1. ‘Colluthus is one of the very worst ancient poets to have come down to us’: so Martin West wrote at the beginning of his review of Livrea’s edition of the Rape of Helen, adding ‘his only notion of the art is to arrange in hexameters phrases borrowed from his predecessors, with little sense of their appropriateness or of narrative coherence. It is as if a parrot had learnt to fit his pseudo-speech to the metre of Shakespeare’ (West [1970] 657f.). However, if I propose that the time has come for a revaluation of Colluthus’ poem 1 am not going to cross swords with Professor West, from whose works on Greek poetry of every kind and period I have learned so much.

2. Cf. Mair (1928) vii; Ghali-Kahil (1955) 217; Livrea (1968a) xiv: ‘la frigida inabilità dello schema compositivo, il maldestro uso delle fonti letterarie e mitografiche, l’incerta padronanza del linguaggio epico’; Livrea (1969) 561; Keydell (1970) 321 = (1982) 607; Combellack (1971) 48f.; Orsini (1972) xxvii; Keydell (1975) 543 = (1982) 611: ‘Kolluthus…ist, wenn man von Dioskoros von Aphrodito absieht, der schlechteste Dichter der griechischen‘Spiitzeit, dert wir kennen’; Dower-sock (1990) 62: ‘some works of this period, such as the Rape of Helen by Collouthos…, appear to be exclusively versifications of Greek mythology’; Rocca (1995) 46; Schenkeveld (1996) 389. From a quick survey of handbooks and monographs one could gather many similar statements. Some adumbrations of a less negative judgement—apart from Giangrande’s view, on which see below, and the impressionistic remarks of De Lorenzi (1946) 13–20—appeared long ago in Abel (1880) 3, more recently in Williams (1973) 240, Pontani (1973) 17, Schönberger (1993) 17, and Hollis (2006) 150 n.53, 154f. On Eudocia’s rehabilitation in the last decades see now Bevegni (2006) 11–13, 34–48; on Dioscorus’, Fournet (1999) If., 342f., Agosti (2006b) 215–20, and Agosti (2008b).

3. West (1970) 660, himself one of the severest critics of the poem’s quality, was perfectly right in stressing the need for an analysis of ‘typical themes and sequences, the choice and arrangement of scenes, Colluthus’ notions of storytelling’.

4. I am glad to see that Michael Paschalis’ and Lucia Prauscello’s contributions to this volume have the same aim.

5. Giangrande (1969); cf. also (1974) 129f.

6. A telling instance is his assertion that at 127 would convey ‘humour not understood’ by evoking the bad smell of shepherds’ cloaks in bucolic poetry and thus meaning that ‘Hermes cannot but think that Paris has been making cheese’ (Giangrande [19691 151)—though no mention whatever of either smell or cheese appears in Colluthus’ text: cf. Livrea (1969) 565.

7. Livrea (1969) = Livrea (1991) 561–69. Giangrande’s later utterances—(1974) 129 nn.1f.; (1975b) 127f. with n.2—add nothing to the scholarly debate. (For a less severe evaluation of Giangrande’s views, see Paschalis p.136 above [and cf. p.147].)

8. Livrea (1968a) 183, commenting on Paris’ridiculous behaviour at 230ff., on which see below; Giangrande (1969) 149.

9. In my quotations from Colluthus‘ poem, line-numbering is that of Orsini (1972); the Greek text does not reproduce any particular edition, and textual problems will be discussed where necessary. All translations are my own. My debt to Livrea’s (1968a) pivotal commentary is, I think, self-evident.

10. Livrea’s καθ’, viewed with favour by West (1970) 659, is perhaps unnecessary. Cf. Vian (1969a) 592; Giangrande (1969) 149; Keydell (1970) 323 = (1982) 609.

11. This is the reading of one branch of the tradition, i.e the recentiores derived from a lost manuscript once found by Bessarion in the monastery of St. Nicola di Casole near Otranto (b Orsini and Schönberger, β Livrea): πóθεv here means ‘why’, as Bekker realised (see Livrea ad loc.). The other branch, the so-called Mutinensis (now Parisinus suppl. gr. 388, 10th/11th c: M Livrea and Orsini) has . The latter, defended among others by Schneider (1866) 425, De Lorenzi (1929) 31–34, Giangrande (1969) 149 and Rocca (1975) 65f., is morphologically acceptable but wholly unfit for the context (see n.91 below).

