Souvce Quadevni UvIinali di CuIluva CIassica, Nev Sevies, VoI. 51, No. 3 |1995), pp. 101-123 FuIIisIed I FaIvizio Sevva edilove SlaIIe UBL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20547312 Accessed 22/05/2010 0221 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fabser. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Fabrizio Serra editore is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica. http://www.jstor.org Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus Cynthia Damon Satisfactory sense has been made of many a peculiar passage in Hellenistic poetry by invoking the principle of genre-mixing. One part elegy to one part epinician yields Callimachus' Ode to Sosibius, two parts didactic epos to one part prose treatise yields Aratus' Phaenomena, epic content added to tragic meter and form will give you (perhaps) Lycophron's Alexandra, and so on, though these terms are of course too elephantine for anything but a rapid introduction to some thing else. In Theocritus' collection, we find lyric elements in Idylls 3, 11, 12, and 13, mimic elements in 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, and 15, and hymnic elements in 26, for example1. These and other elements all added to one constant ingredient, the hexameter. The various adulterating agents have been well analysed since the formula was first propounded by Kroll, but it is perhaps time to ask what is was about epos'2 that spurred Theocritus to such devoted tinkering3. The methods of the Homeric narrator have attracted attention since the time of Plato at least, and the pace of investigation has step ped up considerably of late. He won praise from ancient readers for objectivity, for keeping himself, his values, and the historical context in which he was singing, all but invisible (e.g., Plato, Resp. 392d 394d, Aristotle, Poet. 1460a5-7, Dio, Or. 53.9-10 ... ?? ?qxxvov? xai 1 Id. 22, on the other hand, is a hymn to which pastoral and epic elements have been added. 2 I use "epos" as a shorthand for "poems written in stichic dactylic hexameters". 3 W. Kroll, 'Die Kreuzung der Gattungen', in Studien zum Verst?ndnis der r?mis chen Literatur, Stuttgart 1924, pp. 202-224. More recently, L. E. Rossi, 'I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche', Bull. Inst. Class. Stud. Univ. London, 18, 1971, 69-94, esp. 84-86. 102 C. Damon ??tJtou Jioft?v q)$eyy?\iEVO<;)4. Aristotle distinguishes the mixed pre sentational mode of epic from that of drama on the one hand, a genre in which the poet speaks entirely through his characters, and dithyramb on the other, in which the poet narrates the entire piece. Yet useful contrasts are also available within the category of hexameter poetry. The narrator of a hymn, for example, has an almost lyrical forthright ness, he speaks to a god to make a request and a promise on his own behalf5. The ego of didactic poetry is likewise present in his poem, as is his addressee6. Hymn and didactic epos were genres on which much industry was expended during the Alexandrian floruit, and story-telling mechanisms were a natural concern of the revisionist poetics of that period. Various modifications of Homer's methods were devised. Apollonius refused to lie low ? "im Gegensatze zu Homer bleibt er eine Person und wird gar nicht selten pers?nlich reden"7. One's sense of a narrating presence in 4 Without narratological tools and non-derivative comparanda at their disposal ancient critics tended to exaggerate Homer's "invisibility"; modern studies such as those of I. J. F. de Jong (Narrators and Focalizers: the Presentation of the Story in the Iliad, Amsterdam 1987), S. Richardson (The Homeric Narrator, Nashville 1990), and W. Suerbaum ('Die Ich-Erz?hlung des Odysseus', Po?tica 2, 1968, 108-177) consider both the techniques on which the "objective" or self-effacing narrator of the Iliad and the Odyssey relies (e.g., the avoidance of time ellipses, and "Homer's" reticence in making explanations, interpretations and judgments) and the elements of the epics in which the influence of the narrator on the tale he tells is more apparent (e.g., the sequential narration of simultaneous events, the indirect speech, the selection of de tails relevant to the story, the character-focalizers). 5 On hymn form, see the recent discussions of J. S. Clay (The Politics of Olym pus: Form and Meaning in the major Homeric Hymns, Princeton 1989), R. Janko ('The Structure of the Homeric Hymns: a Study in Genre', Hermes 109, 1981, 9-24), W. H. Race ('Aspects of Rhetoric and Form in Greek Hymns', Gr. Rom.Byz. Stud. 23, 1982, 5-14). 6 In didactic poems of the Hellenistic period, for example, the addressee of Nicander's Theriaca is named Hermesianax and addressed as jroX?cov xu?iorate Jia?bv (3), while the addressee of the Alexipharmaca, Protagoras, is particularized by both name and residence (6-8). And in both poems Nicander constantly frames his instruc tion in terms of what the second person addressee is to do. Aratus' Phaenomena is in fact peculiar in having, after the opening invocation to Zeus and the Muses, no addres see. The 'destinatario didascalico' from Hesiod to Manilius has been announced as the theme of the (forthcoming) volume 30 of Mat?riau e discussioni. 7 U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kalli machos I-II, Berlin 1924, II p. 218. The most recent discussions are those of C. S. Byre ('The Narrator's Addresses to the Narratee in Apollonius' Argonautica9, Trans. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 103 this poem is reinforced by Apollonius' use of unusual prophets (a bird at 3, 936-937 and the talking beam at 1, 524-527, 4, 580-591) and by the aetiological digressions, which draw attention to the present day relevance of past occurrences8. The narrator of Callimachus' Hecale is an unknown quantity, but his surrogate in frr. 70-74 Pf., the crow, needs an author's hand to endow him with speech as much as does the nautilus shell of Epigram 59; by contrast, Homer's secondary narrator/ focalizers are humans or anthropomorphic gods10. Unlikely narrators appear in the Aetia, too, as if to insist upon the artificiality of, on the presence of an artificer in, the tale11. Lycophron has a rather more complicated recipe for making an artificial narrator. The speaker of the Alexandra characterizes himself, his addressee, the occasion, etc. very precisely: his speech to his master Priam reporting Cassandra's words after Paris' departure for Sparta would be like that of a messenger in a play, except that it alludes to passages in Greek literature and to events which took place in the 3rd century B.C.12. No two of the narrators of Am. Philol. Ass. 121, 1991, 215-227) and R. Hunter ('The Poet and his Poem', in The Argonautica of Apollonius: Literary Studies, Cambridge 1993, pp. 101-151). 