Nicarchus A.P. xi 328 and Homeric Interpretation

Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 brill.nl/mnem Nicarchus AP 11.328 and Homeric Interpretation Athanassios Vergados Department of Classics, Franklin and Marshall College, P.O. Box 3003, Lancaster, PA, 17604-3003, USA athanassios.vergados@fandm.edu Received: September 2008; accepted: December 2008 Abstract In this paper I argue that Nicarchus AP 11.328 is not merely a parody of the tripartite division of the cosmos recounted at Iliad 15.189-93. This epigram also exploits ancient lexicographical research (i.e. the precise meaning of the adjective !"#$!%&) as well as scholarly discussions on Homeric interpretation (i.e. the allegorical reading of Il. 15.189-93 as a reference to the four elements; the meaning of '()*+ at Il. 15.189; and the issue of Olympus’ relation to earth and sky). The result is a scoptic epigram that cleverly parodies both Homer and certain interpretive strategies of ancient ‘Homeric Professors’. Finally, this study inscribes AP 11.328 in the wider category of epigrams against grammarians, and shows that Nicarchus uses a parodic technique similar to that recently pointed out in some neglected specimens of Homeric parody, such as the Batrachomyomachia or Crates SH 351. Keywords Iliad, Nicarchus, allegorical interpretation, Homeric parody, ancient grammarians, Homeric scholia ,-) ./+) 0#.123)4& 562$ '1*! 5+7 89!:;1<91& =21.!) !>& 51%)-) 8?'#%) @#%A*1B/54)C D& E9+F1) .G) H2I '19%-) J9+ )+%3.!) +"*:&C !K& 2L# M), 1" '()*!& '()*+, B%!%9:.!N+. 0#.123)4& B’ E9+F! A*<2!#O) B:.1) !"#$!)*+, PA*+*1), !>& 6Q+)R FS#1) T'!#F:.!)1&, E)N’ 65*+7 )!5?U) 5+7 H#%)!17 V)!.:!)*!& B%)!W)*+% ')1%X B<A5!9(BU) 6)3.U). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 5 DOI: 10.1163/156852510X456165 407 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 YR)+ BG NG& 89!:;1<91), Z& 1"#+)O) !>A+)+;+/)!%), *O [19:!) 5+*3FU) H) F!%#7 'W#, E9+F!). 2R B’ E.!)! \<)- '()*U)C [/+N1) 2L# H) +"*X A*#$A+)*!& *-) 2#+W) ]B! B%!%9:.!N+.1) 10 Once upon a time, Hermogenes and I and Cleobulus led Aristodike,2) just her alone, into joined love; the lot granted me alone to dwell in her grey sea; for each (of us) obtained one part, we didn’t divide everything amongst ourselves. Next, Hermogenes obtained the hateful and murky abode, the hindermost place, entering into a gloomy area, where the shores of the dead and the wind-beaten fig-trees are buffeted by the whirling breeze of ill-sounding winds. Now, consider Cleobulus to be Zeus, whom the lot granted to ascend the heavens holding in his hand the smoky fire. The earth remained common to all; for we spread a mat on it and split the old woman like this. 1) The text is cited from Beckby 1965. For a (brief ) commentary, see Schulte 1999, 67-9. In addition to the Codex Palatinus, POxy. 66.4502.18-29 also transmits this epigram. The papyrus offers Didymarchus instead of Cleobulus at vv. 1 and 9, and a different reading of vv. 9-10, viz. !>A+)3;+%)!) / *O [19:!) 5+*3FU) H) F!#7 '4B(9%1). While it is true that '4B(9%1) may have an obscene sense (cf. Henderson 1991, 123 n. 63), Zeus is never said to wield a rudder, and we miss a form of 9+F!^) that would balance E9+F1) of v. 3 and E9+F! of v. 5; cf. Magnelli 2005, 163. Finally, the papyrus gives ')1<%>+^& for ')1X& at v. 8, but this is not a serious departure. 2) All these names are significant. Hermogenes is appropriately allotted the Underworld: the first part of his name derives from Hermes, the psychopomp. Instead of Cleobulus, the papyrus offers Didymarchus, which as Parsons (1999, 53) observes, may be a reference to the B/B<.1% (= testicles; cf. LXX De. 25.11; AP 5.126.6 (Philodemus, wrongly cited as 125 in LSJ); D.S. 32.11.2 = Posid. fr. 85; [Gal.] 14.706, 719; 19.362; Ruf. Onom. 104); a reference to the B/B<.1% would of course make sense in an obscene epigram. In addition, the second part of Didymarchus’ name may be accounted for by his equation with Zeus (< _#F!%) ‘rule’). Cleobulus (transmitted by P) may be an ad hoc invention, perhaps for the epigram’s re-performance during a symposion. For a sympotic performative context (which does not preclude the publication of these epigrams; cf. Gutzwiller 2005), see Nisbet 2003, 25-35 and Nisbet 2007, 360 and 365. Similar variations in names occur in Martial’s epigrams; see Kay 1985, 4 n. 12. Like the male characters, Aristodike bears a significant name, too: it suggests the fair division between the three participants in the ménage; see Magnelli 2005, 159 n. 34. Finally, the speaker equates himself with Homer’s Poseidon and therefore rightfully receives Aristodike’s ‘sea’. 408 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 Nicarchus presents three male characters sharing a prostitute,3) whose body-parts represent sections of the cosmos. In vv. 3-11, the epigrammatist creatively re-writes Il. 15.187-93, while vv. 1-2 and 11-2 frame the Homeric parody and provide the new context in which we are to understand Poseidon’s words. The relevant Iliadic passage runs as follows: *#!^& 2(# *’ H5 8#:)1< !>.G) 6B!9Q!1/, 1`& *35!*1 a3+, Y!b& 5+7 H2$, *#/*+*1& B’ @/B4&, H)3#1%A%) 6)(AAU). *#%FNL BG '()*+ B3B+A*+%, M5+A*1& B’ E..1#! *%.R&C c *1% H2I) E9+F1) '19%-) J9+ )+%3.!) +>!7 '+991.3)U), @/B4& B’ E9+F! d:Q1) V!#:!)*+, Y!b& B’ E9+F’ 1"#+)O) !"#b) H) +>N3#% 5+7 )!Q39eA%C 2+^+ B’ E*% \<)- '()*U) 5+7 .+5#O& f9<.'1&. 