A Grasshopper's Diet—Notes on an Epigram of Meleager and a Fragment of Eubulus

E. K. Borthwick

doi:10.1017/S0009838800003402

A Grasshopper's Diet—Notes on an Epigram of Meleager and a Fragment of Eubulus

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

E. K. Borthwick

Show author details

E. K. Borthwick: Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

‘Quid vero fit, quod poeta hanc plantam, tanquam munus locustae inprimis gratum, commemoret, nemo dixit; nee ego dicere possum’—so Jacobs in his note on the seventh line of this epigram (vol. 6, p. 123). Among later commentators, Mackail thinks ‘can hardly mean “leek” here’ and he assumes it to be ‘groundsel’; Dain in the Budé edition is satisfied with the rather prosaic explanation that it is an ‘observation très juste … la cigale ne se nourrit que des sues des plantes’. I hope to show that the diet of leeks and dewdrops from the mouth is promised by the love-sick swain of Meleager's poem for the same specific reason—to refresh the grasshopper's ‘voice’ for a new day's beguilement by song and persuasion to the sleep which will again free him from the cares of love. Although the ancients were aware of the means by which such insects produced their incessant sound, they remained faithful to the poetic tradition, which made them drink dew as a prelude to their singing, first found in Hesiod, Scut. 395, and clearly expressed in a couplet of Antipater of Thessalonica (A.P. 9. 92):

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , May 1966 , pp. 103 - 112

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800003402 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 103 note 1} Select Epigrams from the Greek Anthology,² P. 350.

^{page 103 note 2} Cf. Ar. H.A. 535^b7–14, on both tettix and akris, also Plin. N.H. 11. 93, ib. 266; although it does not follow that all the poets who refer to their ‘singing’ shared such scientific expertise. Although the two insects are entomologically distinct, there is also a tendency in the Greek poets (which has resulted in some confusion of nomenclature in modern times) to associate them in folk lore belief and poetic tradition. For example, this epigram of Meleager, like other akris poems, takes over the dew-drinking motif of the tettix; their ‘song’ is similarly described separately or together, and in the third line here, there is an allusion to a story told of a tettix (see p. 106); Antisthenes' joke about Athenians and attelaboi (a kind of akris) also alludes to the earth-born tettix tradition (see p. 111); on the other hand the caging of tettiges seems to be a traditional motif really applicable to akrides (see p. 105 n. 2). On akris (which is itself used for both the destructive locust and the comparatively harmless cricket) see further Gow's note on Theoc. 5. 108 and the literature there cited, also C.R. Ixx (1956), 92–93.Google Scholar In general I use ‘grasshopper’ to translate akris and ‘cicada’ for tettix.

^{page 104 note 1} J. M. Edmonds is constrained to render ‘as happy as a king’.

^{page 104 note 2} Compare also Hesiod's (line 91) with the first and last lines of the Anacreontic poem, . It is interesting that Callimachus also alludes to these Hesiodic lines (as Hes. schol. ad loc. observed) in Aetia fr. 1. 37–38 immediately after comparing himself to a dew-drinking cicada (29–35).

^{page 104 note 3} Suet. Nero 20–21, etc. For further curious details about Nero and cicadas see my article ‘Notes on Suetonius' Nero and a Pindaric Scholium’, C.R. N.S. XV (1965).Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 4} The ref. to dawn is of course because of the dew—cf. Hes. Scut. 395–6 and Synesius, , Hymn 9. 45Google Scholar

^{page 104 note 5} Indeed Geop. 13. 1. 9 actually records that the (here, however, the destructive locust) is averse to .

^{page 104 note 6} According to Aristotle (H.A. 532^b10) (Cf. Plin. N.H. II. 93 sine ore), but in poetry I do not regard this in itself as invalidating this interpretation. Cf. A.P. 7. 193 (in this poem the unspecified insect is assumed to be an akris).

^{page 105 note 1} So in A.P. 9. 373 the food and drink of the cicada () are successively mentioned.

