Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Brumbaugh, Michael Everett, 1982– author.
Title: The new politics of Olympos : kingship in Kallimachos’ hymns / by Michael Brumbaugh.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2019] | Includes bibliographical references
Identifiers: LCCN 2019012355 | ISBN 9780190059262 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190059286 (ebook other) | ISBN 9780190059279 (ebook other)
Subjects: LCSH: Callimachus. Hymns. | Gods, Greek, in literature. | Kings and rulers in literature. | Politics in literature. | Greece—Politics and government—To 146 B.C.
Classification: LCC PA5319. K27 Z54 2019 | DDC 880 .9/002—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019012355
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America
1.1 Silver tetradrachm minted at Alexandria, issued by Ptolemy I on or after 294/3. Ob.: Bust of Ptolemy I. Re.: Eagle clutching a thunderbolt with legend “ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ
1.2 Gold mnaieion (=octadrachm) minted at Alexandria, issued by Ptolemy II c.272-–260. Re.: Jugate busts of Ptolemy I and Berenike I with legend “ΘΕΩΝ;” Ob.: Jugate busts of Ptolemy II and Arsinoë II with legend “ΑΔΕΛΦΩΝ.”
2.1 A composite hierarchy incorporating Kallimachos’ three sets of patron/client lists.
It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to register my gratitude to the many people and institutions who have had a hand in midwifing this book to completion. This book began as a dissertation at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The initial focus of that project was genre and praise rhetoric in the Greek hymn, but ultimately it became a study of Kallimachos’ engagement with the earlier hymnic tradition. My first introduction to Hellenistic poetry came from a seminar on the Argonautika, which Greg Thalmann helmed as he was preparing Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism (Oxford 2011). Some years after that seminar Greg generously agreed to serve as an outside reader on my dissertation committee. Early in graduate school I took seminars on papyrology and Kallimachos’ Hymns from Michael Haslam whose knowledge of Greek and rigorous attention to detail deepened my appreciation for the complexities of textual transmission and the poet’s manipulation of language. At the same time, Sarah Morris’ seminar on the literary and material accounts of the Trojan War taught me to appreciate the dynamic interplay between textual and material evidence in reconstructing the narratives that pervaded the ancient world. Michael and Sarah then jointly supervised my M.A. thesis on Apollonios and Hesiod, which allowed me to explore the arte allusiva and its interpretive consequences. No less formative were seminars from Amy Richlin on the theory of Roman history and from David Blank on Empedokles and later on Heraklitos’ Homeric Problems. These experiences not only added to my methodological toolkit, but they impressed on me the importance of looking for evidence beyond the cannon and outside established disciplinary lanes. Alex Purves generously shared drafts of her work and responded to my many queries long before I even applied to UCLA. As an advisor on my dissertation, she opened my eyes to further nuances of poetic language and continually inspired me to explore new approaches to old problems. It would be difficult to overstate the extraordinary impact Kathryn Morgan has had on me, my thinking about Greek literature, and my career more broadly. As Doktormutter she swiftly shepherded me through the dissertation process while still devoting a seemingly infinite amount of attention to reading
my work and probing my arguments. Her expertise in the politics of praise guided my early attempts at marrying together the literary and historical strands of my project. There are of course numerous others from the UCLA community of faculty and students who deserve thanks, especially fellow graduate students Peter Weller, Rob Groves, Suzanne Lye, Charlie Stein, Emily Rush, Craig Russell, and Brian Walters. Brian’s critical eye and good humor have never flagged throughout the years of our friendship.
I am grateful to Tulane University, the School of Liberal Arts, and the Department of Classical Studies for supporting my work as this monograph took shape. A junior research leave, Lavin Bernick Grant, Lurcy Grant, and Faculty Networking Grant provided me time and access to resources necessary to complete this project. I have learned much from Ryan Boehm, who has been an invaluable reader, sounding board, and friend through every step over the past six years. Dennis Kehoe read multiple drafts of nearly every chapter at a critical time as the project neared completion. The Loeb Classical Library Foundation, the Fondation Hardt, and the Getty Research Institute also supported the researching and writing of this book. My time at Reed College and Princeton University was also instrumental to the development of this project, and I want to thank Nigel Nicholson, Yelena Baraz, Joshua Katz, Bob Kaster, Denis Feeney, Marc Domingo Gygax, Casper de Jonge, and Richard Hunter. At Colgate University, Drew Keller taught me Greek and Naomi Rood generously spent a semester reading the Theogony with me as an independent study during her first year on the faculty. Drew and Naomi co-directed my thesis on Hesiod, a chapter of which Bill Stull helped me revise for presentation at my first meeting of the American Philological Association. Their mentorship and friendship has endured long after I graduated. Among the colleagues at other institutions who have contributed to my work along the way, I would be remiss not to mention Jacco Dieleman, Willy Clarysse, Joachim Quack, Rachel Mairs, Rolf Strootman, Catherine Lorber, Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, and James Clauss. Ivana Petrovic read an early draft of the entire manuscript and provided thorough notes that were especially helpful as I worked through future drafts. The anonymous readers who reviewed my manuscript for the press offered useful criticisms that helped me clarify my arguments. I thank Stefan Vranka for his patient guidance along with Richa Jobin, Leslie Safford, Isabelle Prince, and the entire team at OUP New York. Hannah Kent came through in the final days of the project to help with indexing and proofing.
My deepest gratitude is reserved for my friends and family who have sustained me through the writing of this book and the formative years that led up to it. Although they hardly could have guessed that their labors would bear such fruit, it is to my parents that I dedicate this book. Above all, my wife, Lane, deserves more credit than even she knows for her devotion and encouragement through the most difficult parts of this project. Despite the demands of her own career, she shouldered burdens I could not carry. My debt to her is beyond measure.
Editions and Abbreviations
Except where otherwise noted I cite Kallimachos’ Aitia from the edition of Harder, Kallimachos’ other works from the edition of Pfeiffer, Homer and the Homeric Hymns from the OCT of Monro and Allen, Hesiod from the editions of M.L. West, and Pindar from the Teubner edition of Snell-Maehler.
A-B C. Austin and G. Bastianini. Posidippi Pellaei Quae Supersunt Omnia. Milan 2002.
Agora XVI A. G. Woodhead. The Athenian Agora, XVI. Inscriptions: The Decrees. Princeton 1997.
