Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:42:43.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The lexicon of love: Longus and Philetas grammatikos

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2012

Tim Whitmarsh
Tim Whitmarsh
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a fresh approach to the well-known questions surrounding the identification of Longus' character Philetas with the Hellenistic poet Philetas or Philitas. Noting that the poet was famed in antiquity also for his critical writing, particularly his lexicographical work the ataktoi glôssai, it argues that the fictional characters Daphnis and Chloe consult Philetas for, among other things, a lexical definition of erôs.

Type
Shorter Contributions
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 125 , November 2005 , pp. 145 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 2005

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 For scandalous self-identifications, see Cave, T., Recognitions. A Study in Poetics (Oxford 1988).Google Scholar

2 φίλημα in this episode: 2.4.4, 2.5.2, 2.7.7, 2.8.5, 2.9.2; also φιλεῖν (in the sense of ‘kiss’): 2.5.1 (Eros: ἐμοὶ μέν, ὦ Φιλητᾶ φιλῆσαί σε πόνος ούδείς), 2.7.4, 2.9.1, 2.9.2. For earlier plays on the name, see Spanoudakis, K., Philitas of Cos (Leiden 2002) 22 n.6.Google Scholar

3 The name + relative clause formula invokes Odysseus' announcement of his name at Od. 9. 19–20: εἴμ' Όδυσεὺς Λαερτιάδης ὂς πᾶσι δόλοισν/ άνθρώποισι μέλω. But the polyptotonic anaphora of πολύς in a relative clause (ὃς πολλὰ μὲν ταῖσδε ταῖς Νύμφαις ἦισα, πολλὰ δὲ τῶι Πανὶ ὲκείνωι ἐσύρισα, βοῶν δὲ πολλῆς ἀγέλης ἡγησάμην μόνηι μουσικῆι) activates a closer, playfully bathetic, allusion to Od. 1. 1–4 (… ὃς μάλα πολλὰ / πλάγχθη … πολλῶν δ' άνθρώπων ἲδεν ἄστεα καὶ νόον ἔγνω, / πολλὰ δ' ὃ γ' ἐν πόντωι πάθεν ἄλγεα ὃν κατὰ θυμόν …). For Odyssean dissimulation, see Murnaghan, S., Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey (Princeton 1987)Google Scholar; Goldhill, S., The Poet's Voice. Essays in Poetics and Greek Literature (Cambridge 1991) 24–56.Google Scholar On Dio Chrysostom's approximately contemporary play with Odyssean dissimulation, see e.g., Whitmarsh, T., Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics of Imitation (Oxford 2001) 239–41.Google Scholar

4 Both of Longus' MSS agree that the name is Φιλητᾶς; the Coan poet is sometimes spelled in this way, and sometimes Φιλίτας (a form found on Cos). On the Φιλητᾶς/Φιλίτας question, see Bowie, E.L., ‘Theocritus' seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus’, CQ 35 (1985) 72, esp. n.27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sbardella, L., Filita. Testimonianze e frammenti poetici (Rome 2000) 3–7Google Scholar; Spanoudakis (n.2) 19–23. I use ‘Philetas’ throughout, though without commitment on this debate. The two names would have been homophonic by the second century AD.

5 The identification was first made by Reitzenstein, R., Epigramm und Skolion (Giessen 1893) 260 n. 1Google Scholar, and has been widely accepted: see Cresci, L.R., ‘Il romanzo di Longo Sofista e la tradizione bucolica’, A&R 26 (1971) 1–2Google Scholar, translated at Swain, S. (ed.), Oxford Readings in the Greek Novel (Oxford 1999) 210–11.Google Scholar For significant recent discussions, see Hunter, R., A Study of Daphnis and Chloe (Cambridge 1983) 76–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowie (n.4) 72–5; Zeitlin, F.I., ‘The poetics of eros: nature, art and imitation in Longus' Daphnis and Chloe’, in Halperin, D.M., Winkler, J.J. and Zeitlin, F.I. (eds), Before Sexuality. The Construction of Erotic Experience in the Ancient Greek World (Princeton 1990) 447–9Google Scholar; Spanoudakis (n.2) 64–6.

6 For the poetical fragments of Philetas, see CA pp. 90–6; SH 673–675d. For potential additions to the corpus, see Führer, R., ‘P.Oxy. 3723: Philetas?’, ZPE 122 (1998) 47–8Google Scholar; Livrea, E., ‘Un nuovo frammento di Filita di Cos’, ZPE 125 (1999) 67–8.Google Scholar More speculation about the contents of Philetas’ poetry in Bowie (n.4), and Hollis, A.S., ‘Heroic honours for Philetas?’, ZPE 110 (1996) 56.Google Scholar Three recent editions have appeared: Dettori, E., Filita grammatico. Testimonianze e frammenti (Rome 2000)Google Scholar; Sbardella (n.4); Spanoudakis (n.2). A forthcoming paper by John Morgan makes some further captivating suggestions based on Longus.

