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 October 2013
Among the sepulchral epigrams comprising Book 7 of the Palatine Anthology, these two by Meleager occur in a sequence (189–216) having to do with animals, mainly birds or insects, that appears to derive from Meleager's Garland. The prose translation above will reveal that the interpretation to be proposed differs considerably from previous readings of either poem, specifically in that it runs counter to the following common beliefs or assumptions. 1. That the poems, while having many features in common, are to be read as two discrete works with no integral connection between them. 2. That the two epigrams, being non-sepulchral, are included in this part of the Anthology, perhaps erroneously and only by reason of their affinities with those insect poems that are sepulchral. 3. That the narrator of each epigram is a human being; the poet himself or some persona such as a ‘love-sick swain’. 4. That the addressee of each epigram is a pet, probably kept in a cage as such insects sometimes were, and so the vegetable mentioned in v. 7 of 195 is to be presented, along with the dew drops, by the human master. 5. That the phrase στóμασι σχιʒομένας in the final verse of 195 is difficult or impossible. (All attempts towards an explanation or emendation of the text are premised on points 2 and 3 above.) 6. That the word άντῳδόν in v. 5 of 196 indicates a response to a musical performance by Pan.
1 See Wifstrand, A., Studien zur griechischen Anthologie (Lund 1927) 46Google Scholar and Gow, A. S. F. and Page, D. L., edd., The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic epigrams ii (Cambridge 1965) 615Google Scholar who see ‘a short but solid Garland-sequence, A.P. vii 190-203’. Cf. Gow and Page i, pp. xxi-xxvii citing earlier literature; also, ii 108, where vii 189 (Aristodicus or Anyte) belongs in the Meleagrian sequence. Waltz in Waltz, P., ed., Desrousseaux, A. M. et al. trr., Anthologie grecque iv (Paris 1960) 23Google Scholar, sees the Meleagrian series running from 194 to 203. vii 191, by Archias, is likely post-Meleagrian.
2 See Weisshäupl, R., Die Grabgedichte der griechischen Anthologie (Vienna 1889) 50Google Scholar; Herrlinger, G., Totenklage um Tiere in der antiken Dichtung (Stuttgart 1930) 73Google Scholar: Dain in Waltz et al. (n. 1) 138 n. 1; Pontavi, F. M., ed. & tr., Anthologia Palatina ii (Turin 1979) 512 n. 193Google Scholar. Without reference to these two Cameron, A., GRBS ix (1968) 328Google Scholar cautions against labelling any of Meleager's epigrams in book vii as non-sepulchral. Tarán, S. L., The art of variation in the Hellenistic epigram (Leiden 1979) 168 n. 6Google Scholar implies that the pair belongs among the animal epitaphs.
3 Borthwick, E. K., CQ n.s. xvi (1969) 103Google Scholar.
4 Theoc. 1.52; Longus, Daphnis and Chloe i 14. Cf. Borthwick (n. 3) 105.
5 See Borthwick (n. 3) 105 f.
6 Gow and Page (n. 1) 615. G. Giangrande, REG lxxxi (1968) 47-50 makes a well argued, though I believe unnecessary, proposal for emendation.
7 See Jacobs, C., Delectus epigrammatum graecorum (Gotha and Erford 1826) 404 f.Google Scholar; Guepin, J. F., Lampas iii (1971)Google Scholar; Giangrande (n. 6) 48 f.; Menk, A., De Anthologiae Palatinae epigrammatis sepulcralibus, Diss. (Marburg 1884) 15Google Scholar.
8 See Davis, J., Dramatic pairings in the elegies of Propertius and Ovid (Bern and Stuttgart 1977)Google Scholar.
9 On the difficulty in determining the appropriate translation of άκρίς, see e.g. Davies, M. and Kathirithamby, J., Greek insects (London 1986) 136–8Google Scholar with earlier literature; Gow, A. S. F., CR n.s. vi (1956) 92 fGoogle Scholar. Gow and Page (n. 1) 615, choose ‘locust’ or ‘grasshopper’ because v. 4 suggests the locust's sound-production, not the cricket's. As I note below, however, v. 4 admits of other interpretations. For present purposes the άκρίς need only be a nocturnal singer as are some locusts or grasshoppers and crickets. See Dain in Waltz et al. (n. 1) 137 n. 2.
