Theocritus at Court 9004059199, 9789004059191

Citation preview

TH E O C R ITU S A T CO U RT BY

F R E D E R IC K T. G R IF FITH S

lu g d u n i

e a t a v o r u m

e

.j.

b r il l

m c m l x x ix

T A B L E OF CO N TEN TS A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s ....................................................................................

ix

A b b re viate d R e fere n ces...........................................................................

χ

I. T h e P rob lem o f a n A u d i e n c e ....................................................

i

II. T heC harites (Id . 16 ) a n d th e P o e tic s o f theG e»w s M ix tu m

9

I II. T h e N e w G o d s .................................................................................

51

T he E ncom iu m o f P tolem y (Id . 1 7 ) ......................................

71

T h e A d on ia zu sa e (Id . 1 5 ) ..........................................................

82

T h e E p itha la m iu m fo r H e le n (Id . 1 8 ) ..................................

86

T h e H era cliscu s (Id . 2 4 ) ..........................................................

91

T h e Bacchantes (Id . 2 6 ) ...............................................................

98

IV . T h e C i t y ................................................................................................ 1 0 7 A esch in a s a nd T h y o n ic u s (Id . 1 4 ) .......................................109 T he A d on ia zu sa e (Id . 1 5 ) .......................................................... 1 1 6 Indices

..........................................................................................................129 G e n era l I n d e x .......................................................................................129

P rin cip a l P a ssa g e s C i t e d .......................................................... ....

133

I would like to express m y gratitu d e to the Trustees of A m herst College for the T ru s te e -F a c u lty F ellow ship an d to the T rustees for H arvard U n ive rsity fo r the Jun ior F ellow ship a t the C enter for Hellenic Studies during w hich prelim inary w o rk on this stu d y was done. I am in debted as w ell to Professor B ernard M. W . K n o x for continuing ad v ice and encouragem ent and to Professor John H. F in ley J r. for gen erosity in sharing his id eas on T heocritus and forbearance in lea vin g m e to m y own w a yw a rd application of them.

a b b r e v ia t e d

r e f e r e n c e s

• ^ . „sed in this stud y are ge nerally tho se o f th e O x f „ t th e abbreviations useu exception o f periodicals, fo r w h ich I fo l io , CUssiat A m r ta a , Journal o f A r d u u c h g y 7 4 (1970) 3-j. be cited in abb reviated fo rm : •n Cerfaux-Tondn

T

f e r f a u x a n d J. T o n d r ia u , U n Concurrent du Ckrishacuiu ^ so w erains dans la civilisation gréco-

romaine (Bibliothèque de théologie, ser. I l l 5 ; Tournai Fraser

Gow

Legnnd

1957). P, M. Fraser, Ptolemaic A lexa nd ria (3 v o ls ., O x fo r d 1972). Theocritus*, edited w ith a tra n slatio n a n d com m entary b y A. S. F. G ow (2 vols., Ca m b rid ge 1952 ; reprinted 1965). A. Horstroann, Ironie und H u m or bei Tkeokrit (Beiträge sur klassischen Philologie 6 7 ; M eisenheim am G la n 1976). Ph.-E. Legrand, Étude sur Théocrite (B iblio th èq u e des Écoles Françaises d'A th èn es e t d e R o m e 79 ; P a ris 1898: reprinted 1968). W. Meincke, Untersuchungen n t den Gedickten Tkeokrits (diss. K ie l 1965).

enAomiastischen

CeUimeckus, edited b y R . P fe iffer (O xfo rd , v o l

ι :94ο-

voL 2 1953}. KuU’ im p to U m ü s c l* » A U x c n J n t , Wüam., Turtg.

“ ‘ “ " i· Archaeologisch-historische öijdragen 5; Amsterdam 1938). U.

von

W iam ow iti-M oeU endorif.

D ie

TextgesckicMte

18; Berlin 1906). " ΛοΙίΛβτ id e o lo g i s c h e U ntersuchnngrn W iU m .,«. 2), (a v

o

t

e

.

.

w * * * Z t ü * * Kmäimackos

CH APTER ONE

T H E PR O B L E M O F A N A U D IE N C E It w as in P to le m a ic A le x a n d r ia th a t poets first learn ed to espouse the v irtu es o f p u r ity , p erh aps b ecau se th e y w ere losin g the occasions fo r can d o r. In earlier gen eration s th e ir predecessors ha d not blushed to cla im a m e asu re of rev e aled t r u th a n d of tem poral power. P in d a r an d B a c c h y lid e s s a w the m se lv e s as eagles. C a lli­ m achus, h o w e ve r, asp ired o n ly to sin g lik e th e c ic a d a : “ L e t an other b ra y lik e th e lo n g -ea red b e a st, b u t le t m e be th e d elica te, the winged one. O h, y e s ! th a t I m a y sing feed in g o n d ew dro ps, free nourishm ent fro m th e d iv in e a ir ”

(fr. i . 3 1-3 4 P f.) . H is b ra y in g

rivals m a y h a v e g r a te d o n th e ear q u it e as m u ch as h a d P in d a r's chatterin g crow s, b u t in c h a ra c te r izin g h im self C allim a ch u s did not presum e to s tr e n g th or im p a c t in q u ite th e sam e w a y . W h e re in the fifth c e n tu r y th e c o m m u n ity a n d c e rta in la rg e relig iou s forces could fin d th e ir v o ice in p o ets lik e P in d a r a n d th e A t t ic d ram a tists, A lexan drian 1 m en o f le tte r s p referred to s k ir t claim s to p u b lic statu s or to g ifts o f v isio n b e y o n d d a z z lin g p o w ers of d o cu m e n ta­ tion: άμάρτυρον ούδέν άείδω (C allim . fr. 6 12 P f.) . T h e P tolem ies, in becom ing th e ir o w n p rie s ts an d also th e ir o w n gods, h a d c ircu m ­ ven ted th e p o e t’s p r o p h e tic fu n c tio n . W h a t fo r H esio d o n H elicon h ad been a n in itia tio n in to a te rr ify in g an d u sefu l p o w e r becam e for C allim achu s in th e A d i a m o re lik e a lo n g an d in terestin g dream . The Muses w ere w ith h im still, b u t, h a v in g tr a d e d aw esom eness for m uch learn in g, m ore as lib ra rian s th a n as goddesses. A n d as "u n ackn ow led g ed le g is la t o r ” th e p o et h a d no real pu rpo se in a regime w here th e p o litic a l w ill o f th e demos o ffic ia lly m a ttere d no longer. H e spo ke o n ly fo r h im self, fo r a rt, a n d fo r th e ra th er su perior valu es o f th e c lassical tra d itio n . W h ile th e eagle is m ore in tim id a tin g than m u sical, th e song o f th e c ic a d a seem s to com e fro m now here— not a rich h a rm o n y, b u t, lik e T ith o n u s w ith e rin g in to im m o rta lity, one th a t endures. T h e o c ritu s chim ed in th a t p o ets w h o forget their γνώθι σαυτόν d isgrace th em selves lik e frogs v y in g w ith grasshoppers (Id. 7.41).* ‘ Herelfter I »ball restrict the adjective "Alexandrian” to poets actually wnting in Alexandria. * For general studies of the role of poetry in Alexandria, see Wilam .

the hermetic isolation of th e first disciples of „ Howe.Ti'n evitablv looked l « s noble to som e m th e outside wor!i «« « «**' Tjm on ph liu s dism issed the portae docli l M e n a c é

of learning, the M useum , as fo llo w s: "M any ^

; A W in populous E gypt, scribblers on p a pyru s, ceaselessly ™ n j i n s ii i t t e bird cage of the M uses" (A th . M d).» T he poets' E s t a n t claims of aesthetic self-su fficien cy an d d etachm ent fron the historical moment might be read as a c o v e r fo r ac tu a l parasitism. Yet both the poets and their detractors ag reed th a t intellectuals were and should be kept at a safe d istan ce from p u b lic life : σικχαίνω πάντα τά δημόσια (Callim. E p. 28.4 P f.)· Such isolation should facilitate th e jo b of th e m o d em interpreter, who may then assume that these poem s w ere w r itte n in libraries to stay there and composed b y scholars for people lik e ourselves, that is, for an audience whose cultural lim itations a n d p o litica l motives need hardly have concerned the poet as he a d v an c e d th e cause of art. The question of the relationship o f th e p o et to an audience other than scholars and poets—a vex in g , bu t c ru cial issue in the study of epic, drama, and choral ly ric —ra re ly p la y s a role in the interpretation of Alexandrian writers. I t was, in fa ct, t h e y Callimachus most oi a ll-w h o first suggested th a t it should not. Clearly the pubhc voice of poetry was m uch a tte n u ate d , b u t are r t o l t h 1Dr T

ng that “ had vanished alto g eth er ? In recent

the notion that t b T m " 11' 6‘ m iT ' 41“ * ° f P f e i f f e r '‘ w h o resists Flaubert’s “ Tour d’i v o i r e ^ S i r ^ ^ deserves com parison with attachment to his native r m us· he notes, spoke of his worship; Philetas and his^,*” ' *° the new P to l™ a i c rulerVaganes of politics as head for the'r p a rt, faced the to the throne. Curiously P fe iffc Î i llrar>’ anbIeraS ° i ï r 'n e w i v - w e d siblings? T h e M aced on ian pharaoh, future sod? T ie ™ ^ HeIienis m ? T h e c lassical trad ition „ h0 was the grea p flourish again a t his d oo rstep bequeathed which he had ca“ * ' to lical m aneuvers fo r h a n d lin g su c h delicate the poet M strong in jim ction t o ad m o n ish , denounce, °CCaSIOnSj „nie like the Ptolem ies w h o k ille d th e ir brothers, “ d T i h e f s i t e r s tyrannized fellow G reeks, a s s a u lte d O lym p us, T d o n the whole lowered the tone of c iv ic life. T h e r h e to ric of the courtly poems tu rn s out to be fa r from sim ple, as w e s h a ll see. More importantly, the m onarchs ha d n o t ju s t v a n itie s t o b e indulged, but their own poetic tastes. P hiladelphu s g re w u p u n d e r th e tu tela ge of Philetas and Zenodotus, then hired E ra to sth e n e s fo r h is o w n son. Surely he did not patronize p o etry so la v is h ly b e cau se h e w a s deaf to it. Might not he and Arsinoe a t tim es w a n t to h e a r a b o u t som e­ thing other than themselves, an d therefore e n c o u rag e, su gg e st, or inspire something other than encom ium ? H a v in g h e d ge d ab ou t their own ascent to O lym pus w ith new d iv in e a n ce sto rs (Zeus, Heracles) and partners in cu lt (A p hrod ite, D io n y s u s ), t h e y in e v itably influenced the w a y th a t th eir p o ets u sed o r a v o id e d these gods. The Ptolemies, having prom oted H o m eric stu d ie s so la v ish ly , could hardly greet with sim ple in difference th e w a y th a t th e ir own stable of poets emulated the m aster o r ren ou n ced th e a tte m p t. O ur to t t ° Cm e Z S nS ment in « ι ΐ ^ ΐ ™ *

maSter p,an o i A ^ a n d i i a its e lf dow n lndicates th a t th e P to le m a ic in vo lve -

reckon, therefore, w i t h ' t h e ^ extends well beyond the

^

and perverse audience they m a v h outlook of the poetrv w h l w i

T * 085"' M “ d iscrim in atin S P“ 1 m u ch ° f th e lo n e and

m e ticu lo u s- W e m ust the‘ r Presen ce in p o etry

‘ » nothing , J t h ^ l 0T tr Sed ‘ ° W ritte" · “ iS « * y are incestuous If We 1:,*. 6 m arn ag es m en tio n ed in the mis, m i r 0f w w 0nt^

' h ' ‘ ° η“

° f ° « rt ·»“ "

. ° ^ r , t „ T i ' h0gical poems-e palrons m,ght have fo“nd « A m r T ° ih b a tta c h meMnt o t h U h a r ily be dim ™ s h e d th ΐ ^

dit“ t' d *° S >·>'«

Γ th “

by a

T ° ’* s“ re» “ > * " realized. B ut. U l’*ocAoe» «* 1 PortnuU f.), w h o is to some the poet from his critics The audie A P ’f ° Wh° St°PS “ def“ d therefore, regularly as heroic as the ♦ S“ Ch “ 'H u s tific a tio n is· in Chapter Three, the Ptolemi . P** ^ ls not. A s w ill be discussed than did other Hellenistic Dri'nrW° Î Ï P-Ped 1 lom er no lcss zealou sly »re^steadily and by no m ean, < “ l appearances in th e Idylls Achdles and Helen, T roy and ï ' S ly a t,o n d erf_sP“ then is th e ch o ru s ? th e m u sic ? th e attention h * of PindarΛ ν Μ τ , m o m e n t, p in d a r 's p a tr o n s m a y have ot all Greece : tn« ^

^

^

lo n g . r a n g e p r o s p e ct of being

been m0reJ “ ° ' « x t s for g en eration s o f s c h o o lb o y s , b u t th e y all immortalized >n ^ ^ sp e c ta c u la r m o m e n t, th e perform ance. “ t u ? presents a t e x t t h a t c a n n o t p o s s ib ly b e sung Now lh e o cm r h e p o e t h i m s e l f - m e r e w ords on & S

p o e t w o u ld b e foolish to

otherwise, nor can he p u t h im s elf fo r th a s a n accom plished

musician, choreographer, an d ch o irm a ster Theocritus takes the o ffensive b y a d m ittin g t h e lim ita tio n s of his medium m fh beguiling fran kn ess

an d

c le v e r n e s s .

T heocritu s'

papyrus calls itself a p a p yru s » in u n e m b a r r a ss e d p r o x im ity to ύμνεϊν and àtlSsiv. Such te x ts are s h u ffle d fr o m p o e t to patrons, examined b y prospective b u yers, a n d fa t e d t o s p e n d m o s t o f their time in a coffer. N o m ore d o w e fin d , as in t h e p ro em , th e poet hovering between heaven an d e a r th in c o m m u n io n w it h th e Muses. No, this artisan produces te x ts , p u b lish es th e m , k e e p s accounts. Theocritus can d eny none of th is a n d ch o o se s r a th e r t o a d m it it all in disarming and elegant im ages, w h ic h th e m s e lv e s a tte s t to the extraordinary new v e r s a tility o f th e s ile n t p a g e . Consideration of the ph ysica l d im en sio n o f p o e t r y in relation to the other arts occurs w ith su fficien t fr e q u e n c y th r o u g h o u t th e Id ylls to suggest that T heocritus’ in terest in th e to p ic is m o re th a n casual ere. The first Id yll,40 w h ich in tro d u ces th e n e w a r t o f th e pastoral \ erature, begins w ith a trib u te to in stru m e n ta l m u sic, a s T hyrsis P g0atîîerd'S pipinS· In response, th e g o a th e r d does not return a n r iT v t in t ^ s n o o n tim e , b u t c h a n ts to ifr·, (v t ™P . y ®1c omP lim ent in reference t o T h y r s is ' singing: , *) turns into άδιον (v « τμ. · from plavine to ^ *u· 1)06111 P resen ts a progression to som ething h k e r ecitatio n in th e f o m J exchange ^ L ggfand 439-36. P ° ^ y would, of course

o f o ral p o e tr y b y w ritten, accen t “ *· h ig h ly refin e d meters,

2 3 S J 5 M P>ac«d f·

of musicality — r

9 I*'

in ler

found p erh ap s no earlier t y au * “ * » · - «

y W .H clmbo|i,··Τ| ^ Η

I.