190 We are three brothers descending from Cronus, to whom Rhea gave birth, Zeus and I, and Hades is third, the ruler among the dead. Everything was divided into three parts and each of us obtained honor; indeed I was granted to dwell always in the grey sea when we drew lots, Hades was allotted the misty darkness, and Zeus was allotted the wide sky in the ether and the clouds. But the earth and high Olympus are still common to all. In the past, Nicarchus was commonly regarded as a poetaster without particular literary merit. Geffcken characteristically remarked: “Ich kann dieses Geschreibsel, das sich bemüht, sogar noch eines Lukillios häufig so alberne Themata und gezwungene Situationen zu überbieten, und vor allem mit reichlichem Schmutz arbeitet, nicht im einzelnen würdigen”.4) His comment on AP 11.328 consists of just one word: *#%'1#)/+.5) Likewise, F. Guglielmino does not say even a word about AP 11.328 and devotes just one page to the “epigrammi veramente salaci”.6) Amy Richlin briefly discusses this epigram: for her the effect of the parody is “a soiling of the epic conventions along with a vivid depiction of the woman’s body as foul”.7) 3) 51%)g signals the profession of the woman in question (cf. Philem. fr. 3.9; Vett. Val. 119.30; Porph. Fr.Hist. 12.7 Nauck). For Cypris = sex, cf. E. Ba. 773, Antiph. fr. 238.3-4, and Henderson 1991, 156 n. 232. 4) Geffcken 1937, 279. 5) For other examples of such *#%'1#)/+, cf. AP 5.49; Mart. 9.32.4. 6) See Guglielmino 1931. The obscene epigrams are treated on p. 27. 7) See Richlin 1992, 130. A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 409 Recently, however, Nisbet (2003, 82-8) attempted a reappraisal of AP 11.328: Nicarchus was not a mere imitator of Lucillius but “the smartest and most successful” one. Nisbet emphasizes the epigram’s “aristophanicity”, which he detects in two areas. First, in the epigram’s theatricality: the persona loquens, almost like a stage director, invites the poem’s addressee to become involved in the action rather than being a passive reader/viewer. (This is, in Nisbet’s view, the effect of the imperative N3& at v. 9.)8) And second, he points to the fact that Nicarchus parodies Homer without any reference to Callimachus’ criticism of the tripartition story (Call. Jov. 62-5), as Lucillius might have done. Instead, our epigrammatist seems to be more interested in the sexual potential of the story, which Nisbet considers “something of a throwback to Old Comedy” (Nisbet 2003, 88). Most recently, Enrico Magnelli proposed that Nicarchus’ parody takes into account epic diction in general (and not just the main subtext of the epigram, i.e. Il. 15.187-93) as well as ancient lexicographical research.9) My goal in this paper is to go a step further and show that Nicarchus, in addition to skillfully parodying Homer, is also poking fun at the interpreters of the poet’s work, and especially those who advanced allegorical interpretations. Some of the problems addressed in this epigram will be shown to have considerable history. Accordingly, the humor of this epigram operates on two levels: in the parody of both the Homeric text itself and of some interpretive approaches to it. Nicarchus thus aims at two kinds of audience: those whose interest would be limited to squalid jokes and who would simply have a good laugh over the parody of a well-known Homeric passage, and those well-versed in epic poetry and its scholarship, who would be capable of reading behind the obscenities to appreciate the complicated allusive technique and the poet’s engagement with Homeric scholarship.10) The imperative N3& need not necessarily denote theatricality, though it certainly contributes to the addressee’s involvement. The poem’s audience is envisioned as being just one person (note the singular N3&); instead of a theatrical performance, one may imagine a different scenario, in which two male friends at a drinking-party discuss their sexual adventures. Nisbet’s (2003, 87 n. 15) comic parallel for N3& (from Eup. frr. 163-5, where it indicates entries in a list) is weak. 9) Magnelli 2005, esp. 157-9 with n. 31-2 for the meaning of !"#$!%& in the lexicography and poetry of the imperial times. 10) For the two levels of parody (the one easily detectable by the broad public acquainted with a common literary ‘code’, such as Homer was in antiquity, and the more demanding one that presupposes the audience’s cultivation), see the remarks in Degani 1983, 31-2. 8) 410 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 Nicarchus’ technique of parody is more involved than it may seem at first glance. While Il. 15.189-93 is the basis for AP 11.328, the epigrammatist embroiders, as it were, his epigram with reminiscences of other Homeric passages. His description of the Underworld (vv. 7-8) alludes to Od. 10.509-10 (E)N’ 65*g *! 9(F!%+ 5+7 _9A!+ h!#A!Q1)!/4& / .+5#+/ *’ +i2!%#1% 5+7 >*3+% j9!A/5+#'1%). In both passages, the Underworld is referred to as B:.1) !"#$!)*+, a clausula that occurs in this sedes only at Od. 10.512 and in Nicarchus. Just as in the Odyssean passage, the description of the Underworld has been expanded by means of an E)N+-clause.11) Furthermore, A*<2!#:) of v. 5 may be another (indirect) reference to the Odyssean passage (cf. 10.514 Z& B- k*<2O& PB+*:& HA*%) 6'1##$\). However, the Odyssean passage has been condensed: Persephone’s groves have been reduced to H#%)!17 V)!.:!)*!&, a different type of tree, to be sure, but not without a point. On the one hand, it recalls Il. 22.145, a passage of high emotional tension (the fig-tree at which Hector and Achilleus arrive before their duel).12) The effect of the reminiscence of such a tragic moment in the Iliad is comic incongruity and deflation, as Nisbet (2003, 84) points out. One may also be reminded of Charybdis’ fig-tree at Od. 12.103-4.13) On the other hand, the use of H#%)!1/ enhances the scatological potential of this section of the epigram, which after all refers to Aristodike’s anus: like >AF(& or ficus, H#%)!:& may be a reference to the anus.14) But Nicarchus does not only use a complex allusive technique that combines multiple Homeric passages. He is also aware of scholarly interpretations of Homer’s poetry. While Nisbet (2003, 88) rightly points out that Nicarchus does not allude to Callimachus (or his doctrina) in AP 11.328 or in any of his other epigrams, our epigrammatist is familiar with the Magnelli (2005, 162) also adduces Il. 17.55-6 *O B3 *! (sc. E#)1& H9+/4&) ')1%+7 B1)31<A% / '+)*1/U) 6)3.U). 