AP Palatine Anthology.
BM W. G. Lambert and A. R. Millard. Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum: Second Supplement. London 1968.
Braswell B. K. Braswell. Didymos of Alexandria: Commentary on Pindar Basel 2017.
CA J. U. Powell. Collectanea Alexandrina. Oxford 1925.
CPE C. Lorber. Coins of the Ptolemaic Empire: Part I, Ptolemy I through Ptolemy IV. New York 2018.
D-K H. Diels and W. Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 6th ed., 3 vols. Berlin 1951–52.
FGE D. L. Page. Further Greek Epigrams, rev. R. D. Dawe and J. Diggle. Cambridge 1981.
FGrH F. Jacoby. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker. Berlin, then Leiden 1923–.
Harder A. Harder. Callimachus: Aetia, 2 vols. Oxford 2012.
Hollis A. S. Hollis. Callimachus: Hecale, 2nd ed. Oxford 2009.
G-P A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, The Greek Anthology 1: Hellenistic Epigrams, 2 vols. Cambridge 1965.
I.Cret. M. Guarducci. Inscriptiones Creticae. Rome 1935–50.
I.Delos Inscriptions de Délos, 7 vols. Paris 1926–72.
I.Didyma A. Rehm. Didyma, II. Die Inschriften, hrsg. von R.Harder. Berlin 1958.
I.Ephesos H. Wankel, R. Merkelbach et al. Die Inschriften von Ephesos, I–VII (IGSK 11–17). Bonn 1979–84.
I.Sestos J. Krauss. Die Inschriften von Sestos und der thrakischen Chersones (IGSK 19). Bonn 1980.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae. Berlin 1873–.
J-vL F. Jouan and H. van Looy. Euripide. Tome VIII: Fragments, 4 vols. Paris 1998–2003.
K-A R. Kassel and C. Austin. Poetae Comici Graeci. Berlin 1983–91. Lascaris J. Lascaris. Callimachi Cyrenaei Hymni. Florence 1494–96.
LSJ H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. Stuart Jones. A Greek-EnglishLexicon. Oxford 1951 (9th edition with a revised supplement by P. G. W. Glare and A. A. Thompson. Oxford 1996).
M-W R. Merkelbach and M. L. West. Fragmenta Hesiodea. Oxford 1967.
OGIS W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectee. Leipzig 1903–05.
Pf. R. Pfeiffer. Callimachus, 2 vols. Oxford 1949–53. PMG D. L. Page. Poetae Melici Graeci. Oxford 1962.
P.Mich.Zen. C. C. Edgar. Zenon Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection. Ann Arbor 1931.
P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London 1898–
P.Rev.Laws B. P. Grenfell. Revenue Laws of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Oxford 1896.
P.Sorb. H. Cadell. Papyrus de la Sorbonne. Paris 1966.
Rose V. Rose. Aristotelis qui ferebantur librorum fragmenta. Leipzig 1886.
S-M B. Snell and H. Maehler. Pindarus. Leipzig 1984–89.
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Leiden 1923–
SH H. Lloyd-Jones and P. Parsons. Supplementum Hellenisticum. Berlin 1983.
SVF I. von Arnim. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, 3 vols. Leipzig 1903–05.
Svoronos J. N. Svoronos. Ta Nomismata tou Kratous ton Ptolemaiôn, 4 vols. Athens 1904–08.
Syll.3 W. Dittenberger. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, 3rd ed. Leipzig 1915–24.
Voigt E.-M. Voigt. Sappho et Alcaeus. Fragmenta. Amsterdam 1971.
Wehrli F. Wehrli. Die Schule des Aristoteles, Texte und Kommentar, vol. 4: Demetrios von Phaleron. Basel 1968.
Introduction
Kallimachos and the Politics of Praise
This book is a study of the ways in which Kallimachos used hymns praising the Olympian gods to shape a political discourse on kingship emerging in the Hellenistic world. In it, I investigate how the poet crafts compelling new portrayals of the gods that refigure the politics of the divine family. In the new political order he depicts, Kallimachos virtually eliminates the harmful strife traditionally associated with these figures, reframing the gods as good kings and queens within the idiom of contemporary politics. Not only does Kallimachos depict these gods as pro-dynastic exemplars of good governance, but he also engages his audience in discourses on the nature of power, just rule, reciprocity, transgression, and punishment, as well as the roles of kings, queens, and poets. In dialogue with a range of literary texts from the archaic, classical, and indeed contemporary periods, Kallimachos renegotiates the political dynamics of the Olympian gods who serve as paradigms for his ideology. I argue that this “new politics of Olympos” constitutes Kallimachos’ effort to shape the political discourse emerging within and between the courts of Hellenistic superpowers. His hymns for the gods define what is praiseworthy and set the agenda for a conversation about power at the dawning of a new political phenomenon—Hellenistic kingship.
Despite having written numerous explicit praises of Ptolemaic kings and queens,1 Kallimachos makes only one such unambiguous reference in his Hymns to Ptolemy II in the Hymn to Delos. Nonetheless, Kallimachos does include references in his hymns to figures outside the texts whose specific identities are obscure to us but may have been clear to contemporary audiences. Most scholars have imagined, for example, that “our lord” (1.86)2
1 Kallimachos’ praises of the powerful include Epinikia for the Panhellenic victories of queen Berenike II and the courtier Sosibios, epithalamia for the marriages of Ptolemy II to Arsinoë II and Ptolemy III to Berenike II, an Ektheosis for Arsinoë II (fr. 228 Pf.), and the famed Lock of Berenike (fr. 110 Harder).
