O'Rourke, Donncha 2017. HOSPITALITY NARRATIVES IN VIRGIL AND CALLIMACHUS: THE IDEOLOGY OF RECEPTION. The Cambridge Classical Journal, p. 1.
Elsner, Jaś 2014. LITHIC POETICS: POSIDIPPUS AND HIS STONES. Ramus, Vol. 43, Issue. 02, p. 152.
Heslin, Peter 2010. Virgil’s Georgics and the Dating of Propertius’ First Book. Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 100, p. 54.
Robinson, Timothy J. 2006. Under the Cover of Epic: Pretexts, Subtexts and Textiles in Catullus' Carmen 64 . Ramus, Vol. 35, Issue. 01, p. 29.
Hardie, Alex 2002. The Georgics, the Mysteries and the Muses at Rome. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. 48, p. 175.
1998. III. The Georgics. New Surveys in the Classics, Vol. 28, p. 28.
Henderson, John 1996. Pump up the volume: Juvenal, Satires 1.1–21. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. 41, p. 101.
Henderson, John 1992. Statius' Thebaid / Form premade. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. 37, p. 30.
Wright, James R. G. 1983. Virgil's Pastoral Programme: Theocritus, Callimachus and Eclogue 1. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Vol. 29, p. 107.
It is now five years since P. J. Parsons published the Lille Callimachus, and the dust appears to have settled. The appearance of these fragments, which greatly increase our knowledge of the opening of the third book of the Aetia, has been followed by no great critical reaction. Apart from the attractive suggestion of E. Livrea that the ‘Mousetrap’ (fr. 177 Pf.) may belong within the story of Heracles and Molorchus, the episode has had somewhat limited impact. This is against the usual trend of over-reaction to the publication of new literary texts (witness the Cologne Archilochus and the new Gallus), and is in part a tribute to the thoroughness and clarity with which Parsons presented the fragments.
1 Parsons P. J., ‘Callimachus: Victoria Berenices’, ZPE 25 (1977), 1–50; hereafter ‘V.B.‘.
2 See Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 46–8 for lucid arguments on the placement of the episode.
3 ‘Der Liller Kallimachos und die Mausefallen’, ZPE 34 (1979), 37–40.
4 A number of scholars have in fact dealt with the fragments: Kassel R., ‘Nachtrag zum neuen Kallimachos’, ZPE 25 (1977), 51; Luppe W., ‘Zum Anfang des Liller Kallimachos’, ZPE 29 (1978), 36; id. ‘οὐδεíσ, εἶδεν ⋯ματροχι⋯σ (Kallimachos fr. 383. 10 Pf.)’, ZPE 31 (1978), 43–4; Bornmann F., ‘Zum Siegeslied des Kallimachos auf Berenike, P. Lille 79c III 6’, ZPE 31 (1978), 35; Livrea E., ‘Nota al nuovo Callimaco di Lille’, ZPE 32 (1978), 7–10; Barigazzi A., ‘Callimaco ei cavallidi Berenice (Pap. Lille 82)’, Prometheus 5 (1979), 267–71; id.‘Per la ricostruzione del Callimaco di Lille’, Prometheus 6 (1980), 1–20; Livrea E., Carlini A., Corbato C., Bornmann F., ‘Il nuovo Callimaco di Lille’, Maia n.s. 32 (1980), 225–53. Most of these works, however, are concerned with technical matters relating to the text of the new fragments. None deals with the impact of the episode, which will be our chief concern.
5 ‘V.B.’ 49–50.
6 Kallimachos in Rom, Hermes Einzelschriften 16 (1960), 177–87, passim.
7 ‘Musentempel und Octavianehrung des Vergil im Proömium zum dritten Buche der Georgica’, Hermes 88 (1960), 280–331.
8 ‘Pindar and the Proem to the Third Georgic’, Forsch. zur. römischen Lileratur, Festschr. zum 60. Biichner Geburtstag von K. (Wiesbaden, 1970), pp. 286–91.
