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
Papyrus Geneva 97 is still believed to be the earliest find of Callimachus' Aitia. In the years 1896 and 1904 Jules Nicole acquired in Egypt for the library in Geneva some pieces of papyri and parchments. One of his acquisitions was the remainder from the top of a double leaf of a vellum codex, containing elegiac lines with marginal comments. The first edition appeared in 1904 with the title ‘Un fragment des Aetia de Callimaque’ presenting scraps of more than forty lines; but neither the first editor nor anyone else succeeded in identifying any of them with any of the well-attested Callimachean fragments. This may not have worried Nicole very much in 1904. But since then thirty papyri have turned up with the text of lost poems and every single piece of them, even the smallest, could be clearly identified as Callimachean by coincidence with a known quotation. For the Geneva parchment there is no evidence up to to-day, and its case remains absolutely unique.
page 23 note 2 Previously there had been published only some 60 new lines of his Hecale from a wooden tablet, found near Arsinoe in 1877, now in Vienna: Th. Gomperz, , Aus der Hekale des Kattimachos, Wien, 1893Google Scholar; Callimachi fragmenta nuper reperta, ed. Pfeiffer, R., Bonn, 1923, fr. 34Google Scholar.
page 23 note 3 Revue des Études grecques, xvii. £215Google Scholar–29; Nicole even mentions the dealer, a man called Ali in Gizeh, but it is not quite clear whether he brought this piece back from his first or second journey. About Nicole's purchases: Preisendanz, K., Papyrusfunde und Forschungen, Leipzig, 1933, p. 234Google Scholar. Compare the acquisition of the London fragment, below, p. 30.
page 23 note 4 There were at Nicole's time about 600 such fragments from ancient quotations in Schneider's, O. exhaustive collection, Callimachea, ii. 1873Google Scholar.
page 23 note 5 See the summary of my paper on ‘Callimachus, read to the Classical Association on 23 April 1941, Proceedings, vol. xxxviii, pp. 7 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 23 note 6 Fr. 336, 377, 554, 563 Schn.
page 24 note 1 Steph. Byz. v. νίκαια … τρ⋯τη ⋯ν 'ιλλυρίδι is the only reference to this place.
page 24 note 2 Professor V. Martin very kindly revised the original at my request; he especially improved the only one of Nicole's readings, ii. 13, which would have been an obstacle to ascribing the fragment to any decent poet, not to mention Callimachus. His information about the scholia was rather discouraging.
page 24 note 3 Kallimachosstudien, München, 1922, pp. 65–71Google Scholar.
page 24 note 4 Schol. i. 4–6 ⋯πᾡϰɛτο for ⋯πὠλɛτο; see below, p. 26.
page 24 note 5 Hellenistische Dichtung, ii (1924), pp. 174–6Google Scholar.
page 24 note 6 The result was negative, but for Wilamowitz important in so far as Apollonios had once more been rescued from the suspicion of being a too close imitator of Callimachus. In this general tendency to overstate the independence Apollonios, Wilamowitz was not very lucky; there is, if required, still more evidence against him in the last Oxyrhynchus volume.
page 24 note 7 ‘Callimachea’, Hermes, lxx, 1935, pp. 31 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 24 note 8 ‘There seem to be implications of an arrival, actual or prospective, in Phaeacia’, I.c. p. 37 with the footnote: ‘This is what would be naturally inferred from the mention in two scholia of Arete. On the other hand, the mentions of Nicaea… of Lycus… of Kales… are consistent with the notion that the Argonauts are still on the south shore of the Pontus.’
page 25 note 1 For this photograph he expressed his thanks to the authorities of the Geneva library, and I have to thank him for letting me use the photograph when I tried to go again through these old scraps.
page 25 note 2 The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. xviii, 1941, p. 47Google Scholar. Cf. PSI 1217 A, fr. 2+B; 1219, fr. 1, 38 ff. P. Oxy. 2167, fr. 2, col. ii; 2167, fr. 3; 2168.
page 26 note 1 One is tempted to think of the Bithynian μ⋯λαινα 'ακρη (v.1. 'ακτ⋯), schol. Ap. Rh. ii. 349, Arrian, Peripl. Pont. 17, etc., comparing the other Bithynian place-names in our fragment.
page 26 note 2 The retention of the tenuis ⋯π' instead of ⋯φ' would be strange but not impossible: cf. Apollon. Dysc. de adv. Gr. Gr. i. 1, p. 152, 21 ⋯π' 'ηφα⋯τοιο θὑρῃιν and de coni., Gr. Gr. i. 1, p. 238.