« .ο * ™ ^

C H 4 , («955) 3V

s

of compliments, to dialogue, and even to speech tryin g to describe and duplicate the effects of representational art as th e goatherd describes the wondrous figured cu p th a t he w ill offer in return for a song· Id. 1 ends w ith the lam ent fo r D aphnis, which w ith its refrain tries to im itate song—and all o f this in a single meter and doubtless most effective w hen read on the page. In all, the poem presents a very thorough accoun ting fo r the continuum of m edia from music to the visu al arts, w ith p o etry in a privileged m iddle position—seen and spoken as w ell as su ng; em bellished w ith im ages as w ell as with m eter; and u n iq u e ly cap able o f describing, com paring, and im itating the o th er arts. T he Adoniazusae, as we shall see, w ill bring a sim ilar collocatio n o f m usic, p o etry, an d the plastic arts. In general th e p o etry o f A le xan d ria reflects an in tense interest in w riting as a m edium , esp ecially in con tra st to other m edia. E pigram s scribb led in a lib ra r y are cou nterfeited to sound as if they had been en graved on stone (see L eg ran d 434 n. 1 ). A s in Id d . 1 and 15, poets co n tin u a lly r iv a l th e b e st effe cts of painters and sculptors b y eepkraseis,42 d eta iled d escriptions o f objets d’ art. In poetry, statu es an d d ed ication s com e a liv e to speak fo r them selves (Callim. Iam bi 7 an d 9, E p . 5), o r th e poem itse lf m a y ta k e o n v isu al form, as in th e carmina figurata sh aped on the p age lik e w ings and altars or com posed to be in scrib ed on eggs o r Pan-pipes.*8 W ritte n lyrics, as in Id . 1, are g iv en refrains to ap p e ar su n g (Id. 2) ; u n perform able m im es (see L e g ran d 4 14-18 ) reproduce d ram a tic dialogue w ith flaw less precision. T he p o e try o f th is age, th e n , c o n sta n tly reaches b e yo n d thej medium of w ritin g , p erh aps m o st im p o rta n tly in tr y in g to recapturei a sense of th e occasion s a t w h ich v erse h a d once been perform ed, t If hym ns, s u ch as tho se o f C allim a ch u s, a re no longer in tend ed for public perform ance, th e y can com pensate b y c rea tin g th e occasion fictiv ely th ro u gh th e person a o f a singer w h o b o th addresses the god as in a c o n ve n tio n al h y m n an d g iv e s to th e reader a sense o f the 4Î E .g . Id . 1.27-63; Id . 15.84-86 an d 112-30; Id . 22.30-52; A p . Rh od . Argon. 1.721-67. O n th e d e vice in gen eral, see P . F riedländer, Johannes von Gara und P a u lu s S ilentiariu s (L e ip zig an d B e rlin 1912 ; rep rin ted H ilde*· heim and N ew Y o r k 1969) 1 ff. O n T h e ocritu s’ use o f th e v isu al a rts, >ee S . Nicosia, Teocriio e Varte figurata (P alerm o 1968). *' On w hich, see W ila m .. Textg. 243-50; P h .-E . Legrand , Bucoliques grecs H : Pseuâo-Théocrite, Moschos, Bton, Divers (B u d é; P aris 192g; reprinted •967) 220-27; an d A . H u rst, A pollonios de Rhodes·, maniire et cohérence (Bibliotheca H e lve tica R om ana 8 ; R om e 1967) 23.

fe s t passage. W e h a ve before u s a v e r y liv e ly scene, v ir tu a lly an agon, where the poet is confronted first w ith his o w n resentful Charités, then w ith the m a n y voices of his critics. A n d , in a sense, these many voices stand in p lace o f th a t ac tu a l cho rus th a t the poet cannot supply. A t least there is no sense of lo n e ly iso latio n in a library. If the poet is no longer a perform er, h e c an a t le a s t dram a­ tize himself as one on paper. Y e t even if it is respectable fo r p o e try to sh o w u p w ith o u t its music, w hat of the poet who com es w ith o u t a n in v ita tio n an d comes begging? Again Theocritus takes th e o ffensive b y allu d in g directly to the most notorious case, Sim onides, w hose v e n a lity w as b y no means forgotten b y this point (cf. C allim . fr. 222 P f.). Interpreters of Id. 16 have found the allusion in ord in ately troublesom e, as if the poem could never attain high seriousness a fte r th e tain t of association with Simonides. B u t alrea d y P in d ar in Isthm ian 2 seems to have found the w a y to use his riv a l’s b a d rep u tatio n to his own advantage.45 T he Muse, he concedes, is n ow an έργάτις, very possibly w ith an overtone o f pro stitu tio n.48 B u t, alas, such is the age. And the audience should at A P in d ar is n early O above ------- --recall th vuu* MlUOl 19 IICOIIJ' W ·~ rpnrnai-li __________ i ±._ . J reproach compared to some DeoDle he· rnnlH montii-m · that is.

In e xa c tly the sam e w a y T heocritu s excu lp ates him self b y pointing facetiously to a m a n ife stly w orse case an d proceeding to the evils of his own age, then to the glories of H iero, w hich m ake such m onetary considerations seem triv ia l. T h eocritu s, no less than P ind ar, profits from com parison to Sim onides, w ho, in th e anecdote cited, u n ­ ab ashedly w eighed m o n ey ag a in st e m p ty thanks, never m ind the art. B u t it is p recisely th e poem s an d th eir su rvival, his art, that concerns T h e ocritu s, ra th er th a n sim p ly his own ad vantage. B y em phasizing th a t poem s, n o t po ets, need m o n ey to exist, Theocritus has som ew hat d efle c ted ch arges o f v e n a lity fro m him self. W hatever the aw kw ard ness of sp e ak in g first of his own m aterial needs, the request is m ade in d e lib ly an d e arly , lea vin g the rest o f the poem to rise to m ore d ig n ifie d to p ics, in th e course o f w h ich even Sim on­ ides w ill b e re h a b ilita te d becau se o f his a r t a n d becom e θείος άοιδός (v. 44) ·47 The Poet and his C ritics (vv . 14-33) In n o cen tly c a u g h t b e tw e en his a r t an d h is age, the p o et no sooner locks u p his resentfu l C h arités th a n h e fa ces a chorus of Philistines, who v ig oro u sly oppose th e p o et’s callin g : ‘ C h a rity begins a t hom e.’ ‘A r t is its o w n rew ard .’ ‘I f w e h a ve H om er, d o w e need y o u ?’** These are com m on enou gh argu m ents, I am su re; b u t it should be noted how c a re fu lly T h e o critu s h a s shaped th em to set the stage for his apologia. I f th e critics ba rra g e him w ith clichés, he w ill naturally reply in con ve n tio n al an d sim ple term s him self. W ere he lecturing directly to his readership, he sho u ld feel o bliged to present som e­ thing a b it m ore sop liisticated . B u t, as I h a ve suggested, com plexity and d ep th m igh t n o t ad v a n c e his case w ith H iero. T h e nastiness and meanness o f these critics e asily ju s tify som e high-m inded moralizing, w h ich ju s t happens to restore the tone of the poem back to a loftier lev el : 'W e a lth is not to be hoarded, bu t used to care for kin, friends, gods, guests, and, yes, for the h o ly interpreters o f the Muses.’ « P laced last, p o ets in herit the pieties felt tow ard all of · ’ H a vin g th e m erest fragm ents o f Sim onides’ p oetry we can follow Theocritus’ reh abilitation of him here on ly w ith difficulty. W e woul o well to be cautioned b y th e rem inder from W ilam ow itz, Sappho und Simonides (Berlin 1913) 137, th a t Sim onides is p u t a t an u nfair disadvantage our estim ation because we know him on ly b y anecdote, while Pindar we judge from his poems. _ ... _ . *' On the various positions here represented, see Treu, M u e . Rostagm 286, and Meincke 45 f. . , . . , *· Some interpreters would see a more deferential tone here. See A .

„recede. Clearly the argum ent has reverted to a the groups that p particulars of th e po et’s own higher plane, i g en erality. N o more the circumstances T ^ Qcrit^ ^ belongs to the h o ly g uild of prophets,

C I ™ .. ,’m * m odel“

“ Pindar comes toltmind again « »

Theocritus is no longer assaulting prospective

C o n s with'requests, b u t suffering n o bly as an in ju red party, against whom offenses are no less sacrilegious than against kin, gods and guests. The sentiments, to be sure, are hopelessly tn te . B u t at least they leave Theocritus open to no challenges as he mounts his pulpit. They do indeed sound as if th e y ha d been anthologized from Pindar,82 but their canonical qu ality in itself bolsters Theocritus' authority to preach thus and pulls P ind ar firm ly in to focus as his primary literary model. H aving only a few lines to evo ke the whole defunct epinician tradition, Theocritus cannot s catte r his sententiae as casually as did the poets of the fifth cen tury, who could rely on a cumulative effect. And if the form dem ands sententiousness, why be evasive about it ? Theocritus therefore concentrates his homily here, where it bolsters his own case and keeps a safe distance from the as yet unacknowledged Hiero, who m a y w ell pro fit from the message, but certainly cannot suspect th a t the rebuke is aimed directly at him. The actual and fictive audiences must be v e ry clearly discrimi­ nated at this point. The actual audience w ill naturally consider themselves among the φρονέουσιν (v. 23), the wise men who stand apart from the sins of the age. Theocritus thus begins his sermonizing With a Slight but tactful gesture to that audience: o f course, they

SLuZ ,1 ?5'N oneofthemw mans™ " M v io o d ™ M ygoo dm en

tothe

Λ “ Ψ ” ' » ( ν · 22 ), w h ic h f a lls s o m e w h e re b etw e en an d " Y o u fo o ls .·’ » T h e a d d re ss h ere is m a d e to th e

ZU ThWkntS Charites·" in Misc. Roslagui 309; and Hoistmann Theooitua' relationsHp 't o ti^ J iu s ^ 5'''

' Ε-δ-μαντε^ο,ΜοΤη» — ” ?· Pyth. i.8g-ioo :

idience

the U'lfm['i’uilr-’'!! change in

M«se3 em trügerisches Sophisma." ? f e i ? : · » ? » « « “ !“ «“ «■>■ !. See Clapp. ’· ΐι

5 47) or expostulatory irony scarcely an appropriate way for a

one Theocritus L · «

9 3 ) with a tinge of contemptuousnes*.

imagined chorus o f critics, and T heocritu s will continue the pose of speaking to them for alm ost half the poem, dow n to his final concession o f th e fu tility o f tryin g to t a lk sense in to anyone like this and his form al dism issal o f th e ty p e : χαιρέτω 8στις τοΐος {v. 64). The long serm on form s an independent u n it in the poem as it works in a ring, w ith tw o long strings of m axim s surrounding a survey of the h isto ry of po etry, w h ich w orks from Simonides back to Homer. I t m u st be recognized, as is u sually overlooked, th a t Theocritus is con tin u in g his m ock-debate through these lines rather than presum ing to in stru ct his a ctu al audience d irectly (cf. H orstm ann 123), as P ind ar or B acchylides w ould not have hesitated to do. T heocritu s claim s to be doing nothing more than d em onstrating ho w he w ould enlighten certain m isguided souls who happen not to be his im m ediate audience. B u t he does not au to m atically presum e to speak as th e unchallengeable con­ science of the com m u n ity as poets once had. A n d though these old maxim s are a b it d u sty , the audience is not being subjected to them as th e y w ould h a ve been in the fifth cen tury. T he shoe m a y fit, but Theocritus c erta in ly is not saying so.54 T h e y are m erely specta­ tors to an in genious and liv e ly d ram atic scene, a poem w ithin a poem. Theocritus’ apologia fo r po etry is ab solu tely com monplace, and poets as different as H om er (II. 6.357 f. and Od. 8.597 f.) and Sappho 54 had a m ore profound vie w of a r t’s im m ortalizing function. This disquisition m erits attention, however, fo r w h at it does not say. The issues skirted in this m ock-debate, the charges not easily answered and therefore suppressed, tell us a b it more about how Theocritus expected or w anted p oetry to fit into the life of the community. He does not, for one thing, adm it that the world has See in general E . Brunius-N ilsson, Δαιμόνιε: A n Inquiry into a Mode o f Apostrophe in Old Greek Literature (U ppsala 1955), which must be used in conjunction w ith H .-J. Newiger's corrections and additions in Gnomon 31 (1959) 104-g. M Austin can see self-defeating iron y in the poem to the exten t that he doea only b y overlooking how carefully Theocritus has exempted Hiero from the criticisms in th is passage. Directed toward Hiero, these would be the "warning” or even "veiled th reat" that A ustin takes them to be. However, the lengths to which Theocritus has gone to keep Hiero at a safe distance from this tirade underscore the ramestness of bis intentions toward the prospective patron. ** Sappho fr. 55 L .l\ seems the immediate inspiration for vv. 30 f. '■or other parallels, see Gow II. 311 f.

changed since

the fifth century. Y es, the m edium of p o etry , if not declined) from song in to silence, and admitted as much. B u t there is no sign th a t poetry b its own offshoot, th e artistic prose

liieocrn

Ä had flourished so brilliantly for the last c e n tu r y .·· M onarch, hke Hiero were less interested in a few glorious lines of an ode than in the more expansive, philosophical, and p o litic a lly helpful praises of the prose encomium. T heocritus know s th is well enough, as lie shows in Alexandria when he ad ap ts w h at w as to be called the ßMLXixic λόγος to verse for P tolem y (Id. 17)· B u t in Id . 16 the topic is simply omitted. Nor does Theocritus allow th a t in an age of supreme monarchs and vast cities the poet can n ot speak fo r and to the demos as he once had. He insists th a t people still treasure the classics (chiefly Homer) and th a t H iero ’s triu m p h can reverse history sufficiently to put the poet b a ck on cen ter stage. Most importantly, Theocritus still takes heroic valu es to be axiom atic: men should do glorious deeds so th a t th e y m a y earn κλέος. When heroism slackens, so does po etry; th e y can return together. The problems of the current age that cause the p o et to be shunted aside are presented in such a w a y that Hiero can solve them w ith a few battles and a little bit of money for the arts. In prom oting a restitu­ tion of poetry to its old role in society, Theocritus either does not foresee or will not admit that art, even w hen well supported, can no longer be public in the w ay that it once was. The History of Poetry ( w . 34-57) Thonrrltn^K epinici^n Poet w o u ld p ro v id e a p a r a d ig m a t ic m y th , from Sim ' o

T

° Λ k T ’ rs *

J r r ?

" 1 b y s u r v e y in g th e h is t o r y o f p o e tr y

k *° , i e

' P ic ^

“

I

p u t T i S T Ï T ,nto thls histOTy s“ ™· • e r ij all their w4 th th ! Simonides.' » T h e ^

t o H o m er's

*he ****■

“ nrem™ b“ «before so interested · * a u a c a a w ashin g h er trou sseau who as often is thinV a b u t q u ite an oth er to however, that c o o n * « ^ 8 PeneioPe· N au sicaa tak es >Q Id . 16 , i t is tj,

"

e re v e r

N" n ,“ ria«e' an d never Odysseus, the hint.

m a y le a d , c a n s t a r t a t once,

th e relationship in to Î Ü * ° * “ o r d e rly r e la tio n s h ip w h ic h ca n ttle othe r b asis fo r i t τ si,in ?L a m o m e n t w h e n th e r e m a y be " A s j.-H Kühn

u

*

^s s e u s · T h e o c r it u s h a s h in te d at m

“ Otes. the tem poral « p e c t oi v** t literature on +>»■«po·® ·

great things for the future, b u t committed himself to nothing. What would the next poem be ? Pindar and Bacchylides always offer their clients more of the same. There cannot be another Charités. Hiero could request a mime, an epinician ode, a short ep ic— Theocritus has suggested himself as m aster of all these styles, while taking a v arie ty of positions in the continuum that stretches from aesthete to propagandist. B u t nowhere does he hint w hat he intends for an encore: no reasonable request will be refused. He has left him self open to a n y response bu t “ no.” Gazing off into the future w ith T heocritus, the audience is invited to overlook the brilliant d u p licity of his final stance. He will w ait po litely to be called — b u t w h at has Hiero before him if not unsolicited praises ? T heocritu s adm its d edication to nothing b u t the Charités for th eir own sake. I'art pour I’art·, y e t Hiero is all too obviously being in vited to affront the p u rity of this art w ith m onetary rew ard. W hen called, T heocritu s w ill galvanize himself (θαρσήσας v . 107) fo r the h ig h calling, b u t we h a ve alread y seen his rise from despair to a sublim e and energetic vision at the v ery mention o f H iero ’s nam e. T h o u g h T heocritu s is a c tu ally m aking a private request, h e lea ve s th e sense la th e r o f a grateful nation offering its th a n ks to H iero. P erh aps th e poem explains itself best in the p ivo ta l adynata of w a ve s im possible to count and bricks not to be cleaned, fo r it is a s tu d y in acknow ledged im possibilities: an art th a t begins b y a d m ittin g th e d ea th o f a r t and then proceeds to conjure itse lf in to existence. Such precisely is the Odyssean art of self-creation b y w h ich a n a ked stranger can ta lk his w a y into and out of becom ing prince o f Scheria. Id . 16 m u st argue defensively for the place of p o e try a n d th e n b lith e ly proceed as if sensible men could never h a ve qu estion ed th e m a tter. M uch o f w h at th e poet says before tu rning to H iero h e m anages to u n say in the regent's presence. Hiero m a y h a v e been persuaded o r not, bu t the conjuration has w orked an d a n im pressive new style has established itself. H aving p a id T h e ocritu s th e com plim ent o f d isbelieving w h at he says about p o e try — a t be st a com m onplace an d snarled statem ent— and w atchin g in stead w h a t he does, w e m igh t finally ask if the rest of the corpus corro bo rates th is an alysis of the kind of sensibility at work in Id. 16. T a k e n lite rally , the poem 's pronouncem ents on poetry are indeed a dead end. T h e an cient truism that poetry confers im m orta lity n ever seem s to interest Theocritus again. If anything, he resists the notion of enduring κλέος. T h e hope for such

. „^stance of the vainest sorts of lover’s dreams memorials forms flie s „ Hcracles in the H y lm makes a (Id. IOJ3-3S,ant „ self l a s a >.«ov«W*v ( v .73 ).*4I.y cid as' admiralasting name for nin voke the desire to memorialize his

tion for Comat“ hero, but to „Odd of the P

:

d be w ith him (Id. 7.86-89). In the earthy ^ ^ m s arid an d artificial, and poets f or prizes T he use of p o etry is clearly

sing not for e

^ and indeed the whole pastoral fiction

the ple»” reto M diide tim e death, and forgetfulness. O ver against Ihe,“ antecedents in i » s, these little slices of life m a rk the poet's radical affirmation of ephemerality, as o f slightness an d sim plicity. Doubtless he m ean s h is o w n w o r k t o e n d u r e , b u t h e d o e s n o t see lit

to equip it with guarantees of its own d u ra b ility. T heocritu s also scarcely bothers to promise poetic im m orta lity to the Ptolemies, though having made all E g yp t their shrine an d O lym p us their home, they cannot have adm itted m uch need fo r poets to snatch them from oblivion. One senses th a t as the p o et o f th e passing moment Theocritus finds all designs on e te rn ity a b it deadly. Nor will he openly proclaim the ponderous con cept o f a r t as its own justification. For critics and spokesmen ab ou t a r t he has chosen simple herdsmen and city dwellers who can n ot follow aesthetic theory so far into the empyrean. H e does fre q u en tly interest himself in aesthetics, but his mode of evalu ation consists almost entirely—and delightfully—of the com parison o f one artifact to another: song competing w ith song, cu p exchanged for song (Id. r), wo narratives back to back (Id. 22). U nlike Callim achus, he is not word

In reference to T heocritu s, the slippery

ias P r a c S “ nott as "eld " 0rmaIly be practised, xp lain ed .

