epigramis apparentlyaclever innovation. Out of the ancient associationof wine and poetryand the conventionalcriticismof waterdrinkers,he has seized upon anovel means of participatingn the contemporaryashion of attackingCallimachus.

II. HaXib p&ka4ruat Oi rTopOvThe evidence from Callimachusand laterepigrammatists urveyedabove seems to suggest that the literaryassociationsof wine andwaterwere not fixed until a much later date. It is not difficultto discoverthe origins of the misconceptions surrounding the metaphoricalsignificanceof Callimachus's dream. In the surviving work of thethird-centuryepigrammatists,Asclepiades, Posidippus, and Hedylus,we can at least partiallytrace the outlines of a significantliterarydispute. One majoraspect of this dispute involved the evaluation ofthe Lydeof Antimachus of Colophon. In assessingthe polemicalcon-tent of this dispute, we will once again need to avoid importingthebiases of hostile epigrammatistsof a later period into the analysisofour Alexandriansources.

17 Antipaterhas one other epigramon the evils of sobriety,AP 9.305(= XXXVIG-P). Literaryignificances assigned o all theseepigrams yReitzensteinaboven.4) 56. AP 11.24doesin factplayuponthe Hellenisticattributiono Hesiod of drinkingrominspirationaltreams, or whichseeAsclepiades,AP 9.64 (=XLV G-P) and Alcaeus,AP 7.55 (= XII G-P).Antipaterppearso haveextended is criticism f Callimachus,oweverllegi-timately,o his model.


8/14

Wine, Water,andCallimachean olemics 113The literaryreputationof Antimachus, such as it is, depends forthe most parton the survivingfragmentsof his work, a few scatteredreferences, and the notorious verdictof Callimachus:A'b87 Kati 7raTx

yp&rLLta al oi op6v, fr. 398 Pf.18It is not difficult o guess whatCal-limachusmight have objectedto in Antimachus's Thebaid,but givenwhat we know of its subjectmatter and style, it is less easy to under-stand his criticismof the Lyde. As a collectionof mythologicalnarra-tives in elegiacs composed in honor of his mistress, the constructionof the Lyde may well have borne some resemblance to that of theAetia.19 The poem does not appear to have exercised any lastinginfluence,20 but it did attractconsiderableattention in the third cen-tury, and the evidence suggests that Callimachus'sopinion was iso-lated.Callimachus'solder contemporary,Asclepiades,21 praises the Lydein two couplets whose conceit is that the woman who provides thetitle of the poem is made to speakfor herself:

18B. Wyss, AntimachiColophonii eliquiae Berlin 1936), is still the only com-plete edition of the fragments,togetherwith introductionand testimonia. Formore recentadditions,see now Parsonsand Lloyd-Jones,Supplementumellen-isticumBerlin 1983) nos. 52-79. For a generalassessment of Antimachus,seeD. W. T. C. Vessey, "The Reputationof Antimachusof Colophon,"Hermes 9(1971) 1-10; also R. Pfeiffer,Historyof ClassicalScholarship (Oxford 1968)93-95.19Wyss (above n.18) xxiv: "fore ut nostri quidemaevi hominibusmagnaepartesAetiorum, id carmen si servatumesset, a Lyde vix distareviderentur,mihi paene persuasumhabeo." Cf. also D. Del Corno, "Ricerche ntorno allaLydedi Antimaco,"Acme15 (1962) 58.20In poetry after the thirdcenturyB.C. here is only an uninstructiverefer-ence in Ovid Tr.1.6.1. The notion that Antimachus'sLydeand similarworkssuch as the Leontion f Hermesianax erved as models for the Romanelegists,until recentlybelieved extinct, has been revived by F. Cairns, Tibullus: Hel-lenisticPoet at Rome(Cambridge1979) 214-230. It is worthrecallinga morecautious assessment of Antimachus's survival by A. Henrichs, "TowardsaNew Edition of Philodemus' OnPiety,"GRBS13 (1972) 77: "Althoughcopiesof Antimachus'epicpoetry must have been available to the Roman readingpublicuntil well after the middleof the firstcenturyB.C., here is no evidenceof the survival of the Lydeinto late Republican imes." Ovid's lines in theTristiamply only that he knew of the Lyde, not that he had read it. ForCatullus95 and Prop. 2.34.45, which refer to the Thebaid,ee D. Del Corno(above n.19) 62 andVessey (above n.18) 3.21For his possible influence on Callimachus, see R. Reitzenstein, RE2.1627.15ff.;P. M. Fraser,PtolemaicAlexandria (Oxford1972) 719.