12. The reading of M seems preferable to , ‘rapid’ (Dausque’s slight correction from . of b). was considered ‘gonfio e inutile’ by Livrea (1968a) 65 and (1968b) 89 = (1991) 541, yet it appears to be quite at home when the poet is introducing an ‘ancient’ tale: cf. Nic. Ther. 343 (‘a tale of old is current among men’), which Colluthus may or may not echo here; anon, de plantis Aegyptiis ii.9 (GDRK LX; Fausti [2001], with new critical text) (‘this is a law of old, dating back to the ancient kings’); Greg. Naz. carm. 12.29.189f. (‘once the race of mortals featured no difference between the best and the worse, according to a tale of old‘, from Nicander, according to Knecht [1972] ad loc.) On the possibility of reading (‘a tale was narrated among birds of old’) in Call. Hec. fr. 70.7 Hollis see Livrea (1993) 140f.

13. ‘, proposed by West (1970) 660, would solve the problem of a double spondee at the beginning of the line, rightly pointed out by Livrea (1968a) 65f. But Colluthus’ versification is much less strict than Nonnus’: apart from the very brief remarks by Orsini (1972) xxvii–ix and Schönberger (1993) 18–20, cf. Weinberger (1896) 161–79, Wifstrand (1933) 3–77, West (1982) 178–80 and Nardelli (1982).

14. The transmitted is defended by Montes Cala (1987/88) 109–12.

15. Lennep (1825) 9: cf. now Livrea ad loc. and Orsini (1972) ix–x. I cannot share the scepticism of Keydell (1975) 543 = (1982) 611.

16. The peculiar theory advanced by De Lorenzi (1929), (1946) 26–31 and (1971) 177, according to which Colluthus left the poem unfinished and the proem, together with the last eight lines, was added by another poet (even Triphiodorus!), has deservedly won very little support.

17. Other possibly Hesiodic nuances in Colluthus’ opening section are pointed out by Prauscello (pp, 180f. below). Let us also note that Coll. 2f. owes something to Od. 6.100 (‘and they began to play ball, throwing off their veils’), as Livrea (1968a) 58 aptly remarks.

18. Possibly even cosmogonic poetry, if Livrea (1975) 35 = (1991) 491 was right in identifying one of his models with the anonymous fragment SH 938. Lloyd-Jones and Parsons ad loc. think rather of a common source; echoes from Hesiod in this fragment are pointed out by West (1986) 1.

19. Il. 24.29, Pind. fr. 6a Maehler, Eur. Andr. 280–83, Hec. 646, Hel. 359, IA 572–79, 1292, Theoc. 1.105, Lye. 90–97, [Theoc] 27.1f., [Bion] 2.10, Euen. APl. 166.1 = GPh 2338, and so on. Cf. Livrea on v.10; Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. carm. 1.15.1; Stinton (1965), with further literature.

20. A remarkable echo of Theoc. 1.22f. (‘where lies that shepherds’ seat’); Gow ad loc. does not fail to notice the Colluthean passage.

21. De Lorenzi (1929) 43 with n.2 connects it with the influence of the Cypria (fr.5 Davies and Bernabé), Livrea (1968a) 56f. with their role of witnesses to Paris’ judgement, Giangrande (1969) 149, followed by Schönberger (1993) 56, with the well-known Hellenistic association of water and poetry; West on Hes. Theog. 7 calls it ‘a somewhat unsuccessful experiment’.

22. See Fantuzzi (2000); Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 147f., 151–56. The most telling instance is Theoc. 7, where the Nymphs do not just replace the Muses, but also act in a way strongly evocative of them: cf. 9If., reworking Hesiod’s investiture as a poet at Theog. 22f. (see Hunter ad loc), and 148 (‘you Nymphs of Castalia, who possess the steep of Parnassus’), with the Nymphs appropriating a place traditionally linked with Apollo and the Muses (as Marco Fantuzzi points out to me, noting that Colluthus’ proem might even allude to this very Theocritean passage).

