No CrossRef data available.
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.
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 February 2009
A most pleasing recent advance in our knowledge of Callimachus’ fragmentary poems has been the recognition that an elegiac piece, part of which appeared as P. Oxy. vol. 1 no. 14, belongs to him and, one presumes, to the Aetia. Powell (Collectanea Alexandrina, p. 131) already thought of Callimachus as the author, others of Nicander (hence Gow-Scholfield doubtfully included the fragment in their edition, p. 220). Evidence that the author was of some standing is provided by the fact that a scholiast on Nicander, Theriaca 386 (P. Oxy. 2221 col. 11, 17–20) quoted line 4 of the fragment1 (though the additional letters at the start of the line have defied restoration and may be corrupt).2 Great progress came with the publication by M. Gronewald (ZPE 15 [1974], 105 ff.) of P. Mich. 4761, which preserves, almost though not quite perfectly, the beginning of lines 5–15 (underlined on the accompanying text), wherein P. Oxy.
1 No other verbal citations from this fragment seem to have survived. But familiarity with the piece can be credited with varying degrees of confidence to the following poets: (a) perhaps Nicander (proximity of òρoιτύπoι, Ther. 377, to σμινύoιo, Ther. 386); (b) probably Dionysius Periegetes (998 
); (c) above all Maximus 
, in his section περì γεωργíας. This would be particularly clear if the supplement (Henrichs) oὕτ’ ⋯υì κλ***μα is correct in line 8. Note Maximus 459–60 
(d) probably Honestus (ap. Geffcken, Gr. Epigr. 196 b 2 
perhaps Nonnus (Dionysiaca 47. 69 
). Most of these parallels are given by Gronewald.
2 E. Livrea (ZPE 34 (1979), 43–5) may be right in arguing that the letters δαντoν belong to the commentary rather than the verse quotation. He suggests εὐκρ⋯δαντoν, ‘well poised, easily moved’.
3 Note also fr. 187. For cult-statues in the Aetia, cf. fr. 7. 11–12 (Graces), frs. 100 and 101 (Hera), fr. 114 (Delian Apollo), and for reflections of the same technique in Roman aetiologrcal poetry see Propertius 4. 2 (the various adornments of Vertumnus) and Ovid, Fasti 6. 569–624 (the veiled statue which must not be unwrapped). It is interesting to compare Call. fr. 100 with Prop. 4. 2. 59 ff.
4 But the existence of Diegeses from fr. 67 onwards seems to leave open only the earlier part of Book 3 (cf. Parsons, ZPE 25 (1977), 47–8).
5 One would have to neglect the point that the discontinuance of the cult was (presumably) quite recent, but the infertility of Arcadia age-old.
6 I am most grateful to Professor Lloyd-Jones and Mr Parsons for appropriately sceptical comments and for permission to reproduce their text (which should be published by the time this article appears).