SOURCE: Tarán, Sonya Lida. “Erotic Epigrams: The KΩMOΣ and the ΠAPAKΛAYΣITYPON.” In The Art of Variation in the Heroic Epigram, pp. 52, 92-114. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979.

[In the following excerpt, Tarán provides a close reading of several of Meleager's epigrams, focusing on his unique combination of traditional Greek motifs. Tarán also traces the influence of preceding epigrammatists on the author.]

In his commentary on Herodas 2.34, Walter Headlam¹ describes in these words the Greek and Roman custom of the κῶμος: “The practice of young men in the evening after their wine (when sufficiently drunk) sallying forth alone or in bands ἐπì κώμων, comissatum, accompanied sometimes with flute-girls, to the house of friends, usually of women, with the garlands they had worn already at dessert, and pipes, and torches. They would beg to be admitted, singing a serenade παρακλαυσίθυρον, a form of αὔλησις accompanied by a dance”. This serenade—to give just one of Headlam's numerous references—is attested in fr. Z 51 (Lobel-Page) by Alcaeus: δέξαι με κωμazντα, δέξαι, λίσσομαί σε, λίσσομαι, and we find in the Anthology [Palantine Anthology; hereafter A.P.] several epigrams which deal with the situation both of the lover who is on his way to the door of the beloved and of the lover who is already stationed there. Because the motif provided good opportunity for the treatment of jealousy and misery in love, it was a favorite one with several of the most sophisticated writers of erotic epigrams. And so it happens that among these poems on the comos and the paraclausithyron we shall find some of the finest pieces in the Greek Anthology. …

Meleager seems to have been particularly attracted by these two kindred motifs of the comos and the paraclausithyron. He used them in several epigrams in which, as usual, he borrowed from different predecessors, combined those motifs with other erotic motifs, and even, in some cases, mixed the erotic language with language appropriate to other types of epigrams. All this he did in the following poem:

MELEAGER 73 = A.P. 5.191

'′Αστρα καì ἡ pιλέρωσι καλòν pαίνουσα Σελήνη
          καì Nὺξ καì κώμων σύμπλανον ἰργάνιον,
aρά γε τὴν pιλάσωτον ἤτ' ἐν κοίταισιν ἀθρήσω
          ἄγρυπνον λύχνῳ πόλλ' † ἀποδαομένην † ·
ἤτιν' ἤχει σύγκοιτον; ἐπì προθύροισι μαράνας (5)
          δάκρυσιν ἐκδάσω τοὺς ἱκέτας στεpάνους
ἓν τόδ' ἐπιγράψας, ‘Κύπρι, σοì Μελέαγρος ὁ μύστης
          σῶν κώμων στοργῶς σκῦλα τάδ' ἐκρέμασε.’

5 μαράνας Ρ μαρανθείς Page

O Stars and Moon, who shine beautifully for lovers, and Night and you, little lute, companion of my revels, shall I still see the wanton one in bed, awake very … by her lamp? or has she some bedfellow? I shall hang at her portals the suppliant garlands, withered by my tears, and write only this: “Cypris, for you Meleager, the initiate of your revels, hung up these spoils of love”.

The poem opens with an apostrophe to the stars, the moon, and the night, three elements which suggest to us the situation of the comos, just as did the references to the weather in some of the epigrams already analyzed. Meleager's contemporary readers were familiar not only with the νύξ of Asclepiades 13, 14, and 42 but most likely with many more such references. This we may safely infer from the fact that a very similar address is preserved in another paraclausithyron, fragmentum Grenfellianum, 11, where the comast, unusually enough, is not a man but a girl.² The dramatic setting becomes even clearer when the lover's musical instrument is directly called κώμων σύμπλανον. But if the first couplet led one to suspect that the speaker was a comast, this becomes unmistakably clear when we reach line 3, where the lover wonders whether he will find his beloved alone or with another man, and where the future ἀθρήσω implies that the speaker has set out and is on his way to discover the truth. The alternatives are not new to us; we found them already in Posidippus 4 where they were treated in a matter-of-fact, cool tone. Meleager has substituted a highly sentimental expression for the tone of his model, and his passionate interest in the whole affair is emphasized in line 3 by his calling the girl pιλάσωτον. Thus from the beginning he seems to warn the reader that the likeliest outcome of his expedition will be to find his beloved otherwise engaged, which is what the poet needs for the motif of lines 5-8, the paraclausithyron. Yet in the second couplet he pictures the favorable alternative, that the girl is still lying awake and lonely by her lamp. ἄγρυπνον, in a prominent position in line 4, actually implies “without a lover”, and in fact the lamp is the traditional companion both of lovers and of those who are still waiting for the beloved to come.³ In this case, however, the lamp has caused editors to wonder, because it is followed by the participle ἁποδαομένην. Giangrande⁴ has argued that * ἀποδάομαι here is an alternate form for * ἀποδαίομαι = * ἀποκαίομαι, and that what Meleager means is that the girl is inflamed (with desire) by the light of the lamp which reminds her of the traditional scenes of love. This interpretation seems to me exceedingly forced. It is true that lamps are common elements in this type of erotic poetry, but always in the more literal sense which refers to their practical function, even when they are personified: they give light to the lovers or they do not, lovers swear by them, they are their witnesses, etc.⁵ In the examples adduced by Giangrande they are linked to the burning of the lover's heart, but they never “kindle” the heart themselves.⁶ Thus even for Meleager it seems too far-fetched to suppose that this girl is set afire (metaphorically) by her lamp, that is, by the scenes of love which the lamp evokes. If, as Giangrande wishes, the form ἀποδαομένην is to be kept here and entered in our dictionaries, we should look for another explanation of the image it was intended to convey.⁷

The first words of the following distich present the alternative—she has a lover with her—made prominent by the caesura κατὰ τρίτον τροχαĩον. With this Meleager ends his debt to Posidippus 4 and introduces another motif which he has borrowed from Asclepiades 12: the motif of the paraclausithyron, signalled by the words ἐπì προθύροισι, and the conceit of the Garlands Wet with Tears which the comast leaves as a memento at the door of his beloved.⁸ ἐπì προθύροισι μαράνας in line 5 should not be emended to μαρανθείς with Gow-Page. Giangrande⁹ has shown that despite Gow-Page's too literal objection that “tears cannot wither or dry up a wreath” Meleager's originality consists precisely in changing Asclepiades' conceit Garland Wet with Tears into Garland Withered by Tears.¹⁰ This is certainly not too far-fetched for a poet who at the same time calls the garlands ἱκέτας,¹¹ and it is supported by ἐπì προθύροισι μαράναν in Asclepiades 3 = A.P. 5.153, 3, an epigram which Meleager may have had particularly in mind since it deals with a situation similar to the paraclausithyron.¹²

Copley¹³ is apparently puzzled because, while “the first distich sets the street scene” and “the second distich expresses the hope of the lover that he may see his beloved sleepless and mourning his absence”,¹⁴ in the third “the lover gives up in despair, throws himself down to weep on her threshold, takes off his garland and scribbles on the door a bit of verse expressive of his sorrow”. Hence he says that between the second and the third distichs “we are to imagine that he knocks at the door. He receives no answer: ‘Has she someone with her?’” and, since he supplies what is not in the text, Copley considers this epigram “more nearly complete, in that it involves a larger number of the features of the incident” (page 3). Giangrande endorses Copley's interpretation,¹⁵ which seems to me to imply a serious misunderstanding of Meleager's epigram. For what the poet depicts in these lines is a lover who, while walking at night to the door of his mistress, tries to imagine in what situation he will find her. Of the two possibilities he expatiates on the one which is likelier in view of the girl's wantonness (cf. pιλάσωτον in line 3) and, last but not least, the one that better fits the motif of the epigram. We need not therefore read between the lines that the comast has knocked at the door and been rejected by the girl or by her θυρωρός. We need only follow the speaker's trend of thought, which naturally enough concentrates not on the possibility that the girl is alone but on the possibility that she has a lover. This interpretation is supported by the future ἐκδήσω in line 6 (on the same temporal level as ἀθρήσν in line 3) and by another, very similar epigram of Meleager where the lover wonders whether a) the girl still loves him, or b) has a new lover, and concentrating on the second possibility (because it is the one that the poet needs for his point), he asks the lamp not to light her unfaithful new loves.¹⁶