7 For the Bittis/Battis debate, see Spanoudakis (n.2) 31–2, and now Bing, P., ‘The unruly tongue: Philitas of Cos as scholar and poet’, CPh 98 (2003) 330–48Google Scholar, arguing ingeniously for Battis.

8 The strongest evidence, outside Daphnis and Chloe, is Theocritus 7.40–1; but that evidence is problematic, in that the other poet mentioned, Asclepiades, has no pastoral connotations himself. Has Theocritus playfully ‘bucolicized’ two non-pastoral poets?

9 Dettori (n.6) 20–49; Spanoudakis (n.2) 384–8. Bing (n.7) argues attractively for the ἄτακτοι γλῶσσαι as playfully subversive ‘unruly tongues’.

10 Schol. A Il. 1.524c; 2.111b (= T6a-b Dettori, T10 Spanoudakis); Dettori (n.6) 20, 185, 186; Spanoudakis (n.2) 29.

11 Philetas' education in Book 2 is thus balanced by Lycaenion's in Book 3 (μαθητήν, διδάξω, 3.17.3; διδάξαι, 3.18.1; διδάσκεσθαι, 3.18.2; παιδεύειν, 3.18.3; ἐπαίδευε, 3.18.4, παιδαγωγίας, πεπαίδευτο, 3.19.1; μαθεῖν, ἐπαίδευσε, 3.19.2).

12 Spanoudakis (n.2) 277; also, more generally Merkelbach, R., Die Hirten des Dionysos. Die Dionysos-Mysterien der römischen Kaiserzeit und der bukolische Roman des Longus (Stuttgart 1988) 164–6.Google Scholar

13 See further Hunter, R., ‘Longus and Plato’, in Picone, M. and Zimmermann, B. (eds), Der antike Roman und seine mittelalterliche Rezeption (Basel, Boston and Berlin 1997) 21–2Google Scholar, in the light of Platonic theories of definition.

14 For τί ποτέ ἐστι questions, cf. P1. Euthyphr. 13e, Hipp. 225a, Charm. 162b, Prot. 312c, Gorg. 502e, Men. 74e, 80d, Hipp. Maj. 287e, 289c, 294e, Resp. 524e, Tim. 48b, Min. 321d, leg. 655c.

15 Cf., e.g., Soph. Trach. 497–506; Eur. Hipp. 439–81; Petron. Sat. 83; Ach. Tat. 1.2.1.

16 For δύναμαι in the sense of ‘of words, signify, mean’, cf. LSJ s.v. 11.3.

17 ξεῖνε, Φιλίτας είμί. λόγων ὁ Ψευδόμενός με / λεσε καὶ νυκτῶν φροντίδες ἑσπέριοι, FGE 442 = Ath. Deipn. 401e = T5 Dettori, T21 Spanoudakis); the story of the Ψευδόμενος λόγος is found at Suda Φ 332 (= T1 Dettori, Spanoudakis).

18 Discussion at Cameron, A., Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton 1995) 490–1.Google Scholar Cameron (followed, apparently independently, by Spanoudakis (n.2) 340) takes it as a reference to the paradox of Eubulides of Miletus, ὃς καὶ πολλοὺς ἐν διαλεκτικῆι λόγους ἐρώτησε, τὸν τε Ψευδόμενον κτλ. (Diog. Laert. 2.108). Support for this interpretation might be sought in the fact that Philetas' younger contemporary Chrysippus was also much exercised by this puzzle, writing six treatises on it (Diog. Laert. 7. 196–7). But in fact the phrase Ψευδόμενος λόγος can be used of any argument deemed fallacious: see e.g., Arist. EN 1146a 22 (retaining the MSS reading, contra Coraes); Diog. Laert. 7.44.

19 Longus' Philetas might be thought to have a distant hint of the Cynic (and, hence, of Cynic-Socraticism) about him: cf. πήραν ἐξηρτημένος (2.3.1), with Hahn, J., Der Philosoph und die Gesellschaft. Selbstverständnis, öffentliches Auftreten und populäre Erwartungen in der hohen Kaiserzeit (Stuttgart 1989) 38Google Scholar, on the characteristic Cynic πήρα. But this is more plausibly a sign of rusticity: he also wears a σισύρα (a rough, folded goatskin, often seen as synonymous with the βαίτη: Photius calls it a περιβόλαιον ἀγροικικόν, Lex. Σ513) and καρβάτιναι (an ἄγροικον ὑπόδημα, Poll. Onom. 7.88; cf. Hesych. K785, schol. Luc. Philops. 13).

20 For Lucian, see Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World, AD 50–250 (Oxford 1996) 45–9Google Scholar; Weissenberger, M., Literaturtheorie bei Lukian. Untersuchung zum Dialog Lexiphanes (Stuttgart 1996) 70–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 4 (arguing, however, that Lucian is not just satirizing, but also offering a positive literary theory); and on Athenaeus' όνοματοθήραι (97f, 99d, 184b, 649b) Swain (op. cit.) 49–51, and more generally Braund, D. and Wilkins, J. (eds), Athenaeus and his World. Reading Greek Culture in the Roman Empire (Exeter 2000).Google Scholar