9 ‘Der Eingang des Proömiums zum dritten Buche der Georgica’, Hermes 104 (1976), 163–91; Lundström is unaware of Wilkinson's article.
10 Richter W., P. Vergilii Maronis Georgica, Das Wort der Antike 5 (1957), ad loc. Cf. such expressions as incola Itoni (= Athena) at Cat. 64. 228.
11 Indeed, before Virgil, apart from the Callimachean instance, the only appearance of the river is at Apoll . Arg. 1. 54, where there is no connection with Apollo. Quite possibly Callimachus drew it from obscurity and dealt with it in his treatise on the world's rivers (Frag. Gram. 457–9 Pf.).
12 See Conington on Geo. 3. 7.
13 As we shall argue below, Pindaric elements may in fact have undergone a Callimachean transformation which is now lost to us. In this connection it should be noted that the First Olympian elsewhere influenced Callimachus (cf. Pfeiffer, Index Rerum Notabilium, s.u. Pind.).
14 See Richter (above, n. 10) on 3. 3 ff.
15 This, of course, is hardly surprising since, through his ubiquitousness, he was involved with numerous areas which came to be the subjects of aetiological studies.
16 Certainly the encounter between Heracles and the youth's father, Theiodamas , figured (Aet. 1 frr. 24–5), and it is unlikely that Hylas, in the light of the appeal he held for the Alexandrians, did not also appear.
17 Servius' commentary at this point is of interest; he seems to give weight to the aetiological associations of the myth: qui (sc. Myrtalus) factis cereis axibus cum, victore Pelope, a puella promissum posceret praemium, ab eius marito praecipitatus in mare est, cui nomen imposuit: nam ab eo Myrtoum dicitur pelagus.
18 ‘V.B.’ 39.
19 Since we are discussing structural similarities between the Aetia and the Georgia, I put forward the following observation, suggested by the anonymous referee of this article. Aetia 3 began (Victoria Berenices) and Aetia 4 ended (Coma Berenices) with encomiastic pieces. The opening of the third Georgic follows that of Aetia 3. What of the end of the fourth Georgicl Servius' comment is notorious: (Gallus) fuit autem amicus Vergilii adeo, ut quartus georgicorum a medio usque ad finem eius laudes teneret (ad Eel. 10. 1; cf. also ad Geo. 4. 1). If there is any truth in this (and neither the reader nor I believes that there is), then the structural parallel that emerges between the proem to the third Georgic and the Victoria Berenices, together with the placing of the Coma Berenices, provides the first concrete support for Servius' claim.
20 At lines 22–33 the theme of military triumph is conflated with the epinician material.
21 Fraenkel , Horace (Oxford, 1970), pp. 276–85, 291–3, 426, 435–40, has best demonstrated Horace's interest in Pindar, but that interest is for Horace, the most eclectic of the Roman poets, a late one. A glance at Gerber's D. E.Bibliography of Pindar, 1513–1966 (APhA Monographs 28 ) is instructive: 19 entries for Horace, seven for all other Latin authors.
22 ‘V.B.’ 45–6; also C. Corbato (above, n. 4), 238–5.
23 On this point it may be worth noting that the Pindaric reference in the proem to the Third Georgic (umeroque Pelops insignis eburno, 7) may even have had a Callimachean intermediary -particularly since the ultimate source is Olympian 1, a poem which Callimachus surely knew and to which he appears to refer (fr. 194. 58 and Pfeiffer, ad loc).
24 Clearly the genre interested Callimachus both in the Aetia and elsewhere: fr. 84–5, Euthycles of Locri; fr. 98, Euthymus; fr. 384, Sosibius; fr. 666, Astylus of Croton; fr. 758, Milo of Croton. See Pfeiffer on fr. 85 for other possible instances; also, dealing with the founding of games, frr. 76–7, ‘Eleorum Ritus’, again from the third book of the Aetia.