The last distich parodies the language of dedicatory epigrams, and we shall see Meleager do this again in the related poem, Meleager 99 = A.P. 12.23.¹⁷ The fictitious dedication is understandably addressed to Cypris. Meleager puts his own name in the inscription and thus pretends to be the comast of the story. He calls himself an initiate in the goddess' revels, ὁ μύστης σῶν κώμων, and in this he mocks one type of dedication, the religious offerings of priests and priestesses,¹⁸ while μύστης also echoes the mock-religious language ἱκέτας στεpάνους in line 6. The object dedicated, however, is not sacred but “spoils of love”, and in this he parodies the dedications made by hunters or by warriors of the spoils of the chase or of war.¹⁹ The twofold parody is made obvious to the expert eye by the words μύστης and σκῦλα. These two terms encircle those that carry the erotic theme of our epigram, σῶν κώμων and στοργaς, which establish a ring-like structure by evoking the first couplet, since pιλέρωσι (line 1) is echoed by στοργῶς (line 8) and κώμων (line 2) by κώμων (line 8). Finally, the deliberate blend of erotic and dedicatory languages is emphasized by the chiastic order of the relevant words of the “inscription”.²⁰

In this epigram Meleager has successfully combined the motif of the comos—all along the lover is portrayed walking to his mistress' house—and that of the paraclausithyron which is ever present in the reveller's imagination and plans as he goes on his way. To achieve this the poet has borrowed various elements from different poems by his predecessors,²¹ and he has added a personal touch to the whole in the last distich, where a blend of the erotic and the dedicatory types of language makes an original point and, much in the manner of a σpραγίς, closes the imaginary paraclausithyron and at the same time the epigram. The melancholy mood of this lover who knows only too well what is the likeliest outcome of his expedition is successfully conveyed by the flowing syntax. The verses lack all the abrupt caesurae that would forcibly interrupt the stream of thought, while a monotonous assonance in ο recurs in nearly every line and conveys to us the mournful pessimism of this highly conventional comast.

This last epigram seems to be closely related to the following poem, addressed to Muiskus and consequently transmitted in Book Twelve:

MELEAGER 99 = A.P. 12.23

'Ηγρεύθην <ὁ> πρόσθεν ἐγώ ποτε τοĩς δυσέρωσι
          κώμοις ἠιθέων πολλάκις ἐγγελάσας·
καì μ' ἐπì σοĩς ὁ πτανòς '′Ερως προθύροισι, Μυiσκε,
          στῆσεν ἐπιγράψας, ‘σκῦλ’ ἀπò Σωpροσύνης'.

I am caught, I who often before laughed at the lovesick revels of young men. And winged love set me over your portals, Muiskus, and inscribed above: “Spoils of temperance.”

This poem is a remarkable example of how Meleager “contaminated” elements borrowed from different models for the creation of a new epigram. It has several points of contact with Meleager 73, and this is expressly indicated by the “inscription” of the last couplet. Yet it is also deeply indebted to other epigrams, and this is likewise signalled by key words located in prominent positions.

In fact this twofold dependence is already apparent in the first line, which opens with ἠγρεύθην and closes with δυσέρωσι. The reader who is well acquainted with Hellenistic epigrams knows from numerous instances that ἀγρεύω in them frequently occurs in a figurative sense with reference to love.²² More specifically it is used of the person who has unwillingly and unexpectedly been caught by love. This is the case in an anonymous epigram which seems related to our own by the opening word ἠγρεύθην and also by its elaboration of the motif of the poet who is at last subdued by the power of love.²³ This motif ultimately goes back to Posidippus 6 = A.P. 12.98, where the poet's learned soul is made the opponent of Desire. It was developed in several variations which follow Posidippus 6 in Book Twelve of the Anthology,²⁴ and it is clearly this motif that Meleager has in mind here, since the whole point of his epigram is based upon the conceit Σωpροσύνη versus Love.

Thus the opening word indicates to us the dependence upon a series of epigrams which deal with what we could call the motif of the Poet Caught by Love. Now the last word of the first hexameter points in another direction, since δυσέρωσι instantly recalls pιλέρωσι in Meleager 73. Hence, even before we reach κώμοις in the pentameter we know that the second motif of our epigram is the revel. pιλέρωσι is a noun in Meleager 73 while δυσέρωσι here is an adjective. We do not know this, however, until we read κώμοις, and the device intensifies the surprise caused by the enjambement. The combination entails in itself a variation of the motif of the Poet Caught by Love. What is new and unexpected for this poet-lover is not love itself but the situation of the comos, and this innovation comes as a surprise in the pentameter, where we discover that what the lover has so far mocked (ἐγγελάσας) was the situation and not, as the opening words (ἠγρεύθην ὁ πρόσθεν ἐγώ ποτε) led us to expect, merely Love. The surprise is enhanced by the trihemimeral and hephthemimeral caesurae in line 1, which isolate and thus make prominent the words ἠγρεύθην and πρόσθεν ἐγώ and with them the unexpectedness of the unprecedented situation.²⁵

The word προθύροισι in the second couplet brings in a third motif, that of the paraclausithyron. But while in Meleager 73 the comast—just as in that epigram's models—hangs his garland at the portals of his beloved and writes a dedicatory inscription to Cypris,²⁶ we now find a variation of that conceit: Eros hangs the lover at Muiskus' portals. Again we have a combination of the language appropriate to erotic epigrams and that of dedicatory or funerary inscriptions, and while the inscription itself introduces the motif of the Poet Caught by Love, the couplet as a whole points to still another connection. In Leonidas 54 = A.P. 6.293, a poem already mentioned à propos of this blend of erotic and dedicatory language, a boy (‘Ρόδων ὡ καλός) hangs at the altar of Cypris some typical belongings of the Cynic Sochares after having succeeded in forcing him into an act of love.²⁷ Leonidas skilfully utilizes there the language of rustic dedications²⁸ for the purpose of proclaiming Rhodon's erotic conquest, which is also considered to be a victory over wisdom.²⁹ The coincidence of expression³⁰ and the fact that the main idea in both is the motif of the Poet Caught by Love³¹ make unavoidable the conclusion that Meleager had Leonidas’ poem in mind and freely borrowed from it for his own epigram, while the differences between the two poems underline the art of variation. In Leonidas there is an actual dedication of material objects, even if it is fictitious, while Meleager has daringly done away with this realistic element and his dedication is entirely metaphorical, that is, nothing is dedicated but the lover himself. In Leonidas, moreover, the conqueror is the speaker of the epigram, and this gives a tone of boasting irony to the whole. In Meleager it is the poet himself who complains, the πρόθυρα are those of an ἐρώμενος, not of a god (and this connects with the tradition of the paraclausithyron), while the motif of the comos, though formally suggested by just one word (κώμοις), underlies the entire first couplet and therefore connects our epigram with another line of influences. Finally, σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωpροσύνης echoes σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωχάρεος even in sound, while the word σωpροσύνη also entails a variation of the conceit ὥπλισμαι ἀpροσύναν of Anonymous 6.³²

A highly conventional piece in which the tour de force of the second couplet erases whatever pathos could have been suggested by the first two lines, the poem is therefore a condensation of not less than three independent motifs and two different types of language appropriate to as many types of epigrams.