12) Cf. Il. 22.145-8 1l BG '+#L A51'%-) 5+7 H#%)!O) V)!.:!)*+ / *!/F!1& +>G) T'G5 5+*’ 6.+\%*O) HAA!?1)*1 / 5#1<)I B’ m5+)1) 5+99%##:U. E)N+ BG '42+7 / 6)+nAA1<A% k5+.()B#1< B%)g!)*1&. 13) *o B’ H) H#%)!:& HA*% .32+&, Q?991%A% *!N49$&· / *o B’ T'O B^+ p(#<;B%& 6)+##1%;B!^ .39+) PBU#. Note that Charybdis is used as a characterization of a courtesan in Anaxil. 11) fr. 22.4 and 18. 14) Cf. Adams 1982, 113. AW51), A?5UA%& frequently denote ‘anal sore’ often caused by excessive indulgence in anal sex; see Buchheit 1960 and Magnelli 1999, 101 with n. 7-9 for parallels. A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 411 scholarship on the Homeric passage he is parodying and, as I will argue, with interpretations of Il. 15.189 ff. that are akin to those supported by the Stoics (and Crates and the Pergamene philological school).15) Thus, an epigram that at first glance appears to be merely an obscene parody of Homer, is in fact an attack against a certain category of ‘Homeric professors’, those who interpreted Homer allegorically.16) And this attack is particularly pointed because in order to detect the criticism, one would have to apply allegoresis to Nicarchus’ epigram, i.e. precisely the method of the interpreters whom Nicarchus criticizes. A few points in this epigram suggest Nicarchus’ familiarity with issues of Homeric interpretation. To begin with, v. 4 contains a reference to the discussion of a philological problem that had occupied Homeric criticism at least since Stesimbrotus (5th cent. BC). Isolated voices from this discussion are preserved in the scholia on Il. 15.189. The question was: how is it possible that everything was divided into three parts when we are told that the earth and Olympus were common to all? Stesimbrotus (FGrH 107 F 24) and Crates (fr. 22 Broggiato) favored the elision of '()*+ with subsequent psilosis; the sense would be ‘everything that was divided, was divided into three parts’. Others, preferring a 9?A%& H5 *R& 93\!U&, considered '()*+ to be pleonastic ('!#%AA:), '+#3951)) or a synonym of '9!^A*+. Stesimbrotus’ and Crates’ solution implies that certain parts of the world were not divided (i.e. the earth and Olympus), and thus Homer is absolved of the contradiction.17) 15) For the Stoic allegorism adopted by the Pergamenes and for Crates’ Homeric studies, see Pfeiffer 1968, 237-41 and Ramelli and Lucchetta 2004, 178-83. 16) I borrow the term ‘Homeric Professors’ from the title of Richardson 2006. 17) ΣΑ 'S& B3 Q4A%) ‘2+^+ B’ E*% \<)- <'()*U)> 5+7 .+5#O& f9<.'1&’; 8#(*4& H) B!<*3#q r.4#%5S) 5+7 k*4A/.;#1*1& ‘'()*’ J’ 1P*U& ‘B3B+A*+%’. ΣΤ *%)G& ‘'()*’ s B3B+A*+%’. !i+A! BG *O *, t& H) *o ‘H'/A*%:) HA*%) u5(A*q’. ΣAint v*% *O '()*+ 5+*L '+#195g), t& ‘1l B’ H))3+ '()*!& 6)3A*+)’. Σb(BCE3) T B15!^ H)+)*%1WAN+% '#O& *O '()*+ *O ‘2+^+ B’ E*% \<)- '()*U)’C 1" 2L# E*% '()*+ B3B+A*+%. 9?1%*1 B’ w) *X 93\!%C *O 2L# '()*+ x '+#395!%, t& H'7 *1W ‘B35+ '()*+ *(9+)*+’—HL) BG 9(;U.!) +"*O '!#%AA:), */ 91%'O) B3B+A*+%;—x 6)*7 *1W '9!^A*+C A<)!FS& 2L# *O '()*+ H'7 *1W '9!1)(d1)*1& */N!*+%’. ΣΑ is difficult to interpret and has elicited considerable discussion. Wachsmuth (1860, 44-5) printed 8#(*4& H) B!<*3#q r.4#%5S) 5+7 k*4A/.;#1*1& [v*% 5+*L A*1%F!^+] '()*+ 1P*U& B3B+A*+%, i.e. everything was divided ‘according to the elements’, and com- pared the phrase with other scholia on the same verse, which explicitly mention the four elements. On the other hand, Maass (1892, 176) proposed to understand 1P*U& as an 412 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 Nicarchus acknowledges the existence of this philological problem in his subtext and proposes his own answer: instead of claiming that everything was divided into three shares, the epigrammatist has each of the participants in the ménage receive only one part of the world (i.e. of Aristodike). His answer, then, appears similar to that proposed by Stesimbrotus and Crates in that each character received only a share of those parts that were divided, and it is especially pronounced, since it involves a polyptoton (1" '()*!& '()*+) that replaces the second hemistich of the Homeric original (M5+A*1& B’ E..1#! *%.R&). Moreover, Nicarchus’ comment in v. 4 does not follow the order of the Iliadic original. Homer first mentions that the various spheres of the cosmos were divided into three parts and then goes on to tell us which domain was allotted to each god. Nicarchus, on the other hand, begins his Iliadic parody by mentioning one of the shares, the sea (v. 3), and interrupts his account, almost as a parenthesis or an aside, to remark on the way these domains were divided. An audience familiar with the Iliadic text would certainly have noticed this reversal, and would have been invited to stop and reflect on the division whose presentation had just started. The second indication of Nicarchus’ familiarity with philological discussions is found in v. 5. There, the sense of !"#$!%& conforms both to archaic epic usage and to contemporary (i.e. post-Hellenistic) scholarly research and poetic practice, a point already demonstrated by E. Magnelli. Instead of the clausula d:Q1) V!#:!)*+ of Il. 15.191,18) Nicarchus uses B:.1) !"#$!)*+, which occurs significantly less frequently than d:Q1) V!#:!)*+.19) But why does Nicarchus replace a phrase of the original that he is parodying with another one that is not as wide-spread in epic diction? Obviously, B:.1) !"#$!)*+ must be more adept to Nicarchus’ poetic purpose here than d:Q1) V!#:!)*+. By the time of Nicarchus !"#$!%& had acquired another sense: in addition to ‘mouldy’ that we know from early epic, it equivalent of sic, a parenthetical comment on the psilosis of '()*’ _. To Maass’ suggestion objected Helck (1905, 34), who pointed out that such parenthetical 1P*U& is not found in the scholia; he himself rendered tripliciter sunt dissoluta quae hac ratione [=1P*U&] ut in O 190/2 narratur divisa sunt. For an overview of the problem, see Broggiato 2001, 182-4. 