10 For literary loci of the cicada see Borthwick (n. 3); Steier, , ‘Tettix’, RE, 2nd ser., v (1934) 1111–19Google Scholar; Smerdel, T., ‘Dva priloga o antickom pjesnistvu. II. Epiteti i onomatopeje o cvrcku’, ZA v (1955) 289–92Google Scholar; Antin, P., BAGB, 4th ser., i (1962) 338–46Google Scholar: Davies and Kathirithamby (n. 9) 113-30. Otto, W. F., Die Musen und der göttliche Ursprung des Singens und Sagens (Düsseldorf and Cologne 1955)Google Scholar discusses cicadas 59 ff. D. K. McE. Kevan, The land of the locusts being some further verses on grigs and cicadas. Part one, before 450 AD, Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory Memoir no. vi (Ste.-Anne-de-Bellevue 1978) presents in chronological order many Greek and Latin (also Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, etc.) poems along with modern (mostly English) translations and his own entomological comments. Additional ancient examples are appended to The land of the locusts. Part three. The sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. Memoir no. xvi (1985).
11 See e.g. Leston, D. and Pringle, J. W., ‘Acoustic behaviour of hemiptera’, in Busnel, R.-G., ed., Acoustic behaviour of animals (Amsterdam, London, New York 1963) 392–401Google Scholar; Alexander, R. D., ‘Sound communication in orthoptera and cicadidae’, in Lanyon, W. E. and Tavolga, W. N., Animal sounds and communication (Washington 1960) 38–92Google Scholar; Alexander, on ‘Arthropods’, in Sebeok, T. E., ed., Animal communication (Bloomington 1968) 169–75Google Scholar.
12 See e.g. Segal, C., WS n.s. xi (1977) 62Google Scholar; Motte, A., Prairies et jardins de la Grèce antique: de la religion à la philosophie (Brussels 1971) passimGoogle Scholar. See also Lucian Am. 18; Jerome Ep. xxii 18; Ambrose, Ep. xxviii 5. For gems depicting the insects with Eros see Zacher, K., Hermes xix (1884) 436Google Scholar; Imhoof-Blumer, F. and Keller, O., Tierund Pflanzenbilder auf Münzen und Gemmen des klassischen Altertums (Leipzig 1889) tab. 23, fig. 36 and p. 143Google Scholar; Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the engraved gems and cameos Greek, Etruscan and Roman in the British Museum (London 1926) no. 1472Google Scholar; Chiesa, G. Sena, Gemma del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia (Aqueileia 1966) nos. 301-3Google Scholar according to Sekal, I., Die Biene und die Zikade in der antiken Kunst, Diss. (Vienna 1980) 153Google Scholar.
13 The diet of dew occurs first in Hes. Sc. 395. Cf. Boedeker, D., Descent from heaven: images of dew in Greek poetry and religion (Chico 1984) 81–5Google Scholar and my ‘∧ειριόεις κτλ. in Homer and elsewhere’, Glotta lxiii (1985) 14–24Google Scholar on connections of dew with cicadas and song.
14 See Robinson, T., ‘Miscellaneous observations made about Rome, Naples and some other countries in the year 1683-84’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London xxix (1714-1716) 474Google Scholar; Fabre, J. H., Souvenirs entomologiques v (Paris 1924) 235 fGoogle Scholar; Myers, J. G., Insect singers: a natural history of the cicada (London 1929) 160 ff.Google Scholar; Goidanich, A., ‘Cicale’ in Enciclopedia agraria Italiana ii (Rome 1954) 646Google Scholar; Donkin, R. A., Manna: an historical geography (The Hague, Boston, London 1980) 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 I find the term used in reference to cicadas in the entomological literature (some cited in n. 14) but am cautioned in correspondence from Dr D. K. McE. Kevan of the Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, McGill University and Dr T. E. Moore, Curator of Insects, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, that ‘honey-dew’ should refer only to the excreta of phloem feeders, while cicadas are mostly xylem feeders. On the imprecision of this and associated terms see also Donkin (n. 14) 1. I am grateful to Drs Kevan and Moore, to Dr A. M. Young of the Milwaukee Public Museum, and to Dr C. Hogue, Curator of Entomology, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, for generous and prompt responses to my entomological queries.