In still another epigram dealing with the comos Meleager was deeply influenced by the compositions of his predecessors:

MELEAGER 19 = A.P. 12.117

—Βεβλήσθω κύβος· ἅπτε· πορεύσομαι.—'Ηνίδε τόλμαν·
          οἰνοβαρές, τίν' ἔχεις pροντίδα;—Κωμάσομαι,
κωμάσομαι.—Ποĩ, θυμέ, τρήπη;—Τί δ' ’′Ερωτι λογισμός;
          ἅπτε τάχος.—Ποῦ δ' ἡ πρόσθε λόγων μελέτη;
—'Ερρίpθω σοpίας ὁ πολὺς πòνος· ἣν μόνον οἶδα (5)
          τοῦδ', ὅτί καì Zηνòς λῆμα καθεĩλεν '′Ερως.

—“Let the die be cast; take the torch; I will go”.—“Look what daring! You drunkard, what is your thought?”—“I shall go revelling, I shall go revelling”.—“My heart, where do you turn?”—“What is thought to Love? Take the torch quickly”.—“And where is the former care for logic?”—“Away with the long work of wisdom; I know only this, that Love overpowered even Zeus' will”.

In the two Meleagrian epigrams which we have just analyzed wine is, we have seen, conspicuously absent. In this one, on the contrary, as well as in our next piece, Meleager has made wine an essential element around which all the rest is built and the sole representative of the comos among other motifs.

The poem is in fact a short mime in which the personae seem to be merely the drunken lover and his soberer self, though we must also assume (cf. ἅπτε in lines 1 and 4) the quiet presence of a slave.³³ The motif of the comos is introduced in the first couplet in the words οἰνοβαρές and κωμάσομαι. The speaker's excitement and the struggle between reason and passion are conveyed in the first four lines by the interrupted speech and the successive questions and answers, while in the final distich a continuous statement consisting of the two longer and less elliptical sentences marks the determination of one power and its eventual victory over the other. Most of the caesurae are skilfully used from the beginning as indicators of the dialogue. In line 1 the bucolic diaeresis isolates ἠνίδε τόλμαν from the rest of the line, which must have been spoken by the drunken self. In line 2 the mandatory diaeresis of the pentameter has become less important in order that a trihemimeral caesura should emphasize the vocative οἰνoβαρές, since that is the important word which provides the first explanation for the incoherent language of the beginning.

A second break isolates κωμάσομαι, the answer of the drunken self, at the end of the line. This word recurs at the beginning of line 3, most likely in the mouth of the drunken self and not³⁴ as part of the question of his sober interlocutor. The emphatic repetition seems more fitting for the self-assurance which the lover obviously needs in order to withstand the attacks of Reason, and the trihemimeral and hephthemimeral caesurae are clearly aimed at dividing the line between the two speakers. The verbal form—κωμάσομαι—recalls Asclepiades 11 = A.P. 5.64 and particularly the two anonymous epigrams which precede Meleager's piece in the Anthology. In those poems too, as well as in Posiddipus 4 and Callimachus 8, we find the close association of the comos with wine.³⁵

Line 3 introduces the motif with which Meleager has here combined that of the comos, for τί δ' '′Ερωτι λογισμός; brings in the opposition of love and reason which we already found in Meleager 99 as an element of the motif of the Poet Caught by Love.³⁶ But what in that epigram was only a phrase (σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωpροσύνης) used as an adornment, has now become an important motif in the epigram, as important as that of the comos, and is accordingly developed in no less than two and a half lines (3-5). In line 4 the mandatory diaeresis of the pentameter is again of secondary importance so that the trihemimeral caesura should serve as an indication of dialogue. In all these two and a half lines the same conceit, reason against love and wine, is variously expressed, first in the form of questions posed in turn by the two selves, and then as a categoric statement, ἐρρίpθω σοpίας ὁ πολύς πόνος, which settles the matter and paves the way for the explanation of line 6, the power of love. We have seen that this conceit is handled in a very similar way in an anonymous poem (τηκέσθω Μουσέων ὁ πολύς πόνος), and Meleager probably also had in mind some lines of Posidippus.³⁷ Here, however, it is not the central motif as it was in those poems but only one among others, the link that joins the comos and its accompanying element, wine, with the conceit of the inescapable power of love. The latter, introduced after the bucolic diaeresis of line 5 and occupying the whole of line 6, is not new in our present family of poems, for already in Asclepiades 11 and 14 Zeus' adventures were said to have set a precedent for the lover's conduct. No particular myth is alluded to by Meleager in this case, and in this he follows Asclepiades 14—not Asclepiades 11—as he also does with the very similar wording in another of his poems.³⁸

To sum up: in this masterful epigram or short mime Meleager has combined three different elements which he borrowed from his predecessors. The main motif is that of the comos, and this is made clear by the emphatic repetition of the word κωμάσομαι. The reference to the weather and the statement that the beloved is more powerful than it have both been left aside.³⁹ Prominence has been given to the wine theme both because it is the raison d'être of the form of the epigram and because it paves the way for the introduction of the second main motif, the opposition of love and reason, an elaboration of the motif of the Poet Caught by Love. Finally, at the end of the poem we find the conceit of the example set by Zeus with his own famous love-affairs. Since this conceit coexisted with the motif of the comos in our epigram's models,⁴⁰ it takes us back to the beginning and leaves sandwiched in the middle the alien element which Meleager combined with the two others, that is, Love against Reason.

Meleager devoted still another epigram to wine in relation to the comos:

MELEAGER 20 = A.P. 12.119

Οἴσω ναì μὰ σέ, Βάκχε, τò σòν θράσος · ἁγέο κώμων,
          ἄρχε, θεòς θνατὰν ἁνιόχει κραδίαν.
ἐν πυρì γενναθεìς στέργεις pλόγα τὰν ἐν '′Ερωτι
          καί με πάλιν δήσας τòν σòν ἄγεις ἱκέταν.
ἦ προδότας κἄπιστος ἔpυς, τεὰ δ' ὄργια κρύπτειν (5)
          αὐδῶν, ἐκpαίνειν τἀμὰ σὺ νῦν ἐθέλεις.

Yes, by yourself I swear, Bacchus, I shall bear your boldness; lead the revel, begin; as a god, take the reins of a mortal heart. Born in fire you cherish the flame of love, and you lead me, your suppliant, once you have bound me again. Indeed you are treacherous and faithless by nature; you order your own rites to be kept secret, but you wish now to make mine known.