18) Cf. Il. 12.240, 21.56, 23.51; Od. 11.57, 11.155, 13.241; Hes. Th. 653, 658, 729; fr. 280.23; h.Cer. 80, 337, 402, 446, 464 (suppl.); all these appear in the same sedes. 19) Cf. Od. 10.512 (same sedes), 23.322; Hes. Op. 153. h.Cer. 482 has T'O d:Qq !"#$!)*%. A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 413 came to mean ‘wide’, as well.20) Now, since B:.1) !"#$!)*+ designates Aristodikes’ anus, experienced in sodomy as lines 7-8 imply,21) it is reasonable to assume that Nicarchus intended to evoke not only the sense ‘dank, mouldy’, but also ‘wide’. The substitution is meaningful, then, and both senses of the epithet are admissible here. !"#$!)*+ acoustically recalls V!#:!)*+ via its similar ending (-$/:!)*+). At the same time, it also functions as a reference to the contemporary scholarly discussions regarding the epithet’s use and meaning. Again, this reference would be significant only to those in the audience who, like Nicarchus, were aware of such discussions. But there is more: the point raised in v. 4 is connected with allegorical interpretations of Homer’s poetry. We know that Il. 15.189 ff. had been subjected to allegorical interpretation very early, perhaps even by Stesimbrotus in the 5th cent. BC.22) Traces of this approach have been preserved in the scholiastic tradition: k, Il. 15.193 1l BG *L *3AA+#+ A*1%F!^( Q+A%) +"*O) 932!%), y/+ <+>N3#+>, h1A!%BS)+ PBU#, z%B4<)> 63#+ . . . kD Il. 15.193/ ZS + AS \<)g: 51%)- v9U) *S) A*1%F!/U) { 2R, 5+N’ Z H) +"*X !T#/A5!*+% 5+7 *L 91%'L *#/+ A*1%F!^+. 20) See Magnelli 2005, 158 n. 31-2 for ample references from both the scholiastic/ lexicographical tradition and the poetry of the imperial period for !"#$!%& = ‘wide’. Nisbet (2003, 83) renders !"#$!)*+ as ‘capacious’, which cannot stand without further qualification. 21) ')1%X at v. 8 may hint at flatulence, thought to be the result of excessive indulgence in anal sex. B%)!W)*+% ')1%X B<A5!9(BU) 6)3.U) is paralleled by ')!W.+ A*#3Q!*+% H) *X 2+A*3#% vel sim. in Comedy; cf. Henderson 1991, 197 n. 430. For winds = ‘bodily gas’, cf. the riddle at Eub. fr. 107.1-4 (with Hunter 1983 ad loc.) EA*% 9+9S) _29UAA1&, |.$)<.1& _##!)% NR9<&, / 1>5!/U) 6)3.U) *+./+&, B+A?&, _991*! 9!^1&, / 6\?)!*+ \<)!*1^A% 932U), ):.1) H5 ):.1< M95U). / }) B’ EA*%) 5+7 '199L 5+7 w) *#$Ae *%& _*#U*1&. 22) For the doxography on the allegorical interpretation of Il. 15.189 ff., see Mette 1936, 130-7; in his view, this line of interpretation derives from Crates, who must have followed Stesimbrotus; see also Mette’s discussion on p. 24-9. But cf. Richardson 2006, 73-4, who concludes that “there is no positive evidence that Stesimbrotus offered an allegorical interpretation” of Il. 15.189 ff. but thinks that this approach must have been current in the late 5th cent. BC. 414 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 The explanation offered in these scholia for why the earth remained common to all three gods implies an understanding of these gods as representatives of the three elements (aether, air, water) and indicates that the scholiasts (or their sources) understood the passage allegorically. The allegorical reading of the gods as cosmic elements is attested for the Stoics, who thought that the earth, being spherical and located in the centre of the world, was surrounded by three spheres. The first of them was the sea/ ocean (thought of as covering the entire earthly sphere, as a kind of Weltmeer) and was equated with Poseidon. Then came the air, i.e. the dark, misty sphere in which the various meteorological phenomena took place, which was given to Hades.23) Lastly, the upper level of the sky was thought to be of a fiery substance (aether) and was identified with Zeus. It may seem curious at first that the air was identified with Hades, since 6g# was often equated with Hera, whose name was viewed as an anagram of 6g#.24) However, there is abundant ancient evidence for the understanding of 6g# as ~%B4&/,(#*+#1&,25) and Nicarchus makes every effort to convey the association of Hades with 6g#. He devotes only two lines each to Poseidon and Zeus, but in the four lines devoted to Hades he introduces three veiled references to 6g#. At v. 6 (!>& 6Q+)R FS#1)),26) 6Q+)g& is a reference to the Stoic etymology of Hades (equated to 6g#) from 6-%Bg&, traces of which are recorded already in Plato.27) Furthermore, H#%)!17 V)!.:!)*!& (v. 7) and ')1%X 6)3.U) (v. 8) also suggest the 6g#. To these one may add an argument e silentio: while Homer locates Zeus’s domain H) +>N3#% 5+7 )!Q39eA% (i.e. it gives him both +>Ng# and 6g#, Il. 15.192), the epigrammatist omits this detail; hence the 6g# does not belong to Zeus’s share any longer, and this enables Nicarchus to identify 6g# with Hades. The fact For the occurrence of meteorological phenomena in the air, cf. also k• Il. 8.13. This idea was also espoused by Aristarchus; cf. Schmidt 1976, 88 and Hillgruber 1999, II 221-2. 24) For references to Hera as 6g#, see Longrigg 1974, 173 and Hillgruber 1999, II 218 (on § 97). But cf. Buffière 1956, 117-22 on Il. 15.189-93 and for a brief overview of the equation 6g# = Hades; he furthermore observes that allegorism admits such ‘dual’ attributions as 6g# = Hera or Hades (p. 120). 25) Cf. for example, Chrysippus SVF 2.429.1-3, 2.430.7-9 and 17-24, 2.563, kb(BCE3E4)T Il. 15.191 (d:Q1) V!#:!)*+: *L 6Q$*%A*+ *R& 2R& .3#4 5+7 *O) '!#7 2R) T2#O) 63#+), and Schmidt 1976, 106, 110. 26) FS#1& may also have sexual connotations; cf. Latin locus (= culus); Adams 1982, 94, 114. 27) See Pl. Cra. 403a5-7 and Grg. 493b4-5. 