DOCSLIB.ORG

Hellenistic Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hellenistic Philosophy The Classical Review NEW SERIES VOLUME XLVIII NO. 2 (VOLUME CXII OF THE CONTINUOUS SERIES) 1998 HOMER AS SPEECH E. J. Bakker: Poetry in Speech: Orality and Homeric Discourse (Myth and Poetics). Pp. xiv + 237. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1997. ISBN: 0-8014-3295-2. In this book B. presents to a wider audience his work on ‘Orality and Homeric Discourse’ already published in a series of articles over the past years. His central claim is that Homer should be approached not as (written) literature or oral poetry but instead as a flow of speech through time. Part 1, ‘Perspectives’, introduces the text of Homer as a transcript of spoken discourse. Starting from the dichotomy ‘oral’ versus ‘written’, B. argues against the view that Homeric epic is a special type of poetry, suggesting instead to regard it as a type of speech. What this means is elaborated in Part 2, ‘Speech’, where a new understanding of Homer’s paratactic style is advocated on the basis of ‘ordinary speech’ as described by the linguist W. Chafe. Adopting Chafe’s approach to language, B. explains some of the more striking features of Homeric discourse with reference to cognitively determined linguistic strategies. In the third part, ‘Special Speech’, he investigates some of the ways in which Homeric epic in turn departs from ‘ordinary speech’. Here the key feature is metre. B. argues that some characteristics which other types of discourse, such as rhetorical prose, display at the level of syntax have their counterpart in the metrical period of the Homeric hexameter. To those familiar with B.’s work, there will be few surprises in the detail. What is new is the attempt to draw together in one sustained argument the results of ten years of research. In many ways, this attempt must be judged successful. Although potentially complicated, B.’s argument is almost always unassuming and easy to follow. Linguistic jargon is kept to an acceptable minimum, and the footnotes are mostly short and to the point. The book is also equipped with a helpful index. On the whole, B. is most convincing where he relies least on the ideas of others. His study of particles such as δ–δ, νξ–νξ, λα¬,(4)σα, η0σ, οÖξ—here restated as Chapters 4–5—may serve to illustrate the successful mixture of bold intuition and high linguistic competence which characterizes B.’s work at its best. Against the ‘cataloguing’ δ which separates intonation units and invites the audience to move further along the narrative line (pp. 62ff.), B. sets λα¬ as an inclusive element which tends to occur within such units (pp. 71–4). Νξ prepares for the progression carried out by δ and opens a ‘frame’ within which the following sections may be viewed (pp. 100–8). The concept of framing, not perhaps entirely fortunate given B.’s criticism of spatial metaphors elsewhere (e.g. p. 120 on ring composition), is also important for the somewhat bolder suggestion that the Homeric hexameter developed out of a system of ‘staged’ noun-epithet phrases (Chapters 7, 8). Such assertions are hard to prove, © Oxford University Press, 1998 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:57:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X9873001X 260 the classical review and the fact that B. tries to do so by dividing the Iliad into areas of ‘quintessential action’ (p. 168) and ‘anti-action’ (p. 169) does not inspire confidence in his results. However, B. does succeed in showing that the mechanics of formulaic language may be viewed as one phenomenon of periodization among others. Just as rhetorical prose is organized in syntactical periods (pp. 138–46), Homeric metre can be seen as a ‘routinized’ variant of the rhythmical period (pp. 186ff.). The analogy with American folk preachers (pp. 133–5) suggests a link with ritual practice. Much of what B. argues is convincing and has a strong intuitive appeal. However, his results are undermined in part by his strict adherence to the doctrines of modern cognitive linguistics. Here I would draw attention to a slightly alarming phenomenon. It