23. More explicitly anon. APl. 169 (‘Look from every side at the divine beauty of foam-born Paphian and you will say: “I commend the Phrygian’s judgement.” Yet looking at the Attic Pallas you will exclaim: “Paris was a true cowherd when he passed her by!”’). Call. Lav. Pall. (‘not even when the Phrygian judged the contest on Ida’) seems to imply the same derogatory overtone (see Bulloch’s note). Cf. also Horsfall on Verg. Aen. 7.363 at mm sic Phrygius penetrat Lacedaemona pastor…? (‘didn’t the Phrygian shepherd enter Sparta in this way?’;; Cucchiarelli (1995) 148f.

24. Harries (2006) 540–47. His view was partially anticipated by Schonberger (1993) 14: ‘Paris …hat seine urspriingliche Natur verloren. Er ist vom Dichter zum Redner geworden.’

25. Harries (2006) 54If.

26. On this passage see Rosati (1991) 108–11; Cucchiarelli (1995) 141; Reeson (2001) 159f.; Michalopoulos (2006) 352f. On Ovid and late Greek poetry see n.83 below.

27. Cf. also 163 (‘in place of manly valour I will award you a lovely bride’). That is, Paris is lacking in and will never learn it. It is unnecessary to gather here a huge bulk of bibliography on Paris’ well known (if sometimes disputed) depiction in the Iliad: Collins (1987) provides a useful survey of the topic.

28. Harries (2006) 542; but at 165 does not mean ‘you will see’.

29. The Cyclops forgetting his sheep and singing for Galatea at 11.12f. is just an instance of the well-established topos of love causing men or women to neglect their work: cf. Magnelli (1999) 141 n.69.

30. Cf. the useful remarks of Livrea (1969) 564 and Vian (1969a) 594; also Cuartero i Iborra (2003) 190f., rightly noting that ‘Paris no se halla en los valles del Ida, como en la mayoría de las versiones, excluido del palacio paterno, ejerciendo de pastor e ignorante de su filiación regia…. Por el contrario, es un joven príncipe que distrae sus ocios in villeggiatura, apacentando los rebaños de su padre (101–103), màs atento al canto y a la música que a su deber profesional.‘ Paris is more successful than the Theocritean Cyclops as a lover, but nonetheless he is as bad a shepherd as the Cyclops.

31. On which see Livrea (1968a) 120f., and now Prauscello in this volume (pp.182f. below).

32. See Hunter on Theoc. 1.80. It is worth noting that the pastoral hierarchy (‘cowherds’/‘shepherds’/‘goatherds’), constructed by Theocritus’ ancient commentators, was probably already established by Colluthus’ time: cf. Gow on 1.86, Fantuzzi (2006) 247f.

33. Cf. Hunter on Theoc. 11.34. As Frederick Williams points out to me, the mention of ‘herds of bulls’ is quite awkward, unless is used as equivalent to (one could perhaps compare Theoc. 1.121, or rather [Theoc.] 27.48 and 71). For a different explanation, see Prauscello pp. 183–85 below.

34. Giangrande (1969) 152, followed by Schönberger (1993) 66: both scholars prefer the v.l. , at 203. I would remark that abundant sacrifices at the beginning of an enterprise overseas are also offered by a far less cowardly character, i.e. Jason in Apollonius’ poem (1.402–49: cf. also 915–21, 966f., 1117–51, 1186. Claudio De Stefani aptly calls to my mind Ael. Arist. 26.1 Keil (‘it is customary for both sailors and travellers to pray according to their own purpose’). And entitles the reader to wonder whether Paris is praying for safe sailing (to Aphrodite cf. Michalopoulos [2006] 121 f. on Ov. Her. 16.23f. illa dedit faciles auras uentosque secundos:lin mare nimirum ius habet orta mari [‘she accorded me gentle breeze and favouring winds—she rose from the sea, and over the sea she rules’] or rather for successful accomplishment of the abduction of Helen.