9/14

114 PeterKnoxAvS6lKaty~vo9 EL/.UKat ovivoLa,TV8' 7&1bK6bpov

T'E/.voTiprT r a'ov wEL/U 8t' 'AvrLtaxov"T9~-p E/tL'OVK LcqcE;rTuOvKvEXEhaTov84v,rT vv'v MovoC^v p'lqaA) "Kat Avit/qULXov;(AP 13.23 = XXXIIG-P)It is, of course, the final line of this epigramthat Callimachusstandson its head in his negative judgment of Antimachus.22Asclepiades'positive verdict is echoed in an epigram by another contemporary,Posidippus,23which takes the form of a toast:

Navvo0i,; KatiA'r8, EX VOIXEL8t KatiLKEp&aTovMLEt/~iptLov Kat 70ro c4povocOV'AVTrL&Xov"(AP12.168.1-2 = IX G-P)

It is clear that Asclepiadesand Posidippusdifferedfrom Callimachusin their judgment of the Lyde. This relatively straightforwarddisagreementover the evaluationof a predecessoris complicatedbythe inclusion of Asclepiadesand Posidippus n the list of Telchines inthe Florentine Scholia on Call. fr. 1 Pf. Our best evidence as to thereason for their inclusion in the list of Callimachus'senemies is theirfavorable assessment of the Lyde.24 What we must consider iswhether the proponentsof the Lydeasserteda differentset of literaryvalues at odds with Callimacheanaesthetics or whether the disagree-ment amounted to interpretationbased on the same generallyacceptedstylisticstandards.

22Wilamowitz,"Die Thukydideslegende,"Hermes12 (1877) 357 n.42.23On the evidence or a connection etween hese twoepigrammatists,eeconveniently,Gow andPage, TheGreekAnthology: ellenistic pigramsI (Cam-bridge 965)115-118.24Thiswould be considerably asier to assertif ' LEyak) yvvj (Call.fr. 1.12Pf.) could in factrefer to the Lyde,but in view of the testimonyof the Floren-tine Scholia that seems impossible. The bibliography n this line is prodigious.For recent discussion,see V. J. Matthews, "Antimachusin the Aitia Prolo-gue," Mnem. 32 (1979) 128-137 and A. S. Hollis, "Callimachus,Aetia fr.1.9-12," CQ 28 (1978) 402-406. Both propose (independently)the supple-ment O8Ev at the beginningof line 10, but Matthewstakes this to refer to theArtemisof Antimachus,while Hollis, following Pfeiffer, prefers to have theshort works of Philetas and Mimnermus contrastedwith their own longerworks. This passageis still not understood. Alternatively,one must considerthe very real possibilitythat any disputewith Asclepiadesand the other Tel-chinesmay have been purelypersonal;cf. Del Corno(above n.19) 59.


10/14

Wine,Water,and Callimachean olemics 115Certainlythe objectionsvoiced by Callimachus n fr. 398 seem tohave been stylistic; specificallyhe faults the poem for an absence ofK'7TTr-r. Nevertheless, Callimachus'sdisapprovalof the Lyde didnot prevent him from making use of it in the Delian Hymn, as isattested by Philodemus,De Pietate:K]aXhhXlax[o8E 7-] 7rap' 'Av~L-