is rightly assumed today that research carried out in fields other than classics can have a stimulating effect on the discipline. B.’s book further contributes to this beneficial development. However, it also highlights some of its less welcome aspects. Throughout the volume, B. follows Chafe in arguing that spoken discourse of any time and culture reflects a series of biologically conditioned foci of consciousness. Given that such foci can only be verbalized one after the other, and in the order in which they present themselves to the speaker’s mind, ‘ordinary human speech’ is ‘naturally’ paratactic. As evidence for this Chafe—and B. with him (e.g. pp. 43, 48)—cites the so-called ‘Pear Film project’ in which a number of people are shown a short film and then asked to give a narrative account of it. The result is appropriately paratactic, but this proves little. How ‘ordinary’, we may ask, is the situation described? How important is it that the persons in question are paraphrasing a film? Why are they asked to produce a narrative and how does this relate to speech in general? B. does not address any of these questions, nor does he come to terms with such dubious concepts as ‘the one new idea constraint’ (pp. 99, 103). Here as elsewhere Chafe and his ‘experimental research’ (p. 46) determine the tone and scope of B.’s discussion to an extent which threatens to obstruct rather than stimulate the proposed hermeneutic encounter. As B. himself remarked some time ago, ‘the application to the Homeric style of the concept of the fragmentation of oral narrative into idea units has . an immediate appeal’ (TAPA 120 [1990], 5). More immediacy and less application, more Bakker and less Chafe, would have made a better book. Cambridge JOHANNES HAUBOLD HOMERIC HYMNS G. Zanetto (ed.): Inni Omerici: Testo greco a fronte. Pp. 314. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1996. L. 16,000. ISBN: 88-17-17136-0. There have been some useful books published on the Homeric hymns recently, most notably Jenny Strauss Clay’s literary treatment of the four major hymns, The Politics of Olympus (Princeton, 1989), but this book fulfils a need by providing a handy edition with commentary and facing translation. Z. is familiar with all the relevant scholarship, and he makes judicious use of it, while not being afraid to come up with suggestions of his own. The introduction discusses the nature and function of the hymns, with a section on each of the major ones. Z. rightly points out the aetiological and theogonic nature of the hymns, which deal with conflicts among the gods and their acquisition of υινα¬. He has an interesting discussion of why archaic Greeks did not find it odd to honour their gods by telling stories of struggles, thefts, and deceits. He deals sensibly with the problem of the hymns’ function, following the © Oxford University Press, 1998 Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 16:57:04, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X9873001X the classical review 261 standard view that they were used as preludes to recitations of epic at festivals but suggesting that later the longer hymns came to be performed on their own. Some recent works have questioned the traditional suggestions about the performance context of particular hymns, but Z. rightly reaffirms the theories that the Demeter hymn (Dem) was composed for an Attic/Eleusinian context, the (Delian) Apollo (Ap) hymn for performance on Delos, and the Aphrodite hymn (Aph)to honour Aeneadae in the Troad (Z. argues that it was composed on Lesbos). He probably goes too far, however, in stating that Dem is a true liturgical hymn, designed to be performed as part of the Mysteries. He picks his way sensibly through the problems of the Apollo hymn: he accepts the Burkert/Janko hypothesis that the combined hymn was performed at a Delian festival organized by Polycrates in the 520s. Z. suggests that on this occasion Cynaethus of Chios added to the older Delian hymn a Pythian one composed by him but using mainland traditions (but surely it is more likely that the Ionian Cynaethus composed the Delian half). On the Hermes hymn (Herm), Z. stresses how the hymn shows his metis and trickery, and summarizes the nature of Hermes well. The commentary is naturally selective, but helpful and informative. Z. of course makes use of the existing commentaries, but thinks for himself, and if one compares his commentary with Cassola’s important edition, Inni omerici (Milan, 1975), there is often not much overlap. Cassola’s commentary is more erudite, but Z. is frequently more interesting reading. Particularly lively is his commentary on Herm, where he brings out well the ‘Hermetic’ nature of the god’s various actions. On 64, where Hermes has a ‘desire for meat’ he comments that this seems Titanic, like Prometheus, but later Hermes renounces this and introduces the ritual of Olympian sacrifice. His lawless characteristics are legitimized by his entry into the Olympian system. On 111, which says that H. invented fire, Z. again points out the link with Prometheus, and notes that he invents it in the context of sacrifice. So he invents the sacrificial ritual and offers a model which all mortals conform to.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Maayandonors.Pdf
    The Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School Annual Fundraising Campaign, Ma’ayan, CESJDS is deeply appreciative of the very ensures that CESJDS can provide more than a basic education. It ensures that our generous annual subsidy that we receive for Timeless lessons. each student from the Jewish Federation of children and families have the benefi t of enhancements in every area of our School. Greater Washington. Enduring values. Thank you for supporting CESJDS through Ma’ayan so that we can strengthen our Brilliant futures. School, allow others to a ord this experience, create new Jewish leaders, and ensure the best programs and teachers that our children deserve. CESJDS’s success in our extended community is due, in no small measure, to your support of our School. WWW.CESJDS.ORG THANK YOU TO THE FOLLOWING DONORS: MITZVAH SOCIETY ($25,000+) Jessica & Michael Isen Jennifer & Michael Reichbach Joan & Abe Brauner & Rabbi Jacob Blumenthal Linda & Neil Kirschner Rebecca & Steven Weisman Stephanie Cantor ’08 Marsha & Marvin Fish Catherine & Christopher Hendrix Drs. Judith & Jonathan Levin Cathy & Samuel Pearlman Robert Sniffen Marsha & Sidney Tishler Monica & Gavin Abrams Kimberly & Abraham Kader Sara Cohen Rich ’87 & Norm Rich Lisa & Jonathan Charnoff Susan & Harvey Blumenthal Rhonda Kleiner Devra ’89 & Avi Weiss Revital & Nir Carmel Rosalyn & Monroe Fisher Jordan Herling Susan Wachtel & Richard Levine Jillian Pedone Rachel Sniffen ’14 Stacy Weiner & Yoel Tobin The Bender Foundation, Inc. Lauren Kogod & David Smiley Meryl ’75 & Samuel ’75 Rosenberg Corey Cines ’07 Debra Vodenos & Samuel Boxerman Ellen & Barry Koitz Edith & Charles Weller Leah F. Chanin Miriam Fishkin Galit & Tal Hermoni Ilana Levine ’00 Kathryn & Rick Penn Tamara & Ivan Snyder Miriam & Sheldon Tommer Diane & Norman Bernstein Leslie S.
    [Show full text]
  • Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman
    Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia Joseph Roisman In his speech On the Crown Demosthenes often lionizes himself by suggesting that his actions and policy required him to overcome insurmountable obstacles. Thus he contrasts Athens’ weakness around 346 B.C.E. with Macedonia’s strength, and Philip’s II unlimited power with the more constrained and cumbersome decision-making process at home, before asserting that in spite of these difficulties he succeeded in forging later a large Greek coalition to confront Philip in the battle of Chaeronea (Dem.18.234–37). [F]irst, he (Philip) ruled in his own person as full sovereign over subservient people, which is the most important factor of all in waging war . he was flush with money, and he did whatever he wished. He did not announce his intentions in official decrees, did not deliberate in public, was not hauled into the courts by sycophants, was not prosecuted for moving illegal proposals, was not accountable to anyone. In short, he was ruler, commander, in control of everything.1 For his depiction of Philip’s