page 27 note 1 Hellenist. Dicht. ii. 175.
page 27 note 2 The letter after ω looks exactly like a cursive λ; but even if it were a χ, in prose ⋯πο⋯χεсθαι seems to have been used only for ‘being dead’ SIG3, 1219, 10; Plut. Anton, c. 31.
page 27 note 3 We read e.g. in the Epitaph. Adon. ‘⋯πώλετο καλ⋯с 'αδωνιс and in the Epitaph. Bion. ⋯πώλετο Δώριοс 'Ορφεὑс.
page 27 note 4 In the text, ii. 7, I once suggested βεβολ]ημ⋯νοс ἄζῃ that was approved by Wilamowitz as well as by Lobel. One may compare A.P. vii. 145. 3 (attributed to Asclepiades) θυμ⋯ν ἄχει μεγ⋯λῳ βεβολημ⋯νη. I have no exact parallel for the use of ⋯πουс⋯α in the schol. ii. 7; there is, however, a v. 1. in Eur. Hec. 312 ⋯πε⋯ δ' ἄπεсτι α, ⋯λωλε cett. codd., namely Achilles who is dead.
page 27 note 5 Everyone took τ⋯ν ν⋯καιαν in schol. i. 4 as a place-name. We cannot exclude the possibility of its being a female proper name; if so, it would refer to the nymph Nicaea or to Antipater's younger daughter, both said to be eponyms of the Bithynian city, and it would not make any difference.
page 27 note 6 Schol. Ap. Rh. i. 955/60 e. νηλεῖδαι] ο⋯ μετ⋯ νηλ⋯ωс το⋯ κ⋯δρου ⋯ποικ⋯сαντεс ⋯κ τ⋯с' αττικ⋯с 'ιωνε'αθ⋯ναμεταν⋯сται at the end of the hexameter in Nonn. 41. 365 means the Roman immigrants and colonizers of Berytos: βερ⋯η… ἤν μεταν⋯сται / υἱ7έεс αὐсονίω… / βηρυτ⋯ν καλ⋯ουсι.
page 27 note 8 Parthen. Nic. ed. Martini, E. (Mythographi Graeci, vol. ii, fasc. i, Supplem., Lipsiae, 1902)Google Scholar. Martini's text repeated with Engl. translation in Loeb's Library, vol. lxix, by S. Gaselee, 1916. Selection of 26 fragments in Diehl, E., Anthologia lyrica Graeca, ii, 1925, pp. 240–6Google Scholar. There is a so-called ‘new fragment’ in Et. gen. A. v. Ο⋯τ7alpha;ῖον ⋯ροс. κα⋯ ‘Οἰταῖοс’ ⋯ ⋯π⋯ τ⋯с Οἴτηс παρ⋯ παρθεν⋯ῳ: Reitzenstein, R., who quoted it, R–E vi (1909), p. 99Google Scholar, and Sitz. Ber. Heidelberger Akad., 1912, p. 3, combined it with Catull. 62. 7 and attributed it to Parthenios' Hymenaeus, fr. 32 M. Wilamowitz's scepticism against this combination is well justified, Hellenist. Dicht. ii, p. 279, 2. As a matter of fact, this fragment was already known from Tittmann's ‘Zonaras’ (1808), p. 1435, quoted by Martini, p. 80, as referring to the love story xxv, and Miller's remark (Málanges, 1868, p. 225) should have shown that it was derived from the Et. gen. (B). It is fairly certain that such a quotation in the Etym. refers to a poem and ought to the epicedium the collection of Parthenios’ poetical fragments.
page 28 note 1 So in Steph. Byz. v. ν⋯καια, in Suid. v. ν⋯сτωρ λαρανδεс and in the title as well as in the subscription of the love stories in the Palatine MS. 398. About Parthenios' connexion Pontus. with Myrlea or Aramea see Kaibel, G., Hermes, xi, 1876, p. 372 fGoogle Scholar.
page 28 note 2 About V.I. and COnj. see A. Adler, Suid. iv (1935), p. 58. 14; the best MSS. read δ⋯ ⋯λεγείαс and Artemidor., Oneirocr. c. 63 quotes παρ⋯ παρθεν⋯ῳ ⋯ν ταῖс ἐλεγε⋯αιс (test. 5 M.).
page 28 note 3 IG xiv. 1089 (test. 8 Mart., who gives further references); G. Kaibel's ingenious reconstruction is based on Grater's publication of F. Ursinus' copy. The line quoted is restored with some probability; but I cannot see how the letters of 11. 1–3, as far as they are preserved, support his theory that the full text of the epicedium had once been written on the original inscription, afterwards destroyed, and superseded by Hadrian's own epigram.
