Thomas J. Nelson (University of Oxford)
Epigram is a key and underexploited resource for the growing interest in Hellenistic literature beyond Alexandria (e.g. Nelson (2020), Visscher (2020)). Most of the major epigrammatists in Gutzwiller’s Poetic Garlands (1998) are associated with the Ptolemies (e.g. Asclepiades, Callimachus, Dioscorides, Posidippus), but many other inscribed and book epigrams provide a window onto different political and geographical contexts from across the Hellenistic world. By studying such epigrams, we can map out the (dis)continuities in Hellenistic literature’s political and aesthetic outlooks through space.
In this paper, I focus on one particular case study: three epigrams about the Antigonid king Philip V, attributed to Samus of Macedon (AP 6.114-16; for this attribution and the spelling of Samus’ name, see Edson (1934) 213; Walbank (1942) 138; Magnani (2006)). All three epigrams treat king Philip V’s dedication of the horns and hide of a mighty bull to his ancestor Heracles. I first explore the epigram’s strategies of praise, with particular comparison to Alexandrian precedent, before charting the poems’ distinctively grand, Macedonian aesthetic.
The three epigrams extol Philip: they stress his genealogical descent from Heracles (115.7; 116.6); they celebrate the blessed state of Macedon for having such a valiant protector (114.5-6); and they emphasise his heroic prowess in defeating a monstrous beast, like Heracles. This analogy is rendered explicit in epigram 115, when Philip is explicitly said to have emulated his ancestor (115.7-8), but it is also implicit in the description of the bull as ἀμαιμακέτου (115.6), a rare adjective which occurs only twice in the Iliad, both times of the Chimaera (Il. 6.179, 16.329). Through this Iliadic allusion, Philip is constructed as a modern-day Bellerophon.
While Alexandrian poets praised their Ptolemaic patrons for their lavish τρυφή, in these epigrams Samus emphasizes Philip V’s hunting prowess (esp. αἰγανέᾳ … κυναγέτιδι, 115.4), a key facet of Macedonian kingship from Alexander the Great onwards (Plut. Alex. 40.3-41.1; cf. Carney (2002)). All three epigrams stress Philip’s role as protector of Macedon specifically (Ἠμαθίς, 114.6; Μακηδονίας, 115.2; Ἠμαθίας, 116.6) and Beroea in particular, the site of a temple for Heracles Cynagidas (Βεροιαίου, 116.6). Local pride and distinctive Antigonid identity shine through: Philip is a hunter-king and defender of his Macedonian fatherland.
To end, I consider how this Macedonian background impacts Samus’ aesthetic positioning. I argue that his epigrams display a strong emphasis on grandeur that sets them apart from the commonly professed Hellenistic aesthetic of leptotes (‘refinement’). Particularly instructive is the dismissal of envy in 116.5 (ὁ φθόνος αὐαίνοιτο). I compare this expression to the dismissal of envy at the end of Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo (105-7): Samus banishes Envy because it is an impediment to grandeur, whereas Callimachus rejects Envy to pursue fine poetic droplets, rather than a pontic outpouring. The poets’ different treatments of the ‘Envy’ topos expose underlying aesthetic discrepancies: Samus’ epigrams embrace a grandeur that Callimachus rejects. Through these epigrams, we gain a glimpse of the different means by which the poets of different kingdoms could celebrate their rulers.