authority Demosthenes looks less to Macedonia than to Athens, because what makes the king powerful in his speech is his freedom from democratic checks. Nevertheless, his observations on the Macedonian royal power is more informative and helpful than Aristotle’s references to it in his Politics, though modern historians tend to privilege the philosopher for what he says or even does not say on the subject. Aristotle’s seldom mentions Macedonian kings, and when he does it is for limited, exemplary purposes, lumping them with other kings who came to power through benefaction and public service, or who were assassinated by men they had insulted.2 Moreover, according to Aristotle, the extreme of tyranny is distinguished from ideal kingship (pambasilea) by the fact that tyranny is a government that is not called to account.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Hellenistic Domestic Sculpture in Its Cultural and Spatial Contexts
    THE NATURE OF HELLENISTIC DOMESTIC SCULPTURE IN ITS CULTURAL AND SPATIAL CONTEXTS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Craig I. Hardiman, B.Comm., B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Dr. Mark D. Fullerton, Advisor Dr. Timothy J. McNiven _______________________________ Advisor Dr. Stephen V. Tracy Graduate Program in the History of Art Copyright by Craig I. Hardiman 2005 ABSTRACT This dissertation marks the first synthetic and contextual analysis of domestic sculpture for the whole of the Hellenistic period (323 BCE – 31 BCE). Prior to this study, Hellenistic domestic sculpture had been examined from a broadly literary perspective or had been the focus of smaller regional or site-specific studies. Rather than taking any one approach, this dissertation examines both the literary testimonia and the material record in order to develop as full a picture as possible for the location, function and meaning(s) of these pieces. The study begins with a reconsideration of the literary evidence. The testimonia deal chiefly with the residences of the Hellenistic kings and their conspicuous displays of wealth in the most public rooms in the home, namely courtyards and dining rooms. Following this, the material evidence from the Greek mainland and Asia Minor is considered. The general evidence supports the literary testimonia’s location for these sculptures. In addition, several individual examples offer insights into the sophistication of domestic decorative programs among the Greeks, something usually associated with the Romans.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; Proquest Pg
    Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion Milns, R D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Summer 1966; 7, 2; ProQuest pg. 159 Alexander's Seventh Phalanx Battalion R. D. Milns SOME TIME between the battle of Gaugamela and the battle of A the Hydaspes the number of battalions in the Macedonian phalanx was raised from six to seven.1 This much is clear; what is not certain is when the new formation came into being. Berve2 believes that the introduction took place at Susa in 331 B.C. He bases his belief on two facts: (a) the arrival of 6,000 Macedonian infantry and 500 Macedonian cavalry under Amyntas, son of Andromenes, when the King was either near or at Susa;3 (b) the appearance of Philotas (not the son of Parmenion) as a battalion leader shortly afterwards at the Persian Gates.4 Tarn, in his discussion of the phalanx,5 believes that the seventh battalion was not created until 328/7, when Alexander was at Bactra, the new battalion being that of Cleitus "the White".6 Berve is re­ jected on the grounds: (a) that Arrian (3.16.11) says that Amyntas' reinforcements were "inserted into the existing (six) battalions KC1:TCt. e8vr(; (b) that Philotas has in fact taken over the command of Perdiccas' battalion, Perdiccas having been "promoted to the Staff ... doubtless after the battle" (i.e. Gaugamela).7 The seventh battalion was formed, he believes, from reinforcements from Macedonia who reached Alexander at Nautaca.8 Now all of Tarn's arguments are open to objection; and I shall treat them in the order they are presented above.