23) A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 415 that Hades was identified with the 6g# (especially in the same scholiastic tradition that also addresses the problem of '()*+ that we encountered in v. 4) makes it plausible that in this epigram Nicarchus is exploiting the possibilities for parody offered by such an approach. This leads to my next point, namely that Nicarchus uses allegory as a powerful tool for his Homeric parody and engages in an interpretive game in which he takes Stoic allegorêsis to the extreme: he identifies each character of his epigram with a god who receives a share of the world that corresponds to a body-part of Aristodike. The sea (= vagina) is allotted to Poseidon, the persona loquens;28) the air (= anus) goes to Hades, i.e. Hermogenes;29) and Zeus (Cleobulus/Didymarchus) is given the sky (= palate).30) The action of the epigram resembles the explanation offered in kD Il. 15.193: the three elements/body-parts that have been allotted to the three characters (the speaker, Hermogenes, and Cleobulus) meet on earth through the agency of Aristodike, who in this sense may be said to function as philotês. This point is brought out visually on the page through the arrangement of the names in the first couplet: *-) ./+) . . . @#%A*1B/54) frames the three men, indicating that though one she can accommodate all of them: For J9& = vagina, cf. AP 11.220 @9Q!%1W A*:.+ Q!W2!C Q%9!^ 5:9'1<& @#!N1?A4& / '#4)-& H.'/'*U) €9.<#O) H& '39+21&. For an altogether different description of the vagina 28) (as a rugged path leading to Aphrodite’s grove), see West 2008. 29) PA*+*1) may be a reference to the buttocks/anus; cf. Latin imus or posterior, Adams 1982, 47, 115, and Magnelli 2005, 160 n. 43. For PA*+*1& ‘hindmost’, cf. LSJ, s.v. PA*!#1& B I. T'!#F:.!)1& plays on T'g9N!*! BS.’ @/B+1, but may also be understood obscoeno sensu: the verb is associated with the anus in medical authors (see LSJ s.v. T'3#F1.+% vii); cf. also subire at Priap. 33.2 (Naidas antiqui Dryadasque habuere Priapi, / et quo tenta dei vena subiret, erat), on which see Buchheit 1962, 99-105 and Goldberg 1992, 326. 30) 1"#+):& is obviously used here as a synonym of 1"#+)/A51&, ‘palate’; cf. AP 5.105.3-4 (Marcus Argentarius) c 2L# *+?*4& / 1T#+):& H)*O& EF!% 5+7 5?)+ 5+7 B%B?.1<&. Moreover, !>A+)+;+/)!%) is often used in epic coupled with 93F1& to denote sexual union (e.g., Il. 8.291; Hes. Th. 57, 508, 939, fr. 23a.7, 25.35, 26.8, 129.7, 180.11 = 193.12, 211.10). The sexual joke culminates with *O [19:!) . . . 'W#, which is a pun on [U9g ‘erect penis’; cf. Priap. 68.5 (a similar piece of ‘Homeric philology’) ille [sc. Homerus] vocat, quod nos psolen, [19:!)*+ 5!#+<):). It should also be noted that terms related to fire sometimes designate “erotic passion or sexual intercourse”; see Henderson 1991, 177-8. 416 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 ,-) ./+) 0#.123)4& 562$ '1*! 5+7 89!:;1<91& =21.!) !>& 51%)-) 8?'#%) @#%A*1B/54) Nicarchus is playing another interesting game, as well: he is transporting us, as it were, through the various spheres that surround the earth, from the ocean through the air to the aether, only to throw us with his punchline from this highest part of the Stoic cosmos back onto the earth when the identity of Aristodike is revealed. This 6'#1AB:54*1) is accompanied by a change in diction:31) the elevated Homeric diction we encountered in the greatest part of the epigram (and on which Nicarchus insists until the last moment, cf. \<)g for 51%)g in v. 11) gives way to [/+N1)32) and 2#+W),33) two profoundly un-epic words. Nicarchus’ familiarity with scholarly discussions on Homer may also explain another omission that I consider meaningful. At v. 11 we are told that the earth remained common to all (2R B’ E.!)! \<)- '()*U)). However, the Homeric original includes both Olympus and the earth as common to all three gods (cf. Il. 15.193 2+^+ B’ E*% \<)- '()*U) 5+7 .+5#O& f9<.'1&). Nicarchus avoids any mention of Olympus in his rendering of the Iliadic passage, and on one level, this may be explained by the requirements of the plot: the three men spread a mat on the ground. But it will be remembered that Crates and the Stoics (whose approach Nicarchus has been parodying so far) considered Olympus as part of the sky (whereas Aristarchus and the Alexandrians thought of it as part of the earth, hence they had no objection to Homer’s claim that Olympus and the earth were common to all), and that they etymologized Olympus from |919+.'g& (= ‘the all shining one’).34) The effect of this notion is that Olympus, the ‘all For ancient references to the 6'#1AB:54*1) as an essential component of parody, see Degani 1983, 9. 32) [•+N1& is not found in ‘high’ poetry; it is attested in Ar. Ach. 874, Lys. 921-2, 925, Ra. 567; Philem. fr. 26. Hyp. fr. 165 Jensen uses [/+N1) in the context of prostitution. 33) Epic has 2#+^+. 2#+W& occurs frequently in comedy (e.g., Ar. Lys. 506, The. 345, Ec. 904, 927; Alex. fr. 147.3; Anaxil. fr. 10; Antiph., fr. 47.1; Axionic. fr. 7.3; Dionys. Com. fr. 5.4; Diph. fr. 12; Men. Dysc. 427, 453; Pherecr. fr. 122; Pl.Com. fr. 57.1; Theopomp. Com. fr. 33.5). On Nicarchus’ language here, cf. Longo 1967, 85, who points out that while the poet usually presents crude subject-matter with appropriately crude language, he avoids in this particular epigram any realistic expression. 34) Cf. kD Il. 1.18, Stob. 1.22.2, and Schmidt 1976, 85-6 with n. 58-9. Vestiges of this notion are also found in k• Il. 15.193a: { B%'9R B3, v*% A<)+Q-& *X 2X | f9<.'1& t& w) 31) A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 417 shining one’, was part of the sky, i.e. Zeus’ realm. Reflexes thereof are found in the grammatical and scholiastic tradition concerning the word ;49:&, which occurs at Il. 1.591 and 15.23. In the first passage, Hephaestus reminisces about how Zeus threw him ‘from the threshold’ (of Olympus) down to the earth when he tried to stand up for Hera whom Zeus was abusing. At Il. 15.23 Zeus reminds Hera of the time he had suspended her from the sky by means of golden bonds. The rest of the gods were unable to help her, for whomever Zeus seized, he would throw ‘from the threshold’ (presumably, again of Olympus) down to the earth, where he would arrive powerless. The interpretation of ;49:& is of some importance, because if it is located in the sky, then Olympus, the dwelling of the gods, is also part of the sky. Agathocles of Cyzicus (275/65-200/190 BC), a pupil of Zenodotus, maintained that ;49:& meant *-) '()*U) '!