.ax[XCoLE]XrTaXaovw Eyp[alqP.E]V'[dj]; oi)8 [T71] Hp[aCK][LE4V]Y-E '[wL^'ooo.25And he probably imitated Antimachus on other points ofsubject matter, meter, or diction.26Still, his antipathy owardthe styleof the Lyde might have been sufficient to alienate him from his con-temporarieswho did not share his opinion. This does not mean thatthey disagreed in principle. There is nothing in the surviving epi-gramsof Asclepiadesor Posidippusthat conflicts with what we knowof Callimachus'sstylistic standards. It is perhapsworth noting herethe association of Asclepiades Sicelidas with Callimacheanpoeticsdepicted in Theocritus's Thalysia(39-48). And Hedylus, who isoften connected with Asclepiadesand Posidippus,makes a claim forhXE7TO'T7l,associating this quality with inspiration from wine:

=7VL1'COEV,al -yap 'TLEOV,Kal yap TL7'ap' ovovEVpOL/XUK'E7TTO al 'TLEXLXpyo '7ro4.hXXh.

Ka8L0' XLov/,E

KaTa/38pEXE KatlhE'yE "7raE,'H8AE"' /L/u7L 57^ E' KE'V Ob1) EOVOW.(Ath. 11.472F = V G-P)In the absence of evidence that Callimachusidentified wine with aspecificschool of poetry,we should be cautious in assumingthere tobe any ironyintendedhere.27The qualitieswhichCallimachusclaimedfor his own poetry seem also to have been claimed by his contem-poraries, and not surprisingly,they expressed themselves in similarterms.28Significantly,there is no evidence of disagreementbetween Calli-machus and this circle of epigrammatistsover Antimachus's othermajor work, the Thebaid. Probablythere was none. Callimachus'saesthetic principlesseem not to have come under attack. Rather,

25So reconstructedby Henrichs (above n.20) 72-77, now availableas Sup-plementum ellenisticum78. For a different nterpretation f EraXaf3wv, see G.Giangrande,"Kallimachosund Antimachos,"Hermes102 (1974) 117-119.26 Cf. Wyss (above n.17) xlvii;Del Corno (above n.19) 85 n.89.27PaceKambylis above n.6) 121-122; cf. also Crowther above n.6) 4-5.28CompareHedylus,Ath. 11.473a( = VI G-P) in a compliment o an other-wise unknown poet, &Xka "Tap' olvov YLKEXLEWU7TalEL TrrOUkvXLEXLXPrOpoVwithCall. fr. 1.16Pf. arT6ovi4E 6' 406EXEXhLXp6TEpaLnd Pfeiffer'snote ad loc.


11/14

116 Peter Knoxthere was a difference over the assessment of the Lyde, but insucceeding generations the climate of opinion shifted. Toward theend of the second century B.C.another epigrammatist,AntipaterofSidon, stands the aesthetic terminologyof the earlier Alexandriansonits head in praiseof the Thebaid:

o6fPLpOPKa/apTOv 0TXOV ALVE-OV A aXotO,&4tov pXaloc, 60pVo0q)/.LLiov,IIHEpI8oWXaXKEVToJ'7Tr'aK/jxo-L, EZropw oi'aEXXaXE%, i ,akoL' Tv tEkaor-TovrE 7Ta,Ei raV 'TpL7rTo'oVl aJ'E/XPLaTOV;rpa7Trv akkooL'.LaEaL. (AP 7.409.1- 6)

That it is the Thebaid, nd not the Lyde,whichis meant here is clearlyindicatedby 6pppLov'-r'rXovin the opening line and the epithet &Ka-pTrov.29The clear allusionto the prologue of the Aetia in lines 5 and6, as well as the inversion of Callimachus's criticism of the Lydeinline 3, reveal the anti-Callimacheanocus.30Praise of Antimachus'sepic does not resurface after Callimachusuntil relatively ate,31and inthis regardAntipaterseems to anticipate atersentiment. But in asso-ciating specificallyCallimacheanvalues with Antimachus's Thebaid,the Sidonian makes a connection that might have surprisedeven thefiercestamongthe Telchines.