8 On these features, see M. Fusillo, // tempo delle Argonautiche: unanalisi del racconto in Apollonio Rodio, Rome 1985, pp. 360-396 and S. Goldhill, The Poet's Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature, Cambridge 1991, pp. 286-300, 328 330. 9 Objets parlants were of course standard fare in epigrams, but the tactic was now put to use in other genres. Cf. the bird-speakers in la. 4, 64-87, and the contest of the trees earlier in that same poem (11-92). An earlier contest-poem, on the rivalry be tween Cithaeron and Helicon (Korinna, fr. 654 Page) had mountains as speakers. 10 On Homer's secondary narrator/focalizers, see de Jong (above, note 4) pp. 149-194, and her more recent article 'The Subjective Style in Odysseus' Wanderings', Class. Quart. 42, 1992, 1-11. Homers does have one "unlikely narrator": the eagle in the dream which Penelope describes to the disguised Odysseus at Od. 19, 535-569 (a reference I owe to my colleague G. Nagy). The fact that this is Penelope's report, however, makes the eagle's speech (lines 545-550) a less blatant authorial artifice than the most of the stories told by "unlikely narrators" in poems of the Hellenistic era. 11 Some of Callimachus' unlikely narrators: dead poet, fr. 64 Pf.; city wall, fr. 97; pillar, fr. 103 [?rcei xo?e xuo?ic ?ei?ei]; lock of hair, fr. 110; statue, fr. 114; Muses, fr. 3-714, 719-21, 23, 26-31b, 43. Cf. also Aetia fr. 86, the dead princess speaking in the lyric fragment 228, the unplaced fr. 759 and Supplementum Hellenisti cum 238-249. On artificial voices in the Hymns, see A. Harder, 'Insubstantial Voices: Some Observations on the Hymns of Callimachus', Class. Quart. 42, 1992, 384-394. 12 G. O. Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford 1988, p. 261: "his [the author's] presence is felt plainly enough in this extravagantly artificial utterance". 104 C. Damon Theocritus' bucolic epos are precisely alike, but the variety achieved in the collection o? Idylls is itself an indicator of our author's interest in the mechanics of narrative13. Consider the scene in Idyll 3, a goatherd's 7i(b\iO?. In his first word, X?)juao? , the speaker reveals himself as a) a participant in the events of the narrative, and b) narrating contemporaneous events. After the announcement of the x?)|iO?, we hear "and my goats are elsewhere" (1-2). He is a goatherd, then. But what is a goatherd doing as a comast? A K(b\io? in the countryside (mountain, pasture, spring, lines 1-4)? During the day (?ooxovxai)? Alone? Puzzles of form compound those of content14. Kcofxaaoco is not the sort of thing one says in a dryly matter-of-fact tone of voice; when this verb is used of a xcijio? underway or about to begin by one of the participants in it, it is generally well-supported by a heightened context of revelry or celebration15. Anacreon, for example, sets the stage for his x jxo?: 'Hfjiornoa (lev ixgiov Xenxov [mxq?v ?jtoxX?c, o?vou ?' ?^?jriov xa?ov vvv ?' a?gc?c ?goeooav ty?XXxo jrnxTi?a xf\ qpiX,r] xcofxa?cov trcai?i a?rjfj (fr. 93 Gentili)16. Considerably hotter in tone is an epigram of Asclepiades, where the K(b\io? is already under way: 13 In choosing my examples in the preceding paragraph from Hellenistic poetry, I do not mean to suggest that these mechanisms are unparalleled in Greek literature of earlier eras. For a discussion of a passage in which Theognis, for example, seems to speak as a "dead poet", see G. Nagy, 'Theognis and Megara: a Poet's Vision of his City', in Theognis of Megara : Poetry and the Polis, ed. by T. J. Figueira and G. Nagy, Baltimore 1985, pp. 21-81, esp. 76-79. 14 The first word of Idyll 22 (v\iv?o\iev) is likewise an overt statement about genre in a poem that indulges in an extraordinary amount of play with generic conventions. The use of a generic indicator as the first word of a poem is imitated by the author of Idyll 9 (?ovxoXiaCeo), though he does not follow Theocritus in causing the reader to question the validity of the narrator's generic self-definition. 15 On the conventions of the xcbjxo?, see M. Heath, 'Receiving the xc?uo?: The Context and Performance of Epinician', Am. Journ. Philol. 109, 1988, 180-195, and the references to earlier literature on this controversial topic that he provides therein. 16 Cf. AP 12, 116 (anonymous) xcou?oouar [?educo y?g ?Xo? \i?ya, etc. Also AP 12, 115. An epigram of Meleager's, as so often, provides the clearest distillation of the topos: xcoua?co ?' ovx o?vov vno yg?va, nvg ?? yeuiafteic (AP 12, 85, 7). Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 105 velqpe, xdkat,o$?'k?i, Jto?ei ox?xoc, aide, negavvov, jt?vxa x? JtOQqr?Qovx' ?v x^ovl ae?e v?cpr] f\v y?g [xe xxeivfj? x?xe jtat3ao[xai, f\v ?? \i9 ?tq^fj? ?fjv. xai ?iaflfi? xotjx v xeigova xcofi?oofiat (AP 5, 64)17. The K<b\ioi in which Pindar shows himself about to be engaged are more dignified events, but their tone is perhaps even more exalted than that of these private poems; as, for example, in the opening lines of Nemean 9: xofi?oofiEv jrag' 'AjtoX?oovo? Zixv vofte, Mo?oai, x?v veoxx?axav ?? A?xvav, ?vfr' ?vajtejtxa^i?vai ?;eivo)v vev?xavxai ?KJQai, ?X?iov ?? Xqo|??ou ? u.'18. And conversely, neutral or disapproving reports of comastic activ ity appear in past tenses, or in the 3rd person, as when Callimachus offers a dispassionate discussion of past passion: el [x?v ?xc?rv, 'Aqx^V, ercexcouxxoa \ivQia \i?\iyov, el ?' axcov r\n(D xf|v jtQOJt?xeiav ?a. axQTjxo? xai ?gco? \i' f|v?yxaoav, a>v ? fx?v a?rtcov eUxev, ? ?' o?jx e?a JtQOJt?xeiav ??v (AP 12, 118)19. Or when an orator or moralist wants to make clear his disapproval of the institution: ov?' ?oxiv ooxi? ?v ?jtavx v x(0(i?^ovxi xtvt \iex? \i?^?