86 Ptolemy lid x, T,

elsew here

-

^

t “ ‘ he sense of art

° f MUSËS a n d C h a i it e s >

1

h a v e arg u ed

. . eocntus will haul them out again for 1 *. *7.1), he has httle use for them m his other p o e t r v -

fo r a view of

·

Q w T ilT f’ Twe,£th “ P h i197*’ 95· μ 3·

5? *» j” ™ Blu»lic Genre " o “

$

w lllatt7 c PaSSage'

G· Giangrande.

StUdy in

Irony."

«r* p” , S 3 “ ' Th'ocritu! .lorn ** m . *Λ

Th«ocritus and t h , tyT ^ defend his literary practH··?. 5 l o l o g i ,c h . B ib lio t h e k FU

indeed, e v e n seem s t o sin g le o u t th e o v e ru se of th is co n v e n tio n b y A pollon ius R h o d iu s a s on e o f th e w eak n e sse s o f h is s ty le . M ore telling clu es to T h e o c r itu s sen se of d iv in e co n se cratio n m ig h t be th e n y m p h s w h o fa il t o sh o w u p fo r D a p h n is ’ d e a th a n d th e choleric P a n , w h o w ill n o t l e t h is h erd sm e n p ip e . T h e w a y t h a t th e sisterhoods a r e tu r n e d in sid e o u t in Id . 1 6 s u g g e sts a ce r ta in la c k of serious aw e , a n d w e s h o u ld n o t b e s u rp ris e d t h a t T h e o c r itu s in vo ke s th e s is te r h o o d e lse w h e r e o n ly a s a n ob sessio n o f th e o v e rearnest S im ic h id a s in Id . 7 < w . 12 , 37, 92, 12 9 , 1 3 7 ,1 4 8 , a n d 15 4 ). On the other hand, I do believe th a t Id. 16 offers us a helpful profile of the form ative influences on his verse. In arranging his predecessors so as to lead up to the pastoral, Thcocritus reflects a clear and unsurprising sense of where his own art is going. Simonides, who seems to function here m ostly as a foil for Pindar, has little apparent influence on the other Id ylls, though, lacking his poetry, we cannot be secure in this judgm ent, P ind ar w ill continue to exercise a v e r y im portant influence, though as storyteller more than as eulogist (Id. 22 and 24). Most significantly, Theocritus’ m anipula­ tion of Hom er v e r y d irectly anticipates Alexandrian practice. The reminder th a t E um aeus, too, is H om eric sets the tone for the constant strivin g to be as H o m erically un-H om eric as possible, to ferret out little-n o ticed passages of the monum ental poems and adapt them in a w a y th a t is anti-heroic, b u t s till auth entically epic. Two of the m ost im po rtant “ short epics” from this era, Callimachus’ Hecale and the pro b a b ly spurious Id . 25, will, in fact, take their inspiration from O d ysseus’ v isit to Eum aeus. In Theocritus’ own Thalysia the them e of po etic in itiatio n is likewise closely bound up w ith m otifs d erived from the Ith acan passages of the Odyssey Could it be, then, th a t th e in vo catio n of Hesiod m a y not have been

the only or, perhaps, even th e p rim ary defense against the powerful expectation th a t poets follow H om er on the high road to epic? The Odyssey itself, esp ecially the rural and dom estic scenes of Odysseus’ return, m a y h a ve served ad m irably as a counterpoise to the Ilia d ’s im posing and in im itable celebration of heroism. When Theocritus needs an epic background for Ptolem aic m yths (e.g. in Idd. 18 and 24), he w orks d irectly from the Odyssey. The Charités is m ost in stru ctive, however, in revealing how a difficult rhetorical situation leads T heocritus to the construction of *’ O tt, "T h e o k rits 'T ha lysien ' und ihre literarischen Vorbilder." «ΛΛί n s. 1 15 (1*^72) 134-49.

5° . Wl.h a n e x tr a o r d in a r y m ix tu r e o f s ty le s a n d geilI(s a„ argument m w in ( p - ^ e f u l l y a n d persuasively allows lim to co ^ fo r poefc. a t f t e T h in g s were n o

^

court, nor t n e i ^

tro a b leso m e, to b e s u r e - b u t w h a t o f patrons

is not yet a p Wh° “ T Z Z S

A

^

l a u i a n d m H k e H ie r 0 ^

p ro b le m t h a t th e P to le m ie s as

solved for T h eocritu s, t h e y c r e a te d a n o th e r . T h e y could distinguished lin e— w h ic h t h e y c o n s o lid a te d w ith incest.

secure and glorious s ta tio n o n e a r th n e e d e d l it t l e glam oriza-

tion but th a t was n o t w h a t t h e y w a n te d t o h e a r a b o u t. They seem instead to h a ve sen t th e ir p o e ts o u t, fo r t h e m o s t p a rt, to validate their claim s on O ly m p u s . I f i t is d iff ic u lt t o h a il Hiero as Achilles and keep from la u g h in g , w h a t o f P t o le m y a n d A rsin oe as Zeus and Hera? In th e d ep th s o f h is d e s p a ir a t th e s t a r t o f Id . 16, Theocritus had the con so lation th a t a t le a s t h e d id n o t h a v e to write a hymn. B u t w h at else w as th e re t o w r ite fo r t h e liv in g gods? Moreover, the v e r y su p p o rt th a t t h e P to le m ie s so g e n e r o u s ly gave to the poet could rob him o f h is la s t v e s tig e o f in d e p e n d e n t standing in the com m unity, of a u th o r ity t o s p e a k fo r h im s e lf. T h e king presided over e v e ry fa ce t o f p o litic a l, r e lig io u s , a n d n o w cu ltu ral life. The v ery presence o f th e v a s t a n d e x p e n s iv e n e w libraries might argue poets less th e bearers o f a m a g n ific e n t tr a d itio n th a n its curators. A ll considered, th e p u b lic v o ic e o f t h e p o e t m a y h a v e been recreate *n A le x a n d ria th a n it h a d b e e n in Syracu se. ci

™

U.S must ^

n S h t: th e p o e t m u s t le a r n th e s o n g o f the

In the' c o r J f 1

lovet y to n e e m a n a tin g fr o m a n in v is ib le source,

o ra tie a s t a n L l no less than in

ai-8e th e p o et no Ion&e r r e a lly f itte d an yw h ere, 1Jnp0I'*a n t· th e c o u r tly p o e m s o f A le x a n d ria ,

turns, dazzline

1

a P 0^ 1} ’ ° f e v a sio n fu ll o f s tartlin g

poetic voices which^c la ' . an(^ t ^ie ^ s u m p t io n o f m a n y d ifferen t »■retrievably hiddpn ° τ ! ^ t is .a n a r t o ft e t a L ^

le a v e tJie P ° e t ’s o w n v a n ta g e point C° nÜnUe to b e t h * " t

m e t a m o r p h o s is a n d e s c a p e .

o f P roteu s.

T H E N E W GODS B y 273 o r so, T heocritu s fo u n d him self a t the cou rt of P tolem y II, later to be called P h ila d elp h u s.1 W h e th e r it w as his first con tact with the E a s t we can n o t say , n or ho w long h e stayed . H ow ever, the Idylls reflect th e in fluence o f P to le m aic lite ra ry circles w ith sufficient fre q u en cy to su gg est A le x a n d ria or Cos as the site of his most produ ctive p erio d .2 T h e o critu s p a y s hom age to P hiladelphu s’ tutor, P hiletas o f Cos (Id. 7.40 ), a n d seems to a m a jo r ity of scholars to have been p ro v o k e d in to h a n d lin g A rg o n a u tic m y th s in the B ylas and the H y m n to the D io scu ri b y A p ollon iu s R hodius' controversial e xp e rim e n ts in th e άεισμα διηνεκές.2 C allim achu s’ tribute to P h ila d e lp h u s in his h y m n s to Zeus an d D elos sim ilarly finds d istin ct ech oes in T h e o c r itu s ’ Ptolem y.1 A n d in th e linkage of a com ic scene o f a d iv in e in fa n c y w ith a d id a c tic cata lo g u e, the Heracliscus an d C allim a ch u s' H y m n to Artem is are c learly twins, though it m a y b e d isp u te d w h ic h is th e elder. T he in fluence o f th e P to le m ie s the m se lv e s rem ain s less clear, apart from th e fo u r p o em s o p e n ly ad d ressed to th e m (Idd. 1 4 ,1 5 ,1 7 , and the B erenice). T h e o c r itu s ’ tr ib u t e s fa ll in to tw o d is tin ct classes, and it w ill be co n v e n ie n t to d iscu ss th e m s ep arate ly. In Aeschinas and T hyonicus an d T h e A d on ia zu sa e h e a d a p ts a d is tin ctiv ely Sicilian form , th e m im e, t o su g g e st in b r o a d term s w h a t m ig h t be the relationship of s o v e re ig n to s u b je c t in th e n e w order. T h ese m im es will be th e s u b je c t of C h a p te r F o u r. M ore fr e q u e n tly he seem s to have joined th e c o n sp ir a c y to in sin u a te th e P to le m ie s in to the ranks of the O lym p ian s b y a s u b tle m a n ip u lation o f trad itio n a l ^ The evid en ce fo r d a tin g is g a th e red b y G ow , I. x v ii- x x ii, II. 3° 5‘ 7 anc* * E ven th e pastorals, th o u g h s e t m o s tly in th e W e st (if am b ig u ou sly so; see G ow I .x x n . 1), re fle ct th r o u g h th e ir v e r y c a re fu lly ob served flora a knowledge o f b o t a n y t o b e acq u ired p ro b a b ly o n ly in th e E a st. See A " W as T h e o critu s a B o ta n is t ? " G R 6 (iQ 37) 78-93W ork on th e q u estion is s u rv e ye d b y A . K öh n ken , Apollon ias Rhodios “ nd Theokrit (H y p om n e m a ta 12; G ö ttin g e n 1965) 26-31, who. how ever, th e fullest ca se for th e reverse d irection o f influence, n th e relationship betw een th e tw o p oets, see G . S ch latter, 7 h toknt U Kellitnachos (dias. Z ü rich 1941).

52 , ion of ju st ho w tr e q u c n tly rem ain s dispu tw „yth ok® ·· ™ ■V ' s turn first to th e m y th o lo g ic a l poems and we must, » e r ^ th e y paraIlel an d support ^ determine the ex ^ iden tify th e m se lv e s w it h th eir newly Ptolemies' a t t e m p ^ ^ partn ers in c u lt. In th is c h a p te r I sh ^ acquireddm ® discuss the di

a P

aratus of the Ptolem y ; th e A d o n is h y m n of The ^ fram ing m im e u n til th e n e x t chapter);

Wr r T u s P « t e d but unproven c o u r tly c o n te x ts o f th e E fith a U i „ Helen the Heracliscus, an d T h e Bacchantes. “ These are thé only five e x ta n t U y U s w h ic h m a y o r c learly do treat the favored m yths of th e court,» a n d th e y h a v e n ever been analyzed as a group, as of course m u st b e d one i f w e a re to decide whether to include or extru de th e th re e d o u b tfu l cases. T his is, however, not the first tim e th a t th ese fiv e p o em s h a v e b e en grouped together, for they stand as a series a t th e e n d o f th e B gathering (quire?) of the Antinoe p a p yru s (fifth o r s ix th c e n tu r y ). Though this collection antedates our earliest m a n u sc rip ts b y s ix centuries, contains no spurious poems, an d ag rees w ith th e o th e r papyri against the manuscripts in p u ttin g I d . 7 a fte r I d . 5 , its order, like that of the archetype of the m a n u scripts, is u s u a lly a ttr ib u te d to hazard or scribal taste. T he sequence in th e B g a th e r in g in particular has been dismissed as a puzzle n o t w o rth s o lv in g : l i d . 1 0 , 14, 13, 12, 2 ,1 8 ,1 5 , 26, 24, 17. H u n t’s rese rva tio n s in th e editio princeps * are typical: “ I t is d ifficu lt to su ggest a reason w h y th e Ε λ έ η ; ΐΜ Λ Λ .μιοί.should have been sand w iched b e tw e en th e Φ«ρμ«χεύP hnlrU ni,1 err^ WVLaÎ’ 0ucai> or w h y th e e n com iu m on Ptolem y adds that t i f

S.h ouId foUow th e H eracliscus. .

G o w (I.lxix)

separated.’ a r etfte T h Ptolem ^ p S ^ aic ^ poem 15 ^s sep U a 'ra*7 * ------ B u t are te)dSh° ? TUld h e interloper frotn Athenaeus 284a *la v e οη^ a sm all a n d c r y p tic fragm ent since the twins seem to h a v o ^ l , DJ ° scuri rem ain s a d o u b tfu l case, only in connection w ith t î J ^ 6? Ptolem iiic m y th , if fo r th e most t e 7 i T d 8 3 f·: A . ? f W ^-rhe r T elen- S ^ W i l L . . T$xtg. 183 n. >; a» d p ï £ % l l I V F«*er 1.207 a n Î ü ^ T h 'S* JOnd of Tbeocritu». rcyaü culte t (° Xf0Td ^ 7 3 ) f hT P80n’ P to lim a ,c Oinock»* twins < W ^ , 0t ,n ai»y case extenrt k i H " w e ve r· possib le allu sion to the to W b a rity i7 t ^ o nÎ yo n d .1th e P " * » * . e ep ecia llv w tb*

ΐ ν ί wS or ( (Hon'® 1^55) xvii-xbc

U » “nd

n

d un W3C, ,3 H F I C 38 (i«3»l

Idylls, The Bacchantes and the Heracliscus, have long been suspected 45 Ptolemaic, the latter b y Gow h im self* Heracles, after all, had been officially included am ong the royal ancestors well before Theocritus arrived in A lexan dria, and Dionysus was in the process of being adopted.8 E ve n the suspiciously innocent and clearly clivini' Helen of the neighboring Id . 18 herself regularly serves in Theocritus and C a llim a c h u s as an analogue for Arsinoe Philadelphus (see below, pp· 88 f.). A p a rt from the P tolem aic m yths, there seem to be no other conspicuous featu res o f su bject, dialect, or form to account for the grou ping of the fiv e poem s. Furtherm ore, the preceding five Idylls, non-bucolic treatm ents of love, suggest that more lies behind th e ordering th a n mere w him : tw o poems on heterosexual lo v e (Idd. i o an d 14, bo th dialogues between the lover and the irrisor amor is) ; tw o pédérastie poem s (Idd. 13 and 12) ; and, predictab ly last, the w om an’s view po int (Id. 2), m aking a suitable transition to th e m aidens’ epith alam iu m in Id . 18. In all, the papyrus shows enough sense o r a u th o rity in ordering the Idylls to warrant in vestig ation of th e p o ssib ility th a t it suggests to us: namely, th a t th e fiv e Id y lls are g ath ered together because of some original connection w ith the A le xan d rian court. Before exam inin g each of these poem s b y itself, it m a y be profitable to con sider a little m ore closely w h at th e y h ave in common. T ho ugh the fiv e begin in a v a r ie ty o f form s (narrative, mime, epithalam ium , encom ium ), a ll end w ith a sh ift into hym nic style and a fo rm al χαιρέτισμα of th e ir su b je cts. T h e laudandi are all prominent fixtu res of th e P to le m aic pantheon (Helen, Adonis, Dionysus, H eracles, as w ell as P to le m y II him self) an d all depicted in the process o f risin g ab o v e th e ir m o rtal origins, u sually taking a good part o f th eir fam ilies w ith them (Menelaus, Berenice, Ptolemy I, Sem ele an d h e r sisters, A lcm en a, Arsinoe). Heracles ' On Id. 18, see K . K u ip er, " D e T h e ocriti carm ine X V I I I ," Mnemosyne n·8· (1921) 2 2 6 f.; A . S. F . G ow , " P h ilo lo g y in Theocritus,'* CQ 34 (1940) Π 6 and again I I . 348; and M. Sanchez-W ildberger, Theuhrit-Interpretaticmen W ^ -Z ü rich 1955) 39 i. O n Id . 24. see G o w II. 416-19. Dionysus does not ap p ear in th e an cestral p ortrait galle ry (Id * 7-13*33 · « · W ilam., Textg. 153 n. 1), b u t a con nection w as perhaps suggested by fw U d e lp h u s in in cluding th e im age* of A lex an d er and I t o le m y I in the ^ y w s p r o c e s s i o n described b y Callixenu s (apud A th jo id ) . Th e adoption »»» certainly com plete b y th e tim e o f P to lem y III (*-f the gen ealogy traced S * *y n » 'T h e o p h ilu s. A d A utol. 2.7 F G « 6 3 i f r 1, on w hich · « Fraser 11 ' » f ]>. if not before, as 1» »uggerted b y W ( « t o P r u tter und Tempel ·*> **U*nttftuken Ägypten II (Leipzig and Berlin IQoHj *66 q 1

49

1 (/r.f . ? phus’ Pom p e (A th . 2 o id ). W . W . Tam. symbol of the Ptolemaic tak es th is t o be a self-explanatory and assmning thereby the of *eading a reconstitu ted Corinthian League M Possibly linkingy^ n!®ad^ ^ of th e G reek world. ..A to haye >T M^ndes. p ro b a b£ly w ith Ammon, ^ '"hose n e e a««It n she d ^seems ^ to g,v en s b u t m ore * Münf . ^