35. Cf. Rocca (1997) 175f.

36. Cf. De Lorenzi (1946) 25; Livrea (1968a) 183; Orsini (1972) xxi; Schönberger (1993) 67. Gianfranco Agosti suggests to me that Paris’ bath may owe something to Morrheus’ ludicrous bath in Nonnus, Dion. 35.185–203.

37. At 232 (G ^mg K ^mg: M, cett.) seems unavoidable: cf. Livrea (1968a) 185f. and (1968b) 104 = (1991) 555. The same holds true for found by Abel and Livrea in two manuscripts (GH), then defended by Vian (1969a) 595 and subsequently ascribed to him by Orsini and others. For different opinions see Abel (1880) 89; Keydell (1975) 546 = (1982) 614; Minniti Colonna (1979) 81f., whose ‘è evidente che il genitivo…non va mutato’ sounds a bit too positive; Montes Cala (1987/88) 117–19. At 233 presumably does not mean ‘helmet’ (Mair, Livrea), but ‘Phrygian cap’ (Vian [1969a] 595, followed by Orsini and Schönberger; Claudio De Stefani rather thinks that it has replaced something like ). To derive it from (‘shameless’), as supposed by West (1970) 660, would not fit the light humour of the passage.

38. Itself a well established topos: see Pease on Verg. Aen. 4.215 et nunc ille Paris cum semi-uiro comitatu (‘and now that sort of Paris with his company of eunuchs’); Ripoll (2000) 89f.

39. On the text of 285 and punctuation at 284 see n.44 below.

40. Colluthus’ play with the two Homeric versions of the myth, i.e. walls built either by both Poseidon and Apollo (Il. 7.452f.) or by Poseidon alone (Il. 21.443–49), is acutely pointed out by Prauscello (pp.l78f. below).

41. A story very well known in both Hellenistic and Imperial periods: cf. Call. fr. 698 Pf., Nic.(?) SH 562, Pease on Verg. Aen. 4.542 (where Dido significantly speaks of Laomedonteae … periuria gentis, ‘the treason of Laomedon’s race’), Nisbet and Rudd on Hor. carm. 3.3.21f.

42. Il. 3.39 = 13.769 (quoted p.156 above): cf. Alcae. fr. 283.4f. Voigt (‘for the Trojan man, the deceiver of his host’), Ibyc. PMGF s11.10, Eur. Tr. 866, [Orph.] Lith. 357, etc.

43. (‘children resembling parents’) and the like: cf. Arrighetti (1991).

44. The text and meaning of these lines have puzzled many a scholar. Weinberger (1896) 122 conjectured duut at 285, ‘and that is the reason why the gods…often become our servants’: others, among whom Livrea (1968a) 207, supposed that a line has dropped out after 284. Vian (1969a) 595 rightly noted that ᾠ refers rather to Paris himself, thus enhancing his boastful tone-not ‘for us’ but ‘for me’: ‘Je suis de la race de Dardanos—ce Dardanos qui était issu de Zeus—, et souvent meme, descendus de l’Olympe, deux dieux, compagnons de travail, se mettent à mon service.’ No lacuna before 285, just a small change in punctuation at 284. I would only add that at 285 (b, accepted by Abel and Mair) is perhaps to be preferred to (M, accepted by Weinberger, Livrea, Orsini and Schönberger): the latter has no relevance in this context (‘those two gods’? Better ‘gods’, i.e. any of them), while the former would stress the paradox of immortals working together with mortals under the sceptre of the Trojan lord.