2 1.85–86:
The three candidates scholars usually consider are Ptolemy I Soter: Carrière 1969 and Hussey 1973; Magas of Kyrene: Meillier 1979:61–78 and
and “my king” (2.26, 27)3 are discrete references to specific individuals whose identities need to be uncovered. A similar instinct has led readers to identify this or that god in connection with a prominent individual: for example, associating Apollo in the fourth hymn closely with Ptolemy II Philadelphos4 or Athena and Demeter in the fifth and sixth hymns with Berenike II.5 Such interpretations have been bolstered by Kallimachos’ explicit praises of these same figures in other works and the historical practice of kings and queens exploiting the images of Olympic gods for their own self-representation.6
In this book, I argue that, often, the openness of these and other nonspecific or ambiguous references allows them to be fluid and thus more powerful signifiers. Furthermore, the relationship between such references and referents is complex because it is not one of sameness. For Kallimachos and his contemporaries, the issue, to which Richard Hunter has called attention, was the degree to which such figures are similar.7 In his Hymns, Kallimachos explores the notion of “likeness,” testing its boundaries and usefulness as a heuristic and persuasive tool. This emerges as a central theme in this study as I examine a variety of dyadic relationships of similarity, imitation, and substitution: Zeus and Ptolemy (Chapter 1), father and son (Chapters 1 and 5), brother and sister (Chapters 4 and 6), father and daughter (Chapter 6), patron and client (Chapters 2, and 4),8 and a hymn’s honorand and the hymn itself as a representation of that honorand (Chapters 3 and 4).9 Indeed,
Laronde 1987:366; and Ptolemy II Philadelphos: Richter 1871, Rostagni 1916:58–59, Cahen 1930, Tandy 1979, Clauss 1986, Cameron 1995:10, Stephens 2003:77ff. McLennan 1977 and Hopkinson 1984b abstain.
3 Pfeiffer 1949.II:xxxviii–xxxix accepts the identification in the scholia vetera of ἐμῷ βασιλῆι as Ptolemy Euergetes, but most scholars generally prefer Ptolemy Philadelphos (e.g., Williams 1978:36). Cameron 1995:408–9 suggests Magas of Kyrene.
4 E.g., Giuseppetti 2013:14 describes Philadelphos in the Hymn to Delos as an “alter Apollo,” following a parallel discussion of Theokritos’ Hymn to Ptolemy Philadelphos in Hunter 2003:143. cf. Miller 2010 on Augustus and Apollo.
5 E.g., Clayman 2014:80–89.
6 E.g., Smith 1988, Stanwick 2002, Eckstein 2009, and especially Müller 2009.
7 Hunter and Fuhrer 2002:168–69 raise the issue and Hunter 2003:94–103 examines it in greater detail. Likewise, remarking on Theokritos, Griffiths 1979:57 reminds us, “If the Ptolemies are to make it onto Olympus in these poems, they must as listeners do so on the strength of their own imaginative energy. Theocritus does not assert that Arsinoe is Helen, nor Philadelphus Heracles. But in hearing these poems, the patrons should find it remarkably easy to think of themselves in those terms.” See too Prioux 2012.
8 I borrow these terms from social science research (e.g., Abercrombie and Hill 1976, Eisenstadt and Roniger 1984) to describe the paradigmatic relationship Kallimachos establishes between Zeus and the king, Apollo and the poets, Ares and the warrior, etc. Although these terms are normally construed within the context of Roman social customs, I use them to refer to a sociological and political framework of a dyadic codependency based on inequality.
9 See Bergren 1982 and Depew 2000.
Kallimachos presents the concept of “likeness” to his audience in a variety of guises, including paradeigma (Chapter 1), equivalence (Chapter 2 and 4), metaphor (Chapter 3), and analogy (Chapters 4 and 6). The similarity of these pairs is balanced against contrastive dyads, including the client and the transgressor (Chapters 4 and 6) and the good and the bad ruler (Chapters 5 and 6). An important effect of these dyads is to create a dichotomy between “us” and “them,” which draws the audience into alignment with the narrator and contributes to his overall agenda of presenting an authoritative and persuasive account of good kingship.
Several scholars have offered political readings of Kallimachos’ hymns individually or in combination, but there has been little detailed discussion of how their juxtaposition within the poetry book changes their meaning by altering their frame of reference. Although there are countless instances where I might have extended my analysis to incorporate related issues in other works of Kallimachos and his contemporaries, I endeavored to maintain a tight focus on the Hymns and its six poems. Nevertheless, in ways both large and small, my analysis follows a course charted by a range of important studies on Kallimachos,10 Theokritos,11 Apollonios,12 and now Posidippos,13 which have brought the study of Hellenistic poetry and politics into the mainstream.14 Moreover, studies of Kallimachos’ various engagements with the Greek literary and religious traditions have provided a variety of ways of thinking about key issues, including his manipulation of earlier versions of myths, experimentation with narrative technique, and interest in epichoric history and cult throughout the oikoumene. 15 In addition to drawing on a wide range of studies on earlier praise poetry, my approach builds on the
10 Cameron 1995, Stephens 1998, and Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012.
11 Especially Griffiths 1979, Hunter 1996, and Hunter 2003.
12 In addition to Clauss 1993, Hunter 1993, and Thalmann 2011, Mori 2008a is crucial in this regard because her analysis of Apollonios’ Argonautika within the context of the Ptolemaic court is foundational not merely for that poem, but more broadly for providing a compelling argument and methodology for reading Hellenistic narratives in contexts beyond the Library. Her discussion of the history of scholarship on the “Politics of Alexandrian Poetry” (pp. 19–51) is thorough and similarly illuminating.
14 Pioneering work expanding the contexts in which Hellenistic poetry can now be studied includes Koenen 1983 and 1993, Weber 1993, and Stephens 2003.
15 In addition to those already mentioned, Bing 1988, Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004, Morrison 2007, Petrovic 2007, Harder 2012, and Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012 stand out from an increasingly rich bibliography along with a wealth of important edited volumes: Harder, Regtuit, and Wakker 1993, Harder, Regtuit, and Wakker 2002, Lehnus 2002, Martina and Cozzoli 2006, Acosta-Hughes, Lehnus, and Stephens 2011, and Martina, Cozzoli, and Giuseppetti 2012.