25 Whether or not the reference is specifically to the Aeneid is another matter. I personally have little difficulty reconciling that poem with the details in the proem to the Third Georgic, particularly with the final two lines: Caesaris et nomenfama tot ferreper annos,Tithoniprima quot abest ab origine Caesar, Geo. 3. 47–8.
26 Wilkinson (above, n. 8), pp. 287–8.
27 Pindar, incidentally, specifically dissociates himself in one passage from the static art of the sculptor: οὐκ ⋯νδριαντοπιΌσ εῚμ’, Nem. 5. 1.
28 This is doubtless related to Callimachus' general aetiological interests; statues are visible attestations of, and ensure the continuance of, cult practice.
29 Such interest is best exemplified by the Greek Anthology, which abounds in epigrams describing, conversing with, or in some other way treating statuary. In most the poetic motivation is in the realism of the work of art. So the poems on Myron's Cow, to take an obvious example (Anth. Pal. 9. 713–42) – thirty epigrams making much the same point: the realism is such that the observer (herdsman, calf, etc.) is deceived. They are not all Hellenistic, but the impulse is quintessentially Hellenistic. This feature of the Hellenistic mentality will be important when we come to consider the ecphrasis.
30 See Clausen W. V., ‘Cynthius’, AJP 97 (1976), 245–7, for the demonstration that the formation of this epithet is Callimachean.
31 Statues which come to life in this manner are in fact artistically the equivalent of the tombstone which delivers an epitaph, either on behalf of the person buried beneath it, or inpropria persona.
32 Apart from its brevity, and the fact that it is not strictly a metaphor (ὡσ ὅτε) Pindar's treatment is distinct in that it refers very generally to a μ⋯γαρον. Virgil's templum, and the elaborate details which accompany it, are qualitatively distinct.
33 A curious coincidence: in Epigram 51 Callimachus included Berenice in a statue of the Graces, while in the Victoria Sosibii statues of the Graces are adorned in commemoration of the victory (Ep. et Eleg. Min. fr. 384. 44–5); on this, see below, p. 108.
34 So Pfeiffer, ad loc.
35 De comp. verb. 16; doubtless the formulation is earlier, almost certainly Hellenistic.
36 Cairns F. M. (‘Catullus 1’, Mnemos 22 , 155), treating this metaphor in Catullus (pumice expolitum, 1. 2) and Propertius (exactus tenuipumice uersus eat, 3. 1. 8), remarks: ‘The context of this sudden metaphor strongly suggests that it is part of the traditional material upon which Propertius is drawing in 3. 1 and therefore that Catullus in his own Alexandrian prologue was drawing on similar sources (we should keep in mind that the chief influence in Prop. 3. 1 is Callimachean). Now Catullus dealt with a polished libellus, or rather polished ends (frontes) of the scroll, as seems clear from Ovid, Trist. 1. 1. 11. nee fragili geminae poliantur pumice frontes (cf. Luck G., P. Ovidius Nasonis Tristia, II Kommentar [Heidelberg, 1977], ad loc), but the poetic metaphor originates, I believe, in the polishing of marble or stone. Polire (λειαíνειν) and limare (ῥινεἶν), ‘to polish’ and ‘to file down’ are used together of polishing stone (Plin. HN 36. 53–4) and of polishing literary style (Cic. Or. 20; especially Quint. Inst. 10. 4. 4, ut opus poliat lima, non exterat; also Cic. de or. 3. 185, Brut. 294, adfam. 1. 33. 2; Hor.Sat. 1. 10. 65, A.P. 291; Quint. Inst. 2. 4. 7, 2. 8. 4, 2. 12. 8, 11. 1. 3, 12. 10. 17, 50). So too τορε⋯ειν, ‘to work on a relief, can be used in a lapidary sense (Anth. Pal. 7. 274), as well as metaphorically (D.H. Thuc. 24). I have no doubt that the entire construct is Alexandrian.