\? OVK ?v XT|v [iEy?oxr\v ?ixnv eirfr?? ?jci?eir) (Plato, Leg. 637a7-8, cf. Lys. 3, 23; 14, 25; Is. 3, 14 etc.). But in Idyll 3 we have a comast whose first concern is to explain that he has made arrangements for the care of his goats the while; a responsible goatherd (no Polyphemus he, cf. JtoXX?xi xai o?e? Jtoxi xco?Xiov avx??, ?jrfjvftov, 11, 12), alive to his he-goat's capacity for mischief (xai x?v ?vOQxav ... (fvX?ooso \ir\ xv xoQthjrn, 4-5), and affectionately disposed towards his helpmate, 17 The text is that of Gow-Page (The Greek Anthology: Hellenistic Epigrams I-II, ed. by A. S. F. Gow and D. L. Page, Cambridge 1965,1 p. 47). Alcaeus fr. 374 Voigt (??^cu [xe xco|ji?ooovxa, ???ai, Aioooua? oe. XXoaouai) is without context, but would seem to have the same emotional tone. 18 Cf. Isth. 7, 20ff. and P. 9, 89ff. 19 The text is that of Gow-Page (above, note 17). 106 C. Damon Tityrus (?|iiv to xaX?v Jt?(pi?,r||i?ve, 3). A model herdsman, in fact; which only makes his comastic intentions the more unfathomable. There is still another matter in this innocuous-seeming prelude which demands of the reader interpretation. For no sooner have we assimilated the narrator's un-Homeric relation to the tale he is telling us than the narrative situation changes: the speaker turns to Tityrus (the surrogate herdsman he had pointed out to us in line 2, xai ? Tltuqo? aut?? ?Xauvei), turning us into the eavesdroppers we will remain for the rest of the poem. Why the shift from narrative to lyric modes of presentation? Or is the reader who asks such questions of this text too exacting? After all, Hermogenes cited the opening of this poem as an exemplum of ?cp?Xeia, by which he means, he says: "the thoughts of uncultured natures or of fools, who explain things which need no explaining and about which no one is asking them, as in most of Anacreon's stuffand in the bucolic poems of Theocritus and many others, as for example 6H?)(ji?ooa) Jtoxi tew 'AjiaQuXX?oa, tai ?? \ioi a?yEC ?ooxovxai xax' oqo?' and what follows" (Hermog. Id. 2, 3). More recent commentators, too, have found the poem essentially simple, Theocritus amusing him self and us at the expense of a sentimental buffoon of a goatherd whom he has set to perform a x jio? that he has no business doing20. One 20 E. g., G. Lawall (Theocritus9 Coan Pastorals: A Poetry Book, Washington D.C. 1967, p. 35): "humorous and parodie"; C. P. Segal ('Adonis and Aphrodite: Theocri tus, Idyll 3. 48', Antiquit? class. 37, 1969, 82-88 = Poetry and Myth in Ancient Pastoral: Essays on Theocritus and Virgil, Princeton 1981, pp. 66-72. The latter is cited): "a deliberately light and trifling poem" (p. 71), also U. Ott (Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten (Spudasmata 22), Hildesheim 1969, p. 177 n. 494). Goldhill (above, note 8, pp. 247-248) recognizes the inadequacy of the paro die reading, but concurs with the critics just cited in finding the goatherd essentially ridiculous. He argues that the reader has an "investment" in the conventions which the ridiculous goatherd so abuses, and that he will recognize himself in the goatherd. He sees a similar strategy in Idyll 11, where, he claims, "in the very act of reading or singing the poem we, like Polyphemus, are actually fostering and helping to maintain our desire" (p. 259). And that we are thereby doing much the same thing as the addressee of the poem, Nicias. However, Nicias' "response" to the poem (fj cxq' ?Xnd?? to?to, 0eoxQixe. o? y?g "Egoote? novtyz?? JtoXXo?? ??i?a?av to?? jiq?v ?\iovoov?) shows that he, at least, supposed that the remedy Theocritus had in mind was compos ing a poem, not performing a text written by someone else. Therefore it is a little difficult to see how "the figure of fun is inverted", i.e., how the sophisticated reader finds himself doing much the same thing as Polyphemus (or the ridiculous goatherd of Idyll 3). See also n. 33 below. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 107 might say, on this ironic reading, that the voice of the first-person re veller is explicit in x jiao?u), but that implicit is the voice of an obser ver who would report such an event in the third person: "there goes a goatherd-comast, and what a clown he is, eh?". The presence of a speaker behind the speaker is to be felt in many other poems of Theoc ritus and it has a function beyond just that of creating irony. This point may be illustrated through further consideration of Idyll 3. Our matter-of-fact, oh-so-responsible goatherd, then, begins his paraclausithyron at line 6. The object of the exercise, usually, is to persuade the lover within to unbar the door, but this comast shows a nice sense of amatory tact by changing rules of the game so that Amary llis, even doorless, can retain her position of control21. In this sere nade, the object is to get her to look out, and all of the goatherd's many gambits are directed to that end. After reminding her that she had invited him in before (quoting her own words, t?v EQ?mJXov, 7)22, he invites her to reconsider his appearance, from close up, eyY??tev (8). According to Gow, this word "need not to be pressed", but on the contrary, it presses her to justify the xaxa- in xaxa(paivo|iai. The goatherd also ventures a vocative, v?jiqpa, which is pregnant with re minders of past events ("my wife", cf. t? yj o?x?xi ... xaXe??; 6-7) and promises for the future ("my bride", cf. 2, 132 cb yvvm and Dover's note ad loc.)23. Then come the presents, offered with a particle inviting her to come out and see them: f|vi?e xoi ??xa \iaka (p?? (10). When this fails, he points to the place from which they came - xrjv de xofreiXov (10) - and promises more apples tomorrow if only she will come out and look at what he has brought today (?t?oai ji?v, 12). Un successful in a direct approach, he waxes lyrical with an optative of unfulfilled desire (aide yEVOi\iav, 12), and points out that a bee is about to enter her cave (see Dover's note on ? ?o|x?euoa [x?Xiooa, 13). Each successive failure is punctuated by an expression of distress: 21 Cf. E. Burck, 'Das Paraclausithyron', Gymnasium 43, 1932, 186-200, esp. p. 191. 22 Pace A. S. F. Gow (Theocritus I-II, Cambridge 19522, note on 3, 8 evyuftev), oxjx?tt would seem to indicate that he has been invited in more than once before. Cf. the countryside gossip about the two mentioned in lines 31-34. 23 Contrast this term with those used of objects of affection by their lovers' inter locutors: Priapus, in Id. 1, speaks of ? xcbga (82), "Polyphemus's" interlocutor in Id. 6 mentions ? Jca?? (13), as does Milon at Id. 10, 14 (so too her lover Bucaeus, since he is speaking of the girl, not to her, 24-25). 