Poets and Poetics in Greek Literary Epigram A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classics by Charles S. Campbell B.A. Grinnell College M.A. University of Cincinnati November, 2013 Committee Chair: Dr. Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, Ph.D. 1 Abstract This dissertation offers a new analysis of the treatment of poets and poetics in Greek literary epigram from the early Hellenistic Period (3rd century BCE) down to the early Roman Imperial Period (1st century CE). In their authorial self-representations (the poetic ego or literary persona), their representation of other poets, and their thematization of poetry more generally, literary epigrammatists define, and successively redefine, the genre of epigram itself against the background of the literary tradition. This process of generic self-definition begins with the earliest literary epigrammatists’ fusion of inscriptional epigram with elements drawn from other genres, sympotic and erotic poetry and heroic epic, and their exploitation of the formal and conceptual repertoire of epigram to thematize poetic discourse. With the consolidation of the epigrammatic tradition in the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE, the distinctively epigrammatic poetic discourse that had evolved in the 3rd century BCE was subsumed into the persona of the poet himself, who is now figured as the very embodiment of the epigrammatic tradition and genre. In the first century BCE, as epigram was transplanted from Greece to the new cultural context of Roman Italy, the figure of the epigrammatist served to articulate the place of both poetry and the poet in this new world. ii Table of Contents Abbreviations iv Citation of Greek and Latin Texts v Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Creating a Poetic Discourse in Literary Epigram Introduction – Origins 12 Poetic Voices and Personae in Early Hellenistic Epigram: Nossis and Asclepiades 18 Persona and Poetics in Leonidas of Tarentum 31 Callimachus’ Epigrams and the Aetia Prologue 61 Alcaeus of Messene on Homer and Hesiod 78 Dioscorides on the History of Drama 86 Epigram, Objects, and Poetic Legacy in Posidippus 96 Chapter 2: Consolidating the Tradition Introduction – Rethinking Imitation and Variation 106 Part 1 – Antipater of Sidon’s Panorama of Greek Poets Antipater’s Ancient and Modern Reception 112 The Two Antipaters 117 Systems of Generic and Stylistic Classification 121 Stylistic Imagery 125 The εὔκρατος ἁρµονία – Epigrams on Homer and Stesichorus 128 The αὐστηρὰ ἁρµονία – Epigrams on Pindar, Aeschylus and Antimachus 135 Anacreon and the γλαφυρὰ ἁρµονία 142 Part 2 – Meleager and the Riddle of Epigram 153 Chapter 3: Transplanting the Tradition – Epigrammatists in First Century BCE Italy Introduction – From Meleager to Philip 170 “Occasional” Poetry 176 Case Studies in Formal Imitation (Gaetulicus AP 6.190 and Ariston AP 6.303 182 An Epigrammatic Invitation (Philodemus AP 11.44) 188 Crinagoras from Mitylene to Italy 198 Antipater of Thessalonica – The Epigrammatist as Provocateur 211 Poetry, Poverty, and Freedom – Antipater vs. Parmenion 222 Conclusion: The Epigrammatic Sensibility 236 Works Cited 251 iii Abbreviations AB Austin, C. and G. Bastianini, eds., 2002. Posidippi Pellaei omnia quae supersunt. Milan: LED. AP Palatine Anthology APl Planudean Anthology CA Powell, J. U., ed. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina. Oxford: Clarendon Press. CEG Hansen, P., ed. 1983. Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculorum VII-V a. Chr. n. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CEG2 Hansen, P., ed. 1989. Carmina epigraphica Graeca saeculi IV a. Chr. n. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. FGE Page, D. L., ed. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GPh Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page, eds. 1965. The Greek Anthology: The Garland of Philip. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galán Vioque Galán Vioque, G., ed. 2001. Dioscórides, Epigramas. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. HE Gow, A. S. F. and D. L. Page, eds. 1968. The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PMG Page, D. L., ed. 1962. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pf. Pfeiffer, R., ed. 1949-1951. Callimachus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. RE Pauly, A., G. Wissowa, and W. Kroll, eds. 1893-1978. Realencylopädie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler. Sens Sens, A., ed. 2011. Asclepiades of Samos: Epigrams and Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. SGO Merkelbach, R. and J. Stauber, eds. 1998. Steinepigramme aus dem griechischen Osten. 5 vols. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. SH Lloyd-Jones, H. and P. Parsons, eds. 1983. Supplementum Hellenisticum. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. iv Citation of Greek and Latin Texts For each ancient text that has been quoted at length, the edition from which the text is drawn is indicated in an abbreviation in parentheses (e.g. Text = HE). In cases where the text I print diverges from the edition of reference, the abbreviation for that edition is followed by an asterisk (e.g.: Text = HE*), and discrepancies are noted in an apparatus criticus. Also noted in the apparatus will be certain places where the edition of reference differs from the editorial communis opinio or other standard editions, or where an MS reading is of significance for my argument. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. v Introduction Out of fifteen otherwise run-of-the-mill epigrams transmitted in the Greek Anthology under the name of Parmenion, a poet of the early first century CE (probably), two stand out as the expression of an ethical and poetic manifesto: AP 9.342 – Parmenion = GPh XI (text = GPh) φηµὶ πολυστιχίην ἐπιγράµµατος οὐ κατὰ Μούσας εἶναι· µὴ ζητεῖτ’ ἐν σταδίῳ δόλιχον· πόλλ’ ἀνακυκλοῦται δολίχου δρόµος, ἐν σταδίῳ δέ ὀξὺς ἐλαυνοµένοις πνεύµατός ἐστι τόνος. I say that the writing of many lines does not accord with the Muses of Epigram.1 Don’t look for distance running in a sprint. The distance run turns many times, but in a sprint the runners must draw their breaths quickly. AP 9.43 – Parmenion = GPh VI (text = GPh) ἀρκεῖ µοι χλαίνης λιτὸν σκέπας, οὐδὲ τραπέζαις δουλεύσω Μουσέων ἄνθεα βοσκόµενος. µισῶ πλοῦτον ἄνουν, κολάκων τροφόν, οὐδὲ παρ’ ὀφρὺν στήσοµαι· οἶδ’ ὀλίγης δαιτὸς ἐλευθερίην. The humble covering of a cloak suffices for me, and I will not slave at banquets since I feed on the flowers of the Muses. I hate thoughtless wealth, nourishment of flatterers, and I will not stand at attention for the proud: I know the freedom of a humble meal. On the face of it, nothing could be simpler. The first epigram deals with poetic form, the second with the life of the poet. Each of these reinforces the other: the unassuming brevity of the epigram reflects and conditions the poet’s equally unassuming lifestyle. Poetic “smallness” (the opposite of πολυστιχίη, AP 9.342.1) goes hand in hand with an ethics of “smallness” embodied in simple clothing (χλαίνης λιτὸν σκέπας, AP 9.43.1) and food (ὀλίγης δαιτὸς, 9.43.4). The relative stylistic simplicity of the epigrams makes them seem all the more straightforward. 1 Or, perhaps, taking ἐπιγράµµατος with πολυστιχίην, “the epigram of many lines is not in accordance with the Muses’ will” (Gow-Page), similarly Soury apud Waltz. Campbell Introduction 1 Upon closer scrutiny, however, this appearance of simplicity is upset. Even if we grant that brevity is naturally suited to epigram, it is surprising to find an appeal to the “Muses of epigram” in support of this contention. It is equally surprising that Parmenion correlates his poetics with a particular lifestyle and ethical outlook at all. The connection of poetry with the Muses, of course, is foundational in Greek literature. Different Muses, moreover, inspire different kinds of poetry. The various kinds of poetry they inspire are composed by different kinds of people whose poetry is a reflection of their personality and lifestyle.2 Broadly speaking, these were basic assumptions about the nature of poetic composition in the ancient Greek world. What is surprising in Parmenion, then, is not these assumptions themselves, but the application of them to epigram. Long before Parmenion’s time, the Greeks had classified their literature according to generic types and identified authors who represented the best and quintessential paradigms of these types. Lists of canonical authors—the “approved” (ἐγκεκριµένοι)—in each genre were drawn up in the fourth and third centuries BCE, and by common consensus treated as fixed for all time.3 The lists were constituted in accordance with a conservative attitude that rigidly excluded contemporary poets and venerated age reflexively.4 This meant that epigram, which began to be written down in books and 2 Cf. Plat. Ion, 534 c4: τοῦτο µόνον οἷός τε ἕκαστος ποιεῖν καλῶς ἐφ᾽ ὃ ἡ Μοῦσα αὐτὸν ὥρµησεν, ὁ µὲν διθυράµβους, ὁ δὲ ἐγκώµια, ὁ δὲ ὑπορχήµατα, ὁ δ᾽ ἔπη, ὁ δ᾽ ἰάµβους. (“Each man can compose well only that towards which the Muse has stirred him; the one composes dithyrambs, another encomia, another pantomimes, another epic, and another iambs.”) 3 See the discussion of Pfeiffer, 1968, 203-9. 4 Cf. Quintilian, Inst. Or., 10.1.54: Aristarchus atque Aristophanes, poetarum iudices, neminem sui temporis in numerum redegerunt. (“Aristarchus and Aristophanes, the judges of poets, did not include in their enumeration anyone of their own time.”) Campbell Introduction 2 connected with named authors only in the fourth century BCE, was always shut out. Where then does Parmenion’s generically rooted self-representation come from? Leaving aside AP 9.342 for the moment, let us look closer at AP 9.43. Underpinning this bold statement of poetic program and “epigrammatic” ideology are several layers of literary tradition. In its two couplets, the epigram incorporates within itself a kind of “stratigraphy” of Greek poetry. The initial image, the χλαῖνη, recalls the archaic iambist Hipponax, who addresses a prayer to Hermes: Hipponax fr. 32.4 West … δὸς χλαῖναν Ἱππώνακτι … “… Give a cloak to Hipponax …” … and says in a rebuke (it is not clear to whom): Hipponax fr.