    [Show full text]
  • Separating Fact from Fiction in the Aiolian Migration
    hesperia yy (2008) SEPARATING FACT Pages399-430 FROM FICTION IN THE AIOLIAN MIGRATION ABSTRACT Iron Age settlementsin the northeastAegean are usuallyattributed to Aioliancolonists who journeyed across the Aegean from mainland Greece. This articlereviews the literary accounts of the migration and presentsthe relevantarchaeological evidence, with a focuson newmaterial from Troy. No onearea played a dominantrole in colonizing Aiolis, nor is sucha widespread colonizationsupported by the archaeologicalrecord. But the aggressive promotionof migrationaccounts after the PersianWars provedmutually beneficialto bothsides of theAegean and justified the composition of the Delian League. Scholarlyassessments of habitation in thenortheast Aegean during the EarlyIron Age are remarkably consistent: most settlements are attributed toAiolian colonists who had journeyed across the Aegean from Thessaly, Boiotia,Akhaia, or a combinationof all three.1There is no uniformityin theancient sources that deal with the migration, although Orestes and his descendantsare named as theleaders in mostaccounts, and are credited withfounding colonies over a broadgeographic area, including Lesbos, Tenedos,the western and southerncoasts of theTroad, and theregion betweenthe bays of Adramyttion and Smyrna(Fig. 1). In otherwords, mainlandGreece has repeatedly been viewed as theagent responsible for 1. TroyIV, pp. 147-148,248-249; appendixgradually developed into a Mountjoy,Holt Parker,Gabe Pizzorno, Berard1959; Cook 1962,pp. 25-29; magisterialstudy that is includedhere Allison Sterrett,John Wallrodt, Mal- 1973,pp. 360-363;Vanschoonwinkel as a companionarticle (Parker 2008). colm Wiener, and the anonymous 1991,pp. 405-421; Tenger 1999, It is our hope that readersinterested in reviewersfor Hesperia. Most of trie pp. 121-126;Boardman 1999, pp. 23- the Aiolian migrationwill read both articlewas writtenin the Burnham 33; Fisher2000, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Archaeology and the Historical Geography of Central Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC
    European Journal of Archaeology 20 (1) 2017, 120–147 This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Story of a Forgotten Kingdom? Survey Archaeology and the Historical Geography of Central Western Anatolia in the Second Millennium BC 1,2,3 1,3 CHRISTOPHER H. ROOSEVELT AND CHRISTINA LUKE 1Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Koç University, I˙stanbul, Turkey 2Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, Koç University, I˙stanbul, Turkey 3Department of Archaeology, Boston University, USA This article presents previously unknown archaeological evidence of a mid-second-millennium BC kingdom located in central western Anatolia. Discovered during the work of the Central Lydia Archaeological Survey in the Marmara Lake basin of the Gediz Valley in western Turkey, the material evidence appears to correlate well with text-based reconstructions of Late Bronze Age historical geog- raphy drawn from Hittite archives. One site in particular—Kaymakçı—stands out as a regional capital and the results of the systematic archaeological survey allow for an understanding of local settlement patterns, moving beyond traditional correlations between historical geography and capital sites alone. Comparison with contemporary sites in central western Anatolia, furthermore, identifies material com- monalities in site forms that may indicate a regional architectural tradition if not just influence from Hittite hegemony. Keywords: survey archaeology, Anatolia, Bronze Age, historical geography, Hittites, Seha River Land INTRODUCTION correlates of historical territories and king- doms have remained elusive.
    [Show full text]
  • (1988) 116–118 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt Gmbh, Bonn