£ * S. Sanneron, ‘ u n S

. “ That t l Z T

A ° 60

F ~L l ^ r i f f i t k (London 193*1

relatif à la divinisati011 d* U

d e r o m y ^ ^ ^ ^ ie .b y t h ^ K t t h a t ^ / r f * " ' *" praisjn8 the monarchS «atues of pv,ii ? headdress and R*r» 1 17 Theocritus equips A le» n C.C. to i < l Ä C‘M, w t1' the clu b w hich were usedlu» thi* ° Bronze P ortrait, f , 08 " '•th his heroic relatives. See m '* * · ° m Ε ^ · · · W S 26 (1006) r f i l 9t ^ 7a? ^ * de,Phu#· pavilion ^ ^ n' posia depicted in the recesses of ^ t t h e several de reP°«ted b y Callixenu» a p t* Ath c*°®ely linked in the popular im*gin»0°°

to that of Zeus an d H era {Id. 17.131-34 ) has not won Theocritus any admirers. "B lasp h em o u s an d syco phantic,” com plains Gow (II.346)' B u t the an al° s y w as alrea d y a com m onplace on the d ay of the wedding (P lu t. M or. 736e-f). Su rely the m onarchs themselves put it ab ou t.« A n d w h en w e com pare its use in an epithalam ium for the m arriage (PLondon L it. 60, recto ; Posidipp us?),2* we can only admire how q u ic k ly an d g racefu lly T heocritus has slipped past this p ossibly o b lig ato ry gesture. T hrou ghou t th e Ptolemy he has, as we shall see, sed u lou sly prepared the them es of filial p ie ty and redemptive c h a stity to w h itew ash this, Arsinoe’s third and in ­ cestuous m arriage. B u t as presented, th e com parison to Zeus and Hera does n o t d ra w thin gs to ge th e r v e r y clearly. T he papyrus of the epithalam ium su ggests, how ever, th a t the pertinent connota­ tions of the im age m a y h a ve h ad su fficien t cu rrency elsewhere: namely, th a t th e b rid e w a s H e r a P arth eno s, whose v irg in ity was renewed b y her union w ith h e r brother. Furtherm ore, in the tradition after H om er, an d m ost n o ta b ly in P in d ar’s Theban Hymn to Zeus, th e m a rriag e w a s also ta k en to b e Zeus’ final a c t in consolidating his h e g em on y; 29 so m igh t it seem for Philadelphus as well, for o n ly w ith th e a d v e n t of A rsinoe d id the d y n a sty becom e full and com plete. I t m a y b e to underscore th is possibility th a t Theocritus links the m arriage to the d y n a stic cu lt. B u t, again, the extent to w h ich th e P tolem y is tracin g o ut the process o f Philais suggested b y an A lex an d ria n d ed ication t o A donis, th e D ioscuri, and Soter {Samtnelbuch 306 = S E G X X I V . 1174). L. Koenen, "© Ε Ο ΙΣ ΙΝ Ε Χ Θ Ρ Ο Σ , E in einheim ischer G egenkönig in Ä gypten," C d ’E 34 (1959) n o f . , suggests a sim ilar im plicit association of Philadelphus w ith S arap is in C allim achus' H ym n to Delos, w here A pollo (vv. 171 ff.) describes a s a ξυνός δεθλος P to le m y’s vanquishing o f th e mutinous Gauls, the όψίγονοι T m jv tç. T h e T itan om ach y, o f course, belongs to Zeus; hut an audience fam iliar w ith th e P to lem aic Sarapis, w ho subsumes both Apollo and Zeus, w ou ld feel no in concinn itv an d could see an additional Precedent for P to le m y's v ic to r y in A po llo’s sla yin g o f th e P ython at Delphi, itself an analogue for H oros’ ( = A pollo, P to lem y) slaying Seth -Typh on ^ith the lightning o f Zeus. *’ So F . Taeger, Charisma I (S tu ttga rt 1957) 376 · = PPetrie ii, 49a (Pack* 1593). on w h ich see F . Lasserre, " A u x Origines “ e* Anthologie: 1. le p ap yru s P . B rit. Mus. In v . 589 (P ack ii a x ) ,” R h M n.s. 222-47; and F raser II. 937 n. 407. F o r Philadelphus w ith the «tributes of Zeus on coinage, see J. Tondriau, "R o is lapides comparée ou «entifiés à des d iv in ités," C d 'E 23 (1948) 130; for Arsinoe assimilated to ” nvÜ Teleia (patroness of marriage) and Hera Basileia. see H. I- Bell. |Ot*t on E a rly Ptolem aic P a p y ri,” A r ch P 7 (19*4) 2*-23. bee W ilam ow itz, Pindaros (Berlin 1922) 189-9*. B · Snell, ΤΛ* >covtry of tin M ind, trans. T . Uosenm eyer (Oxford 1953) 77*79-

■a to delphus' coining would be fully a poetry of the m u . C allim achus

g »

accession t o

^

power in term s an alogou s to Zeus’ triumph y ^ ^ audience co n ve rsan t w ith the other ^^ cage w ith one of th e m odels fo r Id. I? ^ w h ich e x p lic itiy d eals w ith ^ t h r o n e a n d i m p l i c i t l y t h e r e b y w i t h P hilad el-

^

T h e o c r it u s c a n p e r h a p s l in k t h e careers

Î L s T n d Ptolem y as casu ally as he does b e cau se h e is writing I . shadow of a poem, C allim achus' h y m n , w h ere th e parallels are ™ thoroughly explored. T h e b rief an d spare m a g e of the Upjs W

ca n d r a w t o g e t h e r t h e m a n y s t r a n d s , p e r s o n a l a n d p olitical,

o f th e e n co m iu m o n l y b e c a u s e t h e e s s e n t i a l a s s o c ia tio n s of the im age w e re a lr e a d y k n o w n a n d p e r f e c t e d i n o t h e r c o u r t l y verse.

W e must deal, then, w ith som etim es c r y p tic sym bols, but symbols used in m ultiples an d u sed w ith s tr ik in g con sistency. It is the pattern of images, th e larg er system s fo cused o n a fe w sensitive themes, which count far m ore th a n th e p a rticu la rs. W e m ust not, therefore, be thrown off the tr a c k w h en a t certa in m om ents analogies go askew. To take an in stance fro m S o te r’s c o u rt,30 C allicrates, as Euphantus tells us (apud A th . 2 5 id ) , w as th e c lev ere st of flatterers, for he wore a ring w ith the figu re o f O d ysseu s an d nam ed his daughter Anticlea. W e m a y be m y stified , b u t S o te r w a s presumably clever enough to recall the po st-H om eric leg e n d th a t th e grand­ father of Odysseus, A u to lycus, ha d g iv en his d au g h te r A n ticlea to Sisyphus before betrothing her to O d ysseu s’ ostensible father Laertes, who was le ft to rear an other m a n ’s child . Autolycus, wily as he was, recognized in Sisyph u s a m an y e t m ore so, and the son bom of his union w ith A n ticlea, O dysseus, becam e the cleverest of all. A contemporary an alogy w as close a t h a n d : S o te r’s mother sinoe was said to h a ve been the m istress o f P h ilip II before marrying Lagus. Callicrates' im plication is th a t P h ilip II, not m u c w T Î r e, S° te r’S 1X116 fath er' w h ere b y So ter gains a brother ητ,Λ m the M acedonian ro y a lty , A lexan der as a Odvsseùs h im ent fo r surpassing his real fa th e r P hilip II as - p ! ! L h ad

ty p h u s .

The

Explained bv W w τ

53 (*933) 57-61. The storv t

••'τ* ’

in d iv id u a l

c o r r e s p o n d e n c e s - to

,-

° N otes on P tolem aic History," J » s

discarded by the tim l of ^ , never officially accepted and was completely Heracles, and Beroea " H S C P Y \ C F ' E d son Jr., "T h e AntigoniUs, w i was chronologiC8Jlv ?m -v,,222 ” · 3 and 224 n. a, argues that a,brJcated only to provide Γ ? , m any case and th a t the story °e to her great-^ n d f a t h e r V Î ^ ^ Ï *° ^ A rgeadae than that ° f

Sisyphus, the treacherous A u to lycus, or the illicit liaison -w o u ld not ingratiate Callicrates w ith the Icing; even calling Soter a new O dysseu s is at best a left-handed com pliment. B u t the o veiall pattern does cu nnin gly address an issue of im m ediate interest. The poets, of course, proceed w ith even greater indirection, and nowhere more brillian tly than in Callim achus’ Hymn to Zeus, perhaps the earliest of th e lau reate verse th a t we have.*1 A s the poem progresses, Zeus is reshaped in the im age of Philadelphus, until b y the end th e celebration of the god can be heard also as a hymn to the king, who, of course, w ould be the one to grant the young po et’s final p etition fo r δλβος and who m igh t reflexively understand ώ άνα (form ally addressed to Zeus in v. 8) d ifferently than w ould the other listeners. T h e equation of the m onarch w ith Zeus had been com m onplace fo r m a n y years,82 bu t Callimachus does not pursue it in a n y sim ple o r consistent w a y .33 Zeus, as Ptolem y’s overlord ( w . 79-84) cann ot be the kin g him self and may elsewhere figu re So ter in stead. A gain , issues m a y be more crucial than personalities: Zeus’ elder siblings had yielded to the last-born as P h ila d elp h u s’ ha d (or should h ave).34 T he precedent of Zeus’ d istan ce fro m h is u nderlings m akes P tolem y’s supreme monarchy seem n a tu ra l an d right. Callim achus m a y even be preparing the w a y fo r P hiladelphu s’ self-deification, in m uch the way that T heocritu s does, b y m in or ad justm ents on the periphery of the m ythic w orld here created . In th e classical trad ition which Callimachus so b ro a d ly evokes, esp ecially Hom er and Hesiod, the gap betw een m en and god s w as v a s t and unbridgeable. Calli­ machus w ill not go so fa r as th e E u h em eiists do in saying th a t the gods were n ever m ore th a n kings lik e P tolem y, glorified in retrospect. But he does present a m y th ic w o rld w here the lim its of d ivin ity H W ork on th is h ym n is su rveyed b y H . H erter, "B e rich t über^ die Literatur zur hellenistischen D ich tu n g aus den Jahren 1921-1935· 'n Bursian’s Jakresb 255 (1937) x95 i'· and m ost recen tly in R E Supp. 13 (’ 973) s.v. KailitHachos coll. 232 f. See also M eincke 165-82. *· Tondriau, C d 'E 23 (1948) 128 f. * The v aria bility o f th e correspondences is w ell discussed b y K. J . McKay. The Poet at P la y (Afwe»nosy*»«Supplementum 6; Leiden 1962) ι*·> 5· the question of political allusion in th e poem, see m ost recently J. Cam ere. Philadelphe ou Sôtêr ? À propos d'u n hym ne de Callimaque, btudn C*««M n (JÇÔQ) 85-93, , . 14 Herter, Bursian 255 (1937) iy 5 , following Valilen and C e» i. Uemes political reference in the im age; th e argum ent of Meincke ( 1 73-7«) lecu iv e ly refute* this position.

64 '„deed· the an throp om orph ism o f B ia and K rato, are very nmd UM N ereœ is m o sl u n certa in an d changes ^ Gaia' " ^ “ ilimachus does n o t here o p e n ly assert th a t a man still context- C * ™ ate d the b o u n d aries betw een gods an„ living has “ “

^ „ j t u s . B u t b o th ta k e e v e r y opportunity t0

m0rtal.! ' .Tose boundaries as w e ak an d am b ig u o u s an d to highlight indicate th alread y crossed them . the frgur« w ^ rf ^ p o e m s t h a t lin e s a r e ^ from 'the throne to O lym pus not in o ne b u t a num ber of ways simultaneously: sim ilarity, tu tela ge , b lo od relation sh ip , reincarna­ tion identity. Complex as this field o f affin itie s m a y be. it is hardly more so than the strategies o f a sso ciation w ith th e god s being used by the Ptolemies them selves,38 on w h om , th e refore, the subtlety of these poets would not be lost. M ost o fte n , o f cou rse, the divinity of the Theoi Adelphoi m anifested its e lf in no m o re th a n th a t title incorporated into eponym ous prescripts as a p led g e of lo y a lty to the throne. W hile insisting o n ly o n su ch g estu res, the Ptolemies also invited a full spectrum of con fusion s a b o u t th e ir id en tity, as, for example, b y the adoption o f th e g o d s’ επικλήσεις. T hose who walked the A lexandrian street o f ’Αρσινόης Έ λεήμονος (PLondon Inv. 2243.13) were being prepared fo r th e q u e en ’s fu ll acceptance as Arsinoe Aphrodite.*1 W h a t p o ets in ca llin g th e qu een Aphrodite may have intended as a flatterin g m e tap h o r w a s in c u lt rapidly reifying. Along with their own shrines, th e P tolem ies also erected I ™ « * ' * * *n temples of o th er god s so as to becom e σύνναοι so —a somewhat ten tative gestu re w h ic h m igh t lea ve unclear or a period of tim e whether the m onarchs were m a n ifestin g thereby but the rest at ^ ’ a an 3° ‘ 38; and J· Tondriau. " I * «5 (*947) ιθή->3-

poetry dea déeaBes.·· BSR a a Ptol^malques comparé«· ο“ " °n w W ^ ’ally PMidW u s F * j V g * ^ ,6' ,8; ancl Fraser I ,7: h,Ch’ -

A · D- Ä

.

4y£^T*nd

Bp.5

.CaUim achu, PI ^ ynnaos Theos.” H S C P 41 (1930) i-W

their piety of their d ivin ity, th a t is, whether th e y were there symbolically to p a y or share tribute. In tim e some of these associa­ tions took root, so th a t at a certain point after her death Arsinoe was not sim ply link ed to Isis b y statues standing in her temples. but was herself represented w ith Isis' attributes as a σύνναο; θεός in the temples of o ther gods.39 E ve n while the Ptolemies kept their mortal features in portraiture, th e y freely caused the attributes of various gods to be ad d ed , w ith the result th a t th e y appeared as human beings actin g as deities. O f the m any possibilities suggested, only some (chiefly in vo lvin g Arsinoe) cau ght the popular im agina­ tion and cam e to h a ve real religious significance. W h a t concerns us here is th a t, in th e ye ars when T heocritus was writing, the P to le m ie s them selves w ere devising (or commissioning) a whole range of con texts, all of th em m ore suggestive than explicit, in which they m igh t keep co m p an y w ith the O lym pians. F or this process to work, the pa rticu la rs ha d to rem ain v agu e for a period of time, though the larg er d rift of d estin y could n o t h a ve been clearer. Modern scholars w h o in sist th a t th e poets cou ld h a ve read their royal patrons in to m y th o n ly o n th e basis o f rigid and exclusive one-to-one correspondences, som e precise an d lim iting sort of allegory, w o u ld n o t g et fa r in the P tolem aic culture m inistry. Arsinoe's A d o n is fe s tiv a l, as d ep icted in Id . 15, offers the single fullest exam ple of th e c o m p lex p a ttern o f suggestion w h ereby the myths of ro y a l cu lt su p p o rt th e religious claim s being m ade about the d yn a sty itse lf.40 F o r T h e ocritu s' Gorgo an d P raxinoa, the homage to A d o n is is c le a rly an ho m age to the Ptolem ies as well. The women are sure th a t in b o th cases th e y are dealing equally with gods, fo r So ter is έν άθανάτοις (v. 47), as is Berenice (vv. 106-8). Arsinoe herself has o n ly th e ran k of a H elen (v. n o ) , and, ap ­ propriately, g ettin g in to this crow ded palace is like storm ing T roy M See Thom pson, Ptolemaic Oiitochoai 58 f. 49 On the relationship of th e poem to cu lt, see G. G lotz, Les Fetes d’Adonis sous Ptolém ée I I ,” R E G 33 (1920) 169-222; A . S. F . Gow, The Adaniazusat of T h e o critu s," J H S 58 (1938) 180-204, and again II.262.304; and \V. A ta lla h , A donis (Étu d es e t Com m entaires 62; P an s 1966) 105-35. As with th e sibling-spouses O siris and Isis, the A donis m yth m ay aJso “ ve been encouraged for som e of its in cestuous aspects. Panyasis (apud Apollod. 3. i 4.4) considered A d onis th e son of th e S yrian king Thias and his daughter Sm yrna (cf. A n t. Lib . 24 and T zeU es ad Lycophron v y . 829 and ®3i). The later tradition (first perhaps P lato Com . apud A th . 456a) ma e Parents Sm yrna {or MyTTha) and her father. Cinyras. w ho as king of Cyprus would have been of particu lar interest to th e I’tolemies.

66 tal destiny is in evitable, if not y e t explicil h· 62); t>»‘ ieT T L A d o n is m y th i s b ro a d ly appropriate f„r its larger o atlin«. A p hro dite m d Adonis that the the roya l house, a m attrib u tes w h ic h th e y w ould lik e to monarchs dem ons œ lves T lie uniqueness of Adonis among appreciated in' o v e r death (v. 1 3 7 ) is m u ch like that of mythic heroes in the P tolem ies

f >_

their parents (Id. 1 7 . 1 2 1 f·)· In d e e d ,it is b a ck to

^

sh e h as 3 ^ . ^

ΑΡΙ,Γ 39M » · *»d HDf Homer.