37 It is applied t o poetry as early as Aristotle (Poetics 1448b23; also D.H. Ant. Rom. 2. 34), and acquires a pejorative force early: so Xen. Lac. 13. 5, αὐτοσχεδιατ⋯σ (contrasted with τεχνíτησ)= ‘bungler'.
38 O n this second instance see Reitzenstein E., ‘Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos’, Festschr.R. Reitzenstein (Leipzig and Berlin, 1931), pp. 44–7. For other occurrences of the word in the same context cf. Pfeiffer on Aet. 1 fr. 1. 16.
39 Although Pfeiffer (ad loc.) is tentative: ]ακρι dispicere sibi visus est L(obel)’. Th e rest of the word is clear.
40 For this compound as a term used for artistic precision, cf. Philostr. imag. 10; Philodem. de mus. p. 90 K (Pfeiffer on fr. 202. 66, Addend. 11); also Gow ad Theoc. 15. 81.
41 Bonner C., ‘A New Papyrus of Callimachus’, Aegyptus 31 (1951), 135.
42 So, in lines 56–7 of the same poem, even the craft of Hephaestus is to fall short in comparison to the art of the new Alexandrian god of poetry: χρεώ σοφ⋯σ ὠ φοἶβε πε [ιρ] ⋯σӨατ⋯χνησ, [ἣτισ ‘Hφαíστεια νικ⋯σει καλ‘Cynthius’ (above, n. 30), 245 n. 2.
44 Wilkinson (above, n. 8), pp. 289–90; he concludes: ‘it (lnuidia) is at least as likely to have been suggested by Pindar as by Callimachus’.
45 The instance at Pythian 1. 85 is fairly close in sense to the Virgilian reference, but even there, in keeping with the archaic mentality, there is a caution which is wholly lacking from Virgil's attitude.
46 Kallimachos in Rom (above, n. 6), 183–4.
47 Williams F., Callimachus, Hymn to Apollo, A Commentary (Oxford, 1978), ad he, has a useful discusion of this motif. On the final lines, now see also Köhnken A., ‘Apollo's Retort to Envy's Criticism,’, AJP 102 (1981), 411–22. A. Henrichs alerts me to Timocreon 5, PMG 731.
48 Sallust's reticence with regard to the writing of history is curiously close to this: in primis arduum uidetur res gestas scribere: primum quod facia dictis exequenda sunt; dein quia plerique quae delicta reprehenderis maleuolentia et inuidia dicta putant, ubi de magna uirtute atque gloria bonorum memores, quae sibi quisque facilia factu putant, aequo animo accipil, supra ea uelutificla pro falsis ducit, Cat. 3. 2.
49 See Pfeiffer on fr. 384. 59–60 for possible supplements. μ[εμφ]ομ⋯νω(59) woul d be appropriate (cf. Sallust's reprehenderis, above, n. 48), as presumably would οὐδ⋯π[στ' ⋯]σӨλῸσ ἔρεξεν (vel ἔλεξν); cf. Sallust's ubi de magna uirtute atque gloria memores. So, ⋯[ψ[ε]νδ⋯σ is tantalizing (cf.ficta pro falsis ducit). Hunt's supplement for the whole line, rejected by Pfeiffer (but in sense what we need) is extremely close to Sallust: μ[ἠ τ]Ὸ μ⋯ν (sc. ⋯⋯ν αῚν⋯σω) ᾦδ' [εἴ]πησιν [ὅ] δ' οὐδ⋯π[οτ' ⋯]σӨλῸν ἔλεξεν (vel ἔρεξεν).
50 We find the same sentiment at 6. 1: cursu cum aequalibus certare et, quom omnis gloria anteiret, omnibus tamen carus esse.
51 Presumably at the end, when Callimachus turned back from Heracles and Molorchus to his praises of Berenice.
52 Wilkinson (above, n. 8), p. 287; although presumably the opening three lines, recalling, as they do, the opening of the second book, always stood there.