    E. BADIAN TWO POSTSCRIPTS ON THE MARRIAGE OF PHILA AND BALACRUS aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 73 (1988) 116–118 © Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 116 TWO POSTSCRIPTS ON THE MARRIAGE OF PHILA AND BALACRUS Waldemar Heckel (ZPE 70,1987,161-2) has done a service to prosopography of Alexander and the Diadochoi by his acute demonstration that the marriage of Phila and Balacrus, Alexander's satrap of Cilicia, must be accepted as historical fact. In view of the inadequacy of our source for the connection (the writer of romance, Antonius Diogenes, as recorded by Photius), it had been inconclusively discussed ever since Droysen first accepted it and then changed his mind about it.1) The dedication by an Antipater son of "Balagros" indeed establishes the fact. There is perhaps slight further confirmation for the identification discovered by Heckel in the spelling of "Balagros": the inscription coincides with Photius in this detail, and the spelling is a very rare variant.2) a.) Heckel should not, however, be followed in his acceptance of the authenticity of the letter cited by the Greek novelist. His statement that Photius "preserves, on the testimony of Antonius Diogenes, the details of a letter ..." is followed by his use of the letter in order to show that Phila cannot have been with her husband when he cook over the satrapy of Cilicia, since he still wrote to her from Tyre. In fact, there cannot be any doubt that the letter is fictitious: it pro- vides the setting for Diogenes' romance and the details are historically worthless.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Index Note : Geographical landmarks are listed under the proper name itself: for “Cape Sepias” or “Mt. Athos” see “Sepias” or “Athos.” When a people and a toponym share the same base, see under the toponym: for “Thessalians” see “Thessaly.” Romans are listed according to the nomen, i.e. C. Julius Caesar. With places or people mentioned once only, discretion has been used. Abdera 278 Aeaces II 110, 147 Abydus 222, 231 A egae 272–273 Acanthus 85, 207–208, 246 Aegina 101, 152, 157–158, 187–189, Acarnania 15, 189, 202, 204, 206, 251, 191, 200 347, 391, 393 Aegium 377, 389 Achaia 43, 54, 64 ; Peloponnesian Aegospotami 7, 220, 224, 228 Achaia, Achaian League 9–10, 12–13, Aemilius Paullus, L. 399, 404 54–56, 63, 70, 90, 250, 265, 283, 371, Aeolis 16–17, 55, 63, 145, 233 375–380, 388–390, 393, 397–399, 404, Aeschines 281, 285, 288 410 ; Phthiotic Achaia 16, 54, 279, Aeschylus 156, 163, 179 286 Aetoli Erxadieis 98–101 Achaian War 410 Aetolia, Aetolian League 12, 15, 70, Achaius 382–383, 385, 401 204, 250, 325, 329, 342, 347–348, Acilius Glabrio, M. 402 376, 378–380, 387, 390–391, 393, Acragas 119, COPYRIGHTED165, 259–261, 263, 266, 39MATERIAL6–397, 401–404 352–354, 358–359 Agariste 113, 117 Acrocorinth 377, 388–389 Agathocles (Lysimachus ’ son) 343, 345 ; Acrotatus 352, 355 (King of Sicily) 352–355, 358–359; Actium 410, 425 (King of Bactria) 413–414 Ada 297 Agelaus 391, 410 A History of Greece: 1300 to 30 BC, First Edition. Victor Parker.
    [Show full text]
  • Athenaeus' Reading of the Aulos Revolution ( Deipnosophistae 14.616E–617F)
    The Journal of Hellenic Studies http://journals.cambridge.org/JHS Additional services for The Journal of Hellenic Studies: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here New music and its myths: Athenaeus' reading of the Aulos revolution ( Deipnosophistae 14.616e–617f) Pauline A. Leven The Journal of Hellenic Studies / Volume 130 / November 2010, pp 35 - 48 DOI: 10.1017/S0075426910000030, Published online: 19 November 2010 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0075426910000030 How to cite this article: Pauline A. Leven (2010). New music and its myths: Athenaeus' reading of the Aulos revolution ( Deipnosophistae 14.616e– 617f). The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 130, pp 35-48 doi:10.1017/S0075426910000030 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/JHS, IP address: 147.91.1.45 on 23 Sep 2013 Journal of Hellenic Studies 130 (2010) 35−47 DOI: 10.1017/S0075426910000030 NEW MUSIC AND ITS MYTHS: ATHENAEUS’ READING OF THE AULOS REVOLUTION (DEIPNOSOPHISTAE 14.616E−617F) PAULINE A. LEVEN Yale University* Abstract: Scholarship on the late fifth-century BC New Music Revolution has mostly relied on the evidence provided by Athenaeus, the pseudo-Plutarch De musica and a few other late sources. To this date, however, very little has been done to understand Athenaeus’ own role in shaping our understanding of the musical culture of that period. This article argues that the historical context provided by Athenaeus in the section of the Deipnosophistae that cites passages of Melanippides, Telestes and Pratinas on the mythology of the aulos (14.616e−617f) is not a credible reflection of the contemporary aesthetics and strategies of the authors and their works.
