SOURCE: Tarán, Sonya Lida. “Erotic Epigrams: The Motif of Ganymede.” In The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, pp. 7, 28-40. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979.

[In the following excerpt, Tarán explores how the story of Zeus and Ganymede serves as a model for Meleager's accounts of his own desire in his erotic epigrams.]

In the twelfth book of the Anthology there appears a small group of Hellenistic pederastic epigrams in which the ἐρώμενος is in one way or other compared with Ganymede. Each poet deals with the motif in his own manner and with a different degree of elaboration and originality, but a close interpretation of the texts seems to show that they are related to one another. …

Οὐκ ἐθέλω Kαρίδαμον · γ γρρ καλòς εἰς Δία λεύσσει
          ὡς ἔδη τῶ θεῶ νέκταρ <ἐ]ν>οινοχοῶν.
οὐκ ἐθέλω · τί δέ μοι τòν ἐπουρανίων βασιλήα
          ἄνταθλον νίκης τῆς ἐν ἔρωτι λαβεῖν;
ἀρκοῦμαι δ' eν μοῦνον ὁ παῖς ἀνιoν ἐς '′Ολυμπον (5)
          ἐκ γῆς νίπτρα ποδῶν δάκρυα τἀμὰ λάβῃ,
μνημόσυνον στοργῆς · γλυκὺ δ' ὄμμασι νεῦμα δίυγρον
          δοίη καὶ τι pίλημ' ἁρπάσαι ἀκροθιγές.
τἄλλα δὲ πάντ' ἐχέτω Zεὺς ὡς θέμις · εἰ δ' ἐθελήσει
          ἦ τάχα που κἠγo γεύσομαι ὠμβροσίας. (10)

Meleager 112 = A.P. 12.68

I do not want Charidamus, for the fair one looks towards Zeus as if already serving nectar to the god. I do not want him. Why should I take on the king of the heavenly ones as competitor for the victory in love? It is enough for me if only the boy when ascending to Olympus takes from earth my tears as water for his feet in memory of my love. And would that he would give me one sweet, melting glance and let me snatch a light kiss! Let Zeus have all the rest, as is lawful; but if he wishes perhaps I too shall taste ambrosia.

… The epigram begins rather abruptly with a statement (οὐκ ἐθέλω Kαρίδαμον) which will be contradicted in the last line. Meleager bluntly denies that he wishes to be the lover of Charidamus, a youth whose very name suggests loveliness and popularity (cf. χάρις + δῆμος = “the joy of the people”). The reason for the alleged rejection of the beloved is that he is too beautiful for mortals, is, in fact, worthy of Zeus, or (since this is the implication of line 2) is a second Ganymede. The mythical Ganymede of course belonged to the god, and we already know that “one does not fight with Zeus”. That is why the poet gives up.

The second couplet takes over Theognis' line,¹ but instead of giving it a wide range of application—just “fight”, whether as a general norm (present), as in Anonymous 26 = A.P. 12.66, or in a particular case (aorist), as in Theognis—Meleager restricts the application of the adage by specifying that he refers to the fight for love, a limitation which is underlined by the aorist λαβεῖν.

… εἰ μὲν ἀληθῶς ἀθανάτων, ἐχέτω [is developed] in the third and fourth distichs in the form of a fantasy which depicts Charidamus' ascent to Olympus taking little heed of the poet and giving him his farewell with just a glance and the granting of a kiss.² Meleager allows his imagination to wander freely and the result is a far-fetched tour de force which can hardly reveal deep feeling.

Suddenly, at the beginning of the last couplet, the reader gets the impression that there has been a change in Meleager's thoughts, and this is underlined by the particle δέ.³ The poet has awakened from his dream-like fantasy and has abruptly remembered the story of the Trojan cup-bearer, the saying “one must not fight with Zeus”, and the raison d'être of the epigram: the implied praise of Charidamus' beauty. He resumes the thoughts of resignation of the second couplet: except for the elaborate farewell, let Zeus have all, as is lawful.⁴ And finally, separated from that by a bucolic diaeresis,⁵ we find the point of the epigram. It … causes surprise not only because of the final position after the long fantasy which implied the lover's bereavement, but because it places him in a situation that is exactly the opposite of the one found at the beginning. This technique, which consists in an evolution in the content of the poem from the first line to the last and which seems to aim at representing the psychological state of a mind troubled by love, has in this case the effect of adding mocking playfulness to the entire epigram and of depriving it of whatever seriousness it may have acquired through lines 5-8 (too far-fetched themselves, as we saw, to be moving). The result of this technique is that the statements at the beginning of the poem (οὐκ ἐθέλω Kαρίδαμον) and at its end (τάχα που κἠγo γεuσομαι ἀμβροσίας) are plainly contradictory, but the lines in the middle, by suggesting the poet's fascination and love for the boy, explain the contradiction. It is, in fact, the representation of the subjective evolution which is in progress in the lover's mind, the consequence of his wavering and confused thoughts.⁶