page 28 note 4 We are not entitled to identify the epicedium and the encomium by some simple textual manipulations in Suidas' article (see Martini to fr. 1).
page 28 note 5 Cf. Apollon. Rh. ii. 745 εἰс…ἠᾡην viz. Pontus.
page 28 note 6 A.P. ix. 668. 2; x. 4. 4,102. 6; xii. 171. 2.
page 29 note 1 Cf. Philol. lxxxvii (1932), pp. 194 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 29 note 2 The only exception is the supplement by the last editor of fr. 31. 2.
page 29 note 3 The commentary to Antimachos, found a few years ago (Papiri d. R. Universitá di Milano ed. Vogliano, A., vol. i, 1937, no. 17)Google Scholar, apparently belongs to one of his epic poems; but there is no reason why the Lyde should not have been treated in the same way.
page 29 note 4 Martini to fr. 22 (but cf. Wilamowitz, , Sits Ber. Preuss. Akad., 1914, p. 242. 2)Google Scholar.
page 29 note 5 Cf. Knox, A. D., JEA xv, 1929, p. 140Google Scholar; only brief references by Körte, A., APF x. 41Google Scholar; Powell, J. U., New Chapters, iii. 186Google Scholar
page 29 note 6 Et. gen. v. δρο⋯τη ἡ πὑελοс…παρθ⋯νιοс δ⋯ τ⋯ν сορ⋯ν (β, сωρόν α) κα⋯ αἰсχὑλοс. All editors of Parthenios refer by mistake to Aesch, . Ag. 1540Google Scholar; but here and in Eutn. 633 (however corrupt the passage as a whole may be) δροἰτη means lsquo;bathing-tub', as later in Lye. 1108 and Nic. Al. 462. The Etym. obviously refers to Aesch. Cho. 999 δρο⋯τηс καταсκ⋯νωμα, with the marginal note παραπέταсμα сορ⋯ (Stanley, ⋯ρουс cod.); cf. Schol. Eutn. 633 and Eust., p. 1726. 14. Only here and in Parthenios is δρο⋯τη the ‘coffin’ (not the ‘bier’ asGEL 9 gives for Parthenios, registering Cho. 999 by a further mistake under ‘bathingtub’, see Tucker's note to Aesch. Cho. 997). Cf. Schwyzer, E., KZ lxii (1935), p. 200Google Scholar.
page 30 note 1 The writing is so unequal that Nicole believed col. ii on the verso to have been written by a hand different from that which wrote col. i; in the scholia he tried to distinguish no less than ten different writings from uncial to cursive. Indeed, it is a rather strange mixture, and I cannot refer to any similar vellum leaf reproduced on facsimile. The parchment fragment of Euphorion, , Bed. Klass. Texte, v. 1, p. 59Google Scholar, is supposed to have been written in the fifth century; in the same volume, p. 89, an elegiac epicedium is published, probably fourth century.
page 30 note 2 Both Dr. H. I. Bell and Mr. Milne agree that the conjecture about the provenance of the two pieces from the same codex is highly probable.
page 31 note 1 Details of chronology were recently discussed at length by Rostagni, A., ‘Partenio di Nicea, Elvio Cinna ed i “poetae novi”’, Atti d. R. Accad. idle scienze di Torino, vol. lxxxvi (1933)Google Scholar, Tom. 2, ‘cl. di sc. morali, stor. e fil.’, pp. 497–545. He especially tries to prove that the κ⋯νναс who took Parthenios as booty was the poet; but his arguments are not at all convincing.
page 31 note 2 C. Licinius Calvus: see F. Marx ad Parth. fr. 1 Mart.; we have no quotation from his ‘carmen de morte Quintiliae uxoris’ to which Catull. c. 96 and Prop. ii. 34. 90 refer, but fr. 15 and 16 Morel (FPL 1927, p. 86) apparently belong to an elegiac epicedium. C. Helvius Cinna: see fr. 1 Morel, p. 87, and Parth. fr. 21 Mart. Catullus' laments for his brother, who died in Bithynia, and especially c. 68, may have been indebted to Parthenios or not; there is no possibility either of proving or denying it. Cornelius Gallus: see the dedicatory letter to the love stories, p. 42 Mart., and Zimmermann, F., Hermes, 1rix, 1934, pp. 179 ffGoogle Scholar. Virgil (?): Parth. test. 3 Mart.