work of Jenny Strauss Clay, who brought a new focus to the study of the Homeric Hymns in her book The Politics of Olympus (1989). Clay identified a preoccupation that all of the major hymns had with working out the dynamics of the divine family that underpinned Zeus’ role as king of gods and men. The expression of those politics, Clay demonstrates, belonged to an emerging archaic discourse on Panhellenism. Unlike those hymns, variously composed by unknown persons in unknown places at unknown dates, Kallimachos’ praises of the gods make for a more cohesive collection. In the spirit of Clay’s study, my project attempts to situate this book of hymns within a rich discourse emerging in dialogue with new political realities of the Hellenistic age.16
Kallimachos and His World
While today Kallimachos is primarily associated with the newness and innovation of Ptolemaic Alexandria and its legendary Library and Mouseion, the poet’s own self-fashioning regularly emphasized his origins from the celebrated Greek polis of Kyrene on the Libyan coast. In his epigrams he boasts of a lineage that can be traced all the way back to Kyrene’s founder-king Battos. Evidence that his grandfather and namesake was a distinguished Kyrenean general and his sister, Megatima, married into an elite family of Kypriot generals and governors bolsters the aristocratic pedigree he claims.17 Founded in 631 bce by Dorians from Thera and possibly Rhodes,18 Kyrene was a prominent polis whose legendary foundation and subsequent history inspired Panhellenic interest, as can be seen in the accounts of Pindar, Herodotos, the fourth-century Kyrenean “Stele of the Founders,” Aristotle, Kallimachos, the Lindian Chronicle, Strabo, Diodoros, and Pausanias.19 These and other
16 Depew 2004 and Petrovic 2016 are similarly interested in interpreting the macro-text of the Hymns within its historical contexts.
17 Cameron 1995:7–9 details the evidence for Kallimachos’ family, including Ep. 30 G-P = 35 Pf. on his Battiad lineage and 29 G-P = 21 Pf. on his grandfather. Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012:3–4 add details about an extremely wealthy great-grandfather whom sources portray as close to Plato. Meillier 1979:335–37 includes a hypothetical family tree.
18 While most accounts, including Kallimachos’ own, describe a colonial lineage running from Kyrene to Thera to Sparta, the Lindians claim to have been among the initial colonists (Lindian Chronicle XVII.109–17). Uhlenbrock 2015:148–49 argues that the early pottery evidence from Kyrene proves extensive contact with Rhodes and may corroborate the Lindian claim. On the Lindian Temple Chronicle of 99 bce, see Higbie 2003.
19 Pindar: Pythian 4, 5, 9; Herodotos: 4.145–59; the most recent edition of the “Stele of the Founders” (SEG IX.3) is Dobias-Lalou 1994; Aristotle: Politics 1319b1–19; Kallimachos: Hymn to Apollo 65–96; on the Lindian Chronicle, see Higbie 2003; Strabo 17.3.21; Diodoros 8.29; and
sources record that over the next two centuries, the rule of the Battiad kings was tested repeatedly by conflict with native Libyans and Egyptians, infighting in the royal family, and ultimately popular uprisings that led to civil war. From the severe autocracy under Arkesilaos III described by Herodotos (4.162–64) to the radical democracy cited by Aristotle (Politics 1319b1–19), Kyrenean elites saw their fortunes rise and fall as political volatility led to repeated constitutional reform.20
Born during the final decade of the fourth century, Kallimachos’ early life coincided with a period of intense turmoil in Kyrene when the polis suffered several invasions and at least two revolts as democratic and oligarchic factions vied for control.21 In a compromise that eventually brought an end to the stasis, Ptolemy I instituted a timocratic constitution that restored the oligarchy, but dramatically expanded it (e.g., the principal ruling body was enlarged from 1,000 to 10,000). Although he reserved supreme authority for himself and his stepson, Magas, the governor in Kyrene from 301, Ptolemy essentially left the polis to govern itself internally through a mix of civic bodies and magistrates (e.g., gerousia, boule, ephoria). A copy of this new political charter, known as the diagramma of Ptolemy (SEG 9.1), was erected prominently in the sanctuary of Apollo at the center of Kyrenean civic life.22 While there is no chronicle of Kallimachos’ early years, it is reasonable to assume that this political strife and the subsequent Ptolemaic intervention would have had a tremendous impact on his family’s fortunes and, as such, would have been formative for the future poet.
Although Kallimachos’ aristocratic family traced its bloodline to a legendary dynasty of Battiad kings, the poet’s own birth coincided closely with that of a radically different mode of kingship. This new political phenomenon would come to have an enormous impact on the trajectory of his life and work. Little is known about Kallimachos’ activities before he appeared in his early twenties at the royal court in Alexandria around 285. He may have remained in Kyrene where the Kyrenaic school of philosophy was at its
Pausanias 10.15.6–7. For further ancient sources on the Greek presence in Libya, see Austin 2008 and Giangiulio 2001. On the literary narratives, see too Calame 2003, Malkin 1994:143–52, 169–81, and Malkin 1987.
20 Robinson 2011:129–36.
21 Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012:3–4 suggest that most studies place his birth c.305 but allow that it might have been as early as 320.
22 Scott 2013:14–44 charts political upheaval in Kyrene alongside developments in the agora. Robinson 2011:132n.204 cautions that the diagramma is still largely antidemocratic due to its imposition of property qualifications on would-be participants in the political system.
apogee, used family connections to gain a position in Alexandria as a “youth of the court” (T 4c Pf.), or even traveled abroad for his education.23 Once Kallimachos did finally come into the orbit of the Ptolemaic royal court, he did not hesitate to engage directly with the most important figures there.24
Kallimachos found himself in a position to use praise of superpowerful men, women, and gods to shape messages about the nature of their power and its just application. Since praise deemed to be false was seen as shameful flattery, Kallimachos needed to persuade the Ptolemies and his broader audience that his complimentary accounts were true. To achieve this, he constructed his own authoritative persona by exploiting his mastery of encomiastic rhetoric and detailed knowledge of the Greek literary tradition. Indeed, this expertise appears to have propelled Kallimachos to a position of prominence, enabling him to exert influence over the preservation, ordering, and consumption of knowledge and culture in Alexandria and beyond. Disentangling the historical individual from his narrators’ personae and his posthumous reputation remains a challenge for scholars attempting to trace Kallimachos’ biography from his origins in Kyrene to the influence he exerted over the institutions taking shape in Alexandria.25 While he ultimately came to be seen as emblematic of the Alexandrian Library and Mouseion, conflicting clues obscure his role there. Indeed, the histories of these Ptolemaic institutions remain highly lacunose and everyone from the Romans to the present day has supplemented historical fact with concepts of how libraries function in their own time.26 The newness of the Ptolemaic capital—not to mention the entire “Hellenistic” enterprise—dominates the interpretation of Kallimachos’ work, often to the exclusion of his own heritage as a citizen of a venerable Greek polis and a descendent of its founder and storied royal dynasty.27
23 The earliest event linking Kallimachos to the Ptolemaic court is the ceremony celebrating joint rule of Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphos in 285 or its one-year anniversary in 284; see further discussion in Chapter 2. For discussion of the intervening years and the competing traditions of Kallimachos as a schoolmaster in Eleusis (probably a slanderous claim) or a junior courtier (plausible but uncertain), see Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012:3 and Cameron 1995:4–8.