Finally, the last distich gives the reader a clue to Meleager's technique of variation. This epigram, which is nothing more than a rather lengthy elaboration of two conceits of its model Anonymous 26, ends in a couplet which after a digression reunites these two conceits …⁷ and, while indicating the influences, at the same time points out the innovation: no human rivalry, no serious love, but a mere divertimento.

Among the epigrams that Meleager addresses to an ἐρώμενος called Muiskus there are two which develop the motif of Ganymede. One of these pieces is

MELEAGER 101 = A.P. 12.65

Εἰ Zεὺς κεῖνος ἔτ' ἐστίν, ὁ καì Γανυμήδεος ἀκμήν
          ἁρπάξας ἵν' ἔχῃ νάέταρος οἰνοχόον,
κἠμοì τòν καλòν ἔστιν ἐνì σπλάγχνοισι Μυiσκον
          κρύπτειν, μή με λάθῃ παιδì βαλoν πτέρυγας.

3 κημοι P App.^v πῆ μοι Hermann

If Zeus is still he who snatched even Ganymede's prime in order to have a cup-bearer of the nectar, I too may hide fair Muiskus in my heart lest he should secretly throw his wings over the boy.

The interpretation of this epigram depends upon the reading adopted in line 3. If we choose, with Gow-Page, to follow Hermann and read πῆ μοι for P's κημοι and place an interrogation mark at the end of line 4, this question (“how can I hide fair Muiskus in my heart?”) will give one particular meaning to the whole. It will imply both a desire, though a timid one, to oppose Zeus, that Zeus who once snatched away Ganymede, and at the same time a confession that such an opposition is impracticable, in other words that “with Zeus one does not fight”. Thus, although the Theognidean adage is not explicit in the epigram, it would be implicit in the interrogative sentence of the second couplet, a rhetorical question which would reflect the impossibility of hiding the boy and would call for the answer “in no way”.

There is, however, no reason to alter the text, and if we read κἠμοί the resulting sense seems preferable. It implies a variation of the saying “with Zeus one does not fight” by means of a contradiction of it which, if we read πῆ μοι, would appear only timidly envisaged and at the same time dismissed by implication. Instead, κἠμοί definitely expresses the poet's desire to oppose Zeus, and this is besides a variation which we will see fully developed by Meleager in our next epigram. Moreover, the second interpretation seems strengthened by the words κεῖνος ἤτ' ἐστίν in line 1, which are echoed by κἠμοì … ἤστιν⁸ in line 3, a parallelism of expression which Meleager seems to have sought in order to emphasize the parallelism of the actions depicted in the two couplets: Zeus can abduct Ganymede—I can hide Muiskus.

The first distich presents the traditional motif, and this is stressed at the very beginning by the adverb ἤτι. The vocabulary is also traditional: Γανυμήδεος ἀκμήν (for the first time a periphrasis, here metrically convenient, serves as a variation for the name of Ganymede); ἁρπάξας (the verb, as we saw,⁹ reappears, exactly in the same place in the line, in Meleager 102 = A.P. 12.70; μάρπτω, ἀποpέρω, and pέρω occurred in our other epigrams); ἔχῃ, and Meleager's favorite, νέκταρος οἰνοχόον. The verb ἤχειν occurred in Anonymous 26 = A.P. 12.66 and in Meleager 112 = A.P. 12.68. In both those places it had the erotic sense of physical possession,¹⁰ whereas here we see that Meleager is probably thinking of a double meaning, both the amatory one and the plain, primary sense of “have”, that is, own a cup-bearer among his attendants.