45. Il. 6.208 = 11.784 (‘to be always the bravest and the best of all’); 6.460 (‘this is the wife of Hector, who was the bravest in fight’); 7.90 (‘whom once is his bravery glorious Hector slew’); 11.409, 506, 627, 746, 15.460, 16.292, 551, 17.351. A slightly different meaning only in Od. 4.652 (‘the youths that are the noblest in our people after ourselves’). The Homeric usage is also well attested in inscriptional poetry of the archaic and classical age: cf. GVI 73.3 = CEG 145.3 (Corcyra, 6th c. BCE) (‘showing the greatest bravery in the deadly battle’), GVI 321.2 = CEG 112.2 (Thisbe, c. 500 BCE) (‘[who] once [fell] bravely fighting in the front line’), GVI 69.2 = CEG 118.2 (Thessaly, c. 475–450 BCE?) (‘he died in his great bravery’), CEG 177.5f. (Lycia, 5th/4th c. BCE) (‘who was by far the bravest wrestler among Lycian youths of his days’). Nonnus also regularly employs in this sense (see Peek’s Lexikon s.v.).

46. καί, once suspected by Hermann, is perfectly sound: see Giangrande (1969) 153; Livrea (1969) 566; Orsini (1972) 14 n .3.

47. See the very useful remarks by Michalopoulos (2006) 120. Ovid’s Paris speaks in the same way at Her. 16.21 f. Sigeo dubias a litore fecillonga Phereclea per freta puppe uias (‘from the Sigean shore I sailed the dubious paths of the vast sea in the ship built by Phereclus’) and 28 hae mihi tain longae causa fuere uiae (‘that was the reason why I endured so long a voyage’), and Helen insists on this concept at 17.74 per tarn longas spe.s tua uenit aquas (‘your hope has led you through so wide a flood’): cf. Cucchiarelli (1995) 139 with n.10 and Rocca (1995) 43f.

48. 205 (‘to him there appeared an omen of his laborious toils’) surely does not refer to the abduction of Helen, but rather to the Trojan war (which the foolish Paris is far from expecting).

49. Cf. also Nonn. Dion. 4.187 (‘I will cross the stream of the dark sea’); 24.43 (‘you did not cross a stranger stream’); 42.102f. (‘for all the wide stream he crossed, Europa’s bridegroom did not quench the fire of love’), all carefully recorded by Livrea. But the context suggests that Musaeus was Colluthus’ main source. On Colluthus imitating Musaeus see also below.

50. As rightly pointed out by Campbell ad loc: cf. also Kost on Musae. loc. cit. and Schönberger (1993) 70.

51. Cf. 208 [M: b, Livrea] (‘at once pouring forth rain from the misty clouds’) ∼ Call. Aet. fr. 18.8 Pf. = 20.8 Massimilla (‘if you would drive away from the ship the misty cloud’); 228f. (‘and they cast the hawsers of the ship upon the hospitable shores and fastened them’) ∼ Ap. Rh. 4.903f. , (‘they were already about to cast the hawsers from the ship to the shore’); 248 (‘proud of his marvellous charms’) ∼ Ap. Rh. 3.443f (‘marvellously the son of Aeson excelled everyone in beauty and grace’), all identified by Livrea. See also n.34 above.

52. Il. 10.121 (Agamemnon on Menelaus) , (‘for he is often slack and unready to toil’) and 17.588 (‘a weakling fighter’). Plato’s Socrates humorously feigned to take the latter passage very seriously (Symp. 174b-c).

53. See Stevens ad loc. and Fraenkel on Aesch. Ag. 115.

54. I have nothing to add to the discussions of this passage in Livrea (1968a) 212–14 and Vian (1969a)595f.

55. Cf. S. Ant. 1036 (‘long since I have been sold and exported’, i.e. ‘utterly deceived’); Call. Aet. fr. 7.31 Pf. = 9.31 Massimilla (‘they deceived me’). On a possible allusion to this concept in Ar. Ach. 904–58 see Magnelli (1998).

56. So Livrea (1968a) 43: ‘il suo carico di battaglie’. Cf. the description of the golden apple at 60 (‘the fruit that was an omen of war’) and 168 (‘a plant of war’).

57. Livrea (1968a) 149; Orsini (1972) 8 n.1.

58. Lye. 57–68, Quint. Smyrn. 10.253–331, 411–89, etc.; among Nonnian poets, Christod. 215–21. On the sources of Oenone’s story see Stinton (1965) 40–50 = (1990) 47–56; Vian (1969b) 7–12; Knox (1995) 140f.; Lightfoot (1999) 391–93; Massimilla (2004) 213–16.