Theocritus, as we h a ve seen c erta in ly expected as much ot Hiero II „ d accordingly g av e hur, Ins m om ent as a prospective Achilles o , A j « (W· A' “ a" cln? Callim achus m a y claim that 'etry is beyond all th a t, b u t the frequ en cy and earnestness of his «» soft» suggests th a t he feels a pressure from someone, and perhaps someone q u ite im p o rtan t, to be H om eric {see above p 6) There is little qu estion ab o u t the m onarchs’ own tastes. Ptolem y I built the Serapeion a t M em phis arou nd a statu e o f the b a r d ;« Ptolemy I V w ould erect a tem ple to him (Ael. V .H . 13.22).47 P ity poor philadelphus w ith a near m o n op oly on the best Homeric scholars and h exa m etric p o ets, y e t g e ttin g no thing fo r his trouble but the rarefied n e w d octrin e th a t su ch old-fashioned heroics are gauche.48 W h y n o t H esio d in stead ? su ggests C allim achus. A fter all, Hesiod w as rig h t a b o u t th e succession o f you nger sons (just like Philadelphus him self, as it happ ens) to th e throne (Jov. 57-67), where H om er w a s w ro n g . E v e n to g e t H esiod’s cooperation, however, req u ires a fe a t o f legerd em ain , since m ore th a n a little of the regicide lu rk s in th e B o e o tia n . H is p o litics w ould not be wel­ come in A le x a n d ria . C allim a ch u s does fin a lly m anage to tu m Hesiod’s words, έκ δέ Διάς βασιλήες (Theog. 96 = Jov. 79), against his message an d t h e r e b y m a k e Z e u s a frien d of ty ra n ts in a w a y that would send H esio d sp in n in g in his g r a v e .49 H om er is y e t more of a problem to th e p ro s p e ctiv e e u lo gist. F o r one thing, Callim achus H C. P icard, " L e s O rig in a u x r etro u v és des sta tu es grecques du Sérapeion de Memphis,’ ’ C R A I , 19 5 1, 75 f. ° See th e an on ym ou s d e d ic a to r y p oem , O . G u éra rd and P . Jouguet, Un Livre d’icolier du I I I e siècle av. J .- C . (Cairo 1938) 25 *· * D . Page. Greek Literary P a p y r i I (L oe b C la ssica l L ib ra ry ; Cam bridge, M assachusetts J942) 452 (1056). , _ Λ α V itru v iu s V I I praef. 8 f. record s P h ilad elp h u s' sharp rep ly to tne depreciation o f th e Ilia d a n d th e Odyssey b y Zoilus Hom erom astix. The meeting is ch ro n o lo g ically im p ossib le, b u t th e ta le m a y d erive from some more substantial tra d itio n a b o u t th e k in g ’s d im v ie w of th e delrectatores Homeri and of p resum p tu ou s p o e ts in gen eral. See P . M. F raser,"A nstop hanes of Byzantion an d Z oilu s H o m ero m a stix in Vitru viu s,*’ Eranos 68 ( i °)

97

>15-22.

*' D iscussed b y K . Ziegler, “ Zu m Zeu sh ym nus des K allim achos, RhM °-»· 68 (1913) 336-39. T h e o critu s p a y s trib u te to Callim achus b y rephrasing same sentim ents (ΔιΙ ΚρονΙωνι μέλοντι / αΐίοιοι β α ο Λ ^ ς Id . 17-73 ) “ language d raw n from th e sam e H esiod ic p assage raim e ( U i . 15 and or untenable valuo« „ f *κ £ com initm e n t to th e n ow unwelcome ------------he H °m e n c backgrou nd . T h e p o e t’s constant Apollonius p v »j * Î S S06-10)

« a» ju s t m e m b ^ o f T h l'68 th e ir heroism th e Dioscun. Wrgo». 2.809) w ith h ·^ , Crew o{ tht-d rg o. com e to be honored r ?· tem plee· and precincts (2 16 3 and (Munich i 954j Λ7 f fangen zur epischen Technik (Us AfioUtmios

aelight in d eflating the old m yth s b y restaging them in common­ place circum stances turns out to have the v ery practical use, once the irony is brou gh t under control, of m aking those m yths more accessible to the liv in g gods. A n d when th e y are feeling epiphanic encomium m a y ju s t as fre ely rise to the m ode of hym n. T o be suie’ the patrons enter this m y th ic backgrou nd on ly b y analogy, merest sUg g e s tio n -b u t suggestion too consistent, too pervasive, and too systematic to be o verlooked . In m ost cases the analogies seem of the Ptolemies’ own devising. T h e point m a y n o t h a ve been for them to feel glorious ag a in st th is backg rou n d so m uch as com fortable, for, most rem arkab ly, th is is a p oetic w orld of w hich the current generation of m onarchs an d god s is th e lea st eccentric part. The Encomium o f Ptolem y (Id. 17) 61 T he praise of th e P tolem ies, as w e h a ve seen, is for the most part insinuated in to poem s on o th er su bjects. O n ly in Id . 17, a hybrid of rh etorica l prose encom ium an d H om eric H ym n, does a poet stand u p to address to th e m o narch th e trad ition al sort of open, public praise.52 ‘‘S tiff, c o n ve n tio n a l an d syco p h a n tic,” grum bles Gow (II.325) ; an d L e g r a n d 63 c an ta k e com fort o n ly in the prospect that other cou rtiers m a y h a v e gon e fu rth er. M eincke’s long stu d y has done little to rev e rs e th ese ju d g m en ts. M ost rece n tly C aim s 51 has suggested th a t w e ab an d on th e poem as a h y m n an d appreciate instead its a r tfu l sele ctio n am o n g th e τόποι th a t M enander was to prescribe for th e βασώικδς λόγος. T h e close parallels in o ther eulogistic poems, ho w ever, reco m m end ju s t th e oppo site: nam ely, th a t we credit Id. 17, as w e w o u ld a n y o th er Id y ll, fo r th e su ggestive qu ality of its im ages, th a t is, fo r its s om ew h at e va siv e m y th s rath er th a n its more s traigh tfo rw ard v ersific a tio n o f o fficial realities. In the Ptolemy, no less th a n in Id d . 1 5 , 18, 24, an d 26, th e address to the controversial issues o f in ce st, self-d eification , an d succession to the throne is su b te rra n ea n , b elow th e lev el o f literal statem ent, which here presents an exp a n siv e, b u t p erfu n ctory catalogu e of 61 F or a s u rv e y of w o rk on th e poem s, see M eincke 30. A d d itional items are listed b y H . B e c k b y , D ie griechischen Bukoliker {B eiträge zur klassischen Philologie 49; M eisenheim am G lan 1975) 467- T h e b est sln8le discussion remains th a t of W ila m o w itz ( H D . I I . 130-35). M The form is a n alyzed b y F r a u s U d t. Encomiorum . htstorta 91 «·. *nd most e x ten sive ly b y M ein cke, 85-164. . . . “ Bucoliques grecs I\ Théocrite (B u d é; P aris 1925: reP ™ 'teY > ®« * « · Generic Com position in Greek and Roman Poetry {Edinburgh W ) l -»a.

9

04

7

. „f the m o s t innocuous sort. T h e poet makK ν„ν«ί and 0 he t rons' b e h a vio r. H o w could he? He « explicit wcdding W ith an ode to in ce st o r even „penl not going to grace f t e k in g hlm self h a s done SQ ^ declare I ™ “ 1? here densely, a battery of “ T b e

| hcocritus· fo u r o th er h a n d lin g s o f roy al mylh incidental a n d u n co n n ecte d m y th ic imag,* those p a rls o f th e m o na rch s' behavior that

most abhorrent to th e G reeks. T h e h o llo w enthusiasm

T h e o c r it u s as encomiast ab ou t th e m a rriag e m a y m atter less Than the subtle reminder from him as a m a k e r o f im ages that on O lym p us in ce st has alw ays been a w a y o f life. If the poem wants su btlety, it w o u ld b e fo r e xp lain in g the system behind its images so straigh tfo rw ard ly. T h e p ro b lem o f combining P to le m y ’s mortal grandeur w ith h is O lym p ia n p ro spects emerges

at once in the proem 's paired cou p lets, w h ic h a ll tu rn on the antithesis of divine and m ortal : 'L e t us s in g Z e u s a s suprem e among gods ( w . I f.), as Ptolem y is am ong m en (v v . 3 f.)· T h e heroes of old, sons of demigods, won poetic praise fo r th e ir deeds (vv . 5 f.) ; but I, knowing how to praise (έπιστάμενος καλά είπεΐν) P to le m y , would hymn (ύμνήσοαμ’ ) him ( w . 7 f.).' T h e o p p o sition b etw een m an and god so strongly stated in th e first fo u r lin e s fin d s a tentative resolution in the following qu atra in in tw o d ifferen t w a ys. First, Theocritus finds a third cate g o ry b e tw e en άθάνατοι and άνδρες, namely, that of ήμιθέων.65 W e do n o t in itia lly k n o w w h o would be in it ; the ήρωες are, som ewhat against e arlier tra d itio n , m erely sons of that race (see Gow ad loc.). T h e s tr a te g y o f th e poem will be j° Pror^°te P tolem y (if o n ly in th e fu tu re tense) to that b v rPJ L la β Î SS ° f men who are n o t m o rtal (v. 135 f.), partly divine f w ” 6 1S connections w ith O lym p u s th ro u gh birth and 'W ί o /' Parüy. b y how * * * » P e r i« ? to the epic ing that movement’ the m en of own gen eration . Parallel­ i n g th e mode of h & gradual sh ift- a n t i c ip a t e d h e r e a s well, άθανάτων yiaze « ä J T 1' j ^ aPProP n a te to god s (δμνο^ 5è Χ*ί encomia, as gods do b ° n ly t0 god s· If m en p ro p e rly receive two that this poem is t ^ ’ü ? le™y m erits tlle com bin ation of the level of prosaic s ta t- ^ 6' * to^emy ^ m an is m em orialized on the encomium, and Thcocrit»" tile con ventio nal form at of “ · S ma no e xp i'cit claim s about him as WÜdbW8W-

θ ί thU

« *» « -« *. -

S»ocbei-

anything but a mortal. It is the poetic form and its images which respond to the god that lurks within. T h e o critu s t h u s o u tlin e s his e u lo g istic strategy from the first and caps it at the end, appropriately, b y an im age: Iris (at the wedding of Zeus and H era), who is a fitting symbol for the incessant shuttling between earth and Olym pus that goes on in this poem. Zeus snatches up Soter (vv. i6 -r8 ), Aphrodite saves Berenice (w . 36-50), Zeus’ eagle comes to greet Philadelphus’ birth ( w . 71-73). A fter these descents from heaven have become almost commonplace to us, Theocritus takes another look at how the Theoi Soteres were saved from the oblivion attending other d yn ­ asties—in this case, b y being prom oted to cult ( w . 118-30). Now the effective agent—the savior, as it were—is Philadelphus rather than, as before, a full-fledged god. In this light he appears to participate profoundly in the divine plan. His foundation of a family cult seems not m erely his own idea, not an act of dynastic assertion, but rath er a pious response to the in terventions that Zeus and Aphrodite h a ve alread y made (see Meincke 97). Similarly, the hym n w orks around in a ring, as promised a t the outset, devoting itself to Zeus first and last. P tolem y, stru cturally as well as religiously, is the m an in the m iddle. T he resplendent fixtures of the shrines th a t P to le m y builds (vv. 121-25) rather conspicuously resemble those of the halls o f Zeus at the start. The topography of the poem’s final m o vem ent—H ades (v. 120), O lym pus ( w . 131 f.), Mt. Id a for the m arriage of Zeus and Hera in w . 133 ff.—sim ply reverses the sequence o f the poem ’s opening: the woodm an on Mt. Ida ( w . 9 f.), the P tolem aic ancestors on Olym pus ( w . 14-33), Berenice on the brink of A cheron (vv. 46-49). T he significance of the woodman sim ile can emerge fu lly on ly in retrospect. I t is unobtrusive as it stand s: th e poet, like the woodman, hardly knows where to begin. T h ereafter Mt. Id a itself comes to have significance not o nly as a H om eric site, bu t also as a point of intersection betw een the d ivine an d m ortal spheres, a permeable boundary which suggests th a t certain privileged natures can pass from one realm to the other. T he Theoi Adelphoi through their union, so like the first ίερ&ς γάμος on Mt. Ida, are im plied to have wade that passage. This system of im ages has a life quite independent of Theocritus very conventional su rve y of royal attribu tes within the format of encomium. T he final vie w of Hades (v. 120), for instance, formally

74 refers back to t i e P « poetry, t a t "

t , cele b r a tio n o f t h c im m o r t a liz in g p o w er of cruciiU j y a s a M l f o r th e n e w to p ic to

“

th er m o re s u b s t a n t ia l f o r m o f Im m o rtality

follow, *'hlch 1S ’ which the kings

,u s t c o n fe r r e d o n th e m s e lv e s . T h e o critu s u lic j t l y w h a t t h e c o n n e c tio n is b etw een

„ever does

cu lts t0 „ h ic h h e t h e n tn r n s . T h ro u g h o u t

Γ * ' 5, m transitions are sp a re in d e e d ; h e r e , to o , t h e a u d ie n c e m ust m a'kT he con nection fo r th e m s e lv e s. N o r d o c s T h e o c r it u s exp lain Γ ,

the cults and th e m a r ria g e s e r v e t o j u s t i f y

o n e an oth er.

Perhaps it is not his p la ce t o d o so . I n s te a d , h e p r e s e n ts a series of vivid sce n e s-O ly m p u s , A ch e r o n , P t o le m y 's b ir t h o n C o s - w h ic h rise from their im m ed ia te c o n te x t s t o c o a le s c e in t o a l a r g e r picture of a world w here in ce st a n d a p o th e o s is b e c o m e n o t o n ly natu ral,

but necessary. Let us look now at how each of the central them es develops throughout the poem, starting w ith the d elicate m a tter of the patron's imminent, but as yet unacknowledged promotion to godhead. Theocritus surely catches P to le m y’s attention at the outset by so brusquely relegating him to a realm m uch lower than that of Zeus. Yet, as promised in the second quatrain, the pattern of myths and the emergent hym nic form of the poem w ill gradually work to blur this unflattering contrast. T he τόπος γένους at once shows the royal ancestors on Olympus, w ith the im plication that the immortality transmitted through the fa m ily from Zeus down to Alexander and Soter can hardly stop there. Berenice lacks a ^neage-6e but the assimilation of the queen o f E g ypt to p ro ite, queen of goddesses (v. 45), reveals th a t the royal nature No less

i ° I“ ic a tio n it s o w n v ir t u e s . C a n th e a f f in it y of t0 h l!ad elPh u s . th e k in g o f m e n , b e a n y le ss s tr o n g ?

god“ ; ; . pus blood 1 .

· -,

1

‘

has at his b,rth the favor of n ’ tw o m °des of access to O ly m -

both of which are available ™ lato those both of 7™ S ° ^eai an unm'stakab le resemblance Homeric and CalH«,^ °, ^P°^ 0· as they are presented in the eulogistic poems t h / 6111 ^ym ns· % this point, as in all of the t ^ _ .. the mortal f a t w 1 ,.. i_._ , , , . , The τατροΛ« (v. 1 0 4 ^ ^ haS l a j ^ely fa d e d from not fr0m I L J T f * w e m y in crea ses seem t o d e riv e m ost oter. b u t fro m Z e u s, w h o a t h is b ir th g rants “ See Wila, ’ {{ D · 11-133, and Meincke to*.

philadelphus «λβος and, ap parently, a rem arkable autonom y· for hereafter he seems no m ore reliant on Zeus for prosperity than Egypt is on him for rain (v. 78). T h e unrivaled fertility of this arid land an ticip ates th e p raeternatu ral gen erativity of incestuous m a rriag es - o f P to le m y ’s, as we shall see, not less than of Zeus'. The concluding SiSou 8’ άρετήν τε καί. δλβον of Callim achus’ Hymn to Zeus becomes sim p ly άρετήν γε μέν έκ Διος αίτεϋ (ν. 1 3 7 ) 67 fo r Philadeiphus, who reigns lik e a god o ver E g y p t, v ery much set apart from the mere m ortals w ith w h om he was first classed. T he d ivinity which the poet n ever o pen ly affirm s can be deduccd from many different angles, u ntil b y the end the form ula used for Hera as both Zeus’ κασιγνήτην άλοχόν τε (II. 16.432 and 18.356) can ju s t as well be adapted for A rsin oe's m a te (v. 130). N o w in the celebration of the ίερδς γάμος, th e c o m p ara b ility o f Zeus and his descendant is not qualified, as it was a t the start, b y the separateness of their realm s; they are sim ply alik e, if n o t id entical. P to le m y’s reference group is no longer e x p lic itly άνδρων (v. 3), b u t am biguously 'those who have la te ly w alk ed th e earth '. A s T heocritu s promised at the first, he has sung Zeus first an d la s t an d P to le m y in the m idst; but clearly the perceived relation sh ip betw een th e tw o has shifted enormously in the in terv al. T h is evo lv in g perspective in the poem, where line b y line P to le m y is in creasin gly seen from below, is a ju st reflection of the e x te n t to w h ich in the w orld of gods and men Philadelphus, no less than his ancestors, is u pw ardly mobile. Theocritus doubtless welcom ed P hiladelphu s’ m om entary hesita­ tion before ta k in g th e fin al step to O lym pus. A θεός επιφανής might send his poets o ut in to r iv a lr y w ith frigid productions like the Athenian H ym n to Demetrius Poliorcetes— a dism al prospect. On the other hand, were the kin g not a god at all, he m igh t expect to be celebrated as an other A ch illes or A ja x , as Theocritus suspected that Hiero w ould (Id. 16.74). P lain fa ct w ou ld deflate th a t heroic conceit as much as w ould refined Callim achean taste. Ptolem y was no warrior. He m a y not even h a ve rivaled his sister on this score. Callimachus can find no more stirring proof o f his prowess than the stranding and starving of mutinous Gaulish mercenaries 47 On the sentiment and on the relationship between the tw o poets, see Wilam. Ttxtg. 54 i. ; M. Pohlenz, “ Die hellenistische Poesie und die P hilo­ sophie” in Xipi-tc; . . . Friedrich Lto (»erlin 1911) ι ο ί - K U itu SckrifUn H. ed. H. lMSrrie (Hildesheim 1965) 26: G . Perrotta. "S tu d i di pocaia eilen»· S IF C 4 (1925) 36-62; and Gow II. 347·