53 We may, of course, see the proem to the third Georgic as a pure recusatio, no more implying that an actual epic will follow than does Propertius 3. 1. The details and extent of Virgil's lines, however, seem to resist such a reading (as does the existence of the Aeneid).
54 This change is reflected at the opening of the second half not only of the Georgics, but also of Virgil's other two poems. The progression seems deliberate: cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit:… nunc ego… agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam, Eel. 6. 3–8; dicam horrida bella, dicam acies actosque animis infunera reges … maius opusmoueo, Aen. 7. 41–4. Between the refusal to sing of kings and battles (a result of attenuated stylistic concerns) and the preface to such themes (with the exhortation for a loftier strain), comes the proem to the third Georgic, the exact middle point of Virgil's career, looking both ways. This is not the place for a defence of the phrase, ‘apparent change’, but few, I trust, would deny that the 4eneid, or much of it, continues to be CaUimachean in spirit, if not in the letter.
55 In the ime third book of the Aetia (Eleorum Ritus Nuptialis, frr. 76–77 a Pf.) there seems to have been treatment of Heracles' founding of the Olympic games (see Pfeiffer, Dieg. i, fr. 77). In this book, then, we have Heracles involved in both the Nemean and Olympic foundings.
56 I follow Lachmann in the view that Book 2 of Propertius is in fact a conflation of two books, and Birt, Das antike Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882), pp. 422–6, that at least in terms of publication the Monobiblos is to be separated from the rest of the collection. If so, and few now have any doubts, then 3. 1 is still to be considered the opening poem of the third book. Skutsch O., ‘The Second Book of Propertius’, HSCP 79 (1975), 229–33, has in fact removed any doubts on the matter, but for those who do not believe in a Monobiblos and in the fact that the second book is a conflation, 3. 1 will still be 3. 1.
57 Lycio…deo (38), as ha s been recognized (W. V. Clausen [above, n. 30] 246), is intensely Callimachean (Aet. 1 fr. 1. 22, Hymn 4. 304) – ‘only the self-styled Roman Callimachus dared use it’. It is, I think, in part a restoration of the Callimachean λ⋯κιοσ, following Virgil's substitution of Cynthius at Ecl. 6. 3 (for λ⋯κιοσ at Aet. 1 fr. 1. 22).
58 Generally, see Nethercut W. R., ‘The Ironic Priest’, AJP 91 (1970), 385–407; his concern is mainly with Horace.
59 Kallimachos in Rom (above, n. 6), 216–18; I shall include only the undeniable references, although Wimmel has more possible ones.
60 Camps , Propertius, Elegies Book III (Cambridge, 1966), ad loc, has a long note on the word, and Richardson , Propertius, Elegies I–IV (Oklahoma, 1977), ad loc., gives it the meaning ‘from time to time’ (based on Sil. 7. 395). His refusal to allow a close connection between 3. 1 and 3.2 exposes a modern prejudice in the attitude towards divisions of poems. Clearly within a book of poetry (and particularly within a connected group of poems such as Propertius 3. 1–3) there can be reference to a context outside the immediate poem. One thinks perhaps of the Roman Odes where the second poem begins (pauperiem) with a reference to the end of the first (diuitias), as does the third (iustum) to the end of the second (scelestum).
61 Wimmel briefly noted the connection (above, n. 6), 217.
62 Precisely the same pattern is found in the tenth Eclogue, where Gallus' future poetic project (ibo et Chalcidico quae sunt mihi condita uersu… 50–1; cf. Geo. 3. 10, primus ego in patriam mecum… deducam… Musas) is interrupted by his present task (interea mixtis lustrabo Maenala Nymphis, Eel. 10. 55).
63 See Wimmel (above, n. 6), 215–16 for references in Prop. 3. I to the Aetia prologue and the Hymn to Apollo.
64 ‘V.B.’ 43.