The second distich introduces the variation of the conceit of Theognis 687, and this is underlined from the start by the adverb καί in κἠμοί. τòν καλόν belongs to the traditional language of erotic epigrams and thus tells at once that Muiskus is the poet's beloved. The amatory character of the poem is once more stressed by ἠνì σπλάγχνοισι, the heart, the seat of love, a word used elsewhere by Meleager in this sense.¹¹ κρύπτειν, the first word of line 4 just as ἁρπάξας was the first of line 2, is an important term in the epigram because it embodies the variation of the motif of submission to the god, and the variation is skilfully underlined by the prominent position of this word at the beginning of the verse. The few remaining terms return to the myth of Ganymede in its Hellenistic form which included the eagle, and relate our poem to Alcaeus' (αἰετòς ἀρθείς) and especially to Anonymous 25 = A.P. 12.67 (αἰετέ, τòν χαρίεντα ποτì πτερὰ πυκνὰ τινάξας). There, in fact, the imagery is quite similar to that in our epigram, whereas in Alcaeus, though the eagle was mentioned, there was no such vivid, almost pictorial description of the bird with its menacing beating of wings around the beloved.

Besides the implicit love of the poet for Muiskus, the epigram as a whole contains no personal element. There is no human rivalry and no mention of the state of the love-affair. What we have is an elaboration of the motif of Ganymede, together with a variation of the Theognidean saying associated with that motif. As already seen in the case of Anonymous 21, Anonymous 25, and Meleager 112,¹² we find here another treatment of the lover's jealousy with respect to the ἐρήμενος which is tantamount to a praise of the boy's charms and a declaration of the poet's love for him.

The conceit Zανì οὐ μάχομαι is also contradicted in another poem,

MELEAGER 102 = A.P. 12.70:

Στήσομ' ἐγo καì Zηνòς ἐναντίον, εἴ σε, Μυiσκε,
          ἁρπάzειν ἐθέλοι νέκταρος οἰνοχόον.
καίτοι πολλάκις αὐτòς ἐμοì τάδ' ἔλεξε· ‘Τί ταρβεῖς;
          οὔ σε βαλῶ zήλοις· οἶδα παθoν ἐλεεῖν.’
χὠ μὲν δὴ τάδε pησίν· ἐγo δ', eν μυῖα παραπτῆ (5)
          ταρβῶ μὴ ψεύστης Zεὺς ἐπ' ἐμοì γέγονεν.

I will stand up even against Zeus, Muiskus, if he should wish to snatch you for a cup-bearer of the nectar. And yet many times he himself told me this: “Why are you afraid? I shall not strike you with jealousy; having suffered, I know how to pity”. He says that, but I, if a fly buzzes by, dread lest Zeus prove a liar for me.

The variation achieved by means of a reversal of the Theognidean adage is here prominently placed at the beginning of the epigram and separated from the rest of the line by a bucolic diaeresis. The purpose of these opening words is to introduce the motif of Ganymede with which the fighting with Zeus is associated in the epigram's models, and the reader at once realizes that this poem will also deal with the famous myth. The myth itself, although Ganymede is not named, is evoked in the second line by the traditional vocabulary: ἁρπάzειν,¹³ and Meleager's familiar νέκταρος οἰνοχόον.

The second couplet brings in a striking novelty, a speech of Zeus addressed to the poet. Conversations with Zeus are indeed common in erotic epigrams and we have found them in several poems of this family,¹⁴ but in all cases it is the lover who addresses the god and not vice versa. A speech by Zeus himself does not seem to occur elsewhere in the Hellenistic amatory epigrams, but the situation here (a god offering consolation to a jealous lover) recalls Aphrodite's reported speech to Sappho in her Hymn to Aphrodite.¹⁵ The speech of Zeus is separated from the rest of line 3 by a bucolic diaeresis (again bucolic diaereses in lines 1 and 3), which gives prominence to the question “τί ταρβεῖς;” Zeus promises the poet not to strike him with jealousy, which means not to abduct Muiskus as he once did Ganymede. The reason for Zeus' generous sympathy is apparently that he knows what it is to suffer jealousy in love; this Meleager has compressed with admirable epigrammatic brevity in the words οἶδα παθoν ἐλεεῖν. We remember at once καì σύ ποτ' ήράσθης in Callimachus 6 = A.P. 12.230, from which Meleager (as well as from the other epigrams in which Zeus' adventures are given as examples¹⁶) may have derived this notion of counting on Zeus' own experience to procure his cooperation, but this phrase, which has the characteristic brevity of proverbs, recalls above all the law of τῶι πάθει μάθος in Aeschylus' Agamemnon.¹⁷ The thought, however, seems common and appears also in Anonymous 5 = A.P. 12.100, 2 applied to Cypris (οὐκ ἐλεεῖς καὐτὴ πεῖραν ἤχουσα πόνων;) and Callimachus 13 = A.P. 12.134, 6 (pνρòς δ' ἴχνια poρ ἔμαθον).¹⁸

