Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:52:30.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Callimachus' Hymn to Zeus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

N. Hopkinson
N. Hopkinson
Affiliation:
Peterhouse, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent work on Callimachus has tended to concentrate on the technicalities of his poetry. Commentaries on the Hymns have dealt exhaustively with vocabulary, metrics, Homeric allusion, historical background. What remains to be done is to use these detailed pieces of work in readings of the individual poems, showing how the commentator's minutiae can be assimilated into an overall view of each hymn. In Hellenistische Dichtung Wilamowitz attempted such an appreciation; but since his time literary approaches have changed considerably. With the thorough commentary of G. R. McLennan as foundation, it may be worth while to make a re-assessment of the Hymn to Zeus in less technical terms. In the reading which I offer here I hope to escape the tyranny of the individual word; but I hope, too, that what I have to say will not appear too loosely founded on the text.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , May 1984 , pp. 139 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Usually in a rather mechanical way. A notable exception isBulloch, A. W., ‘Callimachus' Erysichthon, Homer and Apollonius Rhodius’, AJPh 98 (1977), 97Google Scholar ff.

2 Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. von, Hellenistische Dichtung 2 (Berlin, 1924), 1Google Scholar ff.

3 Callimachus. Hymn to Zeus. Introduction and Commentary (Rome, 1977)Google Scholar. Similar in scope, but less detailed, is Tandy, D. W., ‘Callimachus, Hymn to Zeus: Introduction and Commentary’ (diss. Yale, 1979)Google Scholar.

4 I intend to discuss elsewhere the order of the six hymns. There is no evidence to suggest that we have not the poet's own arrangement.

5 A similar point is implied at Theoc. 16. 1. ff. (cf. h. Hom. 10. 1 ff.): αἰεì τοȖτο ∆ιòς κούραɩς μέλεɩ, αἰ oιδοȋς ὑμνεȋ ϒαθ κλέα νδρν. Μοίαι μ θεαì ντί, θεοÙς θεαί είδντɩ αμμες δ βροτοÙς βροτο είδωμεν.

6 cf. h. Ap. 19, A. Ag. 783 ff., Ar. Pax 520 ff.

7 οί μν ϒρ Δρακάνψσ, οἱδ Ἰκάρψ ἠνεμοέσση οί δέ σ Nάξψ, δȋον ϒένος εỉραϕιτα, οί δέ πʼ Ἀλϕειψ ποταμψ βαθυδινήετɩ κυσαμένην Σεμέλην τεκέειν Διì τερπɩκεραύνψ. αλλοι δʼ ⊝ήβησιν σε λέϒοσθαι ωευδόμενοι σ ετɩκετε παδρρ δρ τε θε τε ….

8 Antag. fr. 1. 1 p. 120 Powell δοιῇ μοι θυμός, πεì ϒένος μϕίσβητον (Meineke: μϕιβόητον codd.), ησε θε τòν πρτον ειϒενέων, Ἐρος, εɩπω τ οσους˚Ερεβός τε πάσίλειά βασίλεɩά τε παίδας ϒείνατο Νὺξ πελάϒεσσɩν ὑπʼ εὐρέος Ὠκεανοȋο ἥ σέ ϒε Κύπριδος υἷα περίϕρονος, ἠ Ιης, ἥἈνέμων· τοȋος σὺ κακ ϕρονέων θρώποɩς ἠd σθλά τò καì σέο δμα δίϕυιον. Note, too, εɩϒενέων (2) ~ σσ ϒρ αἰεí Call. h. 1. 0.

9 Epimen. fr. 5 Kinkel Kρτες εì ψεȗσταɩ, κακ, ϒαστέρες, It is interesting to note that Epimenides' line is itself a parody of Hes. Th. 26, ποιμένες ἂϒραυλοι, κάκ λέϒχεα, ϒαστέρες οἷo, the Muses' opening address to Hesiod.

10 See Weinreich, O., ‘Menekrates Zeus und Salmoneus’, Tiibinger Beitrage 18 (1933), 105 ffGoogle Scholar. Religionsgeschichtliche Studien (Darmstadt, 1968), pp. 409 ff.Google Scholar, West on Hes. Op. 3.

11 Hell. Dicht. p. 12.

12 On pre-Callimachean aetiology seeCodrignani, G., ‘L’ “aition” nella poesia greca prima di Callimaco’, Convivium n.s. 26 (1958), 527–45Google Scholar. One need look no further than the closing passages of Euripides’ plays for ample evidence that the aetiological link was highly regarded.

13 See F. von Jan (de Ian) ‘De Callimacho Homeri interprete’ (diss. Strassburg, 1893), 80 n. 1; Wilamowitz, Hell. Dicht. 6 n. 4.