59. Livrea on 196 rightly quotes Il. 5.59–63 , (‘and Meriones slew Phereclus, son of Harmonides the carpenter, who was skilled in fashioning all kinds of work of art with his hands: for Pallas Athena loved him above all. He also built for Alexander the well-shaped ships, that were the source of evil’). For (‘when a servant of Athena, having fixed it in the share beam, etc.’); Ap. Rh. 1.226 (‘Argos, helper of the goddess Athena’, whence Dion. Per. 342 and Triphiod. 57, as noticed by Gerlaud ad loc).

60. I would not say, with Harries (2006) 545 n.97, that ‘Athene’s title here makes her complicit in the aftermath of her own defeat, reactivating Aphrodite’s humiliating taunt in 179’.

61. Cf. Call. Cer. 32 (‘the worse counsel took hold of Erysichthon’). Colluthus’ , far from just pointing to Paris’ lust, underlines his carelessness for the side-effects of his enterprise. At Coll. 196 is not to be emended to , (Dindorf), which would destroy the contrast between Phereclus’ ‘great skill’ and his master’s ‘frenzy’: cf. Call. Cer. 61f. (‘the others she left unharmed—they were under their master’s hand and followed him by constraint; but to their threatening lord she replied, etc.’).

62. C ^mg (independently conjectured by Portus) is unnecessary if attractive: see Livrea (1993) 137.

63. Orsini (1972) xix; cf. also Schönberger (1993) 16 and 66. The story dates back at least to Callimachus (fr. 556 Pf.): cf. Barchiesi (1992) 108–10, quoting previous literature. Callimachus’ text possibly was still available by Colluthus’ time, unless Procopius of Gaza, who mentions it twice (epist. 47 and 57 Garzya-Loenertz), derives it from Herodianus’ (which seems to me most unlikely) or from another source unknown to us. On Colluthus’ passage see also Livrea (1967): but in (1968a) xxiii and 171f. he is quite sceptical on the possibility that our poet used Callimachus.

64. But I hesitate to attribute to Colluthus the extreme subtlety of embedding in at 217 a further hint of the goddess’ hostility to Paris.

65. Rocca(1975)65.

66. For some parallels cf. Rocca (1997) 172–74. In Ov. Her. 16, Paris explicitly declares that he did not come to Sparta for that reason (nee uenio Graias ueluti spectator ad urbes I’nor am I come to admire Greek towns’, 33]), though Menelaus took him around for a tour of the city (ille quidem ostendit quicquid Lacedaemone total ostendi dignum conspicuumque fuit [‘he showed me whatever in the whole of Lacedaemon was remarkable and worthy to be shown’, 131f.]).

67. Combellack(1971)48f.

68. Lehrs’ emendation (improving Graefe’s ). The transmitted (‘angry’), defended by Giangrande (1969) 152f., Giangrande (1974) 130 and Schönberger (1993) 68, seems out of place here: cf. Livrea (1968a) 193; Orsini (1972) 12 n.1.

69. Schönberger (1993) 67 rather thinks that Athena is mentioned here as ‘Verkörperung der Sophrosyne’.

70. That Colluthus here imitates Euphorion (fr. 40 Powell) is an interesting suggestion by Hollis (2006) 155.

71. Lye. 133f. (‘not respecting Antheus’ love’), with schol. ad loc. (ss³ Tzetz., II p. 63 Scheer = p. 30 Leone).

72. On Nonnus and Musaeus see De Stefani and Magnelli (2009), quoting earlier literature: on Stephanus, Scheer (1908) xxxiv–xlvi.

73. I do not think that the epanalepsis of at 245f. has anything to do with this question.

74. This was rightly pointed out by Schonberger (1993) 14 and 67f., and now, within a more detailed (and convincing) exegetical framework, by Paschalis in this volume (pp.140f. above).

75. On the conventional meaning of the term ‘epyllion’, and the poems to which it may apply, cf. Gutzwiller (1981) 2–9; Hollis (1990) 23–26; Alan Cameron (1995) 447–52; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 191–96, with further literature; now also Hollis (2006).