16 Reported for Cicada orni by Krumbach, T., ‘Zur Natursgeschichte der Singcicaden im Roten Istrien’, Zoologische Anzeiger xlviii (1917)Google Scholar. See also Steier (n. 10) 1117; Myers (n. 14) 161; Linsenmaier, W., Insects of the world, trans. Chadwick, L. E. (New York 1972) 89–91Google Scholar; Goidanich (n. 14) 646; Weber, H., Biologie der Hemipteren (Berlin 1930) 242 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.; Kloft, W., ‘Die Honigtauerzeuger des Waldes’ in Kloft, W. et al., Das Waldhonigbuch (Munich 1965) 36 and 94Google Scholar. For one description of the phenomenon in another part of the world see Thiselton-Dyer, W. T., ‘The rain-Tree of Moyobamba’, Nature xvii (1878) 349 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 See Fabre (n. 14) 253 f. and Pl. VII.
18 Cf Steier (n. 10) 1117. Professor T. E. Moore advises me by letter that he has observed tropical trees exuding moisture through hydathodes in the presence of cicadas but not through their agency. This, I think, although not pertinent to Mediterranean contexts, could also have contributed to the association of cicadas with ‘dew’.
19 Examples of speaking monuments in A.P. cited by Waltz (n. 1) 30. Examples of carved figures speaking include A.P. vii 153; vii 169; vii 344; Peek, W., ed., Griechische Vers-Inschriften i (Berlin 1955) no. 1834 (a carved animal)Google Scholar.
20 See GVI 550 ff.; Waltz (n. 1) 31 f.; Rasche, W., De Anthologiae Graecae epigrammatis quae colloquii formam habent (Munster 1910)Google Scholar.
21 See e.g. Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin epitaphs (Urbana 1942) 55 ff. and 87 ff.Google Scholar; Waltz (n. 1) 29 and 31.
22 Viz. Phaennos, Leonidas, and Nicias. See A.P. iv 1.15 and 29 f.
23 See Cougny, E., ed., Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova epigrammatum veterum ex libris et marmoribus, iii (Paris 1890) 452Google Scholar, no. 57. Cf. Rasche (n. 20) 22.
24 Contrary to some editors I consider A.P. vii 193 (Simias) to be an animal epitaph.
25 I do not mark those compounds which are themselves hapax legomena if their constituent elements occur elsewhere in Meleager. Radinger, C., Meleagros von Gadora: eine litterargeschichtliche Skizze (Innsbruck 1895) 30Google Scholar noted some of these verbal correspondences.
26 Cf. Gow and Page (n. 1) 673.
27 Some nouns designating animals have ‘common’ gender. Here, in the absence of the noun, the speaker might be particularly expected to use natural gender. Gildersleeve, B. L., Syntax of Classical Greek from Homer to Demosthenes. Part 1 (New York 1900) 55Google Scholar cites examples of natural gender used for modifiers of nouns with different grammatical gender.
28 References in Sekal (n. 12) 135 ff.
29 See IG xiv I934 = GVI 2027.
30 Cf. n. 12 on the cicada's erotic and musical activities.
31 As in the myth of Tithonous and Eos in Hellanicus, FGrH 4 F 140 = schol. Hom. Il. iii 151.
32 For the first explanation see Borthwick (n. 3) 104; for the second Kevan (n. 10, 1978) 493; for the third Seager, R., Philologus cxxvii (1983) 139–42Google Scholar.
33 See Diosc. ii 70. Cf. σχισις meaning ‘curdled milk’ at Gal. xvi 728. Borthwick (n. 3) 106 notes that δαίʒω, another verb of ‘cutting’ or ‘splitting’, is sometimes used for dividing liquid into droplets.
34 Theoc. 1.25 ff. and 148 ff.
35 See Fabre (n. 14) 235 f.
36 Namely this epigram, its companion and A.P. v 152.2 addressed to a mosquito. See Dorsey, D. F., Meleager's epigrammatic technique, Diss. (Princeton 1967)Google Scholar 220 on sibilance in the mosquito poem.
