We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The text as published runs:
The elegiacs on side (a) of this fragmentary piece of papyrus are identifiable as by Callimachus, probably from the Aetia, and these lines too are undoubtedly by the same author, and almost certainly from the same work. Verse 5 is a surprise, for it was thought until the discovery of this papyrus to be by Euripides; however the only source for this attribution is Stobaeus (Eel. 1. 3. 6), in whom it appears as the first line of a two-line quotation. It is not unusual in Stobaeus for two originally unconnected lines to be mistakenly combined (for further references and comments see John Barns, ‘A new Gnomologium (II)’, CQ N.s. i (1951), 18–19).
page 269 note 1 I am most grateful to Prof. H. Lloyd-Jones, Prof. D. L. Page, Mr. P. J. Parsons, and Mr. Thomas Gelzer, who read through this article in manuscript and made a number of valuable suggestions.
page 269 note 2 In Antinoopolis Papyri, vol. iii, verse 6 was mistakenly printed in the secondary transcript as:
page 269 note 3 Reported in Antinoop. Pap. iii.
page 270 note 1 pp. 258 ff. above.
page 270 note 2 Barber's change of
to
in v. 7 needs no detailed defence of course. Callimachus is using an established Homeric expression: Il. 10. 26
10. 91, Pind. N. 8. 2
Critias 4. 10 D2, Mosch. 2. 3, Call. fr. 21. 2 ]
in the same sedes. Cf. Alcman 3. 72, Eupolis 94. 5 K.
page 270 note 3 Although Musaeus 33 reads
For further material relevant to
and
and also
cf. Thuc. 1. 84. 3 (and scholia ad loc.), Plato, Charm. 160 e and 161 a, Laws 6. 772 a and 2. 671 d.
page 271 note 1 For other examples cf. Sappho fr. 137. 5, Theogn. 85 f., ? Aesch. fr. 355. 21 ff. M, Aristot. apud Athen. 13. 564 b (fr. 96 Rose), Orph. Arg. 933, Longin. De Sub. 4. 4, Isid. Pelus. Ep. 5. 28, proverb apud Suda s.v.
(Adler, ii. 163). Call. fr. 80. 10–11 probably reads:
in which Pfeiffer supplements
A.R. 1. 790 ff. supports him:
page 271 note 2 For Barber's suggestion
cf. A. Otto, Die Sprichwörter und sprichwörtlichen napcids Redensarten der Römer, 171: the phrase is usually
but that is only a minor drawback. Perhaps read
page 272 note 1 Mr. P. J. Parsons has very kindly re-examined this part of the papyrus and writes that ‘
suits the traces, as well as
’. I had at first thought to read
but Prof. D. L. Page pointed out to me that the
contract form is much commoner. This is one of those parts of the Greek language where opinions differ as to how many verbs can be extracted from the evidence (see, e.g., LSJ s,v.
Curtius, G., The Greek Verb (1880), 104Google Scholar, Tucker ad Aesch. Sept. 836, Schwyzer, Griech. Gramm. i. 679), and MSS. are confused (cf., e.g., A.R. 2. 296, 1010; 3. 307). Homer never contracts
though the shortened
form is common: in fact there are only two certain examples of
contracts in the MSS. of the main Greek authors―Soph. Trach. 645
Parthenius xxvi Mcinekc (Anal. Al. p. 279 = Diehl Anth. Lyr. Gr. ii. 244, fr. 15)
Elmsley's emendation
is accepted by most editors for the Sophoclean passage,
on the other hand has the following post-Homeric backing: Aesch. Pers. 25, Sept. 31, 836, 842, Soph. Aj. 1414, Aristoph. Vesp. 209, 458, Epilycus fr. 3 K (i, p. 803) which may, however, be corrupt, and Plut. Mor. 2. 362 c. In Callimachus
occurs at v. 4, and perhaps again at fr. 7. 31–2 (see Barber, and Maas, , CQ [1950], 168)Google Scholar. The actual form
is not as yet attested anywhere, though Prof. Page notes Hesychius
(‘where Latte suggests
but that has its own entry below in Hesych.’).