14 ‘Rhea in Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus’, JHS (forthcoming).

15 A linguistic parallel overlooked by McLennan: AP9. 679. 3 (anon.) ἔξοχα δ κραναῇ ῥο; δατος πασεν ασσω, /πολλν πετρων σκληρμτωπα τεμών.

16 Cf. Leont. AP 9. 650. 3 τος ῤῥα θεησμενος κα τῷδ’ ν χρτα λοσσας/ δεȖρο κα ἄμπνευσον δαιτ παρ’ μετρη.

17 Wilamowitz, Hell. Dicht. 6, McLennan ad loc.

18 See Williams, F. J., ‘ΔIEPOE: further ramifications’, MPhilLond 5 (1981), 84 ff.Google Scholar, 89 n. 18.

19 A commonplace: cf. e.g. Men. et Phil. Σγκριοις 1. 112 p. 92 Jäkel γ τκους δδωσι μ λυπουμνη ? π γς ἔϕν τ πντα κεἰς γν οἴχεται.

20 See McLennan ad loc. for details. ‘ɛλαϕρς was an epithet of Zeus in Crete according to Hsch. ε 1922 s.v.

21 See Griffiths, A., JHS 101 (1981), 160CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Release of the amniotic fluid was of course well known as a prelude to birth: Hp. Virg. 8 (vol. 8, p. 480 Littré), [Arist.] HA 586b32 ff., ibid. 586a30, Gal. de usu part. lib. 15 (vol. 4, p. 236 Kühn).

23 Cf. ɛ.A.R. 3. 1213 p. 253 Wendel κευθμν τν κρυϕν, EM 507. 1, Hsch. κ 93, Suid. κ 1438 (vol. 3, p. 104 Adler).

24 See Griffiths, A., ‘Six Passages in Callimachus and the Anthology’, BICS 17 (1970), 32 f.Google Scholar, Arnott, G., ‘Two Functions of Ambiguity in Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus’, RCCM 18 (1976), 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 2 ε ∼ ἰν ∼ 9 αἰε; νιν ∼ 40 μιν; 6’ ιδαοισιν ν οὔρεσι ∼ 51’ ιδαοις ν ορεσσι; 8 ἄνα ∼ 33 να; 10 ‘ρεη ∼ 21 ‘ρη; 17 χρτα ∼ 32 χρα; 30 θε (?) ∼ 37 θε; 43 ἔσαν ∼ 60 ἠσαν; 45 κλεουσι ∼ 51 καλουσι; 64 τσσον ∼ σον; 67 κρτος ∼ 75 κρατοντος; 70 εἴλεο ∼ 73 ξλεο; 81 πτολεθρα ∼ 82 πολεσσιν.

26 See Richardson, on h. Cer. 235Google Scholar, cl. h. Ap. 127 ff., h. Merc. 17 ff., h. Horn. 26. 5, Hes. Th. 492 f., Q.S. 6. 205 ff.,al.

27 Hes. Th. 492 f. (Zeus) καρπαλμως δ’ ἄρ’ ἔπειτα μνος κα ϕαδιμα γυȋα / ηὔξετο τοȋο ἄνακτος.

28 See McLennan ad loc, Norden on V. Aen. 6. 14.

29 For accounts of the allotment see Pease on Cic. ND 2. 66 (p. 719).

30 Od. 19. 203

ἴσκε ψεδεα πολλ λγων τμοισιν μοια

τς δ’ ἄρ’ κουοσης ῥε δκρυα, τκετο δ χρώς.

31 Hes. Th. 27 f.

ἴδμεν ψεδεα πολλ λγειν τμοισιν μοια,

ἴδμεν δ’, ετ’ θλωμεν, ληθα γηρσασθαθαι.

32 Hence too much stress should not be placed on fr. 612 μρτυρον οὐδν εἱδω, whose context we lack.

33 Wilamowitz, Hell. Dicht. 13.

34 Cf.tr. adesp. F 353 K.-S. ZεȖς γρ τ μν τοιαȖτα ϕροντξει βροτν./ τ μικρ δ’ ἄλλοις δαμοσιν παρες ᾷ.

35 For a long discussion of the peculiar sanctity of kings see Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. c. 1. 12. 50.

36 (Styx)

κα κρτος ἠδ Вην ριδετα γενατο τκνα.

τν δ’ οὐκ ἒστ’ πνευθε Δις δμος, οὐδ τις ἔδρη

οὐδ’ δς ππη μ κενοις θες γεμονεει,

λλ’ αἰε πρ Zην βαρυκτπῳ δριωνται.