108 C. Damon an?y^aofta? \is jionael? in line 9, dDjxaXy?? ?(iiv a/o? (12) and a three line schetliasmus directed at Eros (15-17) after the third, more impas sioned attempt. More flattering affirmation of her cool control over an enraptured lover follows on this (d) x? xaX?v JtoftoQe?aa, x? Jt?v Xido?, 18), and a newly exalted status: a xvavocpgu? vtjjicpa now, be sought by her afotoXo? (18-19), rather than charming Amaryllis accosted by one who has enjoyed her favors in the past. An active role in the business is hers now, too (l?Q?OTtxv^a? [xe, 19). Flattery gets him nowhere, however, so he mentions a garland, a gift which he is about to tear up if she won't come out and see how nice it smells (e?>?o|J,oiai oe?ivoi?, 23). Disappointed again he may be (24), but not deterred, for he points to the cliff from which he threatens, disrobed, to jump (xr\V(b akev\iai, 25). Only when she fails to rise to the bait does he add the explanation (OJteQ xcb? iK?vvco? oxoma?exai "OXm? ? yptJieuc (26). The mention of Olpis leads into a rather indirect approach: he lets her see that their affair is gossip-material for other country-dwellers (eiJte xai 'Aygoiu)..., 31-33), and that she has a rival (? Meqjivcovo? ?fjiikxxi?, 35-36). He ends with a threat (no melodrama now, but an act which will directly affect Amaryllis - ? ocE) o?, 36), and a note of faintly peevish resentment (evoia^Qimxr], 36). These win him a favor able omen. The twitching of his eyelid prompts him to play his last, best card, the song (40-51). A marvel of allusive mythologizing, the song expands upon two themes introduced earlier: the hard-to-get maiden who is joined at last to a sufficiently energetic suitor (the myths of Atalanta and Bias), and the goddess taking pleasure in the embrace of a mere mortal (Aphrodite, the Moon and Demeter)24. With that, our goatherd pleads a headache (52); all his cards are on the table and the next move is hers. Despite the fact that our goatherd is going about a business that he has no business doing, there is no Kyklopenmetrik here, nor any Kyk lopenrhetorik either25. Everything is directed accurately at the end in 24 Commentators are divided on the quality of the song. Gow (above, note 22, p. 73) and Segal (above, note 20, p. 71) find the song's content humorously inappropriate to the singer; Ott (above, note 20, pp. 181-183) emphasizes its stylistic felicities, and Dover explains the rationale behind the exempla (K. J. Dover, Theocritus, Select Poems, Basingstoke 1971, p. 188). 25 These qualities are sometimes discerned in Idyll 11, a poem which has much in common with Idyll 3. See, e.g., U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker, Berlin 1906, p. 159. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 109 view (getting her to look out) 6, and the variety of the goatherd's gam bits would have done credit to Ovid27. Nor is this lover particularly rustic, though his props are such as to reflect the pastoral setting: the Amaryllis of Idyll 3 has a rather more delicate suitor than does her namesake in Idyll 4, whose boxer-lover Aegon was positively frighten ing when, having downed his eighty cakes, he grabbed a bull by the horns (literally) to give to his girl, and laughed when all the women began to scream (4, 33-37)28. So well aimed is this lover's speech, and so much in evidence are his apples and rose(bud)s (ndkvKEOOi, line 23) that one may suspect that his "love" is in fact far from the ?Q?ai [xav?at of Polyphemus (cf. 11, 10-11). And that this girl (pardon me, this nymph), requires a more elaborate approach - ?v?ia&QUJiXT] is not what one would say of a girl who simply refused to listen - than the xa%vitEiW\? city-dweller Simaetha (2, 138), for example29. And that her lover is willing to play his part, at least for awhile, anyway ? hence, perhaps, the matter-of-fact xa>|ia?o?) with which the poem so startling ly began and the far-from-tragic headache with which the goatherd con cludes his address. Such suspicions remain in limbo, however, neither 26 That this is the goal, rather than just an ill-defined need to pour out his feelings, regardless of whether they have any effect on the beloved or not, is made clear by the contrast between this poem and Vergil's partial caique thereon, Eel. 2. The "serenade" in Eel. 2 is performed in an empty grove (3-5) and does not aim to influence Alexis, the beloved, in any way. 27 In fact, Ovid's exclusus amator in Am. 1, 6 uses a number of this goatherd's tactics: he points out something for the doorkeeper to see (aspice ? uti videos inmitia claustra relaxa, 17), he likens his addressee to a god (fulmen habes, 16) and refers to his hardness (ferreus... audis, 17, cf. 62). Note also the moment of hope at lines 49-50: fallimur, an verso sonuerunt car dine postes/ raucaque concussae signa dedere fores? Tibullus's amator, too, draws upon this goatherd's serenade when he reports his deal ings with the verax ...saga (1,2, 40-64, cf. Id. 3, 31, 'Aycoi?b x?Xafr?a xooxiv?uxxv xi?). 28 The rustic lover in Idyll 14 is equally overwhelming when "his" Cynisca's preference for another is revealed: nvt, ?jti xOQoa? f\Kaoa, xcxXXav aflfti? (34-35) he says, with little if any compunction (x?\io? ?yci), x?v ?aai? t?, ?vc?vi/e, 34). The best parallel, in fact, for the self-restraint and delicacy of this goatherd's serenade is to be found in Lycidas' love song for Ageanax (7, 52-89), another urban-rustic hybrid. On the genre of this last, see D. M. Halperin, Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry, New Haven 1983, pp. 122-124. 29 Note also the self-restraint of this serenade by contrast with the assault tactics threatened by Delphis (Idyll 2, 128) or those put into play by the young lover in Herodas 2, 31-37, cf. 79. 110 C. Damon refuted nor confirmed, when the poem ends before Amaryllis responds and before her silence is conclusive. The speaker does not return to the narrative mode of lines 1-2 to finish up the story, and we are left without a speaker's summation such as that in Idyll ll30. Also in the much less discussed Idyll 22, where both the genre (?)