^{page 105 note 2} Which I take to be the of A.P. 7. 193 (Simias). Dain's ‘dans l'intimité de ma maison’ misses the sophistication of this phrase entirely. A number of epigrams in this part of the Anthology refer to caged grasshoppers. It is commonly stated, e.g. by Mackail, (op. cit., p. 350)Google Scholar and Gow (on Theoc. 1. 52) that cicadas were also kept caged as pets, but of the examples they cite, the poems which refer most clearly to cages are about akrides. There is, however, an assumption in A.P. 7. 190 that, as Myro keeps two pets, akris and tettix, they were similarly housed, and Mackail thinks the capture of a tettix in 9. 373 was for this purpose (cf. Longus 3. 24). As regards the practicality of this (as opposed to poetic tradition) Fabre, J. H. (The Life of the Grasshopper, trans. A. T. de Mattos, p. 233–cf. p. 6Google Scholar) writes: ‘I venture to disbelieve the whole story … a single day spent in a cramped enclosure would make the high-flying insect die of boredom.’ It looks as if, just as the tettix traditions are occasionally transferred to the akris, so the keeping of akrides as pets (substantiated for both ancient and modern times) is transferred to the tettix at least in poetic tradition. Even the caging of Tithonus, traditionally transformed into a tettix, reflects this (see p. 109). On the question of cicadas in captivity see now Gow on A.P. 7. 190 (The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams, ii. 101).Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} Chloe, we find in 1. 14, keeps the grasshopper for the same purpose, ….

^{page 105 note 4} Keightley in his commentary on the Georgics thought die description of irrigating plants in 4. 115 and Col. R.R. 10. 147–8 proved that ‘ancient watering-pots had roses like our own’. But Varro's details (R.R. 3. 14. 2) of fitting mammillae to a fistula and directing the stream against a stone ut late dissipetur suggest the inavailability of more convenient equipment. I cannot find used in this sense, as Mackail alleges.

^{page 105 note 5} was written by the first hand of P and changed to plural by the corrector using the copy of Michael Cartophylax: is read also in Plan., and Suid. s.v. . The plural is accepted by most edd., and P's unreliability is shown by his in the first line. For plural of the speaker's mouth (or the insect's for that matter) cf. Eur. Ale. 403, Ap. Rh. 4. 1607, Theoc. 20. 26, Mosch. 2. 96, A.P. 6. 173, 7. 203 (where the same variation of reading occurs), 9. 87, Nonn. D. 47. 105.

^{page 106 note 1} Cf. Herod. Med. (in RhM lviii [1903], p. 79Google Scholar) . Doubtless this would be done through a straw—cf. Geop. 16. 6. 2, (to cure leucoma); for othei medical uses of the verb, see P. Oxy. viii (1911), no. 1088, and several examples in the Hippiatrica, e.g. 97. 8 (sc. the medicament there described).

^{page 106 note 2} Used elsewhere by Ar. (H.A. 544^a4) o1 the cuttle-fish ejecting milt.

^{page 106 note 3} More refined methods of introducing liquids into the hive for feeding purposes are also mentioned, although blowing the liquid through straws, etc., is not to be discounted—e.g. Verg. Georg. 4. 265 mellaque arundineii inferre canalibus, Col. 9. 14. 17 per aditurr, vestibuli siphonibus dulcia liquamina inmittere (cf infundere in 9. 8. 3). Varro (3. 16. 28) recommends leaving aqua mulsa in vessels containing wool from which the bees may suck. Columella (9. 8. 2) also mentions blowing into the hive labris…admotis et inflate spiritu, but for a different purpose. Finally his description (g. 8. 9) of attracting the bees themselves into a reed exiguo melle vel defrutc instillato may be noted.

^{page 106 note 4} Cf.—in a different context—Fronto, p. 69. 14 aqua mulsa sorbenda (cf. of Geop.) usque ad gulam et reiectanda fauces fovi.

^{page 106 note 5} For the expression see Dover, K. J. in Maia xv (1963), 10 f.Google Scholar, BICS xi (1964), 36.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 6} If emendation should be thought necessary—which I doubt—Graefius's or Hecker's are preferable to others recorded by Stadtmueller. Since this article was written, Page, D. L. (Gk. Anth.: Hellenistic Epigrams ii. 616Google Scholar), who regards as unintelligible, has suggested ‘for your fork-tongued mouth’, referring to of the tettix in A.P. 9. 273. It is difficult to assess probabilities in the vagaries of poetic descriptions of the sound mechanism of stridulating insects, but according to Ar. (H.A. 532^b13) of the cicada (which replaces a true ) is .