, ■ the d elta (D d . 171-8 5)· T h e o c ritu s can n ot, therefore, „ „ a n is la n d m t n surpasses h is fa th e r an d Alexander « pretend « the tw 0 in t0 p a r tic u la r ly unim posin. warriors, but h e J o « P ^ ^ (w ^ ^ ^ and, m ctt»-

P tole m y's stren g th is so m a tc h lc ss th a t it need

° ” hC “veT tself in a ctu al c o m b ats: w h o w o u ld a tta c k E g y p t ( „ . B u t these are ju s t sto p g ap m easu res. M ost im portantly, ^ easier to show P hiladelphu s tran sce n d in g th e o ld heroism as a od than rivaling it as a w arrior. W h y b e a m ere A c h illes when you can join the O lym p ian s? T h e priam elic in tro d u c tio n t o the scene of Philadelphus' birth su ggests th is s h ift (v v . 5 3 -5 7 ): 'A sD eipyle bore Diomedes ; and T hetis, A ch illes ; so B ere n ic e b o re Philadelphus.' The lines can be read in severa l w a y s : P h ila d e lp h u s is a t least in very good com pany, the k in d th e fa m ily h a d chosen fo r itself, possibly in a cu lt of T h e tis (see P fe iffer ad fr. 2 2 8.15). Achilles’ paternal line descends from Zeus, as does P h ila d e lp h u s’ . That A jax and Achilles were th e H o m eric heroes w h o surpassed their fathers is as close as T heocritu s com es to m a k in g th a t unlikely assertion for P tolem y I I (see W ilam ., H .D . I I . 13 3 ). B u t the poet is at the same tim e s u b tly exclud in g th e m o n arch fro m th e race of mere heroes b y the sequence o f no d iv in e p a ren ts (D iom edes), one (Achilles), and, as the poet has ju s t e sta blish ed th ro u gh Berenice’s apotheosis, tw o (Philadelphus, w hose b ir th o n Cos is a t once seen as very like that of Apollo on D elos). A n d w h en T h e o c ritu s seeks a foil for the self-im m ortalizing uniqueness o f th e fa m ily , he gravitates naturally to the dynasties w h ich H o m er sho w s u s d ev asta ted , the Houses of Agamemnon and P riam (vv . 118 -20). T o be sure, Theocntus does indulge P tolem y, as he does H iero , w ith a fe w moments as a Homeric hero surrounded b y his arm ies (vv . 93 f. an d 103)· • .. 0r

most Part th e rem iniscences o f con ven tio n al heroism SerVe t0 a s s u r e P hiladelphu s th a t he is ab ove all that,

needed tr>

n“ g llt h a ve 11111 sho rt o f th e heroic πράξεις

style of h u m ^ i f v ° nVenti° na^ encorniun i,B9 he m odulates into the unfulfilled need i n / °h* nce P toleray " lig h t still be feelin g some — another Homer, he is th ereb y d u ly r em in d ed that Theocritus rnav for his Qualities of m ind {vv. 14 f.), a motif With Zeue (Jov. 57 a n j 86 ®from Callimachus, w ho used it to Unk Ptolemy ^OTTlpare * deeds in Isocrates’ £ « ^ ® , t^ * e* tonsive attention given to the laudandus' 4 * and x «»ophon's Agtsilaus.

{nr

that the bard's heroes were mere wretches compared to himself R eal gods can expect o n ly graceful, often w itty little hymns— not monumental epics. T heocritu s seems to be evading the patron's expectations as m uch as yield in g to them . I f Philadelphus lacks the stature to sustain either a credible encomium or certainly a hym n , he has, thro u gh the T heocritean genus mixtum, the compli­ ment of both. B y a tim e ly sh ift to the divine apparatus (which is of the m onarch's own m aking), Theocritus can present a full measure o f ap p a re n tly vigoro u s praise w ithout, rem arkably, any bending of h istorical tru th concerning earth ly affairs. Just as P to le m y's prospects as a new Zeus or a Heracles relieve the poet of the d istaste fu l ta s k of m aking of him another Achilles, they are h a rd ly less h elpfu l in ju stifyin g incest. B y the logic of megalomania, tw o w rongs do m ake a right. A s gods the Ptolemies m ay, in fa ct, m u st m a rry each other. C onversely, the Olym pi a n are best know n b y th e perqu isites th a t th e y enjoy, so th a t possibly for the Greeks, as certa in ly fo r the E g yp tian s, the m arriage of the Theoi A delphoi w as its e lf a persuasive m anifestation of godhead. Those who h a ve th e p rivile g e m u st som ehow deserve it. The use of th e m arriages of Zeus and H eracles as precedents needs no fu rth er discussion. T h e T h e o i Soteres, however, presented more of a problem to th e po et, fo r th e y were th e b la ck sheep of the fam ily in h a v in g su ccu m b ed to th eir exogam ous proclivities. Theocritus obscures th is fa c t som ew hat b y m aking the marriages of the parents a n d th e child ren m irror im ages o f one another. ‘Never h ad a m an fo u nded rites for his parents’ (vv. 121-23); ‘never had a couple lo v e d as th e T heoi Soteres lov ed ’ ( w . 38 f.) ; 'nowhere is there a b e tte r w ife th a n Arsinoe’ (v. 128 f.). T h e idea of m aking th e child ren’s m arriage seem sim ply to recreate th a t of the parents need n o t h ave been original, fo r it had alread y been or would s h o rtly be circu la ted th rou gh ou t the realm b y the series of coins bearing ju g a te heads o f P to le m y I and Berenice marked θεων on the obverse and o f P to le m y II and Arsinoe II on the reverse w ith n early th e sam e features an d the title άδελφων.*0 Though H erzog 81 d ep arts th e evidence in contending that Soter was *· I. M. Sboronos. Τά νομίσματα τοϋ κράτους των Πτολίμαίων I V {Athens *9* 8) pl. X I V ηοβ. IS-2 ? and 25-3·· , ■ t0 p ro je ct the c C p ï s consanguinity b a c k to th e n e a r ly id e n tic a l im age of theit PaT ? fc h ild re n then, are in som e sen se t h e rein carn a tio n of thei, - a n d a reincarnation as a co u p le , n o t m e r e ly as individuals la v e alone brings them to ge th e r, a n d A p h r o d ite ap pears in the Ptolemy as in The A ion ia zu sa e, o n ly a s h er p u re , U ram an self, to whom Berenice is assim ilated as th e v e r y m o d e l o f fidelity. The benefactions of th e πάντεσσιν έπιχθονίοισιν άρωγούς (v. 125) whom Philadelphus worships h a ve e arlier b e e n see n to c en ter on the nurturence of pure loves, w h ic h th e ch ild re n m u s t s u r e ly bo th enjoy and promote thro u gh th e ir o w n ευεργεσία. T o

underscore the

dynastic im plications of m a rita l fid e lity , th e p ra ises of Berenice are linked to a ho m ily a tta c k in g a d u lte r o u s w iv e s an d th eir illegit­ imate offspring. Su rely no p o et in th e se y e a r s c o u ld raise such a topic even in the m ost gen eral term s w ith o u t e x p e c tin g th e audience to supply nam es.Thc targ et h ere w ill b e S o te r ’s ea rlie i w ife, Eurydice, and with her are rep u diated th e cla im s o f h e r ch ild ren to Philadel­ phus’ throne.62 T he audience m u s t e q u a lly be rem in d ed of the first Arsinoe, whose recent ba n ish m en t h a d m a d e p o ssib le th e marriage of the Theoi Adelphoi. T h is is c le a r ly a m o s t d e lic a te issue for the poet, since her children h ad rem ain ed b e h in d t o b e ad opted by Arsinoe II (Σ Id.1y.128 ) and in h erit th e th ro n e. W h a t h a d Theocritus to gain b y calling them b a stard s an d th e k in g a c u c k o ld ? Y e t one of the best defenses, an d p erh aps an in d isp en sa b le one, o f the m age of siblings was th a t it p ro te c te d th e d y n a s ty from the W h e n e s of outsiders. A rsin o e I co u ld be in v o k e d as a case in P ^ T h e o c n t u s delivers his lectu re, b u t a t a s a fe d istan ce from Smith. "Sculptural ° f the fam i,y portraits, see H. VV. *95i) 27 f.; a n d T h o m ^ n λ , maiC P ortra it Coins,” Berylus 10 ( 195° · â " The Macedonians^ ? Ot nochoai 82 *· Aatipater*i grandson r v , part,c“ lar might well still resent the fact that 0 B e r e n i c e . b e e n set aside in favor o f the child l_ 7 1) reports that in this - J Z waiting. In addition. P a u s in g p o t h e r half-brother, X T ” * pe? od PhUadelphus felt obliged to kOJ of and an° ther (Meleager ?). on the ground* 0/ of the Th 0f Ws rivals on the » τη η * !Γ philadelphus could have justified hw 01 « » Theoi Soteres. * &r0Bnds th« ° « I y he was dweended from W *

the sensitive subject of Philadelphus’ m arital affairs. Though the homily is attached to the parents’ marriage rather than to the children's, it in ev ita b ly generalizes itself to cover both unions because of their broad eqmvalence.es W hatever Philadelphus· embarrassment m pu ttin g aside Arsinoe I, he m ay thereby be perceived as all the m ore his fath er’s son, since Soter himself had come only late to a faithful, lovin g, and indeed divine wife worthy of him. In sum, T heocritu s’ depiction of Soter and Berenice has raised a number of issues w h ich w ill color the w a y we perceive the marriage of their children. A s in a n y healthy and strong union, it will be A p hrodite who in th is case brings brother and sistertogether—an u n settlin g tho u ght. Y e t is it not right and normal for mother herself, B ercnice-A ph rod ite, to attend to fam ily solidarity? The Theoi Soteres established th e consum m ate m odel of the success­ ful union; their children cou ld do w orse th a n cop y it. T he Ptolemies have had bad lu ck m a rryin g outsiders: all the more reason for Arsinoe and P hiladelphu s to forge a strong new protection for the dynasty founded b y th eir parents. T h e cum ulative effect of these innuendoes is to tran svalu e incest in to an a c t of innocence and filial piety. T h e P tolem ies’ m arriage is not an act of disruptive self-indulgence, b u t ra th er th e culm ination o f the equ ally unique social order th a t th e y h a ve established on earth. W hat might otherwise be seen as a crim e ag a in st nature emerges instead as the wellspring o f th e pra etern atu ral good fortune of E g y p t. Brother has married sister, an d th e desert bloom s w ithout rain. Though the Ptolemy is e x p o s ito iy in a w a y th a t the other courtly poems are not, it relies n e arly as m u ch as do th e y on the construc­ tion of a m y th ic ba ckg rou n d w h ich leaves a b it more space for the monarchs in the pantheon th a n even th e y themselves m ay be claiming ye t. O n the level of d irect statem ent, the poem maintains a scrupulous adherence to historical fact. Accordingly, Ptolemy is nowhere called a fu ll-fledged god, even if he is increasingly treated like one. B u t step b y step T heocritu s’ factual demonstration that Philadelphus’ adm inistration on earth is perfect and complete is accompanied b y im ages w hich suggest th a t the tally of Olympians M The common assumption in the very extensive debate (reviewed b> Meincke, 103 f.) about whether the aUusion is to Eurydice or Arsinoe t « that only one of the women can be indicated. The ambiguity in the text "hich makes each of the views tenable in itself indicates that both »ties are being suggested, but that neither is being pursued with an e*plicitness which might embarrass the family

a rt.1t those who h a ve jo in ed th e m h a v e a lw a y s been very is not, and th F o r all o f t]le fu lsom eu ess of Theocritus' likl, philadclp ^ tem poral atta in m e n t, th e fla tt e r y of the cdebrat.o ^ {ot (hose who w o u ld d ed u ce ;t

" T Sthe single full-scale encom ium fro m th is c o u rt, th e P h h m y v suggest w h y there are not m ore. T h a t v e r y h ollow ness of tone ™ often noted b y critics in itse lf in d ica tes w h y T h e ocritu s and Callimachus elsewhere chose to speak w ith p o e tic v o ice s so very unlike that of the trad itional en com iast. In S y ra c u s e Theocritus had intimated that such a pu b h c v o ice w o u ld b e p o ssible for him when the city regained its form er g lo r y a n d H iero I I cam e to feel the need for his own P ind ar. F o r a ll th e e m b a rra ssm en t of his position, Theocritus w ould not a llo w th a t h is ca llin g w as anything but a glorious one. A t the v e r y lea st he co u ld s p e a k p a tr io tic a lly as a citizen concerned fo r his c o u n try’s fo rtu n e in w a r. B u t in Alexandria the poet, now subject rath er th a n citiz en , d a red presum e to no such tone. E ven to a m uch less im p o sin g figu re lik e Sosibius (fr. 384 Pf.), Callimachus did n o t present a p e rson a o f him self as spokesman for the com m unity, b u t r a th e r le t th e N ile its e lf speak the country s congratulations to th e retu rn in g v ic to r. A lexan dria may have been tech nically a d em ocracy, b u t it w as a dem ocracy presided over b y a god, who perhaps w as n o t a w a itin g sanctification by the voice of the demos. A t least sin ce th e tim e o f th e Odyssey, the arete of the ideal king had c u stom a rily b een h eld to be manifest ηρηίΓ aretl ?U hlS pe°ple ·64 So it is in Id . 1 6 : H iero w ill bring the of th? Pt 1 6 lanC* ’ tSe^ ba-ck to life. B u t u nd er th e despotism they are onhTTt, ^ people needed no p o litica l arete : in Id . 17 image that P · 6 masses th a t sw eli E g y p t ’s 33,333 cities. The ' T h e V a ^ l i L T t T u 7 ° f the c J d s o f A lexandria, «f the ιιηοοηηίΓΜ ' T545 ), reappears, tellin gly , in th e context 17.107) ™asses who b ™ g h t P to le m y his w ealth (Id. cults and therefore w o u ^ ’ Ptolem ies ha d seen to their own insight into Olympian a f fl f ^ m ew hat ^ ss on a p o et's privileged In Id. 16 Theocritus rn 1a rS tIieir m o rtal predecessors. Ptolemy does that (v -τΊ·,\ *°Γ the im m u n it y ; in Id . 17 oniv 85 a constituency th * ~*7 ,‘ lth the loss o i the demos and the gods bZ

? * ™ * * b y h He t 6.. W3S rCdUCed t o s P e a k in ê m o r e o r Iess Antike I. H. îiTw e (μ-cipzig l S niSmus und in Das ry4a) 35,Hellenentumf

0„ly for himself. T o be sure, T heocritu s' and CaUimachus' private delight in th a t rsolat.on and freedom issued forth in proud L a g e , 0f music as the province of c c a d a s and shepherds. I t should i o be noted, how ever, th a t o ve r against the patron these poets were notably m odest m therr self-presentation. In Id . 16 Theocritus te d not com pletely desparred of the p o et's traditional claim to he in liis own realm th e equ al of kings or at the v e ry least auton­ omous. B u t alrea d y C allim achu s in his H ym n to Zeus had conceded that no one rivals kings, n o t e ven poets, whom he relegates to a banausic lev el n o t m u ch ab o v e sm iths an d farm ers ( w . 70-78). In Id. 1 7, T heocritu s fo r th e m ost p a rt sim p ly does not ta lk about himself. H e m ain tain s a stric t, fo rm al b ardic anonymity,«5 and when gratitud e is d ue, it is g iv en on beh a lf of all poets, w ith no attention to him self (vv . 112 -1 4 ). The m u tin g of th e p o e t’s p u b lic voice occasions a final moment of drama in Id . 1 7 . T h e o c ritu s fin a lly arrives a t the standard theme of the im m ortalizing p o w er o f p o etry , w h ich figures so largely in Id. 16. H ow ever, th is issue sh o u ld n o t in terest liv in g gods quite as urgently as it m igh t m ere m o rtals. Indeed, w ou ld the Ptolem ies relish an “ e xeg i m o n u m e n tu m aere perenn iu s” from the poet when they were so d e e p ly e n g a g ed in s e ttin g u p su ch m em orials all over Alexandria an d E g y p t? T h e o c ritu s flirts w ith disaster: ‘W h a t is better for a prosperous m a n th a n to w in g o o d ly fam e am ong men? That is all th a t rem ain s to th e H o u se o f A treu s, for all th e y took from the H ouse o f P r ia m .’ S u ch a memento mori seems like a fatal misjudgment a t th e ch riste n in g o f a new an d, b y its own insistence, im mortal d y n a sty . B u t it is a b lu ff, fo r surprisingly, has a n an sw er. C an a n y th in g of poets? Y e s — th e im m o r ta lity th a t th e achieved fo r them selves, as w e see in th e

th e rhetorical question, surpass the κλέος έσθλόν P tolem ies have already fa m ily cu lts and sacred

marriage now to b e d escribed . A s th e m onarch rises to his glory, the poet d iscreetly a tte n u a te s his own claim s to au th o rity : he hopes, finally, to o ffer an Ιπος ούκ απόβλητον am ong m en, b u t no more (w . 136 f.). I t is P to le m y him self w h o m u st speak to {and for?) the gods (v. 13 7 ). I f th e p o et here speaks o ut for once in a public mode, it is o n ly to sou nd a retre at, to recall a kind of au th ority that the new order of things in A le xan d ria has taken from him, v ** !'Das Gedicht ist in allem geschmackvoll, elegant, u n ^ d h a ft: aber £>n dem Theokiit, den wir lieben, ist freilich kaum etwas dann. - Wilam .