24 See Weber 2011 for elaboration of Kallimachos’ activities at court.
25 Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012:1–22 offer the most penetrating survey of the evidence for his biography to date, though Cameron 1995 remains essential. See Vamvouri Ruffy 2004:217–84 and Morrison 2007:103–220 on the personae of Kallimachos’ narrators.
26 See Hendrickson 2014, Johnstone 2014, Handis 2013, and Bagnall 2002 for cautionary critiques. Johnstone 2014 is perhaps too extreme in some of his conclusions, but it is worth taking note of his claim that “the history of the Library of Alexandria takes its place as one strand in this decentralized revolution happening from Athens to Babylon and in many places in between” (p. 349).
27 Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012 draw on Kyrenean contexts for interpretation of Kallimachos’ work, but their perspective remains largely Alexandria-centric.
Beyond what can be inferred from his richly allusive poetry, Kallimachos’ intimate knowledge of the Greek literary tradition is evidenced also in his scholarship—especially the now lost Pinakes. 28 The Suda gives the full title for this 120-volume work as Tables of Men Distinguished in Every Branch of Learning and their Works. In it, Kallimachos recorded authors, titles, and incipits, along with details about the historical events related to those works. This endeavor put Kallimachos at the forefront of a scholarly enterprise that would continue for centuries, as he performed critical exegesis by arranging and classifying the texts being collected in Alexandria in unprecedented quantities.29
In addition to mythographic and lexical idiosyncrasies, Kallimachos appears to have taken more than a casual interest in the historical contexts of the poetry he read, as can be seen from his treatment of Pindar. Pouring in from multiple sources and often in duplicate, the initial collection of Pindaric poetry must have been enormous. Although Aristophanes of Byzantion is credited with making the first critical edition of the Theban poet’s works, in order to produce his Pinakes Kallimachos had to organize the voluminous and diverse oeuvre into a corpus. This would have involved eliminating duplicate and pseudonymous texts and arranging the scores of authentic poems into discrete, ordered bookrolls. Himself the author of a separate work On Contests (Περὶ Ἀγώνων, fr. 403 Pf.), Kallimachos grouped together several of Pindar’s poems into bookrolls corresponding to four major Panhellenic contests and is likely the originator of that organizational scheme. Indeed, the headnote to a hymn for Hieron of Syracuse, which we know today as Pythian 2, criticizes Kallimachos because he assigned the poem to the Nemean bookroll.30 If as an editor and a reader, Kallimachos saw such historical considerations as relevant to the organization and interpretation of Pindar’s poetry, then we should expect no less from his own compositions.
28 Hatzimichali 2013, Krevans 2011:122–24, and Blum 1991. See Hadjimichael 2014:88–93 for a discussion of Kallimachos’ classification practice as evidenced in P.Oxy. 2368. Harder 2013 discusses ways in which the Library may have had an impact on Kallimachos and other Hellenistic poets.
29 Porro 2009:186–88. Aristophanes of Byzantion wrote a treatise On Kallimachos’ Pinakes, on which see Slater 1986.
30 Drachmann II 31.10–14. It is attractive to credit Kallimachos with the invention of this classification, but ultimately speculative; see Lowe 2006:171–72. On Kallimachos’ contribution to the editing of the Pindaric corpus, see Negri 2004:13–15 and Irigoin 1952:33. Günther 1999, Fuhrer 1992, Newman 1985, and Fuhrer 1988 detail Kallimachos’ interest in the Theban poet. On Pindar and Hellenistic eidography, see Lowe 2006 and Harvey 1955.
Literary Discourses on Kingship
Plutarch’s collection of anecdotes known as Sayings of Kings and Commanders has it that Demetrios of Phaleron, one-time ruler of Athens and later counselor to Ptolemy I Soter, advised the king to acquire books on kingship and leadership and study them carefully. The reason was that even a king’s intimates would not directly confront him with the advice that is written in such books.31 Similarly, Plutarch informs us that Alexander the Great put stock in the leadership lessons that could be gleaned from literature. The ambitious king reportedly slept with an annotated copy of Homer’s Iliad, which he called his “resource for military excellence.”32 Though these claims may well be apocryphal, they speak to a long tradition of intellectuals portraying themselves as engaged in discourse with powerful rulers. More to the point, they are particularly apt for the Ptolemaic court, where the acquisition and study of books was central to the imperial ideology that emerged in the third century.33
Should Ptolemy have been interested in studying books on kingship, he would have had a variety to choose from, since treatises On Kingship (Περὶ Βασιλείας) became prevalent in the Hellenistic period.34 The popularity of such works was intimately bound up with the rise of a new political reality born out of Philip’s and then Alexander’s ambition for Makedonian hegemony. Following Alexander’s Successors’ move to adopt the title of “king” (basileus) in 306/5, intellectuals, both celebrated and obscure, engaged with the contemporary political landscape by writing kingship treatises. Some of these were dedicated to individual rulers, as Diogenes Laertios records in the case of Euphantos of Olynthos, “who wrote about contemporary history; he composed several tragedies for which he won esteem at the festivals; he was a teacher of even King Antigonos [II Gonatas], for whom he also wrote an extremely popular treatise On Kingship.”35 There is a strong tendency to classify
31 Plutarch Moralia
Recent scholarship makes a persuasive case for Plutarch’s authorship of the Apophthegmata; see Stadter 2008.
32 Plutarch Alexander
See Martin 2012 for more on the tradition of Alexander as philomeros
33 Erskine 1995 provides a helpful introduction to this dynamic.
34 Recent work on Hellenistic kingship treatises includes Haake 2013b, Murray 2007, and Virgilio 2003. Murray 1971 and Goodenough 1928 remain valuable for their insights.