page 272 note 2 In v. 4 if
before
is correct then it must not be the final syllable of a word-unit: in Callimachus the eighth element is not long if word-end follows (cf. Maas, § 92). Thus
(see app. crit.), or
would be suitable.
page 272 note 3 According to Tzetzes
occurred in Hipponax fr. 65 C
; Masson excluded
as a gloss and restored metrical sense to the line. Extra support for this may be found in Phrynichus Soph, who under
in Praep. Soph. p. 87 B comments:
also occurs in the Corp. Gloss. Lat. = ‘morsus’.
page 273 note 1 The only salient exception to this is
: of pain, once each in Aesch., Soph.,and Lucian.
is used once by Euripides to mean ‘torturing’.
page 274 note 1 This is of course only a supplement, but it is very difficult to see what else the
could be doing to
.The other obvious possible reconstruction is
taking
as nominative: e.g. ‘another song became necessary for the food-jar’, but this founders on
since the tense would preferably be imperfect. On
see now Masson, E., Recherches sur les plus anciens emprunts sémitiques en grec (Paris, 1967), 44–5.Google Scholar
page 274 note 2 Aesch. Cho. 1024 f. has an abstract subject and is not very relevant:
.
page 274 note 3 Cf. Eustath. 746. 3
page 274 note 4 Ter. Phorm. 695. Cf. Cic. Ad Att. 1. 19. 8 at crebro mihi … insusurret… cantilenam illam uam, 13. 34 haec decantata erat fabula; Sen. Ep. 24. 6 decantatae … in omnibus scholis fabulae istae sunt; Macrob. 5. 2. 6 talia ut pueris decantata praetereo. Commentators sometimes explain this idiom as a Greek one: this is incorrect.
page 274 note 5 Documentation for this idiom may be useful since it does not appear in the paroemio-graphers. Examples are: Aristoph. Av. 39–41, fr. 7 Dem., Eupolis fr. 2 Dem., Men. Epitrep. 408–9. Otherwise it is documented only by the lexicographers: Photius, s.v.
(Reitzenstein, Anfang … 48. 7 ff.) explains
, and so too Phrynichus Soph. Praep. Soph. 21. 1. Orion Thcb. Etym. 23. 1 gives the origin:
. The full range of the expression can be seen in Plato, Lysis 204 d (of Hippothales the lover)
which leads to 205 b–c
and 205 d
. A pleonastic version of this expression is found in the paroemiographers,
: Zenob. 1. 72, Diogen. 2. 19, and Greg. Cypr. (Cod. Lied.) i. 47 (ii. 60) (the phrase is used literally with a possible pun on the idiom in Aristaen. 1. 27). Cf.
═ ‘proclaim’ in Plato, Laws 854 c
and 854 d …
is the verb which is more usual in this sense of ‘harp upon, repeat’ (see LSJ s.v. II).
The only example of ‘sing the same song’ is Theophil. Com. fr. 7 (Kock ii. 475):
but the metaphor here is not an independent one, it is an extension of
in the previous line.
page 275 note 1 This scarcely needs illustration: cf., for example, frr. i, 2, 112, 203, 228.
page 275 note 2 Thereafter the expression appears occasionally in the Christian writers, and via
in the commentators, grammarians, and lexicographers—see Blomfield, loc. cit., A. C. Pearson on Sophocles fr. 885, F. H. M. Blaydes on Aristoph. Eq. 1068.
page 276 note 1 
: it may be worth remembering that in fr. i. 7 Callimachus addresses the Tel-chines as
: here too perhaps were mentioned the uninspired poets whose Muse was not
.
page 276 note 2 Cf., of course, fr. I. 37–8
. Mr. Thomas Gelzer suggests to me that the ‘gods’ in this passage might be Callimachus' patrons the Ptolemies. This is a very attractive suggestion, but one which needs caution, I think. Callimachus is very flattering about the Ptolemaic family, but only in his panegyric poetry does he actually identify them with the gods; in his less heightened poetry his royal patrons are usually only juxtaposed with the immortals.