The last couplet resumes and pursues the variation of line 1 in so far as it determines the reason why Zeus should be feared by alluding to his possible metamorphosis. eν μυῖα παραπτῶ naturally recalls the image of the eagle flying around the boy in the epigram's models.¹⁹ This Hellenistic part of the myth, the eagle, is already so well-known that Meleager pretends to suppose that Zeus would not make use of it for this new abduction but that he would attempt another metamorphosis. Which one, of course, he cannot tell. Meanwhile, a mere fly (not to mention an eagle) is enough to scare him, and this last point (a fly, of all creatures) introduces a humorous note which gives us the key to the whole epigram: it is not a serious erotic poem but only a charming παίγνιον, one more variation on a famous motif. Meleager achieves something similar when writing a variation on another type of epigram, the animal epitaphs. In Meleager 65 = A.P. 7.207, an elegy on Phanion's pet hare, we suddenly see in the third couplet that the tone of solemnity of the first two was ironic, when we learn that the pet has died—of overeating. As Gow-Page ad loc. comment, “The point of the epigram lies in this moment of parody, and it is only in retrospect that the satirical note in the earlier part can be detected.” The situation is different in our epigram, because, whereas an animal's death belongs to the domain of everyday reality, the poet's rivalry with Zeus for a boy is per se unreal. Since such a situation is imaginary and impossible, there would normally be no need for the poet to remind us that there is no actual fear or distress. But Meleager's originality here lies precisely in this “superfluous” stroke. He begins the epigram dealing (as his models did) with the tour de force as if it were a real situation, and in the end he introduces with μυῖα a mock-serious detail which reminds the reader of what he already knows, that it is all a joke.²⁰

There is one more epigram in which Meleager deals with the motif of Ganymede, mixing it with another motif and drawing upon other epigrams besides those we have examined in this chapter.

It is Meleager 84 = A.P. 12.133:

Διψῶν ὡς ἐpίλησα θέρευς ἁπαλόχροα παῖδα
          εἶπα τότ' αὐχμηρὰν δίψαν ἀποπροpυγήν,
‘Zεῦ πάτερ, aρα pίλημα τò νεκτάρεον Γανυμήδευς
          πίνεις, καì τόδε σοι χείλεσιν οἰνοχοεῖ;
καì γὰρ ἐγo τòν καλòν ἐν ἠιθέοισι pιλήσας (5)
          'Αντίοχον Pυχῶς ἡδὺ πέπωκα μέλι.’

When I was thirsty in summer and I kissed the tender-skinned boy I said, after escaping dry thirst: “Father Zeus, do you drink the nectareous kiss of Ganymede and is this what he pours with his lips? For I too after kissing the fair one among the boys, Antiochus, have drunk the sweet honey of his soul”.

The motif of Ganymede is here combined with a variation on another motif, variation achieved in Meleager 35 = A.P. 5.171,²¹ where a cup is said to rejoice in touching Zenophila's lips and the lover, envying it, wishes that the beloved would set her lips to his and drink up his soul. In that poem we find a personification of the cup in the first couplet, and in the second a metaphor from analogy,²² which we could call a first degree metaphor in so far as the cup—the real object—is named at the beginning and thus serves as motivation for the metaphorical thought that follows: lips would be set against lips and the beloved would “drink” (προπίοι, i.e. “kiss”) the lover's soul, that is, the draught contained in this metaphorical cup, the mouth. Now on composing our other epigram Meleager has advanced one step further in that he has created a second degree metaphor. The cup, which in the earlier poem was the starting point of the idea, is now not mentioned and the poet proceeds under the assumption that the mouth is a cup while a kiss is the drinking of the soul. This assumption is established by the first words, διψῶν ὡς ἐpίλησα, which make clear that “being thirsty” will stand for “feeling desire” and conversely that “to kiss” will be the equivalent of “to quench the thirst”, that is, the desire.

