No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Lost Work of Philitas?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
The Suda is hardly communicative on the literary productivity of Philitas: ‘his output included epigrams and elegies.’ From the surviving fragments, which do little to establish the obvious influence which the poet exercised over Hellenistic poetic thinking, we learn of the following titles of works in verse: Demeter, Hermes, Telephos, Paignia (apart from epigrams) and possibly a Hermeneia (Strab. iii 5.1). G. Luck emended Prop, ii 34B.31 to argue for the existence of a Merope, a work on Coan antiquities. G. Vitelli had already postulated a Kos, with presumably the same content, from the lacunose text of Kall. fr.1.10 (Kῶν πο]λύ τήν μακρήν). The context requires the unknown work in question to have been unsuccessful because of its prolixity; the proposed title fails for the opposite reason: ‘brevius spatio’ (Pfeiffer). For the sake of completeness it may be mentioned that Philitas did not write a play called The Unruly, as Gulick ad Ath. iii 114 e assumes; Athenaios wrote έv τοῖς ‘Άτάκτοις, of course a reference to Philitas’ glossary (Atakta or Ataktoi Glossai).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Australasian Society for Classical Studies 1978
References
1 Rh. Mus. 105 (1962), 347 f.
2 Pap. della Soc. Ital. 11 (1935), 141 n.2; this assumption was commended by Rostagni (see Kallimachos, ed. Skiadas [Wege der Forschung 296, Darmstadt, 1975], p.35 n.2).
3 A further title, suggested by Coppola, is discussed below. The fragments sine sede do not establish the existence of any other identifiable poem; certainly not the pastoral verse which v. Blumenthal, RE XIX. 2 (1938), 2168. 49 ff.,Google Scholar detects on the basis of Theokr. Id. 7.39 and Philitas ft. 18 Kuchenmüller, Nowacki = 22 Powell βονγενέας φάμενος προσεβήσαο μακρά μέλισσας. The Theocritean testimonium cannot be pressed beyond a reference to elegy, while the fragment cited could occur in any work of antiquarian character. There is also clear evidence that Philitas wrote love poetry in honour of Bittis, but neither title nor fragments have survived. Of course we guess that it was Bittis.
4 Cf. Couat, A.La poésie alexandrine (Paris, 1882), p.74.Google Scholar
5 Reitzenstein, R.Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen, 1893), p.179Google Scholar (although his confidence had waned by 1896: Herm. 31,201 n.2); Wilamowitz, Hell. Dicht. Vol. 1 p. 116 (κλήΰρ8ν suspect);Google ScholarSchmidt, K.F.W.Symb. Osl. 7 (1928), 30–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar (reading μακέλτ at the end of the line); Morelli, G.Maia 2 (1949), 12Google Scholar (with ΑλωΟρήν); Webster, T.B.L.Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), p.42.Google Scholar
6 De tribus Philetae carminibus (Marburg, 1895), pp.iii f.; Nowacki, A.Philitae Coi fragmenta poetica (Westphal, 1927), pp.54–7.Google Scholar
7 Philetae Coi Reliquiae (diss. Berlin, 1928), pp.61–3; v. Blumenthal, op.cit. (note 3 above) 2168. 31 ff.
8 RIFC 40 (1962), 238–48.
9 Aberglaube und Zauberei bei Theokrit (diss. Basle, 1937), pp.55 f.
10 Cirene e il nuovo Callimaco (Bologna, 1935), pp.l39–46 (reading βΚηόρήν). Cf. Braga, D.Catullo e i Poeti Greci (Messina/Florence, 1950), p.117;Google ScholarTorraca, L.Il prologo dei Telchini e l’ inizio degli Aitia di Callimaco (Naples, 1969), pp.34 f.Google Scholar ‘Zweifelhaft’, Reitzenstein, E.Gnom. 12 (1936), 464.Google Scholar
11 Helikon 7 (1961), 402–4.
12 It has often been observed that the Homeric gloss άποφώλιος (cf. Od. v 182, viii 177) was interpreted as απαίδευτος and the equivalent of από φωλεοΰ. Hence φωλεός = 6ιαοκαλεΐον Kall. fr. 68 and Pfeiffer’s note. (Cf. Schol. Ar. Plut. 1185, where πάτος = ‘food’ is invented to explain απόπατος). I have no brief to defend the ancient educational system, but this equation (‘lair, den, hole’ = ‘school’) seems inadequate grounds on which to argue that ‘the word illustrates the bad conditions of ancient elementary schools’ (v.d. Valk, Researches on the Text and Scholia of the Iliad Vol i [Leiden, 1963], p.302 n.467).