37 ForTh. 96 see below; π 13. 730'ff.

ἄλλῳ μν γρ δκε θες πολεμια ἔργα,

ἄλλῳ δ’ ρχηστν, τρῳ κθαριν κα οιδν,

ἄλλῳ δ’ ν στθεσσι τθει νον εὐροπα Zεὺς

σθλν, τοȖ δ τε πολλο παυρσκοντ’ ἄνθρωποι,

κα τε πολας σωσε, μλιστα δ καὐτς νγνω.

38 δ τεπαρθνος στ Δκη, Δις κγεγαυȋα, κυδρ τ’ αἰδοη τε θεοȋς οἴ ολυμπον ἔχουσιν.

κα ῥ’ πτ’ τς μιν βλπτῃ σκολις νοτξων,

αὐτκα πρ Δι πατρ καθεξομνη κρονωνιγηρετ’νθρώπων ἄδικον νον. ϕρ ποτεσῃ δμος τασθαλας βασιλων οȋ λυγρ νοεȖντες ᾰλλῃ παρκλνωσι δκας σκολις νποντες. ταȖτα ϕυλασσμενοι, βασιλς, ἰθνετε μθους,

δωροϕγοι, σκολιων δ δικων π πγχυ λθεσθε. Cf., too. Op. 7 f. ῥεȋα δ τ’ ἰθνει σκολιν κα γνορα κρϕει/Zεὺς ὑψιβρεμτης.

39 οιδν 71 ∼ λρης εȖ εἰδτας οἴμους 78; νην μπερμους 70 f. ∼ ρτης 75; ἄνδρα σςκσπαλον 71 ∼ ἴδρις αἴχης 77.

40 Bulloch art. cit. (n. 1) 113 (in his discussion of A. 6).

41 μετρῳ μεδοντι (86); McLennan compares μετρῳ βασιλι at h. 2. 68, where Williams does not cite Tyrt. fr. 5. 1 (or Pantel. fr. 23. 2, vol 1, p. 81 Heitsch) for the identical words.

42 If Carriere is right, the poem's opening libation to Zeus Soter is an allusion to the quasi-divinity of Ptolemy Soter: ‘Philadelphe ou Sôtêr? A propos d'un hymne de Callimaque’,StudClas 11 (1969), 85–93Google Scholar.

43 See W. Meincke, ‘Untersuchungen zu den enkomiastischen Gedichten Theokrits’ (diss. Kiel, 1965), 167 ff.,Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford, 1972), 2. 915 n. 284Google Scholar. Lines 57–9 are commonly taken to refer to the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus in preference to his older brothers; but ‘the difficulties, both historical and literary, are formidable’ (Fraser, loc. cit).

44 Cf. Nisbet and Hubbard on Hor. c. 1. 12. 31, Friis Johansen & Whittle on A.Supp. 598.

45 Cf. Clausen, W., ‘Callimachus and Latin Poetry’, GRBS 5 (1964), 183Google Scholar.

46 For a full discussion see von Jan, op. cit. (n. 14) 93 f. ΣT ad π. 22. 370 actually links the two passages: κολοει τελς ποιεȋ, ὡς τ “νικλν, ττι νοσω”.

47 On ρετ cf. Gow on Theoc. 17. 137; on ‘money makes the man’ West on Hes. Op. 235.

48 Od. 8. 63 f.

τν περ ΜοȖσ’ ϕλησε, δδου, δ’ γαθν τε κακν τε

ϕθαλμν μν ἄμερσε, δδου δ’ δεȋαν οιδν.

49 δτορ ων,/δτορ dπημονης (91 f.); τς κεν εδοι, τς κεν… εσει (92. f.); οὐ γνετ’, οὐκ ἔσται (93); χαȋρε, πτερ, χαȋρ’ αȖθι (94); δδου δ’ ρετν τ’ἄϕενς τε, δδου δ’ρετν τε κα λβον (94,96); οὔτ’ ρετς… οὔτ’ ρετ (95 f.).

50 Cf.NordenonV. Aen.6. 46,al.,e.g. A. Eum. 1014 χαρετε, χαρετε, δ’ αȖθις, παναδιπλοξω (cf. Call. h. 1. 94).

51 Neuter in 94, masc. in 96; and, as McLennan points out, ῥυηϕενην in 84 provides a fern, from the same root.

52 H. Horn. 15 and 20 ad fin., and a metrical inscription: see McLennan's note, Allen/Halliday/Sikeson h. Horn. 15.9.

53 Fr. 203 (iambus 13), Dieg. ix 32 ff. μοȖσαι καλα κἄπολλον, οȋς γώ σπνδω Σν τοτῳ πρς τοὺς καταμεμϕομνους αὐτν π τῇ πολυειδεᾳ ν γρϕει ποιημτων πολυειδ σκεη τεκταινμενον.

54 I should like to thank Mrs P. E. Easterling and Dr J. C. McKeown for their comments on a draft of this article.