35 Diogenes Laertios 2.110: Εὐβουλίδου
such works and authors under the rubric of philosophy, but, like Euphantos, the intellectuals who produced works On Kingship were polymaths whose pursuits ranged far beyond such disciplinary or generic boundaries.36 Contemporary with these were a great many works investigating what Aristotle posited as the corrupt counterpart of kingship. Works On Tyranny (Περὶ Τυραννίδος) are attested starting from the fourth century for authors including the Cynic Diogenes of Sinope and the Peripatetics Theophrastos and Phainias, both of Eresos.
While the proliferation of kingship treatises closely tracked the emergence of Hellenistic kingship as a political reality, these works built on a rich literary tradition, and precursors can be found in the works of orators, historians, philosophers, and poets. Of particular interest is Xenophon’s Hiero, a dialogue written in the fourth century that dramatizes a fictional conversation between the fifth-century poet Simonides and the tyrant Hieron of Syracuse. Written in the genre of Sokratikoi logoi most familiar from the works of his contemporary Plato, this discussion provides the framework for analyzing an abstract issue that might otherwise have been addressed in a more direct manner via a theoretical treatise.37 Here, poet and ruler set out to identify how pleasure and pain operate differently in the life of a tyrant and that of a private citizen. In the course of their discussion, Simonides offers suggestions about how the tyrant might minimize pain and maximize pleasure. Through appeals to the ruler’s self-interest and “passion for honor and praise” (τιμῆς τε καὶ ἐπαίνου ἔρως, 7.3), the poet gently urges Hieron to abandon his former cruel practices in favor of kinder and more generous ones. Behind this narrative, it is easy to see the outlines of the archetypal Good King and the Bad King whose characteristics Simonides urges Hieron to emulate and eschew, respectively.
Xenophon’s choice of Simonides as the poet who steers Hieron toward good governance and ideal kingship is grounded in a historical dynamic that obtained between praise poets and sovereigns at least as early as the archaic period. Indeed, Simonides himself, along with Pindar and Bakchylides, composed hymns in praise of aristocrats who won victories in Panhellenic
36 Given the paucity of evidence beyond their authors and titles, we should not rush to assume that works labeled On Kingship constituted a genre per se. Even the titles themselves may well have been retroactively applied by scholars like Diogenes Laertios.
37 The work is usually called Hiero or Hieron, following the practice of naming the Platonic dialogues after Sokrates’ interlocutor, but it might well have been called Peri Tyrannidos (“On Tyranny”); see Gray 2011 and Sevieri 2004. Morgan 2003, Anderson 2005, and Lewis 2006 are essential for understanding the figure of the τύραννος in antiquity.
athletic competitions.38 These poems praised their honorand by embedding his success within a densely woven mythic narrative that linked the contemporary with the legendary, the individual with the ancestral, and the familial with the civic. Aristocrats from around the Greek world invested in memorials that would help to transform an ephemeral moment of victory into a monument that would preserve their excellence for generations to come. Poetry was seen as an excellent medium for that purpose.39 Powerful men like Hieron jockeyed for position in this Panhellenic competition for honor and praise. As in the conversation Xenophon imagines taking place between poet and ruler, surviving royal hymns by Pindar and Bakchylides reveal that poets used these praise poems as opportunities to shape political discourse about kingship and good governance.40
Xenophon and Demetrios of Phaleron were far from alone in recognizing that a rich discourse on power and kingship could be accessed through the careful study of literature. Around the middle of the first century bce Philodemos of Gadara wrote a work on kingship for his patron, the Roman Consul and father-in-law to Julius Caesar, L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, entitled “On the Good King According to Homer.”41 Extant fragments of the work reveal that it employs a literary critical study of kings in Homeric epic in order to make recommendations about contemporary political leadership.42 Indeed, in drawing on examples from poetry to formulate ideas about governance for a powerful ruler, Philodemos’ treatise offers real-life evidence of the heuristic strategy that Plutarch ascribes to Hellenistic kings. It is neither possible nor particularly important to confirm the extent to which such kings themselves viewed books in this edifying light; however, it is instructive to think about literature as a site of this type of political discourse. In this book I examine Kallimachos’ Hymns from this perspective, as a means of shaping political discourse on the just exercise of power for its audiences, including, above all, the Ptolemaic kings and queens themselves.
38 Today these poems are called epinikia “victory odes,” but their ancient authors referred to them as hymnoi. Brumbaugh 2019 argues that the hymnos was a genre of praise poetry that regularly commemorated exceptional mortals and immortals from the archaic through Hellenistic periods.
39 Kurke 1991a and Steiner 2001.
40 Morgan 2015 studies Pindar’s engagement with monarchical ideology among the Deinominids. Her introduction (1–22) examines the challenges faced in understanding the relationship between poet and ruler and, mutatis mutandis, applies equally well in our present inquiry into Kallimachos.
41 Philodemos belongs to the milieu of Hellenistic poetry and is an almost exact contemporary of fellow Gadarene Meleagros, the poet and anthologist famous for his collection of epigrams known as the Garland, on which see Gutzwiller 1998 and Gutzwiller forthcoming.
42 Fish 2016, Fish 2011, Fish 2002, Gigante 1995:63ff., Asmis 1991, Murray 1984, Dorandi 1982, and Murray 1965. Fish forthcoming offers a much-anticipated new edition of PHerc 1507.
Contexts for Kallimachos’ Hymns
Central to my approach to Kallimachos’ Hymns is the observation that we must draw distinctions between the audience’s experience of any given hymn, whether heard or read, as an individual work and as a part of a carefully organized poetry book. Scholars have offered readings of these hymns in isolation and in combination, but have rarely discussed in detail how the incorporation of a hymn into the poetry book changes its meaning by altering its frame of reference.43 Thus, Artemis’ efforts to establish her own identity and rival her twin brother and the poet’s admonition against forgetting about Leto’s other child take on new meaning precisely because the Hymn to Artemis is situated between two Apollo hymns that virtually ignore the goddess. The new material context of the poetry book flattens the chronology of the individual hymns and transforms their relationship to one another from intertextual to intratextual.