65 Elsewhere we find the epithet applied to Hercules and to the lion (TLL, Onomast. 2. 490. 31 ff.) Noun and epithet appear in the same position as at Stat. Theb. 4. 158, that is, at caesura and line-end. The last word of Callim. fr. 177 (The Mousetrap), which may be from the Victoria Berenices, is κλεων]. On this, see Livrea et al., ‘Il nuovo Callimaco di Lille’ (above, n. 4), 234.
68 See Parsons , ‘V.B.’, 43–4 and Bornmann (Livrea et al. [above, n. 4]), 247–51 for the tradition in which the Victoria Berenices belongs: gods or heroes entertained by humble hosts, with careful description of the details of the host's surroundings. Callimachus' own Hecale, Nonnus' Brongus and Ovid's Baucis and Philemon are the best examples. Parsons (44) urges some caution, in that Nonnus' reference to Molorchus (Dion. 17. 52) is immediately followed by a quotation from the Hecale (17. 55; Callim. fr. 248). Conversely, however, this may serve as additional evidence that Nonnus saw the two Callimachean episodes as parallel examples of the same tradition.
69 The same statue (purportedly by Lysippus) appears in Martial (9. 43) where, once again, Molorchus also figures – one of two references in this poet.
70 Busiris, we will recall, figured at the end of the second book of the Aetia (frr. 44–7), shortly before the Victoria Berenices.
71 The ultimate source is Eumaeus' κλιαíα which he offers to Odysseus (Od. 14. 404, 408). Typically, Callimachus in the Hecale uses the word in the sense of ‘cot’ (fr. 256), while clearly borrowing from the Homeric context. There can be no doubt that Molorchus' hut received extensive and literary treatment.
72 See below, p. 109 for this as a feature of ecphrasis.
73 See above, pp. 93–101, for the implicit presence of Callimachus in the proem to the Third Georgic.
74 Aet. 4 fr. 110. 54–8; Cat. 66. 54–8; Hygin. Astr. 2. 24; cf. Pfeiffer on Dieg. 5. 40.
75 For these see Fraser P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), ii. 194, 234, 263, 272.
76 Callimachus, Epigr. 5 Pf.; Hedylus, Epigr. 4 (Page, OCT, ap. Athen. 11. 497d); Posidippus, Epigr. 12, 13 (Page, OCT). On these, see Gow–Page , Hellenistic Epigrams (Cambridge, 1965), ii. 168, 491.
77 The line numbers are those of Pfeiffer (i.e. excluding the interlinear scholia of the Lille papyrus).
78 On this question, see Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 39.
79 Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 10; he also suggests, on p. 11, the possibility of a reference ‘to Egyptian women or to formerly Egyptian (now Argive) women, who celebrate Berenice's victory’.
80 Pfeiffer, on fr. 383. 16 - although we now know that the fragment is from the Aetia.
81 Pfeiffer, ad loc. The word occurs only here, although it is clearly related to an instance at Od. 7. 107 (καιροσ⋯ων δ' ⋯Өον⋯ων ⋯πολεíβεται ὐγρῸν ἔλαιον) - καιροσ⋯ων also being unique. The Homeric lines will be dealt with shortly.
82 He compares adesp. Anth. Pal. 11. 125. 3: ⋯π' ⋯νταφíων τελαμ⋯νασ Thus the reference would be to Apis' shroud. Now that we have a context for fr. 383, it is difficult to imagine how such a reference would operate.
83 cf. in the same Odyssean passage containing καιροσ⋯ων: ὦ δ⋯ γνναîκεσ / Ίστ⋯ν τεχν⋯σσαι, 7. 109–10.
84 In general, on the word, see Reitzenstein E., ‘Zur Stiltheorie des Kallimachos’, Festschr.R. Reitzenstein (Leipzig and Berlin, 1931), pp. 25–40. It is perhaps of note that in the description of Achilles' shield (itself a well-crafted object) the adjective is twice used in reference to details presented by the poet: λεπταλ⋯η φωνῇ, Il. 18. 571; λεπτ⋯7sigma; ⋯ӨΌνασ 595.