The metaphor is fully developed in the first distich and will be rounded off in the last. The words διψών, θέρευς, and αὐχμηρὰν δίψαν are in the metaphor the elements alien²³ to the matter proper; the latter is represented by the erotic vocabulary ἠpίλησα and ἁπαλόχροα παĩδα,²⁴ words which explain the alien elements in a contrapuntal way stressed by their alternate position in line 1. Thus διψῶν (an element alien to the act of loving) is followed by ἠpίλησα, which warns us that διψῶν meant only “thirsty of kisses”, while θέρευς (an alien element which takes over the theme of thirst) is followed by ἁπαλόχροα παĩδα.

The first word of the opening couplet, διψῶν, is answered by the two last, δίψαν ἀποπροpυγών, leaving one motif of the epigram clearly established: the thirst of desire quenched by the kissing of the beloved. One word, however, at the beginning of line 2 (εἶπα) introduces the two following distichs, which on the one hand will develop the motif of lines 1-2 and on the other will bring in the motif of Ganymede. The second couplet reproduces on a smaller scale the content of the whole epigram, since, just as in the latter, a fusion of the two motifs is skilfully achieved also in the former: Zεῦ πάτερ,²⁵ νεκτάρεον, Gανυμήδευς, and οἰνοχοεĩ represent, of course, the motif of Ganymede, while pίλημα, πίνεις, and χείλεσιν belong to the motif of drinking the beloved's soul in a kiss. The contrapuntal technique observed in lines 1-2 for the two types of language (alien words of the metaphor, and purely erotic vocabulary) is here used for the two types of vocabulary which correspond to the two motifs. Thus Zεῦ πάτερ is followed by pίλημα, which in turn is modified by νεκτάρεον; Gανυμήδευς is followed by πίνεις, and χειλεσιν by οἰνοχοεĩ. Meleager's favorite formula (νέκταρ + οἰνοχοέω) has been slightly modified so as to make the kiss the draught that is poured: pίλημα received the adjective νεκτάρεον, which Meleager now enriches—with respect to the use of nectar in the other epigrams—by playing with the first meaning, “of nectar”, and the second or figurative sense, “blissful”, “divine”. Zεῦ πάτερ and Gανυμήδευς encircle all the other words in line 3 and in the manner of signals announce the motif of Ganymede. πίνεις and οἰνοχοεĩ encircle the words in line 4 and each represents one of the two motifs: πίνεις, the motif of Meleager 35 = A.P. 5.171, and this is emphasized by its occupying the same position as διψῶν in line 1; οἰνοχοεĩ, the motif represented by its neighbor χείλεσιν,²⁶ the metaphorical cup.

καì γὰρ at the beginning of the last couplet announces the motivation of the question addressed to Zeus. The contrapuntal technique is abandoned for the first time: all the erotic vocabulary occurs in the hexameter, where καλόν (the traditional epithet of the ἐρώμενος) plus the formulaic ἐν ἠιθέοισι,²⁷ and pιλήσας echo respectively ἁπαλόχροα παĩδα and ἐpίλησα in line 1. The name of the boy is made prominent by the enjambement and because it has been left for the end, and in the remainder of the pentameter are concentrated the alien words of the metaphor: ψυχῆς ἡδὺ πέπωκα μέλι. This expression is obviously related to the last line of Meleager 35 = A.P. 5.171 (ἀπνευστὶ ψυχὰν τὰν ἐν ἐμοὶ προπίοι), which, however, is far less elaborate: there the soul is simply said to be what the lover drinks from the mouth of the beloved. But the image is made richer and more complex in the new verse by the addition of another element: the lover's mouth is actually said to yield sweet honey, but since this peculiar draught is modified by the epexegetic genitive ψυχῆς, the resulting expression is tantamount to saying “honey-sweet soul”.²⁸

The epigram as a whole is deliberately stripped of collateral themes. As in Callimachus 6, there is here no rivalry with Zeus—let alone with mortals—and the god is not even supposed to be interested in Antiochus and is conceived as perfectly content with his cup-bearer. A masterly variation of the metaphorical description of a kiss and the myth of Ganymede have been elegantly combined by Meleager and result in the creation of an elaborate poem. It goes far beyond the anecdote of the appeasing kiss of Antiochus to a comparison of his charms with those of the mythical cup-bearer of Zeus, and is therefore one more piece of fiction aimed at praising the beauty of a boy. It is the finest poem in our family. …

Notes

1. Theognis 687, cf. n. 32 supra.

2. τι pίλημ' ἁρπάσαι. In Meleager 116 = A.P. 12.92 it is said that the eyes ἡρπάσατ' ἄλλον ἔρωτ'. The verb is used twice by Meleager in epigrams of this family with reference to the seizing of Ganymede or the beloved by Zeus (Meleager 101 = A.P. 12.65, 2, cf. pp. 32 ff. infra, and Meleager 102 = A.P. 12.70, 2, cf. pp. 34 ff. infra) and by [Theognis] 1347.