We do not know with certainty when and under what circumstances Kallimachos produced the six poems included in the Hymns, but some contain pointed references to dateable events and provide grounds for speculation.44 Most scholars agree that the Hymn to Zeus, for instance, was composed for an event celebrating the transition of royal power from the first to the second Ptolemy in 285 or shortly thereafter.45 The Hymn to Delos features praise of Ptolemy II Philadelphos’ victory over Gallic mercenaries in the mid-270s, and so might be associated with a birthday celebration for the king and/or a dynastic festival like the Ptolemaia sometime shortly thereafter.46 The marriage of newly crowned Ptolemy III Euergetes and Berenike II (c.250–246) that reunited Kyrenaika and Egypt has been advanced as a plausible context for the Hymn to Apollo, given the prominence of Apollo’s union with the eponymous nymph Kyrene in that hymn.47 Arguments suggesting
43 Much of what Krevans 1984 and Gutzwiller 1998 discuss might be adapted to the Hymns, and Ukleja 2005 treats a number of central issues. Fantuzzi 2011:450–53 raises important interpretive questions related to the arrangement of the poetry book that follow from his earlier observations about how seating arrangements in the Hymn to Apollo (2.29) and the Hymn to Artemis (3.169–70) mirror the arrangement of the hymns in the bookroll.
44 Stephens 2015a:16–22.
45 See further discussion in Chapter 1.
46 The firm terminus post quem is the Celtic mercenary revolt of c.275, but Apollo’s description to Ptolemy as θεός suggests a date after 271/0. Scholars tend to think that the poem was composed before the Battle of Kos c.262/1 but neither the details of this event nor the rationale for using it as a terminus ante quem is secure, Bing 1988:91–93, Weber 1993:213n.3. See discussion in Chapter 5.
47 Brumbaugh 2016:91–92 suggests a terminus post quem of 260 and provides further argumentation for the hymn’s resonance with political events in the 240s. Less compelling is the line of argumentation connecting passages seen as programmatic and polemical in the Hymn to Apollo with
dates or specific contexts for the Artemis, Athena, and Demeter hymns are inconclusive. Most if not all of Kallimachos’ hymns appear to have been composed at different points throughout the third century for listening and reading audiences.48 They very likely circulated separately in textual form among a well-educated readership.49 Although the audience may have been limited to a small percentage of the Greek-speaking population, it likely included royal philoi at the major Hellenistic courts as well as smaller circles of intellectuals in cultural centers like Kyrene, Athens, Kos, Halikarnassos, and elsewhere.50
At some point, likely during the Hellenistic period, six hymns by Kallimachos were compiled into a single bookroll.51 Although we cannot know for certain, the evidence points overwhelmingly to Kallimachos as the editor of his own collection.52 Unlike Theokritos’ Idylls, Kallimachos’ Hymns consistently appear in the exact same order: Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Delos, Bath of Pallas, and Demeter. 53 In his commentary on the Hymn to Demeter, Neil Hopkinson argues that the arrangement of the bookroll is probably the poet’s own and he sketches out several binary relationships based on the order of the hymns: “The arrangement is symmetrical: two short, two long, two short poems . . . ; the first pair ‘masculine,’ the second ‘mixed’ (twins), the third ‘feminine’; the flanking pairs broadly ‘mimetic,’ the middle pair more traditionally ‘epic.’ ”54 Taking Hopkinson’s observation further,
the Aitia prologue, which is thought to have been composed toward the end of Kallimachos’ life; see discussion in Cameron 1995:407.
48 Hopkinson 1984a:13–17 suggests that the Athena and Demeter hymns may have been composed as a pair. My own view on the matter of live performance versus textual reception is essentially the same as the position described in Petrovic 2016, that audiences experienced the hymns as both readers and listeners in a variety of contexts.
49 I analyze the evidence for mobility among texts and intellectuals who made and read them during the Hellenistic period in an upcoming project. Individual aitia from Aitia 3 and 4 may have circulated as individual poems before Kallimachos collected them for publication together, Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004:46.
50 For courtiers and elites as Kallimachos’ audience, see Strootman 2017, Acosta-Hughes and Stephens 2012:1–22, Clayman 2014:51–63, Weber 2011, and Cameron 1995:3–70. On royal philoi, see Habicht 1958=Habicht 2006, Billows 1990:246–50, Savalli-Lestrade 1998, and Strootman 2011.
51 At 1,083 verses, they easily fit onto and filled up one standard papyrus roll. Gutzwiller 1998:186 suggests that compilations such as this one were influenced by the publication of epigram books. In late antiquity, an unknown editor incorporated this bookroll into a codex that also contained the Homeric Hymns, the Orphic Hymns, and seven hymns by the fifth-century ce Neoplatonist Proklos. This book was the archetype for the subsequent manuscript tradition, on which see Pfeiffer 1949:II. lv–lvi and Stephens 2015a:38–46.
52 Morrison 2007:105–6 provides further discussion and bibliography. Hunter and Fuhrer 2002:176–81 also speculate on the hypothesis that Kallimachos edited the Hymns but are not prepared to commit to a view one way or the other.
53 Ptolemaic papyri confirm that this order predates the manuscript tradition, Pfeiffer 1949:II.liii.
54 Hopkinson 1984a:13 details correspondences between the fifth and sixth hymns, which he argues were composed as a pair. Heyworth 2004:153–57 supports and amplifies this suggestion.
Karina Ukleja performs a thorough analysis of the structure of Kallimachos’ “sextet.”55 Given the editorial work Kallimachos was performing on the corpora of other poets, it is difficult to imagine him passing up the opportunity to arrange his own. Indeed, most scholars now subscribe to the hypothesis that he expanded and re-edited his magnum opus, the Aitia, in a second edition.56 While it remains possible that someone else anthologized Kallimachos’ hymns, the default assumption should be that Kallimachos also compiled and edited the Hymns probably at the end of his career, early in the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes.
Compared with Kallimachos’ less well-preserved poetry, little attention has been paid to the Hymns as a poetry book.57 Newly discovered Aitia fragments and their arrangement within a multivolume poetry book have long dominated the attention of Kallimachean scholars.58 The Iambi have also been studied as a poetry book,59 motivated in part by their influence on Horace’s Epodes, 60 and in part by the debate over whether the four poems in the Milan Diegesis between Iambus 13 and the Hekale belong to the Iambi. Transmitted via the medieval manuscript tradition, the Hymns are almost perfectly intact and have no such textual issues.61 Yet, until now there have been no monograph-length treatments of this poetry book in English.62 Indeed, few monographs have been published in the last century on any of the hymns in any language.63 Even so, Krevans’s remarks relating to the Aitia poetry book are just as relevant to the Hymns: “Callimachus’ achievement lies in his recognition that the role of the editor could be as creative as that of the poet.”64
55 Ukleja 2005: esp 89–107, expanding on the framing of the poetry book as a sextet in Haslam 1993.
56 Petrovic and Petrovic 2003:194ff. argue that Kallimachos’ Ep. 51 should be read as a commentary on the creation of this second edition. A through treatment of the hypothesis is now available in Harder 2012:I.2–8. Zetzel 1983 points out that Kallimachos’ compilation process necessarily involved revision, a point we do well to remember in our reading of the Hymns; see Chapter 6.
