Few years pass without an attempt to interpret Theocritus, Idyll 7. The poem's narrative and descriptive skill, dramatic subtlety and felicity of language are mercifully more than adequate to survive these scholarly onslaughts, so I have less hesitation in offering my own interpretation. The poem's chief problems seem to me to arise from uncertainty as to: Who is the narrator, and why are we kept waiting until line 21 before we are told that he is called Simichidas? Who, or (...) what sort of man, is the goatherd Lycidas, whom he encounters on his way from town to the harvest festival? Answers to these questions fundamentally affect our interpretation of their exchange of songs, which occupies almost half the idyll, and of Lycidas' gift of his stick to Simichidas; and these interpretations will go far towards interpreting the poem as a whole. (shrink)

In the Vita Aristotelis of Diogenes Laertius and elsewhere we come across an epigram of Theocritus of Chios directed against Aristotle. I cite the poem in the form in which it has most recently been published by D. L. Page.

The article discusses the metapoetic import of Idyll 15. The tapestries and the Adonis song evidence a metapoetic significance, as well as the votive offerings described in this song. In addition, throughout the poem, the association of cloths and poetry is encouraged. The poem functions as a “metapoetic manifesto” designed to indicate the poetic qualities defended by Theocritus. At the same time, it promotes itself as an example of the refined literature and art promoted by the Ptolemaic court and (...) by Arsinoe, and introduces a recognition and appraisal of Arsinoe as responsible for the patronage and promotion of these forms of art. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek PoetryFrederick T. GriffithsRichard Hunter. Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. xii 1 207 pp. Cloth, $54.95.To locate Theocritus on the evolving map of third-century culture, Richard Hunter forgoes mapmaking itself in favor of the scattered “sites” found in seven nonbucolic mimes, hymns, and erotic poems. He introduces these lively and learned essays with (...) the observation that “too often ‘Hellenistic poetry’ is treated as an entity in which the whole is easier to grasp, and in some ways more interesting, than the parts” (x). Theocritus’ Nachleben deepens the distortion: “Concentration on Theocritus’ ‘bucolic poems’ has tended to obscure the fact that the range and variety of his poems are very characteristic of the poetic milieu of the period” (20). Successive chapters find Theocritus crossing paths with Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Herodas, and Callimachus. As ever, all roads lead back to Homer, but Hunter pointedly directs our view elsewhere. Different as they are, Helen (Idyll 18), Hiero II (16), the Alexandrian housewives (15), the Dioscuri (22), and three languishing paederasts (12, 29, 30) commonly witness to the third century’s interest in the “song culture” of the archaic age, an age with many centers and patrons, a “rich tapestry of poetic forms” (p. 2), and a performance culture not overshadowed by the dramatic festivals of Athens.Philology’s erstwhile handmaiden, archaeology, presides as a tenth Muse both over Theocritus’ learned “recuperation” of archaic song and, at another level, over Hunter’s revival of these underappreciated Idylls. Even “the poems themselves dig deeply into a (real or constructed) archaic world for much of their matter and their form” (196). The figure of science gestures to his seamless [End Page 468] integration of papyrology, dialectology, and metrics and inevitably digs up artifacts with more cultural residue than some “intellectual exercise divorced from any meaningful social or ideological context” (11). Hunter undermines the “ivory tower” currently under siege by Alan Cameron and others. The book’s signal contribution comes, however, from questions of “performative context” (4) that may betray the trope. “Musical archaeology” (101) creaks in describing Theocritus’ “rescue” of archaic musical forms. “Locating the Site” (chapter 1) in fact excavates performance and dialect more than anything else. What Hunter’s gritty “archaeology” importantly is not is the stale, library-bound trope of “aetiology.” His introduction proceeds (“Toward Theocritus,” 1–13) via the Fragmentum Grenfellianum and Heracles’ nursery (24.1–9) rather than from Callimachus’ Aetia, which as a project does not figure in these six essays. It is Philitas and, less conventionally, Erinna and Asclepiades who pave the way for Theocritus (“The Poetic Context,” 14–28). Chapter 1 ends with an important survey of “the languages of Theocritus” (28–45), which can be recommended to students and general readers as an introduction to literary dialects in Theocritus, here presented with rare sensitivity to their literary use.Were Hunter starting from “life and times” rather than “site,” familiar topics would at once impose themselves: patronage, religion, the pandectic hexameter, and the elite appropriation of “subliterary” forms. These obligations are agreeably distributed over the five chapters of readings, or perhaps one might better say, “five performances.” For Hunter never marches through an Idyll from end to end but instead selects, restages, and defamiliarizes key passages against the backdrop of, inter alia, recently recovered papyri, hieroglyphic decrees, Old and New Comedy, instrumental performance, meditations on mimesis and mummification, and snatches of Alcman or Theognis not already fossilized in commentary. Of what should be a conventional ag ¬ n between thumos and reason in Idyll 12 he observes: “The irony of the poem lies in the fact that it is the speech of the thumos which is then characterized by an appeal to reason, whereas the lover hectors his thumos like a comic father lecturing his wayward son” (182). We were not expecting Terence: “Cf. perhaps Ter. Ad. 685–95.” With his sharp ear, timing, and fluency in all ages of Greek and Roman verse, Hunter has more than enough fresh insights to hold the attention of both generalists and Theocriteans.“‘All the Twos’: Idyll 22” (chapter 2) works from astute... (shrink)