29For 6f3pLZovo-rLXov, f. Hor. S. 1.10.43 orteepos. Gow-Pageexpress puz-zlement at a&Ka.&LTOv,ut the reference is probablyo a familiarHomerictoposat II. 2.488-492. Alternatively,one might consider that Antipater s attribut-ing Callimacheana&ypvrrvtro Antimachus.30The phraseropbV oi'aqrecallsnot only Call. fr. 398 Pf. but also a phraseemployed by Callimacheanpoets in expressingtheir standardsof critical udg-ment, e.g., Prop.2.13.11-12:me iuuet in gremiodoctaelegisse puellaeauribuset purisscriptaprobassemea.And Posidippus,Tab.Berol. 14283(1.2) Ka8apo'v;ovao-rvwiththe commentaryof H. Lloyd-Jones,"The Seal of Posidippus,"JHS83 (1963) 81-82. See nowalso Supplementumellenisticum05.31Cf. Del Corno (above n.19) 63 .16; G. Serrao, "La Lidedi Antimaco e lacriticacallimachea,"QUCC32 (1979) 98; Pfeifferon Call. fr. 398.


12/14

Wine,Water,and Callimachean olemics 117III.On the Banks of the Permessus

Water, in and of itself, is not a literary symbol for Callimachus;what mattersis its source, and what distinguisheshis poetryis that hedrinks directly from the sacred fountains of Helicon.32The furtherargumentthat out of Hesiod's initiationin the TheogonyCallimachusconstructed a hierarchicarrangementof inspirationalstreams restslargelyon a coupletof Propertius:nondumetiam Ascraeosnorunt mea carmina ontis,sed modo Permessi flumine lauit Amor.(2.10.25-26)

If we accept the designationof Hippocreneas the source for seriousepic verse and the Permessus as the streamof love elegy,33 hen, thestandard interpretationruns,34 Propertius pronounces himself stillunfit to attemptthe higherstrain. But the attributionof such a dicho-tomy to Callimachus is unlikely and cannot be inferred from thiscouplet or the other key passages in Propertius.35The consequencesfor the interpretationof this couplet, though significant,need not beconsidered here. The crucial point, argued convincingly by DavidRoss, is that the Ascraeanfountainsand the Permessusrepresentthesame poetic tradition:Propertiushas not yet written serious Hesiodicverse, but his love poetrydraws on the same tradition.36 he issue isimportantnot only for the interpretation f Propertiusbut for the his-toryof the developmentof Latinelegy.

32So much, at anyrate,can be reconstructed f the initiation cene; see, e.g.,Reitzenstein (above n.4) 52-69 and Kambylis (above n.6) 89-123 withfurtherreferences.33E.g., E. Maass, "Untersuchungen zu Properz," Hermes 31 (1896)375-434; Wilamowitz,Hellenistische ichtungI (Berlin 1924) 93-95; W. Kroll(above n.9) 29; W. Wimmel,Kallimachosn Rom(Wiesbaden1960)233-238.34For which see the commentatorsad loc. and M. Hubbard,PropertiusLon-don 1975) 74-75; S. Commager,A ProlegomenonoPropertiusCincinnati1974)60; G. Luck, TheLatinLoveElegy London 1969) 139-141.35Cf. Reitzenstein (above n.4) 58-59; Kambylis(above n.6) 184-185; Z.Stewart,"The Songof Silenus," HSCP64 (1959) 203 n.65.36Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome (Cambridge 1975)119-120. Propertiusmakes a contrast between the two verbs, noritand lauit,not the Ascraeos fontis and Permessiflumine. See also the review of Ross by J.E. G. Zetzel in CP72 (1977) 251-252 and Crowther above n.6) 7-9.