#%1F-) 5+7 ;!;45:*+& Q3#!%) *1b& 6'9+)!^& 6A*3#!& (fr. 9.8-9), in which case ;49:& would belong to the sky.35) Crates seems to have endorsed this idea although he derived ;49:& from a Chaldean word (‚R91&, the god Bal), consequently accenting the term as a properispomenon.36) Thus, once again Nicarchus offers a veiled allusion to a Homeric problem that has a long pedigree. The question of whether Olympus was part of the sky or the earth was a point of contention already in the (late) 5th/ early 4th cent. BC, as the Derveni commentator in col. 12 argues that Olympus is synonymous with time (F#:)1&), disputing the claim of those who believed Olympus to equal the sky.37) ƒ#1&. ,O BG v.1%1) '!'1/45! 5+7 H) „B<AA!/… ‘)+%!*(U B’ †N(54) !"B!/!91), H) B’ ƒ#1& +"*X / ‡g#%*1) !>)1A/Q<991)’C 5!F$#%5! 2L# *O ƒ#1& *R& †N(54&, 1"F t& .- ˆ) H'’ +"*R&, 5+N('!# 5+7 *O) f9<.'1) H'/2!%1) ƒ)*+ *R& 2R&C !> 2L# | +"*O& *o 1"#+)o x .3#1& H'1<#()%1), 1"5 c) 51%):&, 699’ iB%1& *1W y%:&. The last part of the scholion (1"F t& .ƒ) . . . *1W y%:&) appears to be an answer to those (presumably following the Cratetean/Stoic view of the Homeric Weltbild) who thought that Olympus was not part of the earth but belonged to the sky. Ps.-Plu. Vit.Hom. 98 lists both views without taking sides; cf. also 95.3 and Hillgruber 1999, II 222-3. The affinity of Olympus with the sky is also suggested by kD Il. 15.193 ZS+ AS. The scholiastic evidence for the dissociation of Olympus from the sky is collected in Lehrs 1964, 163-8. 35) Montanari 1988, 27-8 and 36-8 (commentary). For Agathocles’ date, see Montanari 1988, 19-20. 36) Cf. fr. 21 which in addition to Crates’ explanation offers also the explanation of ;49:& as a dialectal gloss. 37) Col. 12.3-10 1l BG B151W)*!& / f9<.'[1) 5+7] 1‰"#+)O) [*]+"*O !Š)+% H\+.+#- / 418 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 But why parody the Stoic Weltbild with a sexual joke? A possible answer lies in Nicarchus’ keen interest in sexual and scatological humor. One may compare AP 5.38 (on the pleasures derived from a large woman), 9.331 (a statue of Pan at a fountain threatens to inflict a punishment ('<2/\+%) on a passer-by), 11.7 (attributing adultery to man’s nature), 11.73 (on an old prostitute so addicted to sex that she provides her services even without payment), 11.241 and 242 (on someone’s bad breath suggesting that his mouth resembles his anus), 11.329 (on someone who is wont to perform cunnilingus), 11.395 (on farting), 11.415 (on someone’s bad breath; attributed to Antipater or Nicarchus).38) Thus, the extensive elaboration of such a sexual theme should not come as a surprise to those familiar with Nicarchus’ favorite topics. AP 11.328 differs, however, from most obscene epigrams of Nicarchus transmitted in the Palatine Anthology in that the poet adds depth to his parody through his indirect references to scholarly and interpretive problems related to his Homeric original. Three more Nicarchan epigrams, transmitted in POxy. 66.4502, seem to presume some specialized knowledge on the part of their audience, though not as recherché as that necessary for the appreciation of AP 11.328. The first epigram, an injunction to someone to avoid pedicating a certain boy, quotes a proverb (.- 5/)!% *()[1<A]%[) 1" 2]%‰)$A51)*‰!‰& v*% 1"#+)O) 1"F 1K:) *‰!‰ / .+5[#:]*‰!#1) x !"#?*![#1]) !Š)+%, F#:)1) BG .+5#O) / !i *%&‰ [‹)1.](‰d1[%] 1‰"‰5‰ w‰)‰ [H\+].+#*()1%· | BG (sc. Orpheus) v'1< .G) / ‘1"#+)O)’ N3‰[91% 932!%), *-)] '#1ANg54) ‘!"#b)’ / H'1%!‰^‰*1, v'1< [B’ ‘f9<.'1)’, *1]"‰)‰+)*/1), ‘!"#b)’ .G) / 1"B3‰'1*!, ‘.+‰[5#O)’ B3; see Kouremenos, Parássoglou, and Tsantsanoglou 2006, 189-91, and Brisson 1995, 154-6. Leagoras of Syracuse is said to have devised a philological siglum, the diple peristictos (·›), to indicate that Olympus was not to be associated with the sky. See Funghi 1946, Schironi 2001, Montanari 2001, and Noussia 2002, 491-6 for evidence for the overlap and interchangeability of Sky and Olympus in post-Homeric poetry. For the different views on Leagoras’ date (sometime in the 2nd cent. BC), see Schironi 2001, 18 with n. 54 and 55. For similar views on Olympus’ status in philosophers (Parm. B 11.2-3; Emp. B 44; Philol. A 16; Hp. Hebdom. 2.10; [Pl.] Epin. 977b), see Betegh 2004, 249-50 with n. 87. 38) AP 11.96 (@#5(B+& 1"F 1P*U k*<.Q+9/B!&, t& H.G 5/F9+% / +l )35<!& \4#1^& =5+F1) ‹A*+#/1%&, / ~#'<%+%, B#+F.R& \4#- B!5(&. Œ H9!!%)+7 / 9!%.$)U) H*?.U&, E##!*!, )<5*!#/B!&) may contain double entendres: for 5/F94 = cunnus, cf. Henderson 1991, 147 n. 191; for ‹A*+#/1%&, cf. osseus cunnus at Mart. 3.93.13 and Adams 1982, 79; and for 9!%.$) = cunnus, cf. Henderson 1991, 20 and 27. In this case, the epigram would refer to old prostitutes. A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 419 8+.(#%)+)) whose correct understanding presumes the familiarity with a plant 5+.(#4 whose branches when shaken emit a malodorous scent.39) The second epigram preserved on the papyrus (advising an old man to avoid late marriage) includes a reference to the !•dU.1) or eruca sativa, which was considered an aphrodisiac (cf. LSJ, s.v. !•dU.1)). Finally, the fourth epigram, an obscene solution to the riddle of the Sphinx (= 6)-# '+N%5:&), resembles even more closely AP 11.328 since it re-interprets a familiar mythological story in sexual terms. In addition, at v. 5 of the same epigram Nicarchus puns on the name of Mt. Phikion and the term Q/5%& (= ‘buttocks’, cf. LSJ Rev.Suppl., s.v.), a word not attested in classical Greek.40) Just as with !"#$!%& at AP 11.328.5, Nicarchus once again adapts the wording of his original to current linguistic usage. But there may also be another reason for the epigrammatist’s decision to parody the tripartition of the cosmos by employing sexual imagery. The Stoics viewed the origin and function of the cosmos in biological terms, as an act of reproduction.41) Zenon supported the idea of the world as a living being (in this he was following Plato),42) and this notion was adopted by other prominent Stoics.43) Moreover, the fire of the H5'?