H D- n . i 35.

• ,Λ finally to the Single figu re who h a s becom e king, “ e s t ^ p h e . , a n d g o d o f the society. The Adoniazusae (Id. 15) 1 j n the poem , that eocritu e n tru sts covert t o t follow M , ^T hes v e r y sunUke h .shis o wpraise, n . Gorgo and open T

Z

P to le m ie s

Spartan m aid ens (Id. 18 ), an d even Teiresias Such - i m i c r / i s , of course, his n a tu ra l h a b it; and the if th e y accepted th e k in d w o rd s of H erod as’ bawd

ii 26 36) can h ardly h a ve been squ eam ish a b o u t w h ere t h e y found t h e ir fla t te r y . It is Callim achus, n o t s u r p r is in g l y , w h o tak es such

ventriloquism to its g reatest len g th s in p ra isin g th e Ptolemies variously from the stance o f a fe rve n t, s om ew h at ram b lin g symposiast (Jov.), the deceased P h ilo tera (Apotheosis o f Arsinoe), the unborn Apollo {Del. ), a nautilu s shell (E p . 5 ), an d e ven th e sentimen­ tal lock of Berenice (fr. n o P f) .e6 T h e se v o ice s c a n be amusing, as the Syracusan wom en are, eve n th o u g h th e y w itn ess to the real affection felt b y the populace fo r th e r o y a l fa m ily . T h e speakers can evoke another age, as, for in stan ce, th a t o f A le m a n an d Sappho in Id. 18. P olitically th e y can d is tra c t fro m th e m a tte r a t hand: the preciosity of A p ollo ’s fo eta l p e rsp e ctiv e g r a c e fu lly obscures th e fact th a t in con ventional heroic term s P to le m y ’s great act, the stranding of the m utinous G aulish m ercenaries on an island in th e delta, is not m uch to bra g ab ou t. T h e d istan t v ie w of the fo re ig n mercenaries in Id . 14, fro m som e unspecified p lace in the Mediterranean, allows P to le m y to be seen w ith a c erta in com radely affection not perhaps proper in the k in g ’s o w n su b jects. Through Arsinoe s sister, Philotera, C allim achus c an to u c h in g ly express h is o w n profound grief fo r t h e d ead queen w ith o u t him self presum­ ing to intim acy w it h t h e roy al fa m ily. F o r th e m ost p a rt the poets speak rom positions either v ery m uch higher th a n th eir own or very . J?Wer' Callimachus prefers to speak th ro u gh th e m ouths of of mim e^ ntUS and h e rod as in their m im es u se the com mon folk D riv iw i ,,at WG d° Uot ^ear in tîle variou s fic tiv e speakers is the C a l l i m ^ , P0^ver^essness of t h e courtier. O ne o f the reasons that S especially T heocritu s’ a c tiv ity a t cou rt has been so

(ώ W « ).

392 f )· bu t thü

tn P yoP ,ia persona in celebrating Arsinoe's is not directly addressed to the monarch*

noticed is th a t it is a t p recisely such m om ents th a t the poets most e vasive ab o u t th em selves. arjy ,e A d o n ia z u sa e d em o n strates th a t the patron s were capable of humor, at least w hen it w a s n o t d irecte d a t th em selves.« In seeing the rococo e x tr a v a g a n c e o f th e g ro tto of A d onis through the impressionable e yes of th e S y racu san w om en, T heocritu s clearly shares some of th e ir o n y of th e P tolem ies them selves tow ard the façade th a t th e y p re sen te d to th e m asses. Likew ise, the Ptolemy begins w ith H eracles a t a sym p osiu m . W e should not, therefore, be surprised to fin d a lig h te r sid e to th e H elen an d the Heracliscus, if one safely rem o v ed fro m th e ir cen tra l pieties. T h e d isju n ctiv e shifts of sty le w h ic h d o m in a te T h e Charités figure, if m ore su btly, in these poem s as w e ll an d se rv e to raise th em to a m ore dignified tone as th e y con clu d e. T h e so n g o f th e S p a rta n m aidens in Id . 18 breaks u p in to a n u m b er o f d iscrete p a rts, each m ore reverential than the la s t: fescen n in e h u m o r w ith M enelaus (vv . 9 ff.) ; serious address to him (v v . 1 6 f f .) ; in v o c a tio n o f L a d y N ig h t (vv . 2 6 ff.); address to H elen ( w . 3 8 ff .) ; fo rm a l v a le d ic tio n (vv . 4 9 ff.). T he Heracliscus b eg in s w ith a co m ic scen e v e r y lik e m im e, b u t a fter v. 103 shifts to th e less u p ro ario u s to n es of d id a c tic catalo gu e. L ik e ­ wise, The A don iazusae b e g in s as m im e, th e n m oves to th e more solemn business o f th e h y m n sin g e r w ith h er ra th er b e tte r m eter.*8 The poem does e n d w it h som e co n ve rge n ce o f th e lite r a r y forms when G orgo, w ith o u t fo r g e ttin g th a t h er hu sba n d w ill be w anting lunch, shows h erself to u c h e d b y th e cere m o n y, chim es in w ith her own prayers an d g iv e s th e h y m n th e v a led ic tio n th a t it lacks: χαΐρε, Ά δ ω ν (v. 14 9 ).69 T h e fa c t th a t th ese poem s o ften do not begin solem nly does n o t d e tr a c t fro m th e ir u ltim a te seriousness. The m y th s o f I d . 15 a n d th e ir relation sh ip to the concerns of the cou rt h a v e b een d iscu ssed a b o v e (pp. 65 f·)· T h e re rem ain tw o problems w h ich A d o n is as a s u b je c t presents to th e G re ek poet. First, his s lig h t role in e arlier p o e try is h a r d ly com m en surate w ith the religious sig n ifican ce c on ferre d on him b y the P tolem ies.70 The catalogue of tra d itio n a l heroes in the h y m n ’s epilogue (vv. 136-42), which scholars h a ve fo u n d trou b lesom e, p roclaim s A d onis as a *’ On the humor of the poem, see Horstmann 18-57. ** P. Maas, Greek Metre, trans. H. Llovd-Jones (Oxford 1962) ' ^ , Cûrfaux-Tondriau a n d F raser I .a o j f·. ... ln general M. Detienne I « 7 .,· ..J ^ ^ c h a n t e s d e T h ê o c rit« .·· J (P aris »97*»· Théocnte e t Les Bacchantes ·· Κθ!ία6 ** 338-49.

^

AntCl J4 'ig 65) 93_9_ Antichthon i (, 967) 28.

35 ' ,9&6Ï

(1958) 7' , ° · and “ Sur If

need not be. T heocritu s m a y strain belief w ith his chaste thf n well-behaved H eracles, an d heroic P tolem y, bu t th e y are not rely d'esP riL A fte r a11’ k is not candor th a t w e are to me t from cou rtly poem s. A n d th e sentim ents of this poem are eT s o exaggerated as to force us in to assum ing irony. T he scene is " , but not d em o n strab ly m ore so th a n T he Bacchae. Giangrande ^ t s great w eight on th e ab rup tn ess o f th e tu rn, the Umkehrung, between narrative an d envoi : w h ere trad itio n a lly we w ould expect an expression o f s y m p a th y from m essenger or poet, the singer produces quite the reverse, a d isav o w al of sym p ath y. Y e t have we not been prepared fo r these sen tim ents from the first b y the strong and consistent elem ent o f th e o d icy th rou gh ou t the poem? Where in E uripides, fo r in stan ce, P en theus died as the god’s helpless and p a th e tic v ic tim , h ere he has his w its about him. In fact, the yo u th is n o t ju s t sp y in g o n th e M aenads at their hymns, but intruding, ap p a re n tly w ith c are an d prem editation, on δργια fully exposed. T h e w om en, h a v in g d one as th e y are told (vv. 9 and 37), are v in d ica ted an d d eified a t th e end, rath er than under­ going the ho rrifying άναγνώρισις a n d rep u diatio n w h ich th e y suffer at the hands of E u rip id e s’ g o d — a g rim ta le ad m itted ly, b u t surely too familiar to cau se m a n y nigh tm ares (pace v an Groningen), especially in capsule form . In a n y case, it tak es m ore than a picnic to launch a cu lt. In all, i f th e sen tim ents o f th e poem are com patible with D ionysiac cu lt an d th e P to le m aic in terest in it , it seems a v ery long w a y around indeed to assum e th a t T heocritu s m u st w ith opaque irony be tra v es ty in g phenom ena in w h ich, we m a y recall, he interests him self elsewhere o n ly w hen th e Ptolem ies them selves are interested. W ith religious, no less th a n heroic, subjects w e must ask w hat w ou ld lure him in to th is te rrito ry in the first place. Since T heocritus elsewhere th a n k s P hiladelphu s d irectly for sponsoring the sacred con tests o f D ion ysus (Id. 1 7 .1 12 ), it is hard to imagine th a t a poem con cernin g th e c u lt of D ionysus could be composed in A lexan dria, as th e echoes of Callim achus suggest that this one was, w ith o u t som e connection to the chief sponsor o f that cult. Here, as before, 1 sense ad v ice d elivered w ith the praise. P h ila­ delphus m ay see as m uch as he w ill of him self in the im age of W onysus.1“ His own Pom pe had dem onstrated A lexan der’s '*· For the possible identification of Philadelphus w ith D ionysus in •«-ulptur«. se« c . C. Edgar, J H S *6 («qoô) 281 f. F or Soter, see B. Segall.

... the eo d ; P to le m y I V w a s to tak e the a - Ï Ï T

;

lu natic extrem es (see a b o v e, n ote io 9). Bnt

is in vited to see in t h a t a n ce sto r is in one respect qiil « t t h o m « h a t the P om pe h a d sh o w ,, to th e masses o , CTa, t a t Euripides made of the god, w h o is in T h e Bacchae very m icl ^ o r i e n t a l invader. A lre a d y H e ro d o tu s (2.29, 42, 49, ^ ^ had noted Dionysus' s im ila rity to O s in s ; th e cu lt of Sarapis W eave him a cru cial role in th e P to le m ie s pro g ram of cultural syncretism. In reaction to this, T h e o c ritu s m a k es Dionysus, as he l i d Adonis, exclusively H ellenic, a son o f T h e b es w ith no sign Eastern wanderings. T h is g o d need s no e c s ta s y or m iracles, merely instruction to foster p ie ty an d re trib u tio n . D io n y s u s gains thereby the kind of dignity th a t T h e o critu s v is its u p o n H elen an d Heracles. Is there not an elem ent of special p le a d in g in th e reduction of the god to a figure of ju stice an d p o w e r alo n e — n o t a god of foreign mysteries, bu t the son of th e G re ek g o d o f ju s tic e ? Theocritus has refashioned D ionysus n o t o n ly to b e su scep tib le to the king's vanity, but perhaps to lu re th a t v a n i t y fro m th e oriental to the Hellenic. In conclusion, it should be n o ted th a t th e fe atu res which link the Helen, the Heracliscus, an d T he Bacchantes t o one an other and to the other p oetry of the P to le m aic c o u rt ju s t as d istin ctly set them apart from th e rest of th e Id y lls. A s fax as w e c an tell, they are occasional verse: an epith alam iu m , a c om p etitio n piece, a hymn. A s such, th e y h a ve no rea l c o u n te rp a rts in th e rest of the corpus.12* The m yths of these three poem s, a lo n g w ith those o f the ν φ ιλέοντα , τδ ν οΰ φ ιλέοντ’ ί τ ι μά λλον, π ολλοΐς π ο λ λά δ ιδούς, α ίτεύ μ εν ο ς ο ύ κ άνανεύων, οΐα χρή β α σ ιλ ή ’ .

Such a conversation d ou btless cou ld h a v e ta k en p la ce, fo r P to le m y 's fame as a p a ym a ster w as sp re ad in g th ro u gh th e M editerranean at about this tim e.7 Y e t w e m u s t n o t tr u s t th is ap p a re n t sim p licity too far, fo r in fa c t th e d ra m a tic s e ttin g is v e r y p re cisely calcu la ted to make the m ost in n ocu ou s so rt o f praises seem credible and sufficient. T h e ocritu s v o ice s his a d m iratio n th ro u gh characters who are a t a safe rem ove fro m th e p o litic a l rea litie s of A le x a n d ria and need not, th erefore, con cern the m se lv e s w ith th e am bigu ities of the religious relation sh ip e v o lv in g b e tw e en m onarchs a n d their subjects. W e c an fo r th e m o m en t fo rge t a b o u t th e new gods. Aeschinas an d T h y o n ic u s b e lo n g to th e class of free an d perhaps moderately prosperou s m e n w h ose o pinion s tra d itio n a lly carried most w eight. Y e t b ecau se th e y are fo reign ers, th e fa c t th a t su ch as they had been disen franch ised in th e n e w P to le m a ic a u to c ra c y can tactfully b e o m itte d fro m th e p ictu re . I t m igh t n o t b e e n tirely proper fo r A le xan d rian s to be ju d g in g th e m onarch q u ite so fran k ly. E ven tho u gh th e tw o m en a re discu ssing m ilita r y service, T h yo n icu s makes no u n ju stified claim s a b o u t P to le m y as a gen eral. B u t his omission can also b e e xp lain e d b y th e settin g , for T h y o n ic u s is com mending P to le m y to a n au d ience, A eschin as, w h o w ill m ost readily be m o ved b y assurances of his c u ltu re an d g a lla n try . O f course, Philadelphu s h im self p u t g rea test w e ig h t on th ese qu alities. B u t the whole m ilita r y c o n te x t of th e end o f Id . 14 keep s him from seeming e n tirely the p la y b o y . T h e settin g , then, allow s a great m any sen sitive topics to go unm entioned w ith o u t riskin g the appearance of slight o r p a rtial ap p ro va l. G iven th eir n atures and backgrounds, th c d ram atic ch a ra cters can n ot be e xp e cted to go Bukoliker (Beiträge zu r klassischen Philologie 49; M eisenheim am G U n *976) 449’ See W . S. Ferguson. HeUtnistic Athens (London 19 11) 17 7 f.

furth er * * * “

Nauhardt

“ observ

e q u a lly « 1^ " ' in the new Heue

s0troublesome something ne Thyomcus. ^ j

moliments. W h a t resu lts is a profile which , , m ight fit a m onarch from th e fifth c e n w ^ j t r f w h a t u m pressiv< . and ^ ^

empir e s ,th a t is, o f th e extrem es which ptove H o w p to le m y s rule has proved to ^ r f tM ngs ye t

cmmt

h e m a y v ie w P to le m y w ith comradely th(j one q u a lity m o st p recious, yet

’.‘'difficult to achieve a t cou rt, in tim a cy . W h e re the Ptolemy ful credit to the m onarch's g od like s ta tu r e am on g his own

ts Id 14 steps b a ck fa r enou gh to tr e a t him on a human ale” » ' that the qualities a ttrib u te d to P to le m y c a n be those of S e man, as well as those o f th e kin g . T h e g r a d u a l resolution of Aeschinas' private con flicts points to w a r d a n e a s y an d honorable relationship between the kin g an d his m inions, fo r paradoxically the personal relationships in th is p o em a re co n ce iv e d in political terms and vice versa. T h e faith less C y n is ca h a s red u ced Aeschinas to being of no account, lik e th e w re tch e d M egarians (v. 49) ; his terms are historical. T ho ugh m e rcen a ry se rv ic e e n ta ils submission to a stringent hierarchy, h e p ictu re s it in e g a lita ria n term s (vv. 5 5 f.): “ Y ou r soldier is not the w o rst o f m en, no r y e t th e first, maybe, but as good as an other.” A t th e end, th e su prem e despot Ptolemy recommends him self fo r his kin dlin ess, c u ltu re , g allantry, and generosity—the kind o f hu m an q u alitie s th a t A e sch in as found so sorely lacking in love. The characterization of P to le m y as φιλόμουσος is b y no means incidental here, for Id . 14, lik e T h e o c ritu s' tw o o th er u rb a n mimes, reflects a profound cu riosity ab o u t th e in tersection o f lite ratu re and life. The society over w h ich P to le m y presid ed w a s as polarized culturally as it was politica lly . I f th e con ve rsatio n s o f herdsm en an 0 the urban bourgeoisie ha d s u d d e n ly starte d a ttra ctin g 1 crapr interest, it was precisely because th e y n ow seem ed so v ery h a s rtf r°m rarc^ e^ atm osphere o f c o u rt circles. Y e t T heocritus m at* r T ^ ^ t y ‘ n Portray in g th e po p u lar im aginatio n to peoDlt* J L Ul 6 l.s parittes of taste betw een th e elite an d th e com mon submerepH^fl·,011180, ™ mUch the w a y th a t h e h a s neutralized and is in fact flvine ^ °* P° m c 3 1 E v e n if the culture ___ ___ s in m a n y different directions, T heocritu s presents W Btld * * Herrschers in der griechischen Dichtung (Berlin n ,4o} 90.