^{page 106 note 7} See J.H.S. lxxxiv (1964), p. 52 n. 19.Google Scholar Ar. fr. 152 suggests that the game had its more vulgar deviations; cf. schol. Luc. Lex. 3 on kottabos , and the later use of . Socrates uses as a ‘Gorgianic expression’ for pouring wine in Xen. Symp. 2. 26.

^{page 106 note 8} Cf. also Julian, , Ep. 41Google Scholar (421D), Antig. Mir. 1. 1.

^{page 107 note 1} See Ael. N.A. 9. 13.

^{page 107 note 2} is the reading of Plan., P having , and the words are continually confused—see Wernicke's note on Tryphiodoru 321—but the former is clearly right. Hesych. has Cf. also Eust. 229. 28.

^{page 107 note 3} Fr. 57 Page (who cites other passages.)

^{page 108 note 1} See also Suid. s.v. .

^{page 108 note 2} Ar. Ach. 872. Athenaeus (417b–418b) quotes a number of passages about Boeotian including several by Eubulus, one of which (also from Antiope, fr. 12) compares Athenians and Boeotians. Euripides himself seems to refer to Zethus' predilection for creature comforts in fr. 201.

^{page 108 note 3} A mythological innovation of the comic 4poet? Eur. H.F. 29–30, the summary of Hyginus (Fab. 8) and the papyrus fragments of Eur.'s Antiope which include Hermes' instructions to the brothers, give no hint of a journey to Athens, and Nauck was surely wrong in considering that Eubulus quoted the ipsissima verba of Euripides (= his fragment 224). The improbability was pointed out before the papyrus discovery by Weil in his review in R.E.G. ii (1889), 332Google Scholar, and Nauck withdrew the suggestion in Suppl. ad trag.fr., p. xxi. The lines of Pacuvius quoted by Cicero, de div. 2. 133 in which Amphion described his lyre in a fantastic riddle are followed by a reply attributed by Cicero to Attici. Rejecting emendation of this to astici, etc., Pickard-Cambridge (New Chapters in Gk. lit., Third series, p. 107 n. 3Google Scholar) also declares the ascription of a Theban chorus to Euripides' play in Schol. Hipp. 58 to be erroneous. Both texts could be maintained unaltered if we suppose Pacuvius to have incorporated non-Euripidean material, represented here for a comic purpose by Eubulus (where the tortoise riddle, which recalls a similar episode of Sophocles' Ichneutae, would also have been more appropriate).

^{page 108 note 4} Eusebius Pr. Ev. 10. 9. 8. Cf. Limenius, , Paean 19–20Google Scholar, Lye. 110–11 (where Cecrops, or Erichthonius, or both may be referred to), Apollod. 3. 14. 1, Hyg. Fab. 48. For the classical period the belief is implied in Ar. Vesp. 438 with 1076, and fr. 110 .

^{page 108 note 5} Callim. fr. 260. 19 calls him , a piece of word-play imitated by Nonnus, D. 41. 64.

^{page 109 note 1} Apollod. 3. 14. 3.

^{page 109 note 2} Loc. cit. (cf. 1. 9. 4), Eur. Hipp, 454–6, Paus. 1.3. 1.

^{page 109 note 3} Pherecydes ap. schol. Od. 11. 321; Ovid, Met. 7. 810 ff.Google Scholar, Ars Am. 698 ff. Ovid locates the story at the place on Hymettus anciently known as , famous for its fertilizing water (see my article in A. J.P. lxxxiv [1963], 225 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 4} Apollod. loc. cit. There are, of course, other genealogies.

^{page 109 note 5} H. Aphr. 218–39. Cf. of the Anacreontic poem.

^{page 109 note 6} For which see examples in Hall, , Comp. to Class. Texts, p. 161Google Scholar; Lindsay, , Intro, to Lat. Textual Emendation, p. 86Google Scholar; Merrill, in Univ. of Calif, publications in Class. Phil, ii, no. 11, pp. 245, 251.Google Scholar Mr. E.J. Kenney draws my attention to the fact that Robinson Ellis made this conjecture in A.J.P. viii (1887), 4,Google Scholar but he abandoned it shortly after in favour of his unsatisfactory morsilis et. Ellis however intended Cecropis as ‘either gen. after ritu, or nom. fern, agreeing with fibula’, whereas I prefer to take it with cicadae.

