Search

A combined investigation of Herod. Mim. 8 (Ἐνύπνιον) with Callim. Ia. 1, 13, and Ep. 8, reveals that they all relate to a certain poetic contest that took place in Alexandria under the auspices of Ptolemy I, in one of the last years of his reign. The contest, must have been co-ordinated by the Mouseion and its director at the time, Zenodotus. The two poets took part in the contest, together with a host of other poets. Callim. Ia. 1 gives a figurative account of the contest's course of action. Herodas, awaiting the results, writes Mim. 8, where he expresses his hopes for a prize, though he suspects foul play on behalf of the poets employed at the Mouseion by the king who was supposed to decide the prize. Callim. Ep. 8 is a sarcastic reply to Herodas' fears, while Ia. 13 narrates the harsh criticism Callimachus received from Zenodotus and his proud reaction in response, obviously after his contribution was rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study explores Hellenistic readers' reception of archaic and classical lyric poetry by using Pindar's dithyrambs as a representative test case. The 'horizons of expectations' in the Hellenistic era, it is argued, were influenced not only by ancient lyric poetry per se but also by the commentaries that accompanied the lyric corpora, by Hellenistic theorizing about the voice and by writers such as Dionysius of Hallicarnassus and Callimachus. The experience of attending to Pindar's 'vocal poetics' is characterized both by intense imaginative transport and a recognition of the reader's experiential finitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines a representative selection of Hellenistic instances of choroi in the works of the three main poets, Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus and Callimachus. It does so through the notions of 'choral self-referentiality', 'choral mediation' and the stratagem of 'choral projection'. Although Hellenistic choreia probably does not belong to the performative and multi-media milieu alongside lyric or tragic productions, it brings to the fore the continuity between archaic lyric poetry and Hellenistic poetry. This continuity largely consists in the tragic re-use of the choral element and the choral performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new reading of P.Oxy. 1011 fol. VI enables a new edition of Callimachus' Ia. 13 revealing, here and there, a different text than the one accepted so far and a number of intriguing interpretation details. The edition is followed by elementary comments, especially on the new text, and two appendices on questions arising also from the new text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author claims that the excessive employment of the term λλεεππττóóςς for characterizing Aratus' poetry and for denoting its conformity to the aesthetic ideal of Hellenistic poetry, as defined by Callimachus' poetic standards, stems from a misinterpretation, both by the later biographical tradition and the modern scholarship, of a number of poetic sources. λλεεππττοολλóóγγοοςς, in king Ptolemy's epigram ( SH 712), λλεεππττὴ φφρροοννττííςς in Leonidas' epigram ( AP 9.25), λλεεππττή in an acrostich of the Phaenomena, the title Tὰ κκααττὰ λλεεππττóóνν of an Aratean poetic collection, all mean quite different things, and are unrelated to Callimachus' Mοοῦσσαα λλεεππττααλλέηη. The reception in contemporary Alexandria court circles of the poetry of Aratus, the official encomiast of Antigonus Gonatas, archenemy of the Ptolemies, was not favourable. A black mark in the poet's record must have been a pun on his name (ἄρρρρηηττοοςς -- Ἄρρηηττοοςς), which he impiously inserted in the hymnic Phaenomena proem which praised Zeus. Theocritus, Id. 17.1 -- 4, criticized him indirectly, but Leonidas, AP 9.25, exonerated him from the blasphemy. This incident prompted the cancellation of the Jovian proem and the composition of a series of alternative proems to the Phaenomena. Callimachus' Ep. 27 is not a praise of Aratus, as was hitherto believed, but a mortifying criticism of Aratus' didactic epic. It is written in a bi-level satiric style hidden behind an innocent faççade, used also in Ep. 13, an epigram against Posidippus of Pella. It blames Aratus not for imitating Hesiod, but for imitating the worst verses of Hesiod's Works and Days. It also reverses Aratus' pun (Ἀρρήττοουυ ἀγγρρυυππννííηηςς -- ἀρρρρήττοουυ ἀγγρρυυππννííηηςς), in order to stress the bookish and laborious character of the Phaenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper examines the relevance that the mythological part of the Victoria Berenices has for the praise of Queen Berenice II and its intercultural connections with both Greek and Egyptian traditions. The ensuing picture provides further insights into the poem's unity and Callimachus' compositional technique in the Aetia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]