13 v. Groningen, B.A.Mnem. S.4.11 (1958), 311.Google Scholar Cf. Theokr. Id. 7.51, 92; Kall. A.P. vii 518 (ep. 36 Gow-Page). Other examples are given by Gow-Page, The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams Vol 2 (Cambridge, 1965), p.193.Google Scholar
14 An attempt to emend Theokr. Id. 7.8 αίγβψοι πreλéε τεγ to αεγ. κλήΛραι εγ on the basis of a scholion (Totip and Fritzche, supported by Rumpel, Lex. Theocr.) has failed. Cf. Dübner ad loc. Lumb, T.W.Notes on the Greek Anthology (London, 1920), p.112,Google Scholar read κλήΛρας in a 2nd c. A.D. inscription, Cougny ii 264.3 (=Kaibel 549, Peek 722) as κλήΰρακ ‘alders’, but it has failed to supplant κλήϋρας.
15 Sargeaunt, J.The Trees, Shrubs, and Plants of Virgil (Oxford, 1920), p.13.Google Scholar
16 Symb. Osl. 7 (1928), 31.
17 Cf. Skutsch, O.Rh. Mus. 99 (1956), 193–5;Google ScholarStewart, HSCPh 64 (1959), 179–205;Google ScholarElder, HSCPh 65 (1961), 109–25.Google Scholar I share Elder’s doubts (110) on Stewart’s idea that Vergil provides a series of allusions to genres (with Atalanta and the Phaethon-tiades representing tragedy: 191 f.). Why Vergil should then introduce alders would be difficult to imagine. Stewart’s remark that here, and in his allusion to Scylla (see 195), Vergil ‘generalized’ his reference by using ‘new or unusual traits’ (192) explains nothing.
18 Knaack, G.Roschers Lex. 3.2192;Google ScholarSkutsch, F.Aus Vergili Frühzeit (Leipzig, 1901), pp.38 ff.;Google ScholarGallus und Vergil (Leipzig, 1906). Servius on Ecl. 10.46 had already lent encouragement to this quest: hi autem omnes uersus Galli sunt, de ipsis translati carminibus.
19 Herrmann, L.Les masques et les visages dans les Bucoliques de Virgile (Brussels, 1930), pp.129–35.Google ScholarBrown, L.Numeri Vergiliani (Brussels, 1963), p.131,Google Scholar argues that ‘the themes of Silenus’ song stand to profit by reconsideration not necessarily as indications of actual poetic works by Parthenius, but as illustrations of cosmogonies and myths which Parthenius grammaticus would make the subject of his interpretations.’ I do not understand ‘stand to profit’.
20 Cf. my remarks in Antichthon 6 (1972), 54. The most recent discussion of the deviant alders known to me is by Schmidt, E.A.Poetische Reflexion: Vergils Bukolik (Munich, 1972), pp.270 f.Google Scholar He remarks that at both Ecl. 6.63 and 10.74 alders stand in close proximity to the name of Gallus. ‘Solite hier eine Anspielung auf eine Dichtung des Gallus vorliegen (und damit zugleich auf eine des Euphorion)?’
21 These interests transcend national boundaries. Cf. Lindsell, G & R 6 (1936), 85,Google Scholar who was worried that Philitas fr. 16 Powell (11 Kuchenmüller, 15 Nowacki) mentions the κάκτος, which according to Theophrastos grows only in Sicily. Since Sicily was not one of Philitas#x2019; spheres, #x2018;can it be that Theophrastos is nodding?#x2019; The answer is of course that Philitas#x2019; glosses are assembled from many communities. Cf. Ath. xi 483 a (fr. 38 Kuchenmüller) for one of his Sicilian glosses. Similarly he could have ideas about the Eridanos, a debated subject (cf. Strab. vl.9, Diod. Sic. v 23.3).
22 Bursians Jahresbericht 255 (1937), 102.
23 Herter compares the list of Kallimachos’ adversaries provided by the Florentine Scholiast, regardless of whether they can be identified as the backbiting Telchines from the preface to the Aitia itself. But at least Kallimachos does mention that he had opponents. If the Scholiast has introduced a precise mention of Philitas solely from his own erudition, it becomes odd that there is no comment on ‘the large lady’ of line 12 (which Herter regards as Antimachos’ Lyde).