page 31 note 3 Antimach. Coloph. reliqu., ed. Wyss, B., 1936, fr. 56 ffGoogle Scholar. Formerly, I was rather inclined to take the opposite view with Jacoby, F., Rh. M. lx, 1905, pp. 47. 66Google Scholar.
page 31 note 4 [Plut, .] Cons. ad. Ap. 9, p. 106 BGoogle Scholar, test. 7, p. Ixv Wyss.
page 31 note 5 Greek grammarians were only interested to draw a line between ⋯πικ⋯δειον and θρ⋯νος Faerber, H., Die Lyrik i. d. Kunsttheorie der Antike, München, 1936, texts, pp. 53 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. Crusius, O., ‘Epikedeion’, R-E, vi. 113Google Scholar; Reitzenstein, R., ‘Epigramm’, R-E, vi. 100Google Scholar; Maas, P., ‘Threnos’, R-E, vi A., p. 596 f.Google Scholar; Pasquali, G., Orazio lirico Firenze, 1920, pp. 241 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 31 note 6 ταῖс γεγραμμ⋯ναιс ⋯π⋯ παρηγορ⋯ᾳ το⋯ π⋯νθουс ⋯λεγε⋯αιс: cf. PLG ii4,p. 259 Bergk.; but Plutarch does not use the term ‘epicedium’.
page 31 note 7 Plut. Nic. 17 = Gaertringen, F. Hiller von, Histor. griech. Epigramme, Bonn, 1926, No. 55Google Scholar.
page 31 note 8 Plut, . de an. procr. 33, p. 1030Google Scholar A = A.P. vii. 35. Plutarch calls also an epigram on Spartan heroes, written before the time of Teles and repeatedly quoted (see Preger, Inscr. Gr. metr. nr. 3), ⋯πικ⋯δειον, Pelopid. 1.
page 32 note 1 PSI ix. 1090; cf. Maas, P., Hermes, lxix, 1934, pp. 206 ffGoogle Scholar.
page 32 note 2 Suid. s.v. Θε⋯κριτοс…τιν⋯с δ⋯ ⋯ναφ⋯ρουсιν εἰс αὐτὸ κα⋯ τα⋯τα…⋯πικ⋯δεια, μdzλη, ⋯λεγε⋯αс κα⋯ ἰ⋯μβουс, ⋯πιγρ⋯μματα (cf. Wilamowitz, , Textgeschichte d. Bukoliker, p. 128 f.Google Scholar). The editors of Suid. are hardly right in reading ⋯πικ⋯δεια μ⋯λη μ⋯λη refers to lyric poems in general as another section of Theokritos' works, see e.g. Suid. article on Callimachus.
page 32 note 3 Arat. Vit. i, p. 55 Westerm. = Maass, E., Comment, in Arat., p. 78, 34Google Scholar εἰс μὑριν τ⋯ν ⋯δελφὸν ⋯πικ⋯δειον. Schol. A σ 486 'αρατοс ⋯ν τῷ πρὸс Θε⋯προπον ⋯πικηδείῳ cf. Comm. in Arat., pp. 229. 389. Suid. V.'αρατοс…εἰс Θε⋯προπον…⋯πικ⋯δειον τ⋯ν κλεομβρ⋯του cf. Maass, E., Aratea, 1892, p. 233Google Scholar de Ar. scriptis deperditis. Diog. L. ix. 8. 9 Πρωταγ⋯αс ⋯сτρολ⋯γοс, εἰс ὄν κα⋯ ɛὑφορ⋯ων ⋯πικ⋯δειον ἔγραψε: written in hexameters, if fr. 21 Powell comes from this poesm. Among the ‘Hesiodic’ apocrypha (Suid. v. ‘ηсίοδοс = Hesiod, . Carm. i, p. 114Google Scholar Jacoby, test. 11): ⋯πικ⋯δειον εἰс βάτραχ⋯ν τινα ⋯ρώμενον αὐτο⋯. There is not the slightest probability either that Philitas' Telephos (fr. 15 Pow., p. 93) was an epicedium for his father, or that Callim. fr. 363 Schn. belonged to an epicedium for a youth (against G.Pasquali, Orazio lir., p. 259. 3Google Scholar).
page 32 note 4 This seems to be the meaning of the sentence: αὐτῷτ⋯ сοι παρ⋯сται εἰс ἔπη κα⋯ ⋯λεγεγε⋯αс ⋯ν⋯γειν τ⋯ μ⋯λιсτα ⋯ξ αὐτ⋯ν ⋯ρμ⋯δια, Parthen., p. 43. 8 Mart.