The mystical part of Reitzenstein′s interpretation of the song in Theocritus′s first idyll has not been generally accepted;it is somewhat surprising to find a new interpretation of the legend of Daphnis, and a new explanation of the genesis of pastoral poetry, introduced by the statement, referring to Reitzenstein: ‘ Nicht zu kiihn war er, sondern noch nicht kiihn genug.’ Starting from Reitzenstein′s contention that the pastoral was developed from a cult-song, Fries elaborates the theory that Daphnis is a Greek (...) Krishna; that the maiden of Theocritus′s first idyll is the counterpart of the heroine of the Song of Songs; that astral mythology, Oriental in origin, supplies the clue to Theocritus′s handling of the legend. On the basis of this and other material Fries constructs further theories affecting the development of other literary types than the pastoral, and leads us ultimately to a novel interpretation of the Phaeacian episode in the Odyssey. (shrink)

Professor Trypanis has recently suggested changing àνούαтον into àνούтαтον. Since the problem has not been dealt with atisfactorily by any commentator,1 I should like to clarify the matter by demonstrating that the text is sound: the adjective àνούαтον is, in fact, not only morphologically impeccable, but, in particular, singularly pointed. From the morphological point of view, the Hinterglied ούαтος is paralleled by δολιχούαтος , μονούαтος , and χρυσούαтος : these adjectives occur in hexameter poetry, and each of them is attested (...) once, exactly as is the case with Theocritus‘ àνούαтος. The point brought out by àνούαтον is extremely felicitous: statues of Priapus could be either of an elaborate type, in which the god was represented as having two protruding physical features, namely his ears3 and his mentula, or of a more uncouth type, which consisted of a ‘truncus dolatus’, i.e. a truncus whose only protuberance was the ‘mentula edolata’. The statue described by Theocritus belongs to the latter type: it is uncouthly hewn and devoid of one of the two protruding features {à½οÍαтοт), but it does possess the other one. (shrink)

The problems of this passage were concisely stated by M. Platnauer more than thirty years ago and his suggestions for their solution have been adopted and developed in A. S. F. Gow's magnum opus. Its authority—so the present writer suspects—is liable at this point to eclipse the meaning of the text.

As bearing on the time of year of the celebration attended by Simichidas and his friends, I stated, on the authority of Miss Alice Lindsell, that the barley-harvest in Cos is normally over by the end of April; and I added that the barley-harvest ought to fix the time of the events recorded, but that the scene depicted in 131 ff. is evidently much later than April and that the modern dates do not fit T's setting. I was assuming that (...) the threshing and winnowing of the barley, which is the occasion of the festival , took place immediately after it had been carried, but, as Miss Lindsell has pointed out, this assumption has no justification. (shrink)

In the absence of reliable external evidence for the career of Theocritus, scholars, both ancient and modern, have drawn numerous biographical inferences from a wide range of passages in his poems referring to place names, personal names, topographic features, deities and festivals, athletes, even varieties of fish and plant life. This paper argues that most of these belong in the realm of fantasy. Beyond his Sicilian origins and his extended residence in Alexandria, where his main associations are with its (...) royal patrons and its intellectual and literary life, we have little evidence with which to reconstruct the life of Theocritus as a writer. The chronology of his poetic activity is subject to similar uncertainty, although it can be argued that it extended over a longer period of time than many traditional accounts assume. (shrink)

In a masterly study of the language and motifs of Theocritus’ Thalysia, Dr. G. Giangrande has demonstrated that what the poem relates is the mock-investiture of Simichidas, the naïve young townsman and littérateur, performed with almost malicious irony by the goatherd Lycidas, who sees through, and ridicules, Simichidas’ rustic and poetic pretensions.1 My object in this paper is to examine, in the light of Giangrande's findings, some aspects of the presentation of Lycidas; this examination will, I believe, enable us (...) to bring the poem into still sharper focus. (shrink)