In the preface to their commentary on this poem Gow-Page observe that “the sequence of thought is clear only in the light of the model, Callimachus VIII, where the lover's visit to his beloved is involuntary, made under the compulsion of ἄκορητος καì ἤρως”. The point of departure seems in fact to have been Callimachus' ἄκρητος καì ἤρως μ' ἠνάγκασαν, since Meleager has selected as temporal setting for his poem precisely the moment in which wine is forcing the lover to go revelling. But while Meleager does this he also departs from Callimachus and shows the influence of his own other epigram on the comos in which wine is treated as an essential element. Thus in Meleager 19 we witnessed a conversation between the drunken lover and his soberer self. In this other poem Meleager takes us one step beyond that, and we hear a dialogue between the lover's undivided self and the inescapable superpower, wine, who is subduing his will. This conversation with wine is unique in the Hellenistic epigrams on the comos. To make it more pointed Meleager has substituted the god Bacchus, a supernatural power, for wine in the concrete sense of the word. This innovation will allow him to stress the helpless condition of the lover whose will appears totally annihilated and out of his own control. There is not even the possibility of a struggle between the sober and the inebriated selves such as we found in Meleager 19.⁴¹

In the opening line the lover declares that he is prepared to bear the boldness of Bacchus, which means, of course, the boldness or rashness (cf. Callimachus' πρoπέτεια) induced in the lover by the drinking of wine. The statement “I shall bear it” naturally implies that wine's rashness is difficult and dangerous to bear, and sets the epigram on the same footing as Meleager 19, Callimachus 8, Anonymous 6, and Anonymous 34, where wine was not only the cause (Callimachus) but almost a conditio sine qua non of the revel. The lover swears by Bacchus whose name is given among the very first words. This warns the reader that wine will be an essential element in the poem, since Bacchus is certainly not, as Zeus would be, a god by whom one would swear if he did not have a special bearing on the context.⁴² The motif of the epigram is specified at the end of this first hexameter in the words ἁγέο κώμων. These words should be taken together, as is suggested by the position after the bucolic diaeresis, and not (as most editors except Gow-Page) separated so that κώμων goes with ἄρχε in the next line. ἄρχε and ἁγέο κώμων underline the conceit of wine as cause and first mover of the comos, while the remainder of the pentameter stresses the divine condition here ascribed to wine. This last point was clear enough in the vocative βάκχε, but the insistence on it is plainly intended to reinforce the helplessness of a mortal in the hands of a god. This idea of helplessness is fundamental to the poem and is made particularly emphatic by the antithetical construction θεòς θνατάν. Finally, the last word of this first pentameter joins to wine the other necessary element of the comos. The κραδία, whose reins Bacchus should hold, is by long tradition the seat of love and a favorite metaphor with Meleager.⁴³ Hence, by the end of this initial couplet the reader is acquainted with the motif of the epigram, the comos, with its two traditional motivations, wine and love.

The theme of love is further developed in the second couplet, not, however, by means of a specific anecdote or in the name of a particular beloved but by an allusive and metaphorical language very well suited to the rather obscure character of the whole epigram. Line 3 develops an aetiological explanation of the traditional association of wine and love much in the manner of those given by Meleager in an epigram about Eros.⁴⁴ In line 4 we find an extremely compressed and enigmatic phrase which provides, however, the few concrete details of our poem: the lover claims that the same god has subdued him again (πάλιν δήσας) whom he once approached as a suppliant. The ὕστερον πρότερον—first he was a suppliant and only after that was he caught—makes the phrase complicated but we can surely identify two facts: that the lover was Bacchus' ἱκέτης means that he tried to find in wine the consolation and perhaps even the cure of an unhappy love,⁴⁵ while πάλιν δήσας tells us that he fell once more a victim of his passion precisely when he thought that he would be freed from it. δήσας had been also used by Posidippus in an epigram on the motif of the Poet Caught by Love to which Meleager may well be alluding here,⁴⁶ and a compound of the same verb was also used in connection with ἱκέτης in Meleager 73, 6 (ἐκδήσω τοὺς ἱκέτας στεpάνους). Though the words have here a different application they may well have been picked up by our poet because he remembered their role in an epigram that used a kindred motif. Be that as it may, what is important in this couplet is that it blends the conceit of the power of wine over the lover and the boldness it transmits to him⁴⁷ with another conceit which so far we have not found in an epigram on the comos, that wine serves as a consolation for the lover who wishes to drown the sorrows of love. The last mentioned conceit is clearly akin to that of wine as the cause of the revelation of the lover's secrets, the οἶνος ἔρωτος ἔλεγχος motif, in the words of an epigram by Asclepiades which seems to have influenced Meleager in our last couplet.⁴⁸ In fact in Meleager Bacchus is called προδότας κιπιστος (the insult is prominently isolated by the hephthemimeral caesura) because he wishes to reveal the lover's mysteries while hiding his own. In other words, wine is accused of forcing the lover to speak out and thus show his passion, in this case not (as in Asclepiades' epigram) just to the friends in the symposium, but in the public streets in the fury of the revel.

Meleager's second epigram on wine and the comos is thus a skilful blend of several related conceits. Love underlies it all, but no particular love-affair is mentioned, and from one couplet to the next we find in succession the conceit of wine as the inspirer of the comast, that of wine as the consolation of the lover's sorrows, and a variation of the famous in vino veritas motif. The unity of the whole is, of course, hinted at in the opening words of the epigram, which make clear that, though wine will be treated under various aspects, it will appear above all as an element of the revel.

Meleager made this motif of the comos the kernel of two more epigrams intimately related to one another through a secondary motif, which is the same in both. I shall first interpret

MELEAGER 109 = A.P. 12.167

Xειμέριον μὲν πνεῦμα, pέρει δ' ἐπì σοί με, Μυiσκε,
          ἁρπαστòν κώμοις ὁ γλυκύδακρυς '′Ερως ·
χειμαίνει δὲ βαρὺς πνεῦσας Πόθος · ἀλλά μ' ἐς ὅρμον
          δέξαι τòν ναύτην Κύπριδος ἐν πελάγει.

The wind is wintry, but sweetly-teared Love carries me towards you, Muiskus, snatched up as I am in the revels. Desire is stormy and blows heavy, but receive me, the sailor in the sea of Cypris, into your harbor.

The epigram begins with a mention of the weather, which points to one line of models⁴⁹ and which is followed, just as there, by the conceit The Beloved is More Powerful than the Weather. κώμοις, the signal for the motif, appears in the pentameter, where the revel is, for the first time in this family, combined with love to represent the cause and the raison d'être of the epigram and of the speaker's words: Love is thus said to carry the lover to Muiskus (pέρει δ' ἐπì σοί με … '′Ερως), but the instrument of its action is the revel (ἁρπαστòν κώμogrις). The innovation consists in an expansion of Asclepiades' and Callimachus' simpler image of the lover dragged by the power of love⁵⁰ to the comos—not by means of the comos—and ultimately to the door of his beloved. Eros is here called γλυκύδακρυς, a variation of the adjective γλυκύπικρος which Sappho had already applied to love.⁵¹ Thus when the first distich comes to an end we know that this epigram depicts the monologue of a comast with the elements that are characteristic of the motif.

It would be quite exceptional for Meleager not to combine one model with another and thereby blend two or more motifs, and our present poem is indeed no exception. The second couplet opens with the word χειμαίνει, which echoes χειμέριον in line 1 just as πνεῦσας Πόθος echoes πνεῦμα in that same line. The repetition is intentional and it would be naive to emend χειμαίνει (cf. Salmasius' κυμαίνει) in order to avoid it. Its purpose is precisely to indicate the introduction of the new motif of the poem, that of the Sea of Love,⁵² in which approximately the same terms as were used first in connection with the weather will now be applied metaphorically to the force of desire. The wording of line 3 is virtually the same as that of another epigram by Meleager, and if we pay due attention to this—such similarities are rarely mere coincidence in our poet—we discover that the model for our second distich was Meleager 119 = A.P. 12.157.⁵³ This poem is entirely devoted to the motif of the Sea of Love. Besides the occurrence in both epigrams of χειμαίνει δὲ βαρὺς πνεύσας Πόθος, in Meleager 119 Κύπρις is the lover's ναύκληρος and he swims παμpύλῳ παίδων … ἐν πελάγει. These two conceits our poet has now concentrated in the final pentameter—δέξαι τòν ναύτην Κύπριδος ἐν πελάγει—, while at the same time he has modified them with an additional one from still another model. For though Meleager 119 deals with the Sea of Love we hear nothing there of the beloved as the haven to which the lover heads. This conceit, introduced after the bucolic diaeresis of line 3, is borrowed from Anonymous 5 = A.P. 12.100, where a lover complains that Cypris has brought him to a strange “haven of desire”.⁵⁴

Finally, both in Meleager 119 and in our present epigram the conceit βαρὺς πνεῦσας Πόθος seems inspired by Sappho fr. 47 (Lobel-Page) '′Ερως δ' ἐτίναξέ μοι ❙ pρένας, ὡς ἄνεμος κὰτ ὄρος δρύσιν ἐμπέτων, and the coincidence of thought should not be considered fortuitous in an epigram in which Meleager is already dependent on Sappho for the expression γλύκύδακρυς '′Ερως.