24 Herm. 86 (1958), 352 = Kallimachos (v. note 2 above), p.77; Kallimachos in Rome (Wiesbaden, 1960), pp.87 f. He is followed by Smotrytsch, Miscellanea Rostagni (Turin, 1963), p.250Google Scholar and Capovilla, Callimaco (Rome, 1967) Vol. 2, p.294.Google Scholar Cf. note 35 below.
25 Augustus and the New Poetry (Brussels/Berchem, 1967), p.316 n.l.
26 History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford, 1968), p.89 n.3.
27 Philol. 101 (1957), 96 f.
28 Misc. Rostagni, p.250. Similarly Capovilla, Call. Vol. ii, p.293.
29 Lucilius und Kallimachos (Frankfurt am M., 1949), p.223 n.l.
30 Mus. Helv. 11 (1954), 101 ff.
31 Philol. 101 (1957),91 ff.
32 Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), p.103 n.l = Wien. Stud. 77 (1963), 71 n.9.
33 Herm. 84 (1956), 172 f.; approved by Capovilla,, Call. Vol. 1, p.201.Google Scholar
34 Kallimachos und Apollonios Rhodios (diss. Free Univ. Berlin, 1961), p.78.
35 Wimmel’s reading is now commended by Herter, RE Supplbd. 8 (1973), 195.68 ff.,Google Scholar although he seems to retain his preference for αύτ(ά) in the Florentine scholion.
36 Philol. 101 (1957), 97. This approach interprets τοΤν as a reference to Philitas and Antimachos. Herter, Bursians Jahresbericht 255 (1937), 101,Google Scholar had a different solution: ‘Die feinen Gedichte der beiden (Bücher des Mimnermos) haben gelehrt, dass Mimnermos süss ist, nicht so die grosse Frau (sc. dass Antimachos süss wäre).’
37 Misc. Rostagni (Turin, 1963), pp.249–56. His argument that in Greek ναΰν is the customary object of καΰελκειν loses its force when the verb is used in a different sense (of scales). Similarly arbitrary is his statement (p.252 n.17) that a Hellenist would automatically take ή μακρή as the Argo, for the adjective is descriptive of the poem, not its symbol.
38 Callimaco Vol. ii, p.294. The reading (in the form νηΰν) and the literary identification go back to Vogliano ap Milne, JEA 17 (1931), 118.Google Scholar
39 SeeHunt, P.Oxy. Vol. 17 (1927), p.52.Google Scholar
40 Cf. Eichgrün, op.cit. (note 34 above) p.74 (‘das Sprichwort’); Lesky, History of Greek Literature, trans. Willis — de Heer (London, 1966), p.710.Google Scholar
41 Acorns are under discussion.
42 Cf. Piwonka, PuelmaLucilius und Kallimachos (Frankfurt, 1949), p.240;Google ScholarMus. Helv. 11 (1954), 105 n.14; Wimmel, Kall, in Rom (Wiesbaden, 1960), p.88 n.2;Google ScholarWebster, Wien. Stud. 76 (1963), 71Google Scholar n.9 = Hellenistic Poetry and Art (London, 1964), p.103 n.l.
43 See note 10 above.
44 Herm. 68(1933),319.
45 CQ 24(1930), 110.
46 The statement is commonly found in the ancient commentators, e.g. Schol. II. xi 86, Schol. Nic. Ther. 28, Hesych. s.v. δρΰς, Etym. Gud. 152.59 Sturz. Schol. Eur. Andr. 167 puts the usage on the same level as Αχελώου = any river water and άκρόδρυα = any fruit. Good examples in literature are hard to find, but Soph. Trach. 766 and Eur. Cycl. 615 seem sound, despite the strictures of Dunbabin, R.L.CR 60 (1946), 8 f.Google Scholar In the former place πίειρα. δρΰς = the resinous wood of the πεύκτ) (v. Kamerbeek ad loc.), in the latter the stake used for blinding Polyphemos (of olive wood in Od. ix 320 and announced as of the same material in Cycl. 455) becomes — in lyrics — δρυός έρνος. Prof. Kamerbeek has kindly expressed to me by letter his doubts whether compounds like δρύφακτον and δρυκολάπτης must be derived from δρυς = ‘oak’. He regards δρυς = ‘tree’ as possible here also.