Anuario de Estudios Filológicos, ISSN 0210-8178, vol. XXVII, 23-39 THE CONTRAPOSITION BETWEEN EPOS AND EPULLION IN HELLENISTIC POETRY: STATUS QUAESTIONIS 1 José Antonio Clúa Serena Universidad de Extremadura Resumen En este artículo se esbozan algunos de los hitos más importantes que configuran, desde Antímaco de Colofón hasta las últimas manifestaciones poéticas helenísticas y romanas, la contraposición entre el e[po~ y el ejpuvllion. Sobre este último «género», repleto de elemen- tos etiológicos y largas digresiones, se aportan y se comparan datos importantes mediante dos métodos conocidos: la Quellensforchung y la comparación entre seguidores de la escuela de Calímaco y los denominados Telquines. Se analizan epigramas concretos, epilios de Teócrito, Mosco, la Hécale de Calímaco, epilios de Trifiodoro, Hedilo, Museo, Euforión, Partenio, Poliano, así como de Cornelio Galo y Cinna. Finalmente, se estudia la dicotomía «agua»/«vino» como símbolos de inspiración y se ofrece una posible clave para focalizar el paso de dicha contraposición desde la literatura helenística griega a la romana. Palabras clave: Epos, epyllion, hellenistic poetry, Cantores Callimachi. Abstract This paper describes some highly important aspects than configure, from Aminachus of Colofos to the latest Hellenistic and Roman poetic pieces, the contraposition of the concepts e[po~ and ejpuvllion. About this latter ‘genre’, filled with etiological and disgressive elements, data are contrasted according to two well known methods: Quellensforchung and comparison between Callimachus’ followers and Telquines. Specific epigrams are reviewed, also some epic poems by Theocritus, Moscos, the Hecale by Callimachus, epic poems by Trifiodorus, Hedilus, Museus, Euforius, Partenius, Polianus, Cornelius, Galius, and Cinnas. Finally, dichotomous elements like ‘water’/‘wine’ are studied as symbols for inspiration. In addition, a possible key to focus on contraposition is examined across Greek and Roman literature. Keywords: Epos, Epillion, Hellenistic poetry, Cantores Callimachi. 1 This paper belongs to «Literatura Helenística e Imperial» project (E019-03). It has been translated from Spanish by M. Ángeles Fuentes. 24 José Antonio Clúa Serena The contraposition between e[po~ and ejpuvllion… 0. Pindar in his Olympian ii 91-94 set himself magnificently on the line of hermetism as he proclaimed: «I have under my elbow, in my quiver, fast abundant arrows which only have voice for the skilled, but need interpret- ers for the masses». The understanding of this poetry demands a particular skill, an introduction, sometimes a real key. However, those who boasted of being enigmatic were the Alexandrian poets. Lycophron, in the beginning of his Alexandra, 8-15 proclaimed a very complete literary program in this field. Nevertheless, I am not going to refer to the hard and obscure poetry but to the exquisite, brief and learned poetry. Notwithstanding, a close relationship between both kinds will be often found. We can find Choerilus of Samos and Antimachus of Colophon among others as forerunners of the contrast e[po~-ejpuvllion as early as the ivth Cen- tury B.C. The former mourns for how much poetic genres are overused (see fr. 317 LL.-J./Parsons). That extract is itself symptomatic of strength when new means of poetic creation are introduced. Choerilus refused to limit his work, as in the «cyclical» tradition to mythological contents and he put forward the historic epic, promoting in his Proem the tediousness from conventions and a desire for change. Antimachus of Colophon gives us an idea of the figure of the Alexandrian poeta doctus. There is almost no trace of his work, but some statements sub- sequent to his era let us guess some general features of Antimachus’ poetry, whose public readings were a complete disaster, and it was Plato the only one who attended the whole reading of one of Antimachus’ poems. This implies that the poet no longer writes for the audience, his poetry is educated and does not satisfy the demands of public reading. A new poetic production aimed at individual reading starts with Antimachus. Poetry becomes an end in itself. It is then when the aesthetic criterion of «art for art’s sake» is born. At the same time, there is in this poet a precedent of the philological activ- ity linked to the poet’s labour: In the list of the editions of the Homeric text, elaborated by Aristarchus, Antimachus’ poetry appears first in the list of those known as Kat’andra. The Lyde was a long elegiac composition —for this reason it deserved Callimachus’ censorship— in which the poet compared his unfortunate love with the greatest wretched mythological love stories. M. Fantuzzi has recently remarked that the tales of unhappy love in Antimachus’ Lyde were not only mythological, but also «subjective» insofar as they were designed as the pain caused by the death of his