The style is lucid. Assonance in ε, η, ει, ευ combines all along with assonance in ο, οι, ου, ω, and the initial spondees of the three last lines are well suited to the sense, particularly the entreaty of line 4. The combination of independent motifs has been skilfully achieved, and the juxtaposition of the literal and metaphorical references to natural phenomena gives a touch of novelty to the traditional setting of the revel.

Closely dependent upon Meleager 109 is

MELEAGER 64 = A.P. 5.190

Κῦμα τò πικρòν '′Ερωτος ἀκοίμητοί τε πνEοντες
          ζῆλοι καì κoμων χειμέριον πέλαγος,
ποῖ pέρομαι; πάντῃ δὲ pρενῶν οἴακες ἀpεῖνται ·
          ἦ πάλι τὴν τρυpερὴν Σκύλλαν ἀποψόμεθα;

4 ἀπάψόμεθα P Pl ἐποψόμεθα Corr in P

O bitter wave of Love and sleepless, blowing jealousy and wintry sea of revels, whither am I borne? The rudders of my mind are loose everywhere: shall we see again delicate Scylla?

Here again Meleager has combined the motif of the comos with that of the comparison of love to a stormy sea. But while in Meleager 109 the two motifs were separately treated in the two couplets and the metaphorical expression in the second became clear in view of the conceits of the first, in our present epigram they appear to be more intimately intertwined by means of the contrapuntal technique which we have seen Meleager use in one of his epigrams on the motif of Ganymede.⁵⁵ This will become apparent in a close interpretation of the text.

The opening word, κῦμα, connects the epigram with those that deal with the perils of the sea,⁵⁶ but we soon notice that this sea is qualified by an adjective, πικρόν, which is not at all appropriate to it but is on the other hand automatically associated with love; this spontaneous association is confirmed by the word '′Ερωτος. By the end of the first hemistich we know that the κῦμα of the beginning is metaphorical. It refers not to the actual waves of the sea but to the waves, that is, the attacks, of passion. κῦμα τὸ πικρὸν '′Ερωτος is in fact a variation of Sappho's '′Ερως γλυκύπικρος, which we saw in Meleager 109 transformed into γλυκύδακρυς. In so far as κῦμα '′Ερωτος means “flow of passion” it implies a positive appraisal of the sentiment and is equivalent to the element γλυκύ-in the Sapphic adjective, which, however, is immediately invalidated by the words τò πικρόν. The juxtaposition of the two motifs and the close dependence on Meleager 109 continues in the words that follow. ἀκοίμητοι belongs to the subjective erotic vocabulary and recalls the image of the lover who lies awake thinking of his beloved. πνέοντες—corresponding to πνεῦμα in Meleager 109—causes us to expect to hear about winds, an expectation which is emphatically disappointed by the enjambement of the word ζῆλοι—again an erotic term. The contrapuntal technique continues in the rest of the pentameter where κώμων (the label of the motif) is appended to χειμέριον πέλαγος, the three words clearly showing that the literal and metaphorical senses of the references to the weather are here blended into a whole.

The apostrophe of the first couplet is thus that of a comast who is making his way by night to the door of his beloved. This, despite the somewhat obscure expression that results from the condensed metaphors, becomes clear through the similarity with Meleager 109, an epigram which, as we have seen, is more specific in its handling of the motif of the comos. The second distich develops the motif of the sea. The lover describes himself as lost and wondering whether he will see again the Sicilian rock Scylla, but two words, pρενῶν in the hexameter and τρυpερήν in the pentameter, make clear that the whole is a metaphorical expression where the ship is the lover's enamored soul, the sea is the comos, and Scylla his beloved.⁵⁷ The hexameter seems to be a concise variation of the motif which Meleager developed in extenso in another poem⁵⁸ where the lover compares himself in detail to a ship that sails on a smooth or rough sea according to the caprice of his beloved. The meaning of this metaphor in our epigram is that the comast, perhaps even under the effect of wine (though wine is not mentioned) feels that he is being dragged against his will⁵⁹ to the door of his mistress. And the picture of the mind (cf. pρενῶν οἴακες ἀpεĩνται) overpowered by passion is a variation of the conceit of the Poet Caught by Love, which was developed in Meleager 19 and which is also blended with the Sea of Love in an anonymous epigram of Book Twelve.⁶⁰ Finally in the last pentameter the lover wonders whether his comos will end in a new meeting with τὴν τρυpερὴν Σκύλλαν. Jacobs took this as a reference to a woman named Τρυpέρα (cf. Meleager 63 = A.P. 5.154, 2: ἤστι καì ἠκ μορpῶς ἁ Τρυpέρα τρυpερά) whom the poet here calls Scylla on account of the dangers he runs for her or because of her rapacity.⁶¹ This interpretation, accepted by Gow-Page, is rejected by Dorsey⁶² on the grounds that if Tryphera is a Scylla in character sighting her cannot bring surcease from stormy jealousies and that the name is inappropriate if essentially she is a Scylla. The objection is hardly pertinent—who would be surprised to learn that a man loves a woman whom he knows to be treacherous and greedy?—but Dorsey is right in asserting that there is no need to hypothesize an actual person.⁶³ In fact I do not see that either Jacobs or Gow-Page do so. They merely assume that Meleager is here playing on the name Tryphera, which he used in Meleager 63, without implying that a Tryphera ever existed. What is quite likely, however, given Meleager's fancy for variation on other poets' as well as on his own epigrams, is that he meant the adjective τρυpερeν to bring Meleager 63 to the reader's mind.

The preceding discussion has taken into consideration the seventeen Hellenistic epigrams of Books Five and Twelve of the Anthology which depict the situation of the lover who goes as a reveller to his beloved's house—the κῶμος—and that of the exclusus amator who sings a serenade παρακλαυσίθυρον. A few incidental references to these motifs can be found in other epigrams which treat different themes,⁶⁴ but they are only circumstantial and do not justify their inclusion in this family.

The two motifs were developed by Asclepiades of Samos in five epigrams which influenced all subsequent treatments. He devoted two poems (11 and 14) to the comos and three (12, 13, and 42) to the paraclausithyron, while in one of them (Asclepiades 14) he combined the two kindred motifs by means of an intricate narrative which set the situation in the past. His successors followed one or the other of these three procedures,⁶⁵ and while freely borrowing from Asclepiades' epigrams each of them was also deeply indebted to other poets, so that their compositions show a striking number of similar expressions and conceits.⁶⁶ One may add, in conclusion, that even in those poems in which love was not explicitly mentioned, a single thought underlay all variations and innovations, that man cannot fight against the power of the god Eros.⁶⁷

Notes

1. Herodas. The Mimes and Fragments with notes by Walter Headlam, edited by A. D. Knox (Cambridge, 1922). Cf. also F. O. Copley, Exclusus Amator. A Study in Latin Love Poetry, Philological Monographs published by the American Philological Association, Number XVII (1956).