In 1930 Hunt and Johnson published the remains of P. Oxy. 2064, a roll containing at least some of the poems attributed to Theocritus and dating from the late second century A.d. . The papyrus was important, even though very fragmentary , since at its time of publication it was one of the three earliest witnesses to the text of Theocritus. Fragments of other early papyri of Theocritus have been published since then, but P. Oxy. 2064 has (...) remained the most important known witness prior to the fifth century because of the spread of poems which the extant fragments show it to have contained. No other papyrus allows us to reconstruct the contents of an early Theocritus book to such an extent. In 1983 the editors of Oxyrhynchus Papyri published a further collection of Theocritus fragments from various papyri , among which were more remains from P. Oxy. 2064 edited by P. J. Parsons under the number P. Oxy. 3548. (shrink)

That the thirteenth Idyll of Theocritus and the Hylas episode in the first book of Apollonius are not independent of each other was perhaps first pointed out by Casaubon, who supposed T. to be the earlier of the two. The opposite view was upheld, whether for the first time or not I do not know, by Wilamowitz in his lectures, and it was assumed, without much argument, by his pupil G. Knaack, who presently defended it, with little more, against (...) an attack by G. Türk. Gercke and Susemihl were persuaded, and later on Wilamowitz himself touched briefly on the matter. Legrand, who had doubted before, remains unconvinced, and Cholmeley, to whose chronology this theory was disastrous, took shelter behind the unsubstantial shades of Antimachus and Philetas. In Italy, G. Perrotta has supported Wilamowitz's view, but L. Bignone says that the problem is insoluble. I have myself no doubt that Wilamowitz was right, but the arguments employed have not been very cogent, and, as the evidence has not been well set out, it may be useful to outline it here and to add a little to it. (shrink)

Both the meaning of and the identity of the are in some doubt here. Gow's view that ‘Lacon thinks of labourers and cicadas vying with one another in the heat’ and that means ‘provoke to further exertions, put him on his mettle’ agrees in general with the scholiast.

This article focuses on the interpretation of Homeric ἴσκε(ν) (Od. 19.203; 22.31) as well as its reception in Apollonius Rhodius (A. R. 1.834 et alibi) and Theocritus (Id. 22.167). I argue that the passage Od. 22.31-33, in which ἴσκεν (Od. 22.31) occurs, was owed to a bard’s imitation of Od. 19.203, who not only took ἴσκε (Od. 19.203) as a verbum dicendi but used ἴσκεν ἕκαστος ἀνήρ at Od. 22.31 as a semantic equivalent of the Homeric formula ὣς ἄρα (...) τις εἴπεσκε(ν). It will further show that Apollonius’ frequent employment of ἴσκω meaning ‘say’ is mainly modelled on Od. 22.31 and ἴσκον at Theocritus Id. 22.167 is understood by the poet as an ‘iterative’. If this interpretation is accepted, it might shed some new light on the relative chronology of Apollonius’ Argonautica and Theocritus’ two Idylls (13; 22). (shrink)

Theocritus' twenty-second idyll is cast in the form of a hymn to the Dioscuri, who are addressed in the proem as saviours of men, horses, and ships. This opening section of the idyll is modelled loosely on the short thirty-third Homeric hymn, and like that hymn contains an expanded account of the twins' rescue of ships about to be lost in a storm. As is hardly surprising, Theocritus in reworking the Homeric hymn draws on other literary antecedents as (...) well, and like other Alexandrian poets makes prominent use of diction borrowed and adapted from the Homeric epics. At the same time, the proem also shares several points of contact, largely overlooked or disputed by previous scholarship, with the poetry of Theocritus' own contemporaries. In the present paper, I shall suggest that in the storm scene of the proem references to Aratus' Phaenomena and Apollonius Rhodius' Argonautica occur in a carefully arranged pattern with potentially significant implications for our understanding of the proem and the idyll as a whole. (shrink)

Some years ago, when discussing Theocr. 22. 177 sqq. , I suggested that Theocritus had been a little careless in envisaging the circumstances which he is describing, and had written as though a duel normally resulted in the deaths of both combatants. That still seems to me the probable explanation of the difficulty with which I was dealing, and, as I then said, the oversight with which I charged Theocritus is venial enough, for in fact two deaths result (...) from the particular duel which he is about to describe. He is concerned with the drama, not with the setting, and if the setting proves to be of cardboard, the play is after all the thing. (shrink)

In a paper designed to prove that the technopaegnium entitled Σριγξ could not be by Theocritus, I said in 1914 that that question had a bearing of some importance upon the interpretation of the Idylls since the ‘Mascarade bucolique’ depended ultimately on the assumption that Simichidas in Id. 7 was Theocritus himself. If T. referred to himself elsewhere by that name , the assumption would be justified; if someone else did so, he would, in company with the scholia (...) and with the author of the barbarous verses beginning Σιμιχίδα Θεόκριτε which are prefixed to the Idylls in certain manuscripts, be merely drawing an obvious and possibly mistaken inference. (shrink)