37 E.g. Vergil, Ecl. 1.12 f.; Chénier, A., L'Aveugle, p. 47 in Oeuvres complètes, ed. Walter, G. (Paris 1950)Google Scholar; Arthur Dommett in book iii, canto 1 of Ranolf and Amohia, quoted by Sibson, R. B., Prudentia xi (1979) 106Google Scholar; Uxkull, B. as cited by Kluncker, K., Das geheime Deutschland (Bonn 1985) 45Google Scholar. I am grateful to Dr G. Divay, University of Manitoba Library, for the last reference. See also Michel, L., Étude du son “S” en latin et en roman (Montpellier 1962) 166 ffGoogle Scholar.
38 See LSJ s. vv. ψακάʒω and ψάκας.
39 This unconventional interpretation of άντῳδόν is implicit in my overall reading. A response to another singer can also be a song for Pan without being a response to anything that the god has sung or played himself. Like the speaker of the epigram Pan was supposed to sleep at noon.
40 Claes, , Lampas ii (1970) 215Google Scholar counts 7 instances of the ‘foneem s’ in this verse. Outré, H., Méléagre de Gadara (Paris 1894) 283Google Scholar associated the sibilance in both 195 and 196 with monotonous sounds of hot afternoons.
41 Unlike Claes (n. 40) 215, 1 include 3 in my count.
42 Guepin (n. 7) 220 f. comments on several of them.
43 See Page in Gow and Page (n. 1) 215; Gow (n. 9) 93.
44 See LSJ s. vv. κρούω, έγκρούω, έγκατακρούω; Theoc. 18.7 f. with note ad loc. by Gow, A. S. F., ed. and tr., Theocritus ii (Cambridge 1950) 350Google Scholar.
45 As in the verse quoted by schol. Aesch. Pers. 940 = Kock, CAF, Adespota 415 or Edmonds, Lyra Graeca iii fr. 27.
46 See Imhoof-Blumer and Keller (n. 14) 143 and table xxiii, no. 44 or Zwierlein-Diehl, E., Antike Gemmen in deutschen Sammlungen. II, Berlin (Munich 1969) 160Google Scholar and table 75, no. 423.
47 See Myers (n. 14) 48.
48 See e.g. Page in Gow and Page (n. 1) 616.
49 So Dorsey (n. 36) 138. But he takes κὠλοις with κλάʒεις as well.
50 Beckby, H., ed. and tr., Anthologia Graeca ii (Munich 1957) 121Google Scholar and several other translators get this right.
51 See Bodson, L., AC xlv (1976) 75–94.Google Scholar
52 Contrast Guepin (n. 7) 221.
53 Eight times in 195 and ten in 196 whereas Meleager's eight-verse epigrams average between four and five according to Claes (n. 40) 214 and 221 n. 31.
54 See Fernandez, L. Gil, Nombres de insectos en Griego antiquo (Madrid 1959) 121 f.Google ScholarWest, M. L., ed., Hesiod, Works and Days (Oxford 1978) 304Google Scholar; Garcia, A. Bravo, ‘Varia lexicographica Graeca manuscripta. I. de vocibus animalium’, Habis ix (1978) 87Google Scholar.
55 See Claes (n. 40) 210 who cites Ar. Th. 1059 and A.P. vii 191 (Archias).
56 Cf. Hubaux, J., Le réalisme dans les Bucoliques de Virgile (Paris & Liège) 51, n. 1Google Scholar; Penna, A. La, Maia v (1952) 110 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Borthwick (n. 3) 104; Claes (n. 40) 213.
57 Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa i (Leipzig 1898) 113Google Scholar only exaggerates the facts when he says that a compilation of all the passages that contain cicadas, a stream, a plane tree, etc. would exceed the size of the Phaedrus. Segal (n. 12) considers the cicada as part of a complex of motifs in several of Theocritis’ Idylls. On the Phaedrus and Theocritus see Murley, C., TAPA lxxi (1940) 281–95.Google Scholar