85 The remaining lines, 12, 16 and 17, will be dealt with below.
86 cf. above, n. 81.
87 cf. also the garments on the shield: τ⋯ν δ' αΊ μ⋯ν λεπτὰ7sigma; ⋯ӨΌνασ ἔχον il. 18. 595.
88 Fr. inc. sed. 520 and Pfeiffer, ad loc.
89 Indeed, this may even have been the context of line 12 of the Victoria Berenices: καì π⋯ροσ 'Aργει[ (and before at Argos [the young women wove a robe for Hera]?). On this, see below, p. 111.
90 cf. fr. 532; τ⋯ Ὶκε7lambda;Ὸν τῸ γρ⋯μμα τῸ Kώιον On this question, see Reitzenstein (above, n. 84), passim; Lyne R. O. A. M., Ciris: a Poem Attributed to Vergil (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 109–10.
91 And elsewhere (Epigr. 51) Callimachus in fact includes Berenice as the fourth Grace.
92 Pausanias reports that at the festival of Her a in Elis the women wh o weave the peplos hold a race and that the winning girls are entitled to dedicate statues of themselves: καì δ⋯ ⋯ναӨεîναí σφισιν ἔστι γραψαμ⋯ναισ εῚκΌνασ 5. 16. 3.
93 Incidentally, Callixenus of Rhodes (FGrHist 627 fr. 2 = Athen. 196a–206c) recorded evidence of the Ptolemaic interest in elaborate tapestries, embroidered cloaks and the like. See Fraser (above, n. 75), p. 138.
94 Lyne (above, n. 90), p. 110.
95 This sequence does not survive, but will certainly have figured (see Parsons , ‘V.B.’, 42).
96 We need only mention the shields of Achilles and Aeneas.
97 The responsion does not stop here: at both ends there is admiration at the excellence of the artistry (mira… arte, 51; spectando Thessala pubes expleta est, 267–8), together with parallel treatment of the arrival (31–44) and departure (267–77) of the mortal guests at the wedding.
98 Pfeiffer, ad loc.
99 Shapiro H. A., ‘Jason's Cloak’, TAPA 110 (1980), 270; he also points to Callimachus' reminiscence of the description of Odysseus' brooch at od. 19. 226 ff. – itself a small-scale ecphrasis.
100 Still the best general treatment of this motif (and the only comprehensive one) is Friedländer P., Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius (Leipzig and Berlin, 1912), pp. 1–103.
101 For most of the Greek examples of this feature see Bühler W., Die Europa des Moschos, Hermes Einzelschriften 13 (1960), 85–6 92 3.
102 In fact Theocritus here refers to the artistrty of a single feature of the cup. Note too his variation of the topos at 15. 78–86 where the element of wonder (at the excellence of the tapestries) is contained within the general dramatic setting of the poem: τ⋯ ποικíλα πρ⋯τον ἄӨρησον, / λεπτ⋯ καì ὡσ χαρíεντα Өεών περο7upsilon;⋯ματα φασεîσ 78–9.
103 Virgil, perhaps as we would expect, is terse here, in fact applying the diction of artistic excellence not to the shield (which will speak for itself), but to Aeneas' greaves: turn leuis ocreas electro auroque recocto (624) – a borrowing of the language Hesiod used of his shield (Asp. 142).
104 In his use of expleri, and in framing the ecphrasis with a form of miror, Virgil is clearly acknowledging Catullus' ecphrasis. So too of Dido's temple murals: miratur (Aen. 1. 456); miranda (494) – both in framing positions.
105 See above, nn. 81, 85.
106 Tibullus' reference is particularly learned in that only by recognizing the Callimachean source do we realize that pubes refers to a group of young women.
107 On Tibullus' poem, and particularly on the Egyptian elements in it, see Koenen L., ‘Egyptian influence in Tibullus’, Illinois Classical Studies 1 (1976), 128–59.