#UA%& was sometimes likened to ‘seed’ (A'3#.+).44) This notion of the world as an ensouled living body fits well with Nicarchus’ strategy to compare body parts to the cosmic elements engaged in corporeal activities,45) and consequently enriches Nicarchus’ Homeric parody. 39) Cf. Zen. 5.18, Greg.Cypr. 4.41, Apostol. 11.49 (= Leutsch/Schneidewin, 1839/1858, 1.123, 2.123, 527), and Suda, s.v. .- 5/)!% 8+.(#%)+) . 904: 9/.)4) Q4A7 *X 8+.+#/)e ':9!% '+#+5!%.3)4), |.$)<.1) +"*X, Ž) ;1<91.3)1%& *1^& 8+.+#%)+/1%& .!*1F!*!WA+% EF#4A!) | N!:&· .- 5/)!% 8+.(#%)+). 1l BG *1W N!1W '+#+51?A+)*!& H;9(;4A+). vN!) { '+#1%./+ !i#4*+% H'7 *S) 5+N’ u+<*S) ;9+;!#:) *% '1%!^) .!99:)*U). *%)G& B3 Q+A% Q<*O) B<ASB!& !Š)+% *-) 5+.(#4), 1• *1b& 59(B1<& B%+A!%1.3)1<& 64B3A*!#1) ƒd!%). 40) The earliest occurrence of Q/5%& may be in PHeid. 1.190 fr. 1.75 (250-10 BC); see Bain 1978. The word is subsequently found in POxy.42.3070.5 (1st cent. AD). Cf. also Suda, s.v. Q%5%B/d!%) Q 292. 41) Cf. characteristically SVF 2.580. See Hahm 1977, esp. 60-6 for an account of the Stoics’ biological conception of the world and the history of this idea in Greek thought, and Lapidge 1978. For a recent survey, see Gregory 2007, 187-202. 42) See Hahm 1977, 136-40. 43) Cf. e.g., SVF 2.605. 44) Cf. SVF 2.596, 2.618, and 2.619. 45) Cf. SVF 2.622, where )1W& (identified with Zeus) mingles with Hera (cf. also 2.1071-5). 420 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 If the above interpretation is accepted, AP 11.328 can be inscribed in the wider context of epigrams against the 2#+..+*%51/, a theme that we meet elsewhere in the Greek Anthology: AP 11.20 (= PG xx; Antipater of Thessalonica), 11.321 (= PG lx) and 11.347 (= PG lxi; both Philip, Tiberius’ reign), 11.322 (Antiphanes; 1st cent. AD) attack Aristarchus and Callimachus; the same is true of AP 11.140 (Lucillius, who lived during Nero’s reign and was a somewhat older contemporary of Nicarchus).46) The scoptic epigrams against grammarians follow a procedure similar to that adopted here by Nicarchus: they incorporate obscure glosses47) or trivial issues,48) which are meant to reflect the grammarians’ main scholarly interests. The epigrammatists then appear to attack their targets with their own weapons, as it were. And if poets as remote from the time of Aristarchus as Philip and Lucillius composed scoptic epigrams involving Aristarchus and his school, there is no reason to deny the possibility that Nicarchus could have composed an epigram satirizing the Stoic/allegorical approach to poetry by using precisely their methods, especially since Stoic allegorism was current during Nicarchus’ life. Since Nicarchus’ parody in AP 11.328 takes into account not only its primary Iliadic subtext, but also the interpretive framework that had been applied to this subtext, it can be placed in the long tradition of epic parody and may be compared to the parodic technique of such texts as Crates’ hexametric fragment (Crates Theb., SH 351): hg#4 *%& ':9%& HA*7 .3Aq H)7 1i)1'% *?Qq 5+9- 5+7 '/!%#+, '!#/##<'1&, 1"BG) EF1<A+, !>& Ž) 1•*! *%& !>A'9!^ 6)-# .U#O& '+#(A%*1&, 1•*! 9/F)1& ':#)4& H'+2+99:.!)1& '<2XA%)· 699L N?.1) 5+7 A5:#B+ Q3#!% 5+7 AW5+ 5+7 _#*1<&. 5 It will also be remembered that Metrodorus of Lampsacus had identified the gods with human organs; see F 4 D-K (= fr. 20 Mette) *S) BG N!S) *-) yg.4*#+ .G) D'+#, *O) y%:)<A1) BG A'9R)+, *O) @':99U BG F19g). 46) Cf. FGE 63. For a survey of scoptic epigrams against grammarians/philologists in the Palatine Anthology, see Brecht 1930, 32-7. 47) E.g. AP 11.20.1 9:55+& = F9+.?&, cf. Hsch. 9 1252, 91Q)/B+& (a torch made of vine bark), 5+.+AR)+& (a type of fish). 48) E.g. whether the Cyclops had dogs (AP 11.321) or which path the Sun-god followed in the sky (AP 11.347). A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 421 H\ ]) 1" '19!.1WA% '#O& 699g91<& '!#7 *1?*U), 1"F v'9+ 535*4)*+% '!#7 53#.+*1&, 1" '!#7 B:\4&. One cannot miss the similarities to Od. 19.172-3 (8#g*4 *%& 2+^’ EA*% .3Aq H)7 1i)1'% ':)*q, / 5+9- 5+7 '/!%#+, '!#/##<*1&· . . .): the changes are minimal and do not conceal Crates’ subtext: 8#•*4 has been replaced by hg#4, 2+^(+) has appropriately become a ':9%&, *?Qq has supplanted ':)*q, and '!#/##<*1& has given its place to '!#/##<'1&. However, after this one-and-a-half lines, Crates departs from his Odyssean original by mentioning the absence of parasites and other gluttonous characters. By stating that parasites avoid Pere, Crates at the same time is making a recusatio: he is not going to describe sumptuous dinners and everything that comes with them (cf. 1•*! . . . '<2XA%)) in Homeric garb, as someone like Matro might have done. Crates, then, parodies a specific Odyssean passage while simultaneously evoking (and rejecting) his predecessors in epic parody.49) While Nicarchus’ parody of the Homeric text is more sustained (it runs throughout the greatest part of his epigram, with the exception of the first two verses and the punch-line), he too engages with previous literature related to Homer, in fact with scholarly works which he exploits to support his parody. AP 11.328 proves then to be a rich poem that combines familiar topoi of the scoptic epigram (abuse against sex-crazed old women and grammarians, as well as Homeric parody) with recherché references to the scholarship on the Iliadic passage Nicarchus parodies. The Stoic concept of the world and its creation in biological terms is applied on Il. 15.189 ff.: the three characters are likened to the three divine brothers and divide among themselves the elements of a cosmos that is a real body, while the poet introduces reminders in the epigram to alert his audience that this is not merely a light salacious joke.50) 49) See Sens 2005, 220-3. See also p. 237-8, 241-4 for examples of such ‘involved’ parody in the Batrachomyomachia, in which the poet takes into account multiple subtexts. For instance, Batr. 26 combines Il. 17.673-8 and Hes. Op. 274-8, while Batr. 11-3 combines the presentation of Polyphemus in the Odyssey with that in Hellenistic poetry (his love for Galatea). For a brief survey of the tradition of epic parody, see Olson and Sens 1999, 5-12. 