|Jiv?ojiev, 1) and the narrator (221-223) assert that the narratives have honored the Dioscuri, attemp ting to control the reader's lively sense of the impropriety of the second "myth" in particular31. Even if the concluding statements of the narra tors in Idylls 11 and 22 fail to explain their respective poems, they do help identify the issues which need interpretation. Consider how the story of Idyll 3 might have ended: a) the goatherd might actually have died, b) Amaryllis might have invited him in, or perhaps c) Tityrus might have gotten fed up with the goats and returned them to their caretaker. Any of these endings would make the task of reading (in its fullest sense) the poem easier, would resolve uncertain ties that have arisen while the goatherd was speaking. If a new voice (as it would have to be) sounded to inform the reader about ending a), for example, our feeling that the x jxo? was a style of courtesy in which these lovers had engaged before and to which both parties gave consent will have been proven unfounded ? we would have to conclude that, despite his apples and rose(bud)s, this lover's ?lavia was ?Q$v\. Either ending b) or c), on the other hand, would confirm us in our interpreta tion of the x jio? game and we will suspect that, successful or not, the goatherd will be back the next day with more apples (11). But as it is, 30 Which is not to say that the interpreter's task in Idyll 11 is any easier, of course. For despite the "and thus we have seen" conclusion (80-81) in which the speaker claims to have proven the proposition he set out at the beginning of the poem, many a sensitive reader has not "seen", has felt, in fact, that the inset song gives the lie to the frame. It is not my intention here to argue for the one interpretation or the other (see, most recently and with further bibliography, S. Goldhill, 'Desire and the Figure of Fun: Glossing Theocritus 11', in Post-structuralist Classics, ed. A. Ben jamin, London 1988, pp. 79-105 and R. Schmiel, 'Structure and Meaning in Theocri tus 11', Mnemosyne 46, 1993, 229-234), but to point out the juxtaposition of proposi tion and proof. 31 Another interpretative statement, one that is revealed by the sequel to be tongue-in-cheek, is the "praise" of Bucaeus' song by Milon in Idyll 10. Less mali cious, but still singularly inadequate is Gorgo's evaluation of the song of the Argive woman's daughter (15, 145-146). And Comatas' statement in Idyll 5 that he speaks only the truth and does not boast (5, 76-77) is itself a boast. See below on Thestylis' amusement at her mistress' plight in Idyll 2. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 111 we are left to our own interpretative devices in evaluating inconcinni ties in what is said ("I am dying of love for you", but also "you used to let me in" and "I'll be back tomorrow") and what is done (bringing apples and rosebuds, consulting Agroio and the flower XT]XicpiXo?, but also singing a refined song and being an initiate in a mystery religion, 50-51)32. The interpretations tendered by critics to date range from Ott's "Theokrits echtester Hirt" to Gow's "aping the gentry", with many variations on the theme of "naive", "buffoon", "sentimental", in between33. That the list is for the most part so uncomplimentary is a result, I think, of insufficient consideration being given to the ends that may be achieved by the creation of a speaker behind the ostensible speaker of the poem34. Does the author who endows some external ego with speech always want us to laugh at his creation from a vantage point of comfortable superiority? Put in general terms like that the question is simple enough to answer: of course not. But applied to Idyll 3 - must we laugh at this goatherd? Or if we must, is there any larger purpose, beyond that of comedy hour entertainment I mean, that is served by the poem? Gow suggests that satire may be intended, criticism, that is, of a phenomenon that "must have been an unmitigated nuisance for the neighbours and for sober citizens generally"35. This idea has had no takers, however, perhaps because there is almost nothing else in the Idylls which can be identified as satirical, nor was the satiric mode 32 For a good discussion of the interpretative uncertainties raised in another first-person narrative, Idyll 7, see Goldhill (above, note 8) p. 229. 33 Ott (above, note 20) p. 180, Gow (above, note 22) p. 64. Further bibliography in K. Gutzwiller, Theocritus Pastoral Analogies: The Formation of a Genre, Madison 1991, p. 249 nn. 50-51. 34 C. Isenberg and D. Konstan ('Pastoral Desire: The Third Idyll of Theocritus', Dalhousie Rev. 64, 1984, 302-315) do offer a good analysis of the Idyll's "communica tive network". However, their misgivings (pp. 31-32) about the dangers of looking at the theme of the poem ("desire so neatly anatomized") without more than a glance at the poem's literary traditions or the rest of the Idylls are justified. Gutzwiller (above, note 33, pp. 115-123), too, finds an infusion of seriousness, of universal meanings, amidst the ludicrous elements of the scene. She gives a good account of the poem's complexities. Her method of reading, which involves finding and interpreting analo gies both within the poem and between the world of the poem and the world of the reader, is useful for elucidating the content of Idyll 3, but my interest, in this paper at least, is on the variety of forms utilized in the Idylls. 35 Gow (above, note 22) p. 64. 112 C. Damon much used by Theocritus' contemporaries36. But are there parallels for the "patronizing humour" so often seen in Idyll 337? In fact, both Gow and Dover remark on the uniqueness of the tone of the poem38. The question really boils down to this - if an ironic author, an eiQorv, says less than he means, what is the full extent of his meaning and how is one to get at it? Much good work has been done on the problem Hellenistic poets faced in establishing a voice when occasions no longer called for poetry as they had done in the past and when, no longer the mouthpiece of the Muses, the poet was challenged to find an ego which would serve as his mouthpiece39. Callimachus turns the tables nicely when he gets the Muses to expound aetia for him (below, note 39). In Idyll 3, however, it is not the Muses, but a goatherd who speaks. And he is no more realis tic a goatherd than the Lycidas (aiJt?Xcp ?