108 It is again worth referring to the account of Callixenus of Rhodes (above, n. 93), dealing with a procession arranged by Ptolemy Philadelphus. His description of the details of the royal pavilion demonstrates that in actual life uestes picturatae abounded:… καì χιτ⋯νεσ χρνσονφεîσ ⋯φαπ;τíδεσ τε κ⋯λλισται, τιν⋯σ μ⋯. ν εῚκΌνασ ἔχονσαι τ⋯ν βασιλ⋯ων ⋯ννφαμ⋯νασμ αΊ δ⋯ μνӨικ⋯σ διαӨσεισ (Athen. 196f.) And the Couch coverlets: καì περιστρώματα ποικìλα διαπεπ⋯ ταἶσ τ⋯χναισ ⋯π⋯ν (197b). Finally the carpets: ψιλαì δ⋯ περσικαì τ⋯ν ⋯ν⋯ μ⋯σον τ⋯ν πΌδων χώραν ⋯κ⋯λνπτον, ⋯κριβ⋯ τ⋯ν εὐγραμμíαν τ⋯ν ⋯ννφασμ⋯νων ἔχονσαι ξωδíων (197 b). With this as background, it is not difficult to imagine Callimachus setting the epyllion on Heracles and Molorchus in terms of an elaboration of a real or imaginary garment associated with the victory celebration of Berenice, dynastic daughter of Philadelphus. Gow (on Theoc. 15. 78) deals with the increase in elaboration of weaving at Alexandria, citing (inter al.) Plin. HN 8. 196: plurimis uero liciis texere quae polymita appellant Alexandria instituit.
109 Luce S. B., ‘The Nolan Amphora’, AJA 20 (1916), 460–73; Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 41.
110 It is, of course, the obscurity of the variant including Molorchus that appealed to Callimachus.
111 Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 41.
112 cf. above, n. 89 for this as a possible restoration (of sense at least). This possibility is perhaps strengthened by the fact that these women, or the prefatory rites they must perform, are the subject of an episode later in the same book of the Aetia (frr. 65–6).
113 See above, p. 107, for this as a skill shared by Colchian and Egyptian women.
114 If we have in this line Egyptian women admiring a tapestry, which is on display in commemoration of Berenice's victory, then the situation has a fairly close parallel to the visit to the art-gallery in Theoc. 15.
115 I mention, with no real confidence, that line A 31 (…]νκων ⋯τε[) could possibly have referred, through periphrasis, to the material on which the scene appeared (βομβ]⋯7kapa;ων… ἔργον) In the Hecale, the material on which an ecphrasis may have occurred is so referred to: ἔργον ⋯ραχν⋯ων (fr. 253. 12 Pf.). On the question of the working of silk (certainly under way by the Ptolemaic period), see Richter G. M. A., ‘Silk in Greece’, AJA 33 (1929), 27–33. The βΌμβνξ occurs as early as Aristotle (HA 5. 19); there is a full discussion of the creature and its product at Plin. HN 11. 75–7. Servius on Virg. Geo. 2. 121 is of interest: uermes et bombyces…qui in aranearum morem tenuissima (=λεπταλ⋯οσ ‘ V.B.’ A 29) fila deducunt, unde est sericum.
116 Friedlander (above, n. 100), 16.
117 Webster T. B. L., Hellenistic Poetry and Art (Frome and London, 1964), p. 309.
118 On the late dating of the Victoria Berenices, see Parsons , ‘V.B.’ 50; C. Corbato (above, n. 4), 245.
119 Homer and the Heroic Tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 205.
120 Indeed, among the objects in Virgil's temple, there is even a curtain into which human figures are woven: uel scaena ut uersis discedat frontibus ulque /purpurea intexti tollant aulaea Brilanni, 24–5. It is worth noting that Statius, Silv. 3. 1, for which we also claimed influence by theVictoria Berenices, is another ecphrasis.
* Part of this paper was delivered in March 1980 at a conference on Alexandrianism held in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.