2. Cf. op. cit. in n. 68 supra: ἄστρα pίλα καì πότνια Nὺξ συνερῶσά μοι and Wifstrand, p. 62. Meleager himself used similar words in other epigrams: Meleager 51 = A.P. 5. 165, which opens bΕν τόδε, παμμέτειρα θεῶν, λίτομαί σε, pίλη Nύξ, ❙ ναì λίτομαι κώμων σύμπλανε πότνια Nύξ, and is besides obviously reminiscent of fr. Z 51 (Lobel-Page) of Alcaeus of Mytilene, quoted in p. 52 supra; Meleager 52 = A.P. 5.166 ὦ Nύξ, ὦ pιλάγρυπνος ἐμοì πόθος ‘Ηλιοδώρας; Meleager 69 = A.P. 5.8 Nὺξ ἱερὴ καì λύχνε, συνίστορας οὔτινας ἄλλους, which seem all (particularly the last mentioned) influenced by Asclepiades 13 = A.P. 5.164 Nύξ, σὲ γάρ, οὐκ ἄλλην, μαρτύρομαι. Cf. also Theocritus, Id. 2.10 f. Σελάνα, ❙ pαĩνε καλόν; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 355 ff.: ὦ Zεῦ βασιλεῦ καì νὺξ pιλία ❙ μεγάλων κόσμων κτεάτειρα; Euripides fr. 114 (Nauck): ὖ νὺξ ἱερά …, Philodemus A.P. 5.123, 1-2: pαĩνε, Σελήνη, ❙ pαĩνε.

3. Cf. Asclepiades 9 = A.P. 5.7; Asclepiades 10 = A.P. 5.150; Meleager 51 = A.P. 5.165; Meleager 52 = A.P. 5.166; Marcus Argentarius A.P. 6.333; Paulus Silentiarius A.P. 5.279; Philodemus A.P. 5.4. On the lamp in erotic literature cf. Kost, op. cit. (n. 86 supra) pp. 126 ff.

4. Cf. Revue des Études Grecques 81 (1968), 50-58.

5. Cf. n. 116 supra.

6. In Musaeus 239 ff. … Eros, not the lamp, kindles the lover's soul, which burns (metaphorically) at the same time as the lamp burns (literally). (Cf. Giangrande, Journal of Hellenic Studies 89 (1969), p. 140: “ὁμοῦ καì, in other words, does not refer to the fact that [b.Lambda]έανδρος and the λύχνος are burning together, but to the fact that, in the “mündliche Tradition” reported by Musaeus (cf. Ludwich on άκούω line 5) the νύχιον πλωτῆρα figured together with the λύχνον.”). This is also the case in Statyllius Flaccus A.P. 5.5, 6. … In Paulus Silentiarius A.P. 5.279 … it is not the case that “le λύχνος s'éteint et fait s'éteindre le feu d'amour du poète” (cf. Giangrande, op. cit. (n. 117 supra) p. 54), but the poet wishes … that the fire of his heart (figurative) would die out at the same time as the lamp (literally) dies out. Finally in Meleager 68 = A.P. 12.83, 1 the λαμπάς (not λύχνος) is the torch seized by Eros to kindle the poet's love and is therefore a pure trope which has nothing to do with the lamp of every-day ancient life, while the same is true of the σύγκωμον δὲ όοθοισι … pανίον of lines 3-4, and of the play pανίον-Φανίον in Meleager 67 = A.P. 12.82. (Cf. n. 79 supra).

7. Perhaps “kindled by her lamp” means no more than “lighted” by it, although I can find no parallel for καίω ❙ δαίω ❙ δάω = “to light”, without the connotation of “burning”. Maybe we should accept one of the proposed conjectures, e.g. Jacobs' ἀποδυρομένην or Huschke's ἀποκλαιομένην, and emend the text. A very similar line occurs in Meleager 23 = A.P. 5.197, 3-4: ναì pιλάγρυπνον ❙ λύχνον ἠμῦν κώμων πόλλ' ἠπιδόντα τέλη.

8. For ἐκδήσω in line 6 cf. Asclepiades 12 = A.P. 5.145, 1 αὐτοῦ … κρεμαστοί; for ἐπì προθύροισι in line 5 cf. ibid. παρὰ δικλίσι; for μαράνας δάκρυσιν in lines 5-6 cf. ibid., line 3: οὕς δακρύοις κατέβρεξα. Cf. also n. 67 infra.

9. Cf. op. cit. (n. 117 supra) pp. 57-58.

10. The metaphor is clear even if we do not suppose that the poet's tears are here (as elsewhere) θερμά and that this is the reason why they produce on the garland the opposite effect of fresh water or dew. Cf. Giangrande, op. cit (n. 117 supra) pp. 57-58.

11. On the use of ἱκήτης by Meleager cf. Giangrande, Classical Review 81 (1967), p. 130.

12. Cf. p. 113 and n. 177 infra.

13. Op. cit. (n. 1 supra) p. 4.

14. Copley prints ἀποδυρομένην, and μαράνας in line 5.

15. Op. cit. (n. 117 supra) p. 51: “Après avoir frappé et avoir attendu quelque temps devant la porte qui reste fermée, le poète comprend qu'elle ne lui sera pas ouverte; il s'en va, ayant pendu aux battants une couronne de fleurs baignée de ses larmes”.

16. Meleager 52 = A.P. 5.166. …

17. Cf. pp. 98 ff. infra. This mixture of languages appropriate to different types of epigrams seems to have attracted Meleager, who uses it again e.g. in Meleager 54 = A.P. 5.215 and Meleager 97 = A.P. 12.74 (Cf. [Theocritus] Id. 23, 47-48), where he parodies funerary inscriptions. Cf. also p. 36 supra. For examples of dedicatory language cf. Dionysius 5 = A.P. 6.3; Leonidas 52 = A.P. 6.4; Anyte 1 = A.P. 6.123, and many more in Book Six.

18. Cf. e.g. Alcaeus 21 = A.P. 6.218; Anonymous 42 = A.P. 6.51; Dioscorides 16 = A.P. 6.220; Leonidas 44 = A.P. 6.281; etc. In Meleager 11 = A.P. 6.162, 2 the lover's lamp is called μύστην σῶν (i.e. Cypris') … παννυχίδων.

19. Cf. Leonidas 54 = A.P. 6.293 where the κυνικοῦ σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωχάρεος are dedicated to Cypris; Leonidas 55 = A.P. 6.298 σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωχάρεος [b.Lambda]ιμòς ἀνεκρέμασεν; and p. 100 with n. 31 infra. Cf. also Leonidas 4 = A.P. 6.188 with the verb κρεμάννυμι, as well as Mnasalces 3 = A.P. 6.9, the epigrams studied in Chapter Five infra, and many more.

20. μύστης + κώμων + στοργῶς + σκῦλα, an abba arrangement. Cf. Hedylus 2 = A.P. 5.199, 4: παρθενίων ὑγρὰ λάpυρα πόθων and Ludwig, pp. 305 ff.

21. The Fragmentum Grenfellianum and the night theme of the epigrams of Asclepiades and the Anonymous authors for the first couplet; Posidippus 4 and the erotic conceit of the lamp for the second; paraclausithyron conceit of the garlands (especially taken from Asclepiades 12) for the third. The theme of wine is conspicuously absent here.