76. According to Sud. κ 1951 Adler, Colluthus flourished under Anastasius I (491 –518). It is not certain whether he is the dedicatee of an anacreontic poem by George the Grammarian see Fournet (1997) 272f. and the careful analysis by Ciccolella (2000) 177, 255. Nothing is known about Musaeus, apart from the possibility that he is identical with the addressee of Procopius of Gaza, epist. 147 and 165 Garzya-Loenertz: if so, he must have been roughly a contemporary of Colluthus, perhaps slightly older. See Kost (1971) 15–17; Gelzer (1975) 297–302; Minniti Colonna (1976) 64–69.

77. ‘Put not my love to shame’ (Mair) is untenable, as both the context and the Musaeus parallel clearly show.

78. On these and other parallels see Livrea on Coll. 257, 295 and 303; Kost (1971) 15f.; Gelzer (1975) 300. Kost’s arguments for Colluthus imitating Musaeus, and not vice versa, seem to me very well grounded.

79. As Katerina Carvounis and Richard Hunter rightly point out to me, Colluthus’ story may even be regarded ‘as providing a retrospective “explanation” of the Homeric Paris’ (cf. n.27 above). In other words, Colluthus has produced his own little Antehomerica.

80. Agosti (2005a) has written illuminating pages on this topic. As far as the Neoplatonists are concerned, Lamberton’s (1986) monograph remains pivotal.

81. Whose debt to Nonnus’ Erigone (Dion. 47.148–217) has long been identified: see Orsini (1972) xxiii–xxvi, and now Spanoudakis (2007) 89f. Cf. also Williams (1973) 239, who rightly suggests the influence of other models besides Nonnus, such as Homer’s Nausicaa or Moschus’ Europa.

82. West (1970) 658; Orsini (1972) viii; Schönberger (1993) 9. On Paris’ story in the Cypria cf. Severyns (1928) 261–66; Stinton (1965) 1–4, 51–59 = (1990) 17–19, 56–62; Jouan (1966) 93–142; Davies (1989) 36–41.

83. The myth in Euripides: Stinton (1965), with full discussion. A lost Hellenistic source for Colluthus: Zöllner (1892). Colluthus directly influenced by Ovid: West (1970) 658. Nonnus’ knowledge of Latin poetry has been championed by several scholars, but regarded with much scepticism by Knox (1988); more recent contributions to the scholarly debate include Hollis (1994) 60 n.16; Vian (1995) 206–09 = (2005) 557–60; Magaña Orúe (1997); Salanitro (1997); Vian (2000) 690 = (2005) 606; Garstad (2003). On Paul the Silentiary see now De Stefani (2006), who also provides an up-to-date survey on the wider topic of Latin language in the Greek East.

84. Rocca (1995) 46f.; on Colluthus’ rhetorical taste cf. also Cuartero i Iborra (2003) 189 and 191. The pervasive influence of on Greek poetry of late antiquity is well documented by Agosti (2005b) 45–53 (esp. 50 on Colluthus). Needless to say, the importance of education and school-practice for this kind of poetry should never be understated—Laura Miguélez Cavero’s forthcoming book Poems in Context: Greek Poetry in the Egyptian Thebaic! 200-600 AD (I was able to read it in advance of publication by courtesy of the author) will become the reference work on such topics.

85. Kenney(1996)5.

86. Syndikus (1972) 177: ‘Sein Paris ist fast eine Karikatur der homerischen Gestalt.’ Cf. also Ripoll (2000), who provides a useful survey on the characterisation of Paris in Latin epic poetry from Virgil to Statius.

87. Cf. 2.87–95; 10.228–30, 267–69, 320–27, 388, 471–76; 13.412–14.

88. For a good survey on the question, with several useful remarks, see Caviglia (1997).

89. On his metre see n.13 above: on his language, Orsini (1972) xxix–xxxiii and Livrea (1968a) xxi–xxiii and passim in his commentary.

90. ‘No doubt I am wrong to find it [i.e. Triphiodorus’ poem] less interesting and attractive than Colluthus’ Rape of Helen’ wittily writes Hollis (2006) 150 n.53.