beloved (Fantuzzi 1993: 54-56). Antimachus’ long-winded epic Thebais (one should not confuse this piece of work with Homer’s work of the same name, which is a fragmentary epic poem previous to the Iliad and the Odyssey) was his best-known writing AEF, vol. XXVII, 2004, 23-39 The contraposition between e[po~ and ejpuvllion… José Antonio Clúa Serena 25 in the Old age. It was an epic poem, whose contents resembled the works by the poets of the epic cycle who, in the Alexandrine period, enjoyed little prestige because they were opposed to Homer and it was common to censure the former but to worship the latter. In fr. 3 Wyss, Zeus’ and Europe’s love is explained in order to justify the mythological origins of Thebes. However, Antimachus pays attention to etymological matters related to the name of Mount Boeotia, where the lovers meet. He does that so that we do not doubt the truthfulness of the legend. In this way, the mythical past comes closer to the reality of the present and the myth gets mixed up with history. 1. On the other hand, it was evident that Philetas and Callimachus were considered the masters of Hellenism, as I.M. Lonie says, with an in-depth study of fragments where Callimachus and Philetas are associated with love elegy (Lonie 1959: 17-34). Callimachus and Theocritus, who belonging to a later generation to Philetas, are also a reliable and very eloquent testimony to the literary significance of the poet from Cos in the Hellenistic period. Philetas, then, was considered the main author of Hellenistic elegy. Callima- chus mentions this in In Telchinas (Aetia Book i Pfeiffer), where he links him to the shortest compositions. From W.M. Edwards’ work, it already becomes communis opinio that the o[mpnia Qesmofovro~ is a clear reference to Philetas’ narrative elegy Demeter (Edwards 1930: 110 f.). In fact, Callimachus wants to show the superiority of the ojligosticivh and it arises from the comparison between short and long compositions written by the same author, Philetas or Minnermus. In all other respects, Philetas had in Cos and in Alexandria an unquestionable teaching relating to forms and topics. As for form, which was the hexametric or elegiac poem with a length no longer than a few hundred lines, a slight euphuism is established. Philetas means, therefore the separation from the great epic poem and the connections to a shorter and more concise form. In fact, some centuries later, (and together with the passing of time we move forward in the topic as well), Propertius, when mentioning a young man (iii 1, 1 ss.) who is look- ing for inspiration in the shade of Mount Helicon, the same place where Hesiod got his own inspiration, declares that he is going to imitate Ennius, author of the great epic poem. Calliope herself appears and persuades Ennius to sing only love poems. The young poet finishes saying: ora Philetea nostra rigauit aqua (iii 3, 52), with this we find an evident source of inspira- tion. All this together points us into the line of insertion of a love affair within an epic narration (ejpuvllion) more than into subjective elegy. The works by R.J. Baker (1968: 35-39) and most recently in Spanish the status quaestionis by E. Calderón (1988: 7-34) regarding these questions are inter- esting. AEF, vol. XXVII, 2004, 23-39 26 José Antonio Clúa Serena The contraposition between e[po~ and ejpuvllion… Recapitulating briefly we should mention that the revolution that Hellen- istic poetry meant had been prepared by poets such as Choerilus of Samos and Antimachus (Philoxenus or Timotheus should also be mentioned) and Philetas, and we should state these poets as the forerunners of the literary controversy in the Callimachean In Telchines as well as of that of other poems and epigrams by the poet from Cyrene. All in all, it is not necessary to men- tion more archaic antecedents such as Hesiod, Pindar and Aristophanes’ Frogs above all. Let’s now deal with the «genre» (in inverted commas) of the e[puvllion. Indeed, this word, derived from e[po~, means «short line» in some places for Aristophanes (Ach. 398-400; Pax 531 f., Ran. 941 f.) and for Clemens of Alexandria (Strom. iii 3,24), whereas in Athenaeus ii 65, It already appears with the sense of «short epic poem». Summing up, this is what P. Chantraine suggested in his Dictionnaire etymologique. In any case, the person responsible for the use of the term e[puvllion as the name of a particular literary gender, and in particular that of the «carmina narrativa parva, exceptis elegiacis» seems to be a modern philologist, J. Heumann, the well-known author of the dissertation De epyllio alexandrino (Heumann 1904). The exclusion of the elegiac narrative poems from the category of the ejpuvllion is due to the fact that the former, apart from being fairly unknown in the Greek world though better known in the Latin one, were always set by old grammarians among elegies.