3. In so far as τἄλλα δὲ πάντ' ἐχέτω Zεύς is equivalent in meaning to what was said in the first four lines (“I do not want a boy worthy of Zeus” = “let Zeus have that”). This is the so-called resumptive δέ, cf. Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford, 1954), s.v. II 3, pp. 182-3, which picks up the thread of a train of thought that is beginning to wander.

4. ἐχέτω recalls the use of the same verbal form in Anonymous 26 = A.P. 12.66, as was noted in the analysis of that poem. Also, the use of θέμις in this line makes likelier the possibility that Meleager had Theognis 687-8 in mind, since the word occurs there, although somewhat differently employed.

5. It is noteworthy that in lines 1 and 3 of Anonymous 26, precisely those lines which Meleager has here compressed, we also find bucolic diaereses.

6. The same technique can be observed in Meleager 7 = A.P. 5.179 … as well as in the two pieces about the little rascal Eros, Meleager 37 = A.P. 5.177, and Meleager 38 = A.P. 5.178, though these are mime-epigrams and the reversal of the situation in the poems represents a change in objective reality, not a wavering state of mind. Cf. also Meleager 71 = A.P. 5.182 and Meleager 72 = A.P. 5.184.

7. γεύσομαι ἀμβροσίας, as Jacobs noted, implies both that he will enjoy the boy's love and that he will be raised to the level of the gods. εἰ δ' ἐθελήσει seems more appropriate if applied to Zeus, although the subject can also be Charidamus. Gow-Page and Jacobs (= “puero sibi favente”) prefer the latter possibility. Meleager, however, has not said that the boy is unwilling to respond to his love. The wishes of the boy, in fact, are not contemplated at all in the poem; what is stressed is that his love belongs to Zeus. Since one cannot fight with Zeus, the alternative is for the god himself to be willing to share his beloved, that is, the power is in Zeus' hands, not in the boy's.

8. In so far as κἠμοì … ἔστιν = καì ἐγo δύναμαι or ἤχω, or, to underline the parallelism, καì ἠγo οὗτις εἰμì ὀ κρύψας.

9. Cf. n. 2 supra.

10. Cf. e.g. Asclepiades 4 = A.P. 5.158, 4; Posidippus 2 = A.P. 5.186, 4; Callimachus 2 = A.P. 12.43, 6; Meleager 26 = A.P. 5.160, 1.

11. Meleager 17 = A.P. 12.80; Meleager 86 = A.P. 12.81. Cf. also Dioscorides 1 = A.P. 5.56.

12. Which, however, elaborated much more on the lover's interest in the question, whereas in our epigram the motif appears more purified of secondary conceits.

13. Cf. n. 2 and p. 33 supra.

14. Callimachus 6 = A.P. 12.230; Alcaeus 9 = A.P. 12.64; Anonymous 21 = A.P. 12.69; Anonymous 25 = A.P. 12.67. Cf. also Asclepiades 14 = A.P. 5.167 (pp. 56 ff. infra), Asclepiades 11 = A.P. 5.64 (pp. 53 ff. infra), et al.

15. ἤρε' ὄττι δηὖτε πέπονθα κὬττι ❙ δηὖτε κάλημμι (l. 15 ff.). The role of the divinity and the relation towards the poet in love is of course different in the two poems. According to Beckby's interpretation, with which, however, I do not agree, there would be a speech by Zeus in Asclepiades 14 = A.P. 5.167, 3. Cf. pp. 56 ff. infra and p. 59, n. 25 infra.

