t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew 59

601, 607; Asp. 526; Pap. Didot II, 11. 68 p. 38: ξ … : cf. Tyche’s prologue,
line 108. One would expect a comment on the dramatic e¶ect of the verbal repetition
exploited here by Menander and a reminder of the fact that repetition of this kind is a
familiar feature of Menander’s dramatic technique elsewhere in his plays. 76 p. 40:
( ): in discussing in the sense ‘waste of time’, ‘delay’, B. has omitted
mentioning Menander’s conventional use of in the same sense: see Dysk.
134, 163, 206, Sam. 202. 83 p. 41: for an -type of answer in Menander, see also
Sam. 461, 574. 95–6 p. 45: : cf. Dysk. 903:
(Knemon). 100 p. 47: for Menander’s idiomatic use of see Asp. 346–7, 352,
442, 443, 446 (possibly echoing Tyche’s [ ), Dysk. 419, 949; Sam. 375, 378;
Pap. Ghôran II (= P. Sorbonne 72) 101, 155. 110 p. 49: for in Menander,
see also Pap. Ghôran (= P. Sorbonne 72) 150. 121 p. 51: cf. also Daos’ complaint in
Dysk. 206: . 127–8 p. 53: Philemon, not Diphilus, is the
author of , the Greek original of Plautus’ Trinummus. 143–4 p. 57: B.’s
unreserved claim that ‘is one of the Greek colloquialisms
that were adopted by Latin conversational language’ is surely an exaggeration. 146–7
p. 57: … : cf. e.g. Plaut. Cist. 188–9 (Auxilium): nunc quod relicuom
restat uolo persoluere / ut expungatur nomen. 159 p. 60: not Aristopho but Aristophon.
205 p. 70: I am not at all convinced that [ in O22 is preferable to B.’s
: cf. Dysk. 713, 738; Sam. 703–4, 707, Epit. 908. P. 73 (Scene V: 216–33): a)
I miss a reference to the cook in Menander’s Samia; b) Menander’s originality in
treating the cook Sikon in Dyskolos (see most recently Zagagi, ZPE 148 [2004],
110–11 = LICS 3 [2003/4]) is completely ignored by B. These omissions, combined
with the lack of reference to Plautine cooks, detract signiμcantly from the merit of
B.’s account of the cook scene in Aspis. 216 p. 74: not Amips. but Ameips. 219 p. 75:
the sacriμcial meal in Pan’s honour in Dyskolos, which eventually turns into a wedding
celebration, serves as a good example for ‘a sacriμce as part of a wedding celebration’.
230 p. 78: : I fail to understand how the cook’s comparison of his assistant
to Aristeides, so proverbial in its character, may be taken by B. as an indication of
‘Menander’s novel treatment of the cook-type’. 234 p. 80: add Sam. 441: .
Tel-Aviv University NETTA ZAGAGI
zagagin@netvision.net.il

THE HYMNS OF CALLIMACHUS

V a m vou r i Ru f f y (M.) La Fabrique du divin. Les Hymnes de
Callimaque à la lumière des Hymnes homériques et des Hymnes
épigraphiques. (Kernos Supplément 14.) Pp. ii + 326. Liège: Centre
International d’Étude de la Religion Grecque Antique, 2004. Paper,
€45. ISSN: 0776-3824. No ISBN.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X06003179

In the Introduction général (pp. 13–23), V.R. introduces the subject of the book
and the method followed, telling us that she has begun her study by postulating
that in his six Hymns Callimachus depends greatly on the former hymnic tradition –
Homeric and epigraphic hymns and the paeans of Aristonoos, Limenios, Athenaios,

The Classical Review vol. 57 no. 1 © The Classical Association 2007; all rights reserved
60 t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew

Erythrai, Isyllos, Makedonikos and Philodamos – but presents it in his own

formulation. She carries out a comparative analysis of the three series of
compositions and, in the three parts of her book, deals respectively with structure
and content (pp. 24–66), the relation between the persona loquens and the gods
(pp. 67–127), and connections between the text and the context of performance
(pp. 129–283). In the μrst section (‘Questions de forme et de contenu’), she asserts
that Homeric Hymns di¶er from epigraphic ones in content, since the former – as
they are prooimia – end by promising a new song, an element absent from the
latter. On the other hand, distinctive features of most epigraphic Hymns are the
presence of the ritual iê paian and numerous references to the reasons for
composition. As for the Hymns of Callimachus, they evidently follow the traditional
tripartite structure (invocation, descriptive–narrative section, request), but also show
innovations like the insertion of a description of the introductory stages of a rite,
praise of contemporary statesmen, catalogues of cults for gods, and poetical
considerations. Callimachus would probably have derived these peculiarities – absent
from Homeric Hymns – from Pindar and Bakchylides.
In the second section (‘Rapports d’échange et modes de persuasion du dieu’)
it is demonstrated that the content of hymnic compositions is determined by
what the persona loquens expects from the gods and by political, economic and
social circumstances. V.R. examines the μnal part of each poem in order to
acknowledge which form of argumentation is used towards the gods, chie·y with
regard to the categories systematised by J.M. Bremer: da quia dedi, da ut dem, da
quia dedisti, da quia hoc dare tuum est. In particular it could be seen that the main
purpose of the persona loquens of the Homeric Hymns is to make the gods rejoice by
narrating their origins and to produce a beautiful song, constantly requested by
him. In epigraphic hymns the content of the descriptive–narrative section (divine
biography) is closely connected to the μnal request to the gods in order to acquire
their intervention and benevolence. Finally in Callimachus’ Hymns we can observe,
in addition to the traditional ones, new forms of argumentation, such as the
attempt to persuade men to behave correctly towards the gods or the request for a
divine epiphany.
The third section (‘E¶ets pragmatiques: biographie divine et conteste d’exécution’)
deals with the interaction between divine biography and the context of performance.
Homeric Hymns mostly give little information about the identity of the persona
loquens or the occasion of their μrst performance: in general the speaker may be
identiμed with a professional aoidos, who does not fail to boast his own poetic skills
in order to obtain the admiration of the audience. Sometimes he alludes to his own
skills through the mise en abyme, i.e. identifying his song with that of Pan, Hermes
or a swan. In epigraphic more than in Homeric Hymns, the political–religious context
and the song are closely connected. For example, Isyllos’ Paean responds to the
necessity of consolidating the ties between Epidauros and Asklepios, and
Philodamos’ poem aims at integrating Dionysos into the cult established in the new
temple of Apollo, in an Attic–Delphic perspective. Then V.R. proceeds with an
analysis of the Callimachean Hymns, stressing that erudition has in them an
important and threefold role: it is used to compose an aetiological commentary on
geographic elements of the divine biography, to emphasise the poet’s knowledge of
ancient literature, and as self-presentation of the poet as a man who wants to satisfy
his thirst for knowledge. Moreover, Callimachus does not hesitate to modify divine
biographies for poetic or political purposes and to use frequent references to
 t h e c la s s i c a l r ev i ew 61

legendary and cultic traditions to establish a bond between (Greek–)Egyptian

audience and Greece.
As we can see from this brief and inevitably selective survey, this is a wide-ranging
book, rich in information and well structured, detailed in its analysis and often
reaching original and innovative conclusions. V.R. uses wisely the huge amount of
bibliographic material, though Callimachean literature does not go beyond 1998.
University of Messina CLAUDIO MELIADÒ
cmeliado@virgilio.it

DIPPING INTO POSIDIPPUS

G ut z w i l l e r (K.) (ed.) The New Posidippus. A Hellenistic Poetry
Book. Pp. xvi + 394, ills, colour pls. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005. Cased, £50. ISBN: 978-0-19-926781-1.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X06003180

The publication, in 2001, of 112 newly discovered epigrams, only two of which were
previously known, naturally created a sensation among classicists. However, the μnd
has proved even more exciting, in that it seems to permit us a glimpse of a genuine
Hellenistic poetry book. If we are in fact dealing with an authorially edited
collection, the papyrus would be the oldest example of an epigrammatic libellus and
thus conμrm that epigram books, about whose existence one could hitherto only
speculate, were actually composed as early as the third century b.c.
In this beautifully produced volume, which stems from a conference held at
Cincinnati in 2002, the epigram collection is analysed from a variety of perspectives,
including papyrology, ancient history, art history and literary criticism. F. Nisetich
leads o¶ with a new translation of all the Posidippan poems; Greek texts are not
given, but since passages are usually cited in the original this is a minor inconvenience.
Although doubts have been cast on the assumption that all the epigrams were
composed by Posidippus, the contributors unanimously, and I think rightly, a¸rm his
authorship. As regards the nature of the collection, however, their views di¶er widely:
while some see an editor at work who is not necessarily identical with the poet, others
consider the intricacy of the arrangement as evidence for the author’s own hand in it.
It is intriguing to observe how the same material is interpreted in di¶erent ways. N.
Krevans, for instance, compares the principles of organisation to those of prose
treatises and argues that the utilitarian headings (one of the papyrus’ more surprising
features) suggest rather the ‘reference librarian’ than the ‘symphony conductor’. She
regards the , however, as more artfully structured and wonders
whether they might have originated in a libellus. Re·ecting upon the possible
occasionality of some epigrams, D. Obbink poses the question whether this is a ‘book
of poems’ or a ‘poetry book’, and concludes that the papyrus could be a Greek poetry
book in statu nascendi. W. Johnson, in turn, examines the papyrus’ physical character-
istics and draws attention to the marginal markers, which may point to the role of
readers in making their own selection: rather than worry about authorial vs editorial
arrangement, the Ptolemaic audience may have been disposed ‘to delight in the
newness brought to poetry by the crafting of fresh arrangements and newly created
relationships between poems’ (p. 80).
Johnson’s suggestion that the μrst column does not coincide with the beginning of
the collection is plausible, but P. Bing’s brilliant discussion of the convinces me

The Classical Review vol. 57 no. 1 © The Classical Association 2007; all rights reserved