13/14

118 PeterKnoxtum canit, errantemPermessi ad flumina GallumAonas in montisut duxerit una sororum,utque uiroPhoebi chorus adsurrexeritomnis.(Verg. Ecl. 6.64-66)

This difficultpassageappearsto portraya change in the career ofCornelius Gallus from love elegy to epyllion in the Alexandrianmanner.37But Ross, after arguingthat the Permessus and the Aonianfountains signify the same sort of inspiration,suggests that Vergil isnot concerned with Gallus's love poetry here: Gallus is beingrewarded for earlier compositions in the Hesiodic vein."38 hat isalmost surely not the case. Vergil means to representa shift fromGallus's preoccupationwith love poetry, and to do so, he drawsonthe poetic associations of Orpheus. The figure of Orpheus as arepresentativeof his poetic inspiration s a particularlypowerfulandpeculiarlypersonaldevelopmentof Vergil's. In Gallus's initiation ntothe ranks of semi-divinepoets in Eclogue6, the imagerydrawsheavilyon associationswith Orpheus,with whose characteristics ven Hesiodis endowed:39

hos tibi dant calamos-en accipe-Musae,Ascraeoquos ante seni, quibusille solebatcantandorigidasdeducere montibus ornos.(Ecl. 6.69-71)Why was Gallus wanderingby the Permessus? The situationcer-tainly has erotic overtones: errantem,ike Pasiphaein line 52.40Andthe lover who consoles himself by water is perhapsconventional. Butin poetry this scene is specificallyconnected with Orpheusconsoling

himself on the loss of Eurydice,a scene portrayedby Vergil in theGeorgics:ipse caua solans aegrumtestudine amoremte, dulcisconiunx, te solo in litoresecum,

37 Again, see the commentatorsad loc. and F. Skutsch,Aus VergilsFriihzeit(Leipzig1901) 36-38; Luck (above n.33) 53.38Ross (above n.35) 32-34.39 lle (70) must refer to Hesiod as a representative f scientificpoetry, paceRoss (above n.35) 23.40For the suggestivenessof errare n this passage,see R. F. Thomas,"Theo-critus, Calvus,and Eclogue ," CP74 (1979) 337-339.


14/14

Wine, Water,and Callimachean olemics 119te ueniente die, te decedentecanebat.

(4.464 -466)No earlier representationof this episode survives, but it is likely tohave formed partof the traditionassociatedwithOrpheus.4'Vergil, inpresenting Gallus as similarly afflicted, is not the first to portrayanother poet in this situation. Hermesianaxof Colophonincludedinhis elegiac Leontiona catalogueof poets overcome by love. The listbegins with Orpheus, singing alone by the river Cocytus,42 andincludesAntimachus:Av8^q8' 'AvrT~rXo;Av8q180oK /J/v EproT7TXhr)yEHlaKTwXOvEv4 e7iTE/pr 7ro*TaxLoP(fr. 7.41-42 P)

The Lydian river, Pactolus, is an appropriatepoint of reference ifAntimachus is to be portrayedas a love poet in the tradition ofOrpheus.43 n Vergil's symbolism the association of the river Per-messus with Gallus's love poetry implies that it is also composed inthe Hesiodic-Callimacheanmanner. His removal to another Hel-iconianlocale does not then involve a change in the aestheticfounda-tions of his poetrybut only a shift in thematicinterests, the same shiftwhichPropertius n 2.10 proclaimshimself unableto make.Vergil's source for his materialon Orpheus is not known. It isunlikely that he recalls this passageof Hermesianaxdirectly,but theparallel s suggestive. That anotherHellenisticpoet not identifiedwithCallimachusshould make use of the same imageryas Vergil is con-sistent with the evidence presented above. It may well be that thefirst reactionamong the targetsof Callimachus'spolemicalverse wasone of astonishment.COLUMBIAUNIVERSITY

41Cf. O. Gruppe n RoscherLex.3.1159.42 Hermesianax fr. 7.7 &hh' r' I7rapa'Kr p XO/V64ot-ro KLtapltovw. Ovidperhapsdraws on the same material n portraying is Orpheusmourningby theStyx:squalidusn ripaCereris inemunereedit,Met. 10.74.43Cf. Antimachusfr. 191 West ( = Supplementumellenisticum9), formerlyCall. fr. 814 Pf., HaKTWAhOVPVoEoLoLV-7A'&v67poto-L 06acrToov.I am gratefulto Professors D. R. ShackletonBailey, RichardTarrant,andRichardThomas for helpfulcomments on thisarticle.

Knox_wine Water and Callimachean Polemics

Documents

Transcript of Knox_wine Water and Callimachean Polemics