^ox' ? xei, 7, 14) who sings a love song for Ageanax, but is rather a goatherd metamorphosed by a power ? the poet's ? which in its own sphere equals that of the gods of myth who reward or punish the mortal with whom they come into con tact with such drastic changes of form. It is a case of making a virtue of necessity, really; if responsibility for the tale can no longer be projected onto the Muses, then it must lie with the poet, and the poet may either make his manipulations obvious, as here, or he may use his art to conceal his artistry. Or he may combine the processes. In fact, the collection of Idylls is remarkable for the variety of the author-narrator narrative or author-event relationships displayed therein. The narrator of Idyll 18, for instance, is more reticent even than the Homeric narrator. He (or she - this narrator is so little characte rized that it is impossible to tell which) is reporting "historical" events 36 The best discussion of the relation between Theocritus' poetry and the socio political realities of his day is, to my mind, F. T. Griffiths, Theocritus at Court (Mne mosyne Suppl. 55), Leiden 1979. 37 The description quoted here is Dover's (above, note 19) p. 113. 38 Dover (above, note 24) p. 113, Gow (above, note 22) p. 64: "the poem has a point and piquancy not found elsewhere in T". 39 S. Goldhill (above, notes 8 and 30; below note 76), in particular, has contri buted much to the picture. The discussion in H. Berger, 'The Origins of Bucolic Representation: Disenchantment and Revision in Theocritus' Seventh Idyll9, Class. Ant. 3, 1984, 1-39, while limited to Theocritus and more particularly to Idyll 7, is stimulating as well, as is the discussion of Apollonus' narrative techniques in R. Hunter (above, note 7) pp. 101-151. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 113 (ev Jtox' apa SjtaQX?t, 1) but gives no information about the source of his (detailed) knowledge ? hyacinths in the hair, twelve maidens, newly painted thalamos, verbatim transcript of song ? whether this is an eye witness report or a replay of Muse-reportage. Nor is the narrator's audi ence characterized at all, except insofar as the particle apa allows one to infer that it had some interest in the topic of the poem. However, the narrator is by no means the only communicator in this poem, for just as he sets the song of the maidens in a historical context for his audience, so the author of the poem sets the narrator's words in a literary context for his readers. Some aspects of this literary context are no longer visi ble to us, of course, but the outlines are clear. The author was reporting to an audience that would appreciate the irony of references to the duration of Helen's relationship with Menelaus (15-16, 51-53), to the offspring of their marriage (21, 51, 53) and to her spinning and weaving (shades of Andromache and Penelope! 32-34), and that would be likely to recognize the Homeric seed-kernel for the topic in Helen's fond re membrance of her ?\ir\kiK?r\ ?paxeivri at //. 3, 17540. These are the two outer layers of communication: the author presenting to his contempor aries a story told by a self-effacing narrator to a silent audience41. The re-presentation of the narrative tale changes its meaning in fun damental ways without altering a word: the statement Tuv?aQi?a xaxexX?^axo .. ? ve xeQO? 'Axqeo? m v (5-6) is used by the narrator as a standard element of hymenaeal celebration (cf. Catullus 61, 224) but by the author as an oblique reference to Helen's subsequent flight from behind that closed door42. What of the representation of the inner most layer, the song addressed by the Spartan maidens to Menelaus? 40 On authorial irony in the mythological poems (13, 18, 22, 24, 26), see B. Effe, 'Die Destruktion der Tradition: Theokrits Mythologische Gedichte', Rh. Mus. 121, 1978, 48-77 (= Theokrit und die griechische Bukolik, ed. B. Effe (Wege der Forschung 580), Darmstadt 1986, pp. 56-80. The latter is cited). 41 F. T. Griffiths (above, note 36) argues that Helen is an "analogue" for Arsinoe (cf. 15, 110-111 ? BeQevixe?a {hr/?xr]Q, eEX?vo: ebtiua 'Aooiv?a), a way station en route to the emergence as Arsinoe Aphrodite (p. 53), and that Arsinoe would have been gratified by the youthful Helen's gradual metamorphosis into divinity in Idyll 18 (pp. 86-91). He makes the stipulation however that such mythic parallels are effective only "once the irony is brought under control" (71), and I am not at all sure that the myth of Helen can be so tamed, however domestic one makes her in her youth (18, 32-36, cf. 38 xi) \i?v oix?xi? f\?r\). 42 The irony of this poem is well described by J. Stern, 'Theocritus' Epithala mium for Helen\ Rev. beige philol. hist. 56, 1978, 29-37. 114 C. Damon We may swallow the linguistic consciousness evident in line 48 (?CDQiox?)43, but is it credible that these maidens know of Helen's di vine parentage (Zav?c xoi {fruyaxTiQ, 19, cf. the narrator's Tuv?aQ??a, 5), or that they are aware of being the originators of a ritual (jtp?xai ?' ??yvQ?a? ?? oXm?o? uyQ?v ?Xeicpag ?,a^t3[xevai oxa^EV\iE? ?jt? oxieg?v JtXax?vioxov, 45-46)44? If not, we must assume that the narra tor is not reporting the song at all, but writing it, "as it might have been", though he falls a bit below the Thucydidean standard of verisi militude. Well, who ever imagined that a 7ioir)xrj?;, be he historian or poet, did anything else? That is easy enough for us to say, but we are the beneficiaries of a long tradition of self-conscious poetry, a tradition that owes a very great deal to Theocritus' contemporaries and, as I am arguing here, to Theocritus himself and his stable of narrators. We have already examined the narrative formats of Idylls 3, 11 (briefly) and 18; the rest can be surveyed more rapidly45. Idyll 7 is a story told to an audience as silent as that of Idyll 18, but it is told by a much more colorful character, Simichidas, a partici pant in the events he describes.The form of the narrative is important not because it justifies the assumption that Simichidas speaks with 43 But see below on the interaction of dialect and narrative in Idyll 12. 44 P.