91. That is the reason why I would not accept the reading (‘bravely’) at 7 (see n.11 above): such an open touch of irony—or better of sarcasm—uttered by the poet himself is not consistent, in my view, with Colluthus’ practice in the rest of the poem.

92. One of the most difficult passages of this poem. Mair tries to translate it ‘Followest thou thus the love of fair-tressed Aphrodite?’ (so also Schönberger); Lennep transposed it after 377 (whence Livrea: ‘ho sofferto terribilmente, dopo l’armonico legame di Afrodite’), Weinberger after 378 (whence Orsini: ‘un fourbe qui m’a enlevée, et cela aprés l’union accomplie grÁce à Aphrodite’), Hermann after 386, Abel after 385; other solutions were suggested by Schneider (1866) 414–16 and Ludwich (1901) 17f. I find myself unable to come up with anything better, but am inclined to think that at least is corrupt.

93. Neither the transmitted (retained by Orsini and Schönberger) nor Brodaeus’ (accepted by Abel, Weinberger, Mair and Livrea) is wholly convincing: cf. Livrea (1968a) 244; Vian (1969a) 597. I think that Frederick Williams is right in suggesting to me that we read etaov—an emendation once devised and too hastily refused by Weinberger (1896) 133.

94. Cf. Il. 3.428–36,6.345–58; Od. 4.260–64.

95. ‘Wandering amid the deceits of dreams’ (, 369) may be a hint towards such an interpretation; anyway, Cuartero i Iborra (2003) 194 is probably right when he writes that ‘Coluto, al inventar su variante de la historia, en la hora ambigua del crepúsculo desea mantener la ambiguedad’ (cf. also Paschalis pp.l39f. above). Abel’s transposition of 316–21 before 369, on which see Livrea (1968b) 106–08 = (1991) 557f., would matter here, but it does not seem very likely: cf. Vian (1969a) 596 and West (1970) 660. I am most grateful to Elisabeth Sacks for drawing the whole question of lines 369ff. to my attention.

96. Needless to say, such an attitude to epic was not typical of the Homeric tradition, but had been abundantly exploited by other poets, notably by Nonnus (cf., e.g., Morrheus’ funny love story in Books 33–35 of the Dionysiaca). On Nonnus’ irony see most lately Chuvin (2006) 260–63.

97. Cf. Williams (1973) 239. On Colluthus’ subtlety see now also Spanoudakis (2007) 90.

98. Giangrande repeatedly quotes an excellent article by Thomas Gelzer for the concept that Nonnian poets writing ‘epyllia’ operated ‘durchaus in der Tradition der gelehrten alexandrinischen Dichtung’: see Gelzer (1968) 30, recorded by Giangrande (1969) 152 n.13, (1974) 129 n.1, (1975a) 41 n.20, and (1975b) 127f. n.2. But Gelzer was referring to Musaeus (Giangrande omitted to quote Gelzer’s ‘steht er’ before ‘durchaus’): and Colluthus is not Musaeus, or Pamprepius.

99. As Fournet (1997) 272 effectively writes, pagan mythology in the 5th and 6th centuries was ‘une matrice culturelle où continue à s’élaborer l’hellénisme’. Cf. also Agosti (2005a), with further literature.

100. Bibliographical items that I regret not to have been able to see include the paper of Alesso (2002), the dissertation of Kotseleni (1991), the edition of De Lorenzi (1943), the annotated trans lations of Fernandez-Galiano and Fernández-Galiano (1987) and Cuartero i Iborra (1992). I wish to thank Katerina Carvounis and Richard Hunter for their kind invitation to the ‘Signs of Life?’ conference and their continuous support, and all the scholars who took part in the discussion for their useful suggestions. Many thanks are also due to Gianfranco Agosti, Claudio De Stefani, Marco Fantuzzi, Valentina Garulli, Daria Gigli, Luis Arturo Guichard, Massimo Magnani and Frederick Williams (who also greatly improved my English), who read this paper in advance of publication and commented on it.