50) I would like to thank Jenny Strauss Clay, Shawn O’Bryhim, and Judith Chien for reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. I am also grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewer of Mnemosyne for their helpful suggestions. 422 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 Bibliography Adams, J.N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (Baltimore) Bain, D. 1978. Another Occurrence of ‘/5%&?, ZPE 30, 36 Beckby, H. 21965. Anthologia Graeca (München) Betegh, G. 2004. The Derveni Papyrus. Cosmogony, Theology and Interpretation (Cambridge) Brecht, F.J. 1930. Motiv- und Typengeschichte des griechischen Spottepigramms (Leipzig) Brisson, L. 1995. Chronos in Column XII of the Derveni Papyrus, in: Laks A., Most G.W. (eds.) Studies on the Derveni Papyrus (Oxford), 148-65 Broggiato, M. 2001. Cratete di Mallo: I frammenti (La Spezia) Buchheit, V. 1960. Feigensymbolik im antiken Epigramm, RhM 103, 200-29 ——— 1962. Studien zum Corpus Priapeorum (München) Buffière, F. 1956. Les mythes d’Homère et la pensée grecque (Paris) Degani, E. 1983. Poesia parodica greca (Bologna) Erbse, H. 1969-88. Scholia graeca in Homeri Iliadem (Scholia Vetera) (Berlin) Funghi, M.S. 1946. P.Brux.Inv. E. 7162 e P.Med.Inv. 71.82. Due discussioni su ‘Olimpo’, PP 1, 11-9 Geffcken, J. 1937. Nicarchos (5), in: RE 17, 278-80 Goldberg, C. 1992. Carmina Priapea (Heidelberg) Gow, A.S.F., Page, D.L. 1968. The Garland of Philip, 2 vols. (Cambridge) = GP Gregory, A. 2007. Ancient Greek Cosmogony (London) Guglielmino, F. 1931. Epigrammi satirici del libro XIo dell’Antologia (Catania) Gutzwiller, K. 2005. Review of Nisbet 2003, BMCR 2005.01.19 Hahm, D.E. 1977. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology (Columbus) Helck, I. 1905. De Cratetis Mallotae studiis criticis quae ad Iliadem spectant (Lipsia) Henderson, J. 21991. The Maculate Muse. Obscene Language in Attic Comedy (New York/ Oxford) Hillgruber, M. 1999. Die pseudoplutarchische Schrift de Homero, 2 Bd. (Stuttgart/Leipzig) Hunter, R.L. 1983. Eubulus, The Fragments (Cambridge) Kay, N.M. 1985. Martial Book XI (Oxford) Kouremenos, T., Parássoglou, G.M., Tsantsanoglou K. (eds.) 2006. The Derveni Papyrus (Firenze) Lapidge, M. 1978. Stoic Cosmology, in: Rist, J.M. (ed.) The Stoics (Berkeley), 161-85 Lehrs, K. 1964. De Aristarchi studiis homericis (repr. Hildesheim) Leutsch, E. von, Schneidewin, F.G. 1839/1851. Corpus paroemiographorum Graecorum, 2 Bd. (Göttingen) Longo, V. 1967. L’epigramma scoptico greco (Genova) Longrigg, J. 1974. Empedocles, Juno, and De Natura Deorum ii.66, CR 24, 173 Maass, E. 1892. Aratea (Berlin) Magnelli, E. 1999. Un’ipotesi su Sotade, fr. 2 Powell, SemRom 2, 99-105 ——— 2005. Nicarco, AP 11.328: allusioni oscene e allusioni erudite (con osservazioni sulla trasmissione degli epigrammi scoptici), SemRom 8, 153-66 A. Vergados / Mnemosyne 63 (2010) 406-423 423 Mette, H.J. 1936. Sphairopoiia, Untersuchungen zur Kosmologie des Krates von Pergamon (München) Montanari, F. 1988. I frammenti dei grammatici Agathokles, Hellanikos, Ptolemaios Epithetes (Berlin/New York) ——— 2001. Discussioni su ‘Olimpo’ nella filologia omerica antica e il grammatico Leogoras, in: Cataudella, M.R., Bianchetti, S. (eds.) Poikilma (Torino), 937-41 Nisbet, G. 2003. Greek Epigram in the Roman Empire: Martial’s Forgotten Rivals (Oxford) ——— 2007. Satiric Epigram, in: Bing, P., Bruss, J.S. (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram Down to Philip (Leiden/Boston), 353-69 Noussia, M. 2002. Olympus, the Sky, and the History of the Text of Homer, in: Montanari, F. (ed.) Omero tremila anni dopo (Roma), 489-503 Olson, S.D., Sens, A. 1999. Matro of Pitane and the Tradition of Epic Parody in the Fourth Century BCE (Atlanta) Page, D.L. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams, Epigrams before AD 50 from the Greek Anthology and Other Sources, not Included in Hellenistic Epigrams or The Garland of Philip, rev. and prep. for publ. by R.D. Dawe, J. Diggle (Cambridge) = FGE Parsons, P.J. 1999. P.Oxy. 4502, Epigrams (Nicarchus II), in: Gonis, N. (ed.) The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 66 (London), 43-57 Pfeiffer, R. 1968. History of Classical Scholarship. From the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford) Ramelli, I., Lucchetta, G. 2004. Allegoria I: l’età classica (Milano) Richardson, N.J. 2006. Homeric Professors in the Age of the Sophists, in: Laird, A. (ed.) Ancient Literary Criticism (Oxford), 62-86 (orig. publ. in PCPS 201 (1975), 65-81) Richlin, A. 21992. The Garden of Priapus. Sexuality and Aggression in Roman Humor (New York/Oxford) Schironi, F. 2001. L’Olimpo non è il cielo: esegesi antica nel papiro di Derveni, in Aristarco e in Leagora di Seracusa, ZPE 136, 11-21 Schmidt, M. 1976. Die Erklärungen zum Weltbild Homers und zur Kultur der Heroenzeit in den bT-Scholien zur Ilias (München) Schulte, H. 1999. Die Epigramme des Nikarchos (Trier) Sens, A. 2005. */'*! 23)1& *1".O) d4*!^&; The Batrachomyomachia, Hellenistic Epic Parody, and Early Epic, in: Montanari, F., Rengakos, A. (eds.) La poésie épique grecque: metamorphoses d’un genre littéraire (Vandouvres/Genève), 215-48 van Thiel, H. 2006. Scholia D in Iliadem, retrievable at http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/volltexte/ 2006/1810/pdf/Scholia_D_Gesamt.pdf von Arnim, J. 1944. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 4 vols. (Stuttgart) = SVF Wachsmuth, C. 1860. De Cratete Mallota (Lipsia) West, M.L. 2008, A Vagina in Search of an Author, CQ 58, 370-5