    [Show full text]
  • Fantasy and Metaphor in Meleager
    TAPA 145 (2015) 233–251 PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS 2015 New Orleans, Louisiana Fantasy and Metaphor in Meleager KATHRYN GUTZWILLER University of Cincinnati MELEAGER OF GADARA IS ONE OF THOSE INCREASINGLY RARE GREEK AUTHORS whose works are somewhat known to many classicists but whose influence on ancient and later literature remains underappreciated. Meleager’s anthol- ogy of Greek epigrams called the Garland produced Latin imitations shortly after its creation in the early first century B.C.E., and allusions to Meleager’s own, mostly erotic poems are found in prominent programmatic passages of Latin poetry. Examples include the first three poems and the last poem of the Catullan liber, the opening of Propertius’s Monobiblos, the first speech in Vergil’s Eclogue 1, and the opening lines of Tibullus 1.2.1 I would assert that as a model for Latin erotic poetry Meleager rivals Callimachus in both direct allusions and as a source of topoi and imagery. Alessandro Barchiesi has spo- ken of the Garland as a model for elegant poetry books because of its careful arrangements,2 but what was it about Meleager’s own poetry that appealed to Roman poets? Pointing toward an answer to that question, I here examine 1 Catull. 1 and 116, the beginning and end of the liber as we have it, contain a com- plicated and interrelated series of allusions to the proem and concluding epigram of Meleager’s Garland (Anth. Pal. 4.1, 12.257). The paired sparrow poems (Catull. 2–3) owe much to Meleager’s paired insect epigrams (Anth. Pal. 7.195–96), while Verg.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Barsine, Daughter of Artabazus
    Alexander’s Lovers by Andrew Chugg 4. Barsine, Daughter of Artabazus Barsine was by birth a minor princess of the Achaemenid Empire of the Persians, for her father, Artabazus, was the son of a Great King’s daughter.197 It is known that his father was Pharnabazus, who had married Apame, the daughter of Artaxerxes II, some time between 392 - 387BC.198 Artabazus was a senior Persian Satrap and courtier and was latterly renowned for his loyalty first to Darius, then to Alexander. Perhaps this was the outcome of a bad experience of the consequences of disloyalty earlier in his long career. In 358BC Artaxerxes III Ochus had upon his accession ordered the western Satraps to disband their mercenary armies, but this edict had eventually edged Artabazus into an unsuccessful revolt. He spent some years in exile at Philip’s court during Alexander’s childhood, starting in about 352BC and extending until around 349BC,199 at which time he became reconciled with the Great King. It is likely that his daughter Barsine and the rest of his immediate family accompanied him in his exile, so it is feasible that Barsine knew Alexander when they were both still children. Plutarch relates that she had received a “Greek upbringing”, though in point of fact this education could just as well have been delivered in Artabazus’ Satrapy of Hellespontine Phrygia, where the population was predominantly ethnically Greek. As a young girl, Barsine appears to have married Mentor,200 a Greek mercenary general from Rhodes. Artabazus had previously married the sister of this Rhodian, so Barsine may have been Mentor’s niece.
    [Show full text]
  • The Successors: Alexander's Legacy
    The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy November 20-22, 2015 Committee Background Guide The Successors: Alexander’s Legacy 1 Table of Contents Committee Director Welcome Letter ...........................................................................................2 Summons to the Babylon Council ................................................................................................3 The History of Macedon and Alexander ......................................................................................4 The Rise of Macedon and the Reign of Philip II ..........................................................................4 The Persian Empire ......................................................................................................................5 The Wars of Alexander ................................................................................................................5 Alexander’s Plans and Death .......................................................................................................7 Key Topics ......................................................................................................................................8 Succession of the Throne .............................................................................................................8 Partition of the Satrapies ............................................................................................................10 Continuity and Governance ........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]