lemies as a force to d raw things together. A n d, most untho pt° v the language of th c streets provides T heocritus a eXpCCt means to com e to term s w ith the troublesom e ghost of further ^ cleariy all lev els o f society carried forw ard the Hom eric ^ Æ tion as a baggage o f clichés, proverbs, an d m isrem em bered tri s Taking th is d ecayed trad ition as a backgrou nd , the poet phr more easily heroize the P to le m ie s in a w a y th a t seems au th entic. CaThe levels o f po p u lar cu ltu re, u rb an an d ru ral, preoccu py Th eocritus through out th e Id y lls. F e w readers can forget his sorceress Sim aetha in Id . 2 as she tries to m a k e of herself an other Circe or Ariadne. H a v in g r a th e r p o ig n a n tly ta k en fo r herself models much too grand fo r her v e r y o rd in ary circum stan ces, she cannot quite g et th em s tra ig h t: she in vo k es b o th M edea and P erim e d e (v. 16) w ith o u t rea lizin g , as th e b rig h t ph ilologists of the Museum w ould su rely h a v e k n o w n , th a t th c la tte r seem s to be o nly an alternate nam e fo r th e form er. A s a fle d g lin g w itc h she encounters unexpected d ifficu lties in ke ep in g b o th th e rites an d th e ch an t going at once, nor h a s she n o tice d th a t she is c o n tam in atin g a spell to destroy th e fa ith less D e lp h is w ith one to b rin g him b a c k to her. Her language show s co m p ara b le flu c tu a tio n b e tw e en th a t lite ra ry world, th e w o rld o f heroes, in to w h ic h she is tr y in g to p ro je ct herself— "w h en th e steed s o f r o s y D a w n w ere b e arin g h er s w iftly up the s k y from O c ea n ” (vv . 14 7 f.) — an d th e w o rld th a t she a c tu a lly knows— "aJl m y fa ir b o d y g rew s t if f as it w ere a d oll’s ” (v. n o ) . Theocritus’ herdsm en, w h o “ liv e a b o v e th e ir in tellec tu a l m ean s,” 9 are also g iv en to su dd en lea p s u p w a rd in s ty le , as colloquialism s, obscenities, a n d e p ic u sages r e g u la r ly c o llid e w ith one an o th e r in the langu age o f th e b u co lic po em s.10 B u t th e lin g u istic m osaic of the ru ral poem s pro d u ces a d istan cin g e ffe ct v e r y d ifferen t from w hat we find in th e u rb an m im es. F o r th e h erd sm an figu re is a self-conscious an d w i t t y fic tio n , h a lf c o te rie p o et an d e n tirely rustic— a m a gn ificen t im p o ssib ility. S im a e th a an d th e lik e are less c o y ly artificial an d rep resent, I b elieve, a c o m p a r a tiv e ly s traigh t* B. Snell, The Discovery of (he M in d , trans. T. Kosenmeyer (Oxford »953) 286. 111 O n T h eocritu s' incongru ou s use o f H om er. see th e v ariou s p assages an alyzed b y G . Serrao, Problemi di pœ sia alessandrina I: studi su Teocrilo (Rom e 1971) 91-108; G . F ab ian o, "F lu c tu a tio n in T h e o critu s' S t y le .” iA n “ J 19? 1 ) 534-36: works tow ard preciosity ]UX aposed and in a sense pu t into com petition w ith a rustic bulga in r **

** not an*mal but hum an and if ττήρβ has the same »ense a* 73.623 Mar*. See G ow II. 272.

tt Where an Iliadic motif has been cut down to size, rustic so"#· , on the challenge of being heroic and expansive. song?1 paradigm and basic epic presumption of the poet who Thees°ÎmmortaIizing κλέος is here essentially inverted. Thyrsis bnngs ^ ^ at this raonient not because of the poet’s power 15 U time but because of his vulnerab ility to it: he cannot take ° ^ s o n g «U Άίδαν γε τ£>ν έκλελάθοντα (v. 63). Daphnis himself, for all of his expansive claim s on nature, m akes no claim s to enduring memory am ong the g uild of pipe-p layers which he founds. In fact, he does not pass dow n his pipes to establish a line of succession such as m ight reach to T hyrsis, b u t returns them to Pan. He foresees for himself o n ly th e im m orta lity o f being an άλγος Έρωτι (v. 103) even in Hades. Y e t the w ords w h ich T heocritus uses for his inversion of the stan d ard con ventions of κλέος are themselves im peccably H om eric: in their pique, the Muses cause Thamyris to forget (έκλέλαθον II. 2.6oo) his singing in the single passage in Homer where th e p atron deities o f m usic fo rbid it, as Pan has done earlier in Id . 1 . B o th Id y lls focus th eir inversions of the conventions of heroic p o etry on th e suggestion, fin ally, of a new, less im posing heroism , be it th a t of D aph nis (in con trast to Diomedes, Anchises, or, im p licitly , P rom eth eu s a n d H ipp olytu s) or Adonis (as surpassing Agam em non, A ja x , et al.). Y e t fo r all of the sim ilarity o f the devices w h ic h con fer heroic sta tu s on them , Daphnis and Adonis are a n tith e tic a l sorts o f figures. W e see both at the boundary of the hum an an d d ivin e world. D aph nis cann ot pass it, and th a t is th e essence of his tr a g e d y ; even A p hro dite cannot save him. H e "g o e s to th e strea m ” a n d w ill not retu rn ; b u t the Adonis to be borne to th e w a ve s on the m orrow w ill retu rn.87 Aphrodite, we recall, has sav ed B erenice (Id. 17.48), who, w ith Soter, has joined th e ranks of th e god s. T h e ocritu s’ evo catio n of tragedy in the pastoral m ode 28 cen ters, then, o n the im p erm ea bility of that m ortal bou nd ary, even fo r those g r e a tly fa vo red b y nature ; Ptolemaic m y th assumes p recisely the opposite. In prom ulgating such an tith e tica l m y th s, these tw o Id v lls present no less con tra ry visions o f the purposes of art. Id. 1 is an The verbal echoes o f Ilia d 18 are dense and u nm istakabte. See O tt's tabulation, pp. 100 f. ...” .p6® c · Segal. "H e a th b y W ater: A N a rra tive P attern in Th eocritu s

liaylls I, 13, 22, 23),” ffrrmes 102 (1974) 20-38. , lOetry,

« e th e fine an alysis of A. P arry. " la n d s c a p e m G reek V C S 15 (1957) 11-13.

u i n a b i li t ie s of a r t fo r its e lf. A s th e opening exrt « erase m th e p ^ ^

„stabilstes, 1» W e „ the go

^

p .p t a g e x i s t o n l y t o b e r a n k e d a n d r e w a S

fo r T h y r s is , so n g W lth a cu pi he ex n t . T h e r e al m o v e m e n t o f th e poem is in

'

P rison of artifact to a r tifa c t, o f o n e a r t is tic m ediu m to a„ olhe' compans ^ ^ ^ d u e a tt e n t io n to th e s en sK of ^

Γ

^11 and taste as w ell. C an it b e a c c id e n ta l th a t w e end on th« red im age of C allim achean a e s th e tic is m , th e c ic a d a (v. ι 4δ]?

RnT the goatherd’s o th er goo d w i s h e s - f o r h o n e y , th e honeycomb, sweet figs and the g o a t t o m i l k - m i x s t r a n g e ly w ith the image of the dew-eating crea tu re o f a ir a n d s p ir it. T h e y rem in d us of the system of e x c h a n g e - t h a t is, o f p a t r o n a g e - w h i c h bind s together this world of art. W hen in Id . 15 th e p e o p le o f A le x a n d ria bring offerings to A rsinoe's pa lace a lo n g w ith th e tr ib u te s o f distant cities, that exchange fu n c tio n s m o re b r o a d ly in in teg ratin g the life of the society. T h e a rtists w h o m a k e th e ta p e s tr ie s , th e tableaux, and the hym ns w h ich th e p e o p le e n jo y in e x c h a n g e for their offerings are the m ediato rs b e tw e e n s o v e re ig n a n d society . This art m anifestly lack s th e g ra n d e u r o f th e g r e a t c lassics of earlier centuries; bu t, as a c e n tra l ch a n n e l o f c o m m u n ic a tio n between king and country, a r t p la y s a role w ith in th e s o c ie ty a t large little diminished from th a t e arlier p erio d . T h e A d o n ia , th e n , shows art opening out to the life o f th e stree ts a n d g e n e r a tin g m y th s to make that life bearable, as w ell as to k e ep P t o le m y o n h is throne. Now, this art is not qu ite T h e o c ritu s ' a r t. H e is, to be su re, standing back from the w orkings of P to le m a ic p u b lic relatio n s as the w itty and detached observer, th e w riter o f m im e. T h e A r g iv e wom an’s daughter who sings o f A d o n is m u st b e th e le a s t o f his colleagues, et like the distinguished T h y rs is she is ask e d to sing on the f/ fh o *

perform ances {Id. 15 .9 7 f-> c f. Id . i . i g i . and

b tr iv I She sings d raw s th e Id y u b e y o n d th e sim ple and 5 l0n. ^orrn ° f m im e.29 A n d th o u g h she a n d T h e o critu s face p r in c ^ ShL)!*reCti0nS’ S^e to tllc P ° P ula r au d ien ce an d he to the interpret' stancimS m id w a y b etw een th e tw o grou ps and we are nnt*+ 6 ° t^ier s‘d e - th e y cele b rate th e sam e m y th s. Surely th a n h* A-A ° t^lat T h e o critu s p u t less o f him self in to her nan he did m to Thyrsis. Religious Sen«mP^ V ? n i l b y M atthew A rn old in " P a g a n and Mediaeval ‘ 937) 200-10. 1 m A ssays »M Criticism , ser. i (London 1H65; reprinted

I. G E N E R A L I N D E X ι -n e 6 f . 9. 2 I- 3° *·’ 36 *·■39 n Αΐ ; To 68-7«. 75 66, 93-97 Aletias 30 f., 34- 39 Alexander 53 η. 9, 59, 6o η η · 23 and 25, 62, 67 f., 74. 76. 85> 9 ° η . 9i . 93*·. I07- 124 f · Alexandria 5, 51. 64. 80, 84, 92-94. 107-9, r i 6 f. Ammon 60 η. 24, 93 Antigonus G onatas 39 Antinoe p ap yrus 52 f., 5 7 ,9 5 Antiochus 30 f., 34, 39 Aphrodite 4, 57, 66, 68, 73 f., 78 f., 87-90, 11 6 f., 119 , 125-27 Apollo 6, 43, 54, 61 η . 26, 74, 76, 82, 87, 92, ι ο ο ί. Apollonius R h od ius 3. 46, 49. 51 . 70 η. 50, 104 *·> Ι0 7 A potheosis 4. 8, 16, 50, 53 ί·. 59 1 , 63 ί·. 67, 70. 73-76>84 *■ > 87· 94-96, 99. 105, 121 Archimelus o f A th e n s 13 Aristophanes 18 Arnold, M. 128 n. 29 Arsinoe I 78 f. Arsinoe I I (see also u n d e r P to le m v II) and A ph rod ite 4, 58, 64, 67 f., 88 as audience 4, 6-8, 56-59, 6871. 98 cu lt in terests of 56, 60 n . 24, 65-67. 82 f., 85 f., 93, 102, 11 7 d eath of 59 ,8 2 ,9 0 ,10 6 and H elen 6, 57, 59, 65, 68, 86-91, 122

an d H e ra 50, 61, 66, 68 a n d Isis 65, 68 m a rriag e o f 60 f., 66, 68, 72, 77, 89 f-, 95. 99 A rte m is 5, 67, 88, 90 A ta lla h , W . 65 n. 40, 84 n. 7 1 , 85 n. 73 A th e n a 67, 88 f, A u stin , N , ι ο η η . 7 f., 1 1 n. 20 f., 23 n . 36, 29 n . 54

x i,

B a c c h y lid e s 1, 9, 18 n. 25, 19, 29, 31, 38, 41, 44, 47 B a rd o n , H . 40 n. 72 B a s ilik o s logos 30, 71 B e c k b y , H . 7 1 n . 5 1, n o n . 6 B e ll, H . 6 1 n . 28, 85 n. 73, 89 n . 83 B e ren ice I 53 f., 58, 65 f., 73, 76-79, 94. 99. 105. 1 1 7 . 1 1 9 B e r v e , Η . 9 η. x, 13 η . 15, 14 η . ι 6 B e th e , E . i o n . 8 B ign o n e , E . 1 1 η . 12, 2 1, 83 η . 69 B o w r a , C . 26 η . 46, 33 η · 66 B r in k , C . 68 η . 45 B ru n iu s-N ilsso n , E , 29 η . 53 B u r to n , R . 18 η . 29 C a im s, F . 7 1 , 109 η . 4 C a llic r a te s 54 η . n , 62 f. C a llim a ch u s ι- 8 , 25 f., 31 η . 6o, 37, 42, 46, 48, 50 f., 56-59, 62 f., 69 f., 75 f., 80-82, 84 η . 7 i , 85, 88-go, 92 f., 98, 100 f., 103, 106 f., 128 C a llix e n u s 58, 60, 99 Carm ina fig u ra ta 25 C arrière, J. 63 η . 33, io 2 C a rth a g e 9, 15, 34, 38 C a tu llu s 59 C e rfau x , L . a n d J, T o n d ria u 55 n. 17 , 58 n . 20, 60 n . 22, 93 nn. 99 f., 102 n . 119 , 104 n . 125 Cessi, C . 63 n. 34 C h arité s 9, 1 1 , 22 f., 26 f., 33, 43-49 C h olm eley, R , 23 n. 37, 35 n. 67, 55 n- 13 C hrem onides 89

g - *

x

Cunningham, I.

s

t

109

z

·

« -»

3

Daphms 7- 25. 49. 84. **>5- 123-28 Deichgräber, Κ . 23 * · 36 Delcourt, M. 41 η· 7 Delos «7. 87 η· 7®'88^ '. ” Demigod 54. 7*. *4. “ '·· » des Places, E. 33 η · 66 Deticnne, M. 102 η. Ι20, H 9 Deubner, L. 7 η · 8· 10 η · 3 ’ 2 44· 45 „ , Dionysius I. 12 η. 13, 3° *· Dionysus 4 {·. 53*58. 67, 86, 93- 106· Dioscuri 52 η · 5- 59*·. 6ι η. 26, 70 η. s®. 86 n. 76. 88-90, 97. ι ο 5 D ôm e, Η. 75 π· 57 Dover, Κ . 22, 33. 35 «· 67, 84 η. 71 · 114 Duchemin, J.

14 n. 20

Ecphrasis 25 f., 55 η. ι6 , 60 η. 25, 124, 126 f. Edgar, C. 60 n. 25, 91 n. 93, 103 n.

125 Edmonds, J. 55 n. 12 Edson, C. Jr. 62 n, 30 Egyptianization. 5, 55, 84-86, 103 f. Eitrem, S. 107 n. 1 Eliot, T. 41 n. 76 Eiliger, W . 38 n. 70 Empson, W . 40 n. 73 Encomium n f „ I 4 {., I? _20 39 f.. 53, 56, 71 f., 76 f., 80 tpiC 2,12,47>49>76i96 e-pic cycle 31 38

E“

;.:v

4' ,9· 21 *8·

Epithalamium ** λ τ ba „ Eratosthenes 4 3> * 86'91· 104 Erbse. H. 2 6 η λ λ Eteocles 45 ' 4 Euhemeriets 63

’ "■«·■·« Eunpides

86, I02-4

Eabiaoo, G « , , , F &rber. H. c . ' 3

10> I I 5 »· 13

Ferguson, W. u i n. 7 Folksong 9, 22 f. Fränkel, H. 18 n. 27 Fraser, P . 2 0 . 2 , 3 , 5 2 η , 55 n. 17, 56 η. i8, 61 n. 28 6/ 3 7,67 n. 43,68 n. 45, 69 η. 4 8 *,! 7o, 88 n. 79, 89 n. 84, 90 ή ' 92 n. 9 6 ,93 η. ιο ί, 98n. iog,l02 Fraustadt, G. 54 n. 10, 71 n’ - 2 Frazer, J. 41 n. 76 Friedländer, P. 25 n. 42 Fritzsche, H. 11 n. 10 Gallavotti, C. 52 n. 7 Garson, R. 113 n. 10,121 n. 18 Gelon 38 G enus m ixtu m 7-9, 12, 16, 49 f ( 70 f., 76 f. Giangrande, G. 48 n. 83,101 n. 117, 102 f., 113 n. 10 Glotz, G. 65 n. 40 Goethe, J. von 97 f. Golden A ge i6, 31, 35, 38,40-42,46 Gorgo 65 f., 82-84, 108 f., 116-20 Gow, A. 9 η. i, n n. 10, 12 η. 13, 13 n. 14, 18 n. 28, 21, 29 n. 55, 31, 32 n. 62, 35 n. 67, 39, 51 nn. 1 !., 52 f., 55, 61, 65 η. 40, 7 i f., 75 η. 57, 85 η. 73, 90 η. 92, 92, 94. 99, ιο ί η. 1 1 7 , 102 η. 107 η. ι, 125, ΐ2 6 η . 25 Groningen, Β. van 102 f. Guérard, Ο. 69 η. 47 Gundert. H. 14 η. ι8 Gzella, S. 14 η. ι8, ι8 η. 26 Haberlin, G. 39 η. 71 Händel, P. 16 η. 24, 7° η · 5°> 98 η. ιο8 Hebe 54· 66, 92, 95 Helen 52 η. 5, 53-59, 65, 67, 7°> ®3· 86-91, 95 ί·. 99 f., 102-6, 122 Helmbold, W, 24 η. 41. 87 η· 77 Hensel, L. 45 η. 8ι Hera 50, 54, 58, 61, 66, 68, 73, 75. 78 η. 6ι, 87, 90 f., 121 Heracles 4 f.. 48, 53-58, 60 n. 25. 66 f., 70, 77, 83, 86, 89, qi-io». 102-6 Herodas 60. 82, 108, 126 Herter, H. 2 n. 2, 26 n. 44. 63 nn. 31 and 34, 80 n. 64. 85 n, 75, 91 n

* ' 2 1 9, a i. 3 t n- 6«*. 3». H