-E. Legrand (Etude sur Th?ocrite, Paris 1898, p. 96) was unable to believe it. And aetia are generally reported by the narrator: this is the case in all of the roughly two dozen explicit aetia in Apollonus' Argonautica, for example. The aetion at Arg. 1, 1117-1149 forms a useful comparandum for Idyll 18: after describing a ritual as it was first performed by the Argonauts (cult statue, altars, wreaths, sacrifice, invocation, prayer, dance) the narrator comments evflev ?oaiei /QOu?co xai ruji?vcp ePetT|v $>gvye? iX?axovxat (1138-1139). M. Fusillo (above, note 8, p. 139) concludes his discussion of Apollonius' aetia by saying "non ? pi? una narrazione impersonale prodotta dalle Muse, che si racconta quindi da se stessa, bensi una narrazione che si mostra nel suo farsi, rispecchiando e riflettendo nell'opera la persona che la produce". Callimachus' practice is more varied. In addition to aetia given by the narrator (e.g., Hymn 2, 97-99; 3, 212; 3, 240-247; 4, 291-294, lyric fr. 229, 10-11 Pf., Aet. frr. 3-714, 719; 18, 12; 75, 50) one can find aetia in the mouth of the character-narrator Clio (fr. 43, 78-80) and an aetion in the form of a prophecy (frr. 58-59). But only in a epic fragment of uncertain authorship does one find (perhaps) an aetion described by a participant (fr. 813 auT?v fie JtQc?xioxa ?uvoimarfjoa fyaia?t / eo?e?cu xe\ievovxov). And it is not altogether certain that auvoixiorr?Q indicates the establishment of a ritual rather than a settlement. 45 See Hutchinson (above, note 12, pp. 167-170) for a discussion of a similar phenomenon in Idylls 28-30 (which I omit from my survey because of their lyric meters). Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 115 Theocritus' voice, but because of the vividness it entails46. Confidences like ?jlixa?e? (42) and xota (91) bring the narrator much closer to his audience than does the simple apa o? Idyll 18. Comparison with Idyll 6 reveals another component of the vividness which makes Idyll 7 one of the best-loved poems in the collection. The situation narrated in the two Idylls is in broad outlines the same, an amicable and ex tempore ex change of song by two figures in a rustic landscape. The entity to whom Simichidas addresses himself is uncharacterized, his story is not shaped for any particular pair of ears or any definable set of interests47. The narrator of Idyll 6, on the other hand, tells a story to Aratus. Aratus is a name, no more, and the narrator's purpose in telling this story is never specified, but the interposition of a named addressee makes the gap between the two outer layers of communication (author-reader, nar rator-narratee) clearer in Idyll 6 than it is in either Idyll 7 or Idyll 18. There are other instructive differences between Idyll 7 and Idyll 6, too. In Idyll 7 details of setting proliferate (it happened on the occasion of the harvest festival celebrated by Phrasidamus and Antigenes, the two sons of Lycopeus; the encounter took place not quite halfway along the road to Haieis; also present were Eucritus and Amyntas, and so on); in Idyll 6 they have been filtered out (it happened some time, (jiox', 2) at some spring (?uri xg?vav xiv', 3). Both songs and prizes are carefully paired in Idyll 6; the songs in Idyll 7 are of roughly equal length (38 and 32 lines respectively), but neither responsive nor parallel nor precisely contrasted in theme, and furthermore only one bit of property is ex changed. That is, the structural formula for Idyll 7, as for Idyll 1 (see below), is symmetry without rigidity; in Idyll 6, on the other hand, a self-assertive form draws attention away from the narrative and towards the shaping, filtering narrator. Idyll 26, however, shows that providing a named addressee is not Theocritus' only strategy for revealing the effect of a narrator on his story. The narrator of Idyll 26 seems, at first, to be just as mysteriously well-informed about his topic as was the narrator of Idyll 18, until near 46 See Effe (above, note 40, pp. 59-60 n. 4), for sound arguments against the equation of Theocritus and Simichidas. Berger (above, note 39, pp. 15-33) is useful on the inadequacies of Simichidas. 47 Contrast Idylls 11 and 13. Gow (above, note 22, pp. 118-119) and Dover (above, note 24, pp. 141-142) both discuss the possibility of a reference to the author of the Phaenomena here, and both are inclined against it (Gow more strongly so than Dover). 116 C. Damon the end of the poem he makes a surprise appearance, disclaiming any personal sympathy for the victim of Dionysus. Yet Theocritus' Pentheus is a much less objectionable figure than Euripides', and Semele's sis ters are portrayed as pious celebrants rather than as themselves victims of the god (cf. Eur. Bacch. 26-33)48. The narrator o? Idyll 26 is aware that some member of his (otherwise uncharacterized) audience will find his tale shocking (epyov ?^x BJtt[X?)[xax?v, 37-38); he, however, pre fers to keep his pious blinkers in place. He is, in other words, a narra tor whose point of view the reader may wish (or need) to reject49. Here again there is an un-Homeric gap between narrative and narrator, a gap that prevents the reader from acquiescing in the authority of the narra tor, a gap that reveals the author behind the narrator50. Idyll 24 shares the form of Idyll 26 (a narrative followed by a passage which reveals the narrator's purpose in telling the tale)51, the irony of Idyll 18 (Theocritus' Heracliscus is very different from the hero he would become), and the interest in retelling a tale already told which is so prominent in Idylls 13 and 22. The text which Theocritus takes as his starting point in Idyll 24, however, is a lyric poem (Pindar, Nem. 1), a poem in which the poet's voice is prominent (31-33), the addressee historical (Chromius) and the purpose of the poem generically defined (encomium), whereas the texts underlying Idylls 13 and 22 are epic (Apoll. Arg. 1, 1207-1357; 2, 1-97)52. This means that in Idyll 24 a 48 If Agave is pious, line 32 (e?oe?ecov jrai?eooi x? Xana, ouaae?earv ?' o?3) becomes problematic. 49 In a recent study of the poem (Theocritus, Idyll 26', Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc. 38, 1992, 1-38), F. Cairns suggests that the speaking "voice" of the poem is that of a chorus of 9-to-10-year old boys, and that the poem was written for a musical contest associated with a Dionysiac festival in Thebes, the Agrionia. This analysis is, as Cairns himself admits, speculative, but whether he is right in so describing it or not, the basic relationship between the narrative voice and the tale it tells remains as I have tried to suggest. 50 For a fuller discussion, see Hutchinson (above, note 12) pp. 161-162. 