57 Ukleja 2005:21–25 offers an excellent overview of scholarship on Kallimachos’ poetry books.
58 Harder 2012 provides the most comprehensive study of the Aitia and scholarship on this issue.
60 See Morrison 2016 with references to earlier scholarship.
61 See p.12 n.51.
62 Krevans 1984 examines the poet as editor and the development of the poetry book beginning with Kallimachos but does not treat the Hymns
63 Bing 1988, Vamvouri Ruffy 2004, Ukleja 2005, Petrovic 2007, and Giuseppetti 2013 constitute important exceptions, though it should be noted that three of the five are on the Hymn to Delos. There are commentaries available for each hymn, though few have been written in the past three decades. Stephens 2015a provides a single-volume edition of all six hymns with text and extensive commentary, an invaluable resource that will spark further interest in the Hymns
64 Krevans 1984:211–12.
On the basis of the growing consensus surrounding the early date and possible Kallimachean authority of the Hymns as a collection, scholars have demonstrated an increasing willingness to read these six poems as a poetry book.65 While such work has made important contributions, further studies are necessary to address the various interpretive issues that arise from such a reading. Among the many relevant questions, one stands out as particularly important: if Kallimachos compiled his own anthology, did he revise the hymns, whether superficially or substantially, for inclusion in the poetry book? This question cannot be answered without further evidence,66 but it is important to remember because it has a bearing on how we think about the relationships we see between the different hymns and the degree to which we can ascribe authorial intention to them. As in my treatment of intertextual relationships linking Kallimachos’ Hymns to earlier works, I examine such intratextual links from the perspective of a reader of the poetry book who may (or may not) notice them.67 From this perspective, juxtaposition within a book “by Kallimachos” may be sufficient to imply a connected and intentional discourse. While short of a complete remedy, this study aims to build on earlier analyses of the poetry book and suggest a variety of ways forward for research on Kallimachos’ Hymns.
Refiguring the Politics of Olympos
This book is divided into two parts. The first part offers an in-depth analysis of Kallimachos’ Hymn to Zeus in three chapters, which examine the hymn’s contemporary political setting, engagement with a tradition of political thought stretching back to Homer, and Kallimachos’ portrayal of the poet as an image-maker for the king. These chapters are arranged in order of increasing complexity, starting from a comparison of this hymn’s narrative with other political discourses and culminating in a discussion of
65 E.g., Haslam 1993, Depew 2004, Fantuzzi 2011, and most recently Petrovic 2016. Others, such as and Hunter and Fuhrer 2002, examine the Hymns together, but do not take the poetry book as a unit for the purposes of their analyses.
66 Aside from inferences drawn from parallel situations, the only substantial piece of evidence relating to this question is P.Oxy. 2226. This papyrus contains an abbreviated ending to the Hymn to Demeter, skipping directly from verse 117 to 138 (the last line in the standard text) and then possibly continuing beyond that. This suggests that two versions of this hymn were in circulation and that the ending of the hymn may have been tailor-made to suit its position at the conclusion of the poetry book; see Chapter 6.
67 Asper 2001.
Kallimachos’ manipulation of hymnic tropes and use of metaphor to convey more subtle messages about his encomiastic project. Distinguished as both the first and the shortest of Kallimachos’ hymns, this hymn’s position at the head of the poetry book, its explicit focus on kingship, and its identifiable historical context provide fertile ground for examining several key issues that will recur throughout the poetry book.
The first chapter, “Zeus as a Paradigm for Dynastic Continuity,” looks at ways in which the Hymn to Zeus jointly praises Zeus and the Ptolemaic kings. I take as my starting point the scholarly consensus that associates this hymn with the first succession in the Ptolemaic dynasty, elaborated by James Clauss.68 Against that historical context, I demonstrate that the standard account of Zeus’ rise to power was ill suited to the Ptolemaic succession. Zeus was an important symbol for Ptolemy I Soter’s kingship, and of Makedonian kingship more broadly, but the god became king via a brutal cycle of oppression and usurpation that pitted father against son, as Hesiod’s Theogony recounts. Kallimachos decouples the god’s kingship from its violent origins in order to create a pro-dynastic discourse capable of quelling anxiety occasioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphos’ own fraught succession. The true measure of the poet’s success is that, by selectively calling attention to points of contention within the tradition and passing over others, he persuades his audience to accept his new Zeus unhesitatingly.
I expand on this analysis in the second chapter, “Kallimachos’ Hymn ‘On Kingship,’ ” to assess how the poet characterizes Zeus’ kingship and the structure of his political regime in the hymn. Depicting Zeus as a powerful figure who uses force to take what he wants, Kallimachos initially presents political power as derived from physical power. The poet’s rejection of the lottery myth as a plausible rationale for Zeus’ ascension rhetorically reinforces this notion, while at the same time activating a Homeric intertext in which Zeus and Poseidon engage in a debate over whether the Iliadic politics of Olympos is an absolute monarchy or an oligarchy. Siding with Zeus in favor of monarchy, the narrator elaborates a political hierarchy that ultimately implicates the king in an oversight role over those beneath him. Refiguring the king as a
68 Building on new discoveries relating to the annual Ptolemaic Basileia festival in Koenen 1977, Clauss 1986 argues that the Hymn to Zeus was composed in conjunction with an instance of the Basileia in 285 bce, which also celebrated Philadelphos’ birthday and elevation to co-rule (or the one-year anniversary of that event). No other hymn enjoys as broad a consensus regarding its date and circumstances of composition: e.g., Koenen 1993:78–79, Cameron 1995:10, Stephens 2003:77–79, Bulloch 2010:168, and Barbantani 2011:182–83, Petrovic 2016:166–67; D’Alessio 1996:n.18 is more hesitant.