^{page 109 note 7} Anth. Lat. (1759), 426. The line seems to be imitated from Sen. Epigr. 15. 8 where melle is the penultimate word, and as honey and dew, bees and cicadas, are so often used by the poets as symbolic of Attica, the emendation has some attraction. Lucian characteristically satirizes the cliché in Rh. Pr. 11 when he talks of of his orator who is not one of us . For the allusive train of thought, cf. Homer's ‘bloodless gods’ (II. 5. 341–2) and the Anacreontic cicada (34. 17). For the orator's promise to make his disciple a see my comments above p. 104.

^{page 110 note 1} Cf. also Eur. Cycl. 629 , used of open-mouthed expectation. Captare is similarly used—e.g. Curt. Ruf. 4. 7. 14 imbrem … ore hianti captare. Of interest, as it describes Cephalus' longing for Aura (see above), is Ov. Met. 7. 820 meoque / spiritus iste tuus semper captatur ab ore. Finally, Ps.-Quint. decl. 12. 17 auras captamus et rare vescimur clearly alludes to cicada diet.

^{page 110 note 2} See Fraenkel's note on Aesch. Ag. 1668, and cf. also Philo's (I. 365 M.). So too in Latin—spes pascis inanis (Verg. Am. 10. 627).

^{page 110 note 3} Cf. Plat. Com. fr. 184, Phryn. fr. 69.

^{page 110 note 4} It is said of the sophists that the Clouds (334: cf. of Ran. 892).

^{page 110 note 5} quae de die in diem vivunt (St. Amb. Ep. 28. 5).

^{page 110 note 6} Cf. Anacreont. 34. 1, 16.

^{page 110 note 7} In the passage quoted, cf. Nub. 441–2, 833, 835–7.

^{page 110 note 8} Decl. 26 (6, p. 537); cf. ib. 32 (7, p. 56).

^{page 111 note 1} Spoken by ‘a toper’ ace. to Starkie on Nub. 1360. Athenaeus who cites it (63a) gives no context.

^{page 111 note 2} In Orph. fr. 247. 36, referring to Moses, Scaliger's should be read, and in Nicaenet. 1. 7 may also be corrupt. But cf. in Synes. H. 3. 4 and (v. 1. ) of earth-born giants in Callim. H. 1.3; also the lines referring to spontaneous generation from mud quoted by Hipp. Haer. 5. 7 (= Bergk PLG⁴ iii, p. 712; Page PMG 985). See in general Ar. Gen. An. 762^a32.

^{page 111 note 3} Cf. in A.P. 9. 264. 6.

^{page 111 note 4} See above, p. 105 n. 4.

^{page 111 note 5} So too in a piece of moralizing by Epictetus (Gnom. 26), dew-nurtured snails are actually contrasted with sun-loving cicadas.

^{page 111 note 6} Aes. 114 Hausrath, Babrius 140, Avianus 34, Theophylactus Ep. 61; cf. versions of Aphthonius, Syntipas, Fab. Branc. in Hausrath ii, pp. 133, 173, 184.

^{page 111 note 7} Aes. 195, Syntipas 1 (Hausrath ii, P. 155).

^{page 111 note 8} Cf. the passages cited above, p. 11 o n. 1.

^{page 111 note 9} Hermes lxiii (1928), 323.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} Cf. Anacreont. 34. 15 , and the Tithonus myth in h. Aphr. 224, Hor. Od. 2. 16. 30, etc. For cicadas sloughing off the skin see Ar. H.A. 601^a6, Lucr. 4. 58, etc. Callimachus' comparison with another celebrated ;, Enceladus, may be fortuitous, but it is also remarkable that is said by schol. Ar. Nub. 158 to be a stridulating insect similar to the cicada. Words derived from are standard terms for the sound of both tettix— e.g. Theopomp. fr. 40 K, A.P. vii. 196 (Meleager), ix. 372 (Anon.), Ael. N.A. 1. 20, Theophyl. Ep. 61—and akris—e.g. A.P. vii 194 (Mnasalcas).