51 In Idyll 26, to demonstrate his piety, in Idyll 24, to request Heracles' favor in a contest (perhaps - the fragmentary state of lines 141-172 makes it difficult to be certain about the nature of the ending). 52 This is the model for the first myth treated in the poem. The relationship between the story of Castor and the Apharidae (22, 137-211) and its models is no longer ascertainable in detail (Gow, above, note 22, pp. 383-385). This is not the place for a full accounting of the bibliography on the question of priority. The most recent discussion, with bibliography, is B. Effe, 'Die Hylas-Gedichte bei Theokrit und Apollonios Rhodios: Bemerkungen zur Priorit?tsfrage', Hermes 120, 1992, 299-309. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 117 gap has been interposed between the two outermost layers of com munication (author-reader; narrator-narratee), while in Idylls 13 and 22 the process is rather different: the stories of Hylas and the Dioscuri are newly shaped, both by the purpose for which they are told and by the narratees to whom they are told. The addressee of Idyll 13, for exam ple, is a man who has suffered in love, and love is the most prominent of Theocritus' additions to the Apollonian story53. Like Idyll 13, Idyll 12 has a speaker and an addressee, but both are now fully particularized and the relation of the tale to its teller emerges in the text of the poem. The speaker imagines that his love for a boy might be the stuff of which songs will be made even 200 genera tions hence (lines 17-19), and that the way his story is told will admit of dialect variations. A narrator from Amyclae will apply a Doric word for "lover" to him, while a Thessalian will use the term ?iXT|? for the be loved boy. And he realizes that the story will become loftier in the telling: while he himself is a rather anxious and effusive fellow, and his lover (one may guess) a bit fickle, the pair of them will figure as men of a new golden age (xQ?oeiot Kakiv av??e?, 16) in the songs to come. Idylls 7, 18, and 26, then, are all narrative poems, but differ in the relationship of narrator to narratee, in the distance between author and narrator (wide in 18 and 26, narrower in 7, perhaps) and in the means by which that distance is revealed (by the named speaker in 7, by irony in 18 and 26). Idylls 6, 11, 12, and 13 might be labeled lyric narratives: their addresses are more fully characterized than are those of the poems in the previous category, which means that there is a gap between reader and addressee parallel to that between narrator and author. The degree to which the addressee is characterized varies, of course ? from a bare name in Idyll 6 to Nicias with all his amorous woes in Idylls 11 and 13, and the beloved boy o? Idyll 12. Idylls 22 and 24 fall somewhere between the categories of plain and lyric narrative. The poems are addressed to divine entities, but any poet telling a story about a god's exploits to a god is more than a little aware of the human audience listening in. Likewise difficult to pigeonhole are Idylls 3 and (as we shall see) 2, which have both narrative and mimetic elements. But there is one feature common to all of these poems: in each one, by 53 Id. 13, 5-15; Jtai?a Jtod v, 65; 66; 71; cf. Arg. 1, 1211-1212; xcoo^evo?, 1263; \WLi\i(b(?V, 1270. For the purpose of Idyll 22, see above and the recent discus sion of the poem by A. Sens, 'Theocritus, Homer, and the Dioscuri: Idyll 22, 137 223', Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. 122, 1992, 335-350. 118 C. Damon one device or another, the author ties the story to the narrator. They are stories told not by Muse-inspired bards, but by narrators who speak for reasons personal to them, reasons that necessarily color the way the tale is told. We have, in effect, a set of explorations of what it means to tell a story in the post-Homeric world. Even in those Idylls which are predominantly mimetic the author's interest in the mechanics of presentation is apparent. Idyll 15 has more characters (11), more places (3), and more events (roughly 11) than any other poem in the collection (though at 149 lines it is not inordinately long). It is the most mimetic Idyll, or rather, it imitates the largest slice of life. The mediation of an author is indicated only by the (in a poem, necessary) presence of meter and artificial diction. Idyll 4, too, is mimetic, but its scope is distinctly limited: one place (? X?opoc, 46), two speakers (Corydon and Battus) and only three events (the encounter [1], the escape and retrieval of the animals [44-49] and the crisis of the thorn [50-54]). The author functions as a filter to a much greater degree than in Idyll 15. In Idyll 14 there are still one place and two speakers, but no real events. Instead, an inset narrative of a love story, into which Aeschinas obtrudes his present, narrating self by means of conversa tional interjections (21, 23, 34). In the carefully delimited landscape of Idyll 10 there are songs instead of a narrative, two of them, equal in length and carefully contrasted in theme. Symmetry of form and con trast of content are hardly characteristic of ordinary conversation; the scene comes to the reader filtered and shaped by an author54. Symmet ry likewise pervades the rustic conversation of Idyll 1 from the first exchange of compliments (1-11) on, though the design is free enough to allow a cup (with its three scenes) to balance a song (divided into three parts by its three refrains). Nor has the filter ceased to work: few events occur in Idyll 1 (none at all between the time the two conversants sit down [21] and the transfer of the cup at the end [149-152]), the goath erd is never individualized with a name, and the geographic setting is never made precise. And the shaping, filtering author has created a character-narrator, Thysis, who shapes his own narrative with an insis tent refrain55. 54 The unusual stichomythia at the beginning o? Idyll 4 probably serves the same purpose, only less obtrusively. 55 The refrain of Thyrsis (the narrator of the embedded story) is particularly noticeable when it interrupts Priapus or Daphnis (characters in the embedded story Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 119 Idyll 2 does not fit neatly into any of the categories outlined so far. Like Idyll 3 it contains within it both narrative and mimetic elements, but the amalgam here is considerably more complex. As in the