The phrase λεπτὸν καί τι μελιχρὸν ἔπος in Hedylus 5 Gow–Page has been read as engaging with Callimachean esthetic language, though its precise significance has been debated. This paper argues that Hedylus’ engagement with Callimachean esthetic imagery and language is best understood by juxtaposing Hedylus 4 and 5 Gow–Page. The structure of the former, on a gold rhyton dedicated to Arsinoe Zephyritis, pointedly treats two Egyptian deities—one miniature, the other colossal—in language evocative of poetic composition, and does so in a way that effaces the bright oppositions between large and small in the prologue to Callimachus’ Aetia. At the same time, the poem identifies sounds made by wine with sounds made by water, and thus sheds light on Hedylus’ treatment of wine as a source of poetic inspiration in both epigrams. Far from being a rebuttal of Callimachean values, these poems appropriate and adapt his esthetic imagery and language to the genre of epigram.
Lada-RichardsI.SpentzouE.FowlerD.Reinscribing the Muse. Greek Drama and the Discourse of Inspired CreativityCultivating the Muse. Struggles for Power and Inspiration in Classical Literature2002Oxford6991
MeyboomP.G.P.VersluysM.J.BricaultL.VersluysM.J.MeyboomP.G.P.The Meaning of Dwarfs in Nilotic ScenesNile Into Tiber. Egypt in the Roman World (Proceedings of the IIIrd International Conference of Isis Studies Faculty of Archaeology Leiden University May 11-14 2005)2007Leiden
Thus Kambylis1965122: “Es ist nicht daran zu zweifeln dass er diese Bezeichnung von Kallimachos übernommen hat um das Symbol des Wassers zu entkräften.”
For discussion see Crowther 1979; Knox1985115; and below.
Cameron1995325-326; Lehnus 2002 suggests that the mysterious ιλ̣ειονι in the list of those identified as Telchines by the Florentine Scholia may conceal Hedylus’ name.
See Thompson1973esp. 1-33. The description of the vessel by Dorotheus of Sidon (ap. Ath. 11.497e) διατετρημένα δ’ εἶναι ἐξ ὧν κρουνιζόντων λεπτῶς κάτωθεν πίνουσιν seems confused.
So Kenny1932190-191; cf. Bonneau 1964 361-420.
Bowie198628; Cameron 1995 311.
Wimmel1960115; Pfeiffer 1968 137-138; Hunter in Hunter and Fantuzzi 2005 70 (cf. 108-109).
For discussion see Massimilla1996235-237; Harder 2012 95.
See Sens2011309-310311-312 318.
Luck1968402n.1 suggests that the epigram parodies the sort of explanations offered by tour-guides at the temple of Aphrodite-Arsinoe while Stephens 2005 246 treats it more broadly as a parody of other dedicatory inscriptions. The presence of Bes on the vessel is consonant with the appearance of pygmies on extant rhyta and thus not inherently absurd despite the poem’s play on the relationship between size and volume.
Gow–Page1965ii.188 observe a contrast between ‘serious’ poetry and the product of the symposium. Although Callimachus uses ἀοιδή and its cognates of a variety of his own poetic activities (Aetia: e.g. frr. 1.29 33; 26.8; Iambi: frr. 191.27 203.53; hymns: e.g. 1.71 2.18 43 44 106; lyric: fr. 228.1) he never applies them to his epigrams. More important within his epigrams themselves he applies words of this root only to epic verse (HE 1293 [Homer welcomed by Creophylus]; AP 9.507.1 = HE 1297 [Aratus]).
See Hunter in Hunter–Fantuzzi200576-83; Harder 2012 969.
As Harder2012971observes in that passage ζωροποτεῖν (Ath. 11.477c Macrob. 5.21.12) is supported by allusions in other passages of poetry and generally preferred by recent editors to the more general and commonplace οἰνοποτεῖν (P.Oxy. 1362; Ath. 10.442f 11.781d).