16. Cf. n. 1 supra.

17. Lines 176-178: τòν pρονεῖν βροτοὺς ὁδo— ❙ σαντα τῶι πάθει μάθος ❙ θέντα κυρίως ἔχειν. Eduard Fraenkel, Aeschylus's Agamemnon edited with a commentary (Oxford, 1950), ad loc. cites also Democritus 68 B 182 (Diels-Kranz): τὰ μὲν καλὰ χρήματα τοῖς πόνοις ἡ μάθησις ἐξεργάzεται, τὰ δὲ αἰσχρὰ ἄνευ πόνων αὐτόματα καρποῦται.

18. On this proverb cf. Erich von Prittwitz-Gaffron, Das Sprichwort im griechischen Epigramm (Diss. Giessen, 1912), pp. 20-21.

19. Particularly Anonymous 25 = A.P. 12.67, 3-4 and Meleager 101 = A.P. 12.65, 4; cf. also Alcaeus 9 = A.P. 12.64, 3-4. …

20. There may be a play between μυῖα and Μυiσκος, even if only from the point of view of sound, since μυiσκη and μυiσκος are the diminutives of μῦς, not of μυῖα, and mean “small sea-mussel”, not “small fly”. For variations on this conceit of the fly cf. Lucilius A.P. 11.88 and Nicarchus A.P. 11.407.

21. Τò σκύpος ἡδὺ γέγηθε, λέγει δ' ὥτι τaς pιλέρωτος ❙ Zηνοpίλας ψαύει τοῦ λαλιοῦ στόματος· ❙ ὄλβιον· εἴθ' ὑπ' ἠμοῖς νῦν χείλεσι χείλεα θεῖσα ❙ ἀπνευστì ψυχὰν τὰν ἠν ἐμοò προπίοι. (Cf. Gaetulicus' variation, A.P. 11.409, 1. …) This idea of calling the cup ὄλβιον because it touches the beloved's lips was probably suggested to Meleager by two lines in an epigram headed ὡς ‘Ριανοῦ in the Palatinus (Rhianus 10 = A.P. 12.142, 5-6; on the ascription cf. Gow-Page ad loc. and p. 443), where the poet, upon seeing a bird caught in Dexionicus' hand, wishes he were the bird in order to enjoy the pleasure of crying in the boy's hand. Meleager dealt with this motif again in Meleager 36 = A.P. 5.174, where he wishes he were Sleep in order to be in Zenophila's eye-lids and possess her completely and exclusively, and he also used it for a remarkable variation in Meleager 33 = A.P. 5.151, where he reverses the point by saying that it is understandable for insects (κήνωπες) to molest Zenophila in her sleep because they too (like himself) enjoy the pleasure of touching her soft skin. Cf. also Giangrande, Entretien, pp. 105 and 118 and Leontius A.P. 5.295. For the analogy between drinking and kissing cf. Gow on Theocritus, Id. 7.70.

22. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics 1457 b 16 ff.

23. Cf. Aristotle, Poetics 1457 b 31.

24. It should be noted that the words παιδòς … ἁπαλόχροος occur in [Theognis] 1341, that is, in the first line of the four line sequence which immediately precedes [Theognis] 1345-50, where the motif of Ganymede is dealt with. It seems highly likely that Meleager had these lines in mind when he composed our present epigram. Cf. Kägi, p. 34.

25. Cf. Anonymous 25 = A.P. 12.67 (the same place in the line).

26. χείλεσιν, as Gow-Page observe, can either mean “with his lips” or “to your lips”; if the latter, these commentators suggest that perhaps σοι should be emended and Brunck's σοĩς should be read. Since, however, χείλεσιν represents the “cup” in which the νεκτάρεον pίλημα (= τόδε) is contained, it probably means Ganymede's lips, not Zeus'. Moreover, since the purpose of the epigram is to compare the poet's alleged experience with Zeus', σοι seems very appropriately opposed to ἐγώ in the next line.

27. Cf. also Dioscorides 37 = A.P. 11.363, 2; Meleager 82 = A.P. 12.54, 2; Meleager 87 = A.P. 12.126, 5; Polystratus 1 = A.P. 12.91, 4 has 'Αντίοχον (as in our present epigram by Meleager) λιπαρῶν ἄνθεμον ἠιθέων, and [Simonides] 4 = A.P. 7.25, 7: τòν χαρίεντα μετ' ἠιθέοισι Μεγιστέα.

28. Cf. also [Plato] A.P. 5.78 …, Rufinus A.P. 5.14, and Anonymous A.P. 5.305. On the ascription to Plato cf. Ludwig, “Plato's Love Epigrams”, esp. p. 69.