22. Cf. Dioscorides 4 = A.P. 5.193; Leonidas 54 = A.P. 6.293; Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99; Meleager 61 = A.P. 12.109; Meleager 62 = A.P. 12.113; Rhianus 5 = A.P. 12.146; Theocritus 19 = A.P. 9.338; Meleager 115 = A.P. 12.85. The comparison of love with the chase is already present in Callimachus 1 = A.P. 12.102, and is a commonplace in earlier Greek literature, cf. e.g. Plato, Protagoras 309 A 1-2 and C. J. Classen, Untersuchungen zu Platons Jagdbildern (Berlin, 1960), pp. 5 ff. for the pre-Platonic period.

23. Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99. … The similarity with this and other poems by Meleager (cf. Meleager 19 = A.P. 12.117, 5 ἠρρίpθω σοpίας ὁ πολὺς πόνος, pp. 101 ff. infra) would favor Radinger's opinion (p. 84) that the anonymous poet may well be Meleager. Radinger calls attention to the anaphora of ἠγρεύθην as a feature typical of Meleager. Cf., however, n. 33 supra, p. 26. Wifstrand, p. 61, n. 1 says that this poem “sieht meleagrisch aus”.

24. Cf. Anonymous 5 = A.P. 12.100; Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99; Meleager 103 = A.P. 12.101; Meleager 19 = A.P. 12.117; Posidippus 7 = A.P. 12.120. Cf. also Posidippus 1 = A.P. 5.134.

25. ὁ in line 1 was supplied by Schneider in order to fill a metrical gap. χὠ, however, (i.e. “even I”), proposed by Gow-Page because the lengthening before initial mute + liquid in thesi is anomalous, would give a more pointed nuance to the theme of the unexpectedness of the poet's defeat.

26. Cf. ἐπιγράψας and σκῦλα, which occur in both epigrams. Familiar as we are with the conceit of the garland we would have expected the verbs δέω or κρεμάννυμι at the beginning of line 4 (cf. ἐκδήσω and ἐκρέμασε in Meleager 73, κρεμαστοί in Asclepiades 12). στῆσεν, in a prominent position, causes surprise, emphasizes the variation (i.e. “set me”, not “hang my garland”), and recalls the use of the verb τίθημι in Leonidas 54 = A.P. 6.293. Cf. p. 101 infra.

27. ‘Ο σκίπων καì ταῦτα τὰ βλαυτία, πότνια Κύπρι, ❙ ἄγκειται κυνικοῦ σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωχάρεος, ❙ ὄλπη τε ρυπόεσσα πολυτρήτοιό τε πήρας ❙ λείψανον, ἀρχαίης πληθόμενον σοpίης· ❙ σοì δὲ ‘Ρòδων ὁ καλός, τòν πάνσοpον ἡνίκα πρέσβυν ❙ ἤγρευσεν, στεπτοĩς θήκατ' ἐπì προθύροις.

28. Cf. e.g. Leonidas 96 = A.P. 6.110; Samius 1 = A.P. 6.116; Theodoridas 4 = A.P. 6.222; Anonymous 43 = A.P. 6.45, and many more in Book Six.

29. Cf. πήρας λείψανον, ἀρχαίης πληθόμενον σοpίης and τòν πάνσοpον … πρέσβυν.

30. Line 2: σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωχάρεος r line 4: σκῦλ' ἀπò Σωpροσύνης; line 4: σοpήης and line 5: πάνσοpον r line 4: Σωpροσύνης; line 6: ἤγρευσεν r line 1: ἠγρεύθην; line 6: στεπτοĩς ἐπì προθύροις r line 3: ἐπì σοĩς … προθύροισι; line 6: θήκατ' r line 4: στῆσεν. Cf. also Theodoridas 17 = A.P. 9.743, 4: σκῦλον ἀπ' 'Ιλλυριῶν and Wifstrand p. 45, as well as p. 97 supra.

31. The Poet Caught is a Cynic philosopher in Leonidas but this does not constitute an important difference.

32. Cf. pp. 68 and 71 with n. 61 supra.

33. I agree with Gow-Page's division of the dialogue; cf. especially their preface to the commentary on the epigram, where a summary is given of the different proposals. D. F. Dorsey Jr., Meleager's Epigrammatic Technique, Princeton Dissertation (unpublished) (1967), pp. 193 ff. analyzes this poem and wishes to ascribe the words ποῦ δ' … μελέτη to the drunken self, consequently having to presuppose that “at some point before verse 6 the sober half of the lover was converted to the inebriate's point of view”. This seems plainly wrong, and Dorsey himself recognizes “the absence of any sign … to show the superego's conversion in the words ἅπτε τάχος”.

34. Cf. Gow on Theocritus, Id. 30. 11.

35. Anonymous 6 = A.P. 12.115 and Anonymous 34 = A.P. 12.116. cf. pp. 70 and 77 supra.

36. Cf. p. 99 and n. 26 supra. Particularly in Meleager's mind seems to have been Posidippus 7 = A.P. 12.120, where λογισμός is an armor against love but only as long as the lover is sober.

37. Posidippus 1 = A.P. 5.134: σιγάσθω Zονων, ὁ σοpòς κύκνος, ἅ τε Κλεάνθους ❙ Μοῦσα; Posidippus 7 = A.P. 12.120: ἄχρι δὲ νήpω ❙ τòν παραταξάμενον πρòς σὲ λογισμòν ἔχω. The anonymous line is from Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99. Cf. nn. 25 and 26 supra. Cf. also Anacreon fr. 51 (Page) in Giangrande's interpretation, Entretien, pp. 113 ff.

38. Meleager 103 = A.P. 12.101, 6: καὐτòν ἀπ' 'Ολύμπου Zῆνα καθεĩλεν '′Ερως; the poem is another variation of the motif of the Poet Caught by Love.

39. The ἐρώμενος is here not mentioned; we do not know whether the beloved is a man or a woman, and the epigram's location in Book Twelve is therefore arbitrary.

40. Cf. Asclepiades 11 and 14. The technique of the example is, of course, also used in other epigrams with no connection with the comos, cf. p. 7 and n. 1 supra.

41. N.b. that in Meleager 99 = A.P. 12.23 (cf. pp. 98 ff. supra) the lover is at the mercy of the other god, Eros, who dedicates him at Muiskus' portals. In other words, Meleager developed there the '′Ερως of Callimachus' ἄκρητος καì ἔρως μ' ἠνάγκασαν, and the ἄκρητος in our present epigram.

42. Cf. the invocation to Dionysius in Anacreon fr. 12 (Page) and Giangrande, Entretien, p. 109.

43. For κραδία in erotic contexts cf. e.g. Sappho fr. 31 (Lobel-Page); Theocritus, Id. 29, 4; Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99; Anonymous 27 = A.P. 12.130; Alcaeus 6 = A.P. 5.10; and numerous passages in Meleager, e.g. Meleager 9 = A.P. 5.208; Meleager 10 = A.P. 5.212; Meleager 26 = A.P. 5.160; etc.

44. Meleager 8 = A.P. 5.180, especially lines 7-8. … For Bacchus cf. Meleager 127 = A.P. 9.331. …

45. Cf. Alcaeus fr. 346 (Lobel-Page), Theognis 883, and Giangrande, Entretien, p. 107, who, however, asserts (pp. 101 and 171) that this motif was shunned by the Alexandrians.

46. Posidippus 6 = A.P. 12.98, especially Τῶν Μουσῶν τέττιγα Πόθος δήσας ἐπ' ἀκάνθαις ❙ κοιμίzειν ἐθέλει πῦρ ὑπò πλευρὰ βαλών. Notice that here Meleager also uses the metaphor of the fire of love. Cf. p. 64 and n. 42 supra for Posidippus' influence on Anonymous 3 = A.P. 5.168. Cf. Giangrande, Entretien, p. 130, n. 3 for δήσας as a variation of ἐληίσατο in Asclepiades 16 = A.P. 12.50, 2. Cf. p. 128 and n. 33 infra.

47. Cf., in the first couplet, θράσος, ἁγέο κώμων, ἄρχε, ἁνιόχει, and πάλιν δήσας and ἄγεις in the second.

48. Cf. Asclepiades 18 = A.P. 12.135 and Ludwig, pp. 303 ff. For the motif cf. Alcaeus fr. 333 and fr. 366 (Lobel-Page) and Giangrande, Entretien, p. 107.

49. Cf. especially Asclepiades 42 … ; Asclepiades 14 … ; Anonymous 34, 3-4. …

50. Cf. Asclepiades 11…, and Callimachus 8. …

51. Cf. Sappho fr. 130 (Lobel-Page); Posidippus 1 = A.P. 5.134; Meleager 61 = A.P. 12.109. Meleager has γλυκύδακρυς also in Meleager 4 = A.P. 7.419 and Meleager 37 = A.P. 5.177. Cf. Rhianus 10 = A.P. 12.142, 6 …, Anonymous 9 = A.P. 12.99, 6 …, Meleager 50 = A.P. 5.163, 3 …, Meleager 107 = A.P. 12.154, 4 …, Asclepiades 19 = A.P. 12.153, 3-4 …, Rufinus A.P. 5.22, 1. …

52. The motif that connects the sea with love appears in several Hellenistic epigrams, e.g. Anonymous 22 = A.P. 12.156; Asclepiades 40 = A.P. 5.161; Meleager 60 = A.P. 5.204; Meleager 64 = A.P. 5.190; Meleager 108 = A.P. 12.159; Meleager 25 = A.P. 5.156; cf. also Meleager 93 = A.P. 12.158; Dioscorides 13 = A.P. 12.42 and n. 54 infra.

53. Κύπρις ἐμοì ναύκληρος, '′Ερως δ' οἴακα pυλάσσει ❙ ἄκρον ἔχων ψυχῆς ἐν χερì πηδάλιον · ❙ χειμαίνει δ' ὁ βαρὺς πνεύσας Πόθος, οὕνεκα δὴ νῦν ❙ παμpύλῳ παίδων νeχομαι ἐν πελάγει. This epigram is itself closely related to Anonymous 22 = A.P. 12.156.

54. Cf. line 1: …, Macedonius the Consul A.P. 5.235, and Philodemus A.P. 10.21.

55. Cf. Meleager 84 = A.P. 12.133, pp. 37 ff. supra.

56. Cf. e.g. Phalaecus 4 = A.P. 13.27; Phalaecus 5 = A.P. 7.650; Leonidas 14 = A.P. 7.665; Leonidas 15 = A.P. 7.652; Pancrates 3 = A.P. 7.653; Hegesippus 6 = A.P. 13.12; Theodoridas 13 = A.P. 7.738, etc.

57. Gow-Page observe that δέ after ποĩ pέρομαι “is unnecessary, or worse”. It seems, however, to emphasize the peculiarity of the situation depicted, that is, a ship that is being driven somewhere although its οἴακες are loose, a lover who feels the compulsion of the comos although his mental activity seems interrupted, and this is probably what the editors of the Budé edition meant by making the question end only with ἀpεĩνται.

58. Meleager 108 = A.P. 12.159. …

59. ποĩ pέρομαι; cf. ἥλκει in Asclepiades 11, εἷλκεν in Callimachus 8, and n. 67 infra.

60. Cf. Anonymous 5 = A.P. 12.100, line 1 …, and line 4. …

61. In support of his interpretation Jacobs quotes Anaxilas' fragment in Athenaeus XIII 558 C, a comparison of a hetaera to several creatures, including a Scylla.

62. Cf. op. cit. (n. 146 supra) pp. 292-297 for the whole discussion of this poem.

63. As he notes, given Asclepiades 26 = A.P. 5.185, 6 Τρυpέραν, it should be assumed that Meleager picked up the name for the sake of the pun.

64. E.g. Asclepiades 3 = A.P. 5.153, which influenced Meleager 73 = A.P. 5.191 (cf. p. 95 supra), and Meleager 92 = A.P. 12.72, for which cf. Ludwig, pp. 315-317.

65. Anonymous 3, 6, 34, Meleager 19, 20, 64, 109 dealt exclusively with the comos; Callimachus 63, Meleager 99 with the paraclausithyron; Callimachus 8, Posidippus 4, Meleager 73, with a mixture of both.

66. I) Weather-phenomena: Asclepiades 11 …, 14 …, 13 …, Anonymous 3 …, 6 …, 34 …, Posidippus 4 …, Callimachus 63 …, Meleager 73 …, 64 …, 109. … II) Wine: Asclepiades 14? … ; Anonymous 6 …, 34 …, Callimachus 8 …, Posidippus 4 …, Meleager 19 …, 20. … III) κῶμος or κωμάω: Asclepiades 11, Anonymous 6, 34, Callimachus 8, Meleager 99, 19, 20, 73, 64, 109. IV) The beloved's door: Asclepiades 14 …, 12 …, 13 …, 42 …, Callimachus 8 …, 63 …, Meleager 99 …, 73. … V) The garland wet with tears: Asclepiades 12, Anonymous 34, Meleager 73. VI) Eros, or love: Asclepiades 14, 42, Callimachus 8, Anonymous 3, 6, Posidippus 4, Meleager 99, 19, 20, 64, 109. VII) Zeus addressed: Asclepiades 11, 14. VIII) Zeus' love adduced as example: Asclepiades 11, 14, Meleager 19. IX) βάλλῃ: Anonymous 6, ἠπιβαλλόμενον: Anonymous 3. X) πολλὴν εἰς ὁδόν: Anonymous 6, μακρὴν … ὁδόν: Anonymous 34. XI) ἐβόησα: Asclepiades 14, Callimachus 8. XII) Πυθιάς: Asclepiades 13, Posidippus 4. XIII) ἥλκειν: Asclepiades 11, Callimachus 8, Anonymous 3 (differently applied); cf. Anonymous 3 δαμέντα, Posidippus 4 χρoμενος, Meleager 19 καθεĩλεν, Meleager 20 δῆσας. XIV) σopρονα: Callimachus 8, ἀpροσύναν: Anonymous 6, Σωpροσύνη: Meleager 99 (cf. λογισμίς, σοpια, λογων μελέτη: Meleager 19). XV) Idea of hanging: Asclepiades 12 …, Meleager 73 …, (cf. στῆσεν in Meleager 99). XVI) σκῦλα: Meleager 99, 73, and cf. 64. … XVII) ἱκύτης: Meleager 73, 20. XVIII) ἐπιγράψας: Meleager 99, 73. XIX) pιλάρωσι: Meleager 73, cf. δυσέρωσι: Meleager 99. XX) The beloved addressed: Asclepiades 14, Callimachus 8, 63, Meleager 99, 109. XXI) Conceit The Beloved is More Powerful than the Weather: Asclepiades 11, 14, Anonymous 3, 6, 34, Posidippus 4, Meleager 109. XXII) Alternatives “alone or with another man”: Posidippus 4, Meleager 73. XXIII) Image of the lover dragged by love, love and wine, or wine: Asclepiades 11, Anonymous 3, Callimachus 8, Posidippus 4, Meleager 99, 19, 20, 109. XXIV) Cypris: Asclepiades 42, Meleager 73, 109.

67. Cf. Knauer, p. 7, who remarks that in this motif Eros is the μέγας θεός of old lyric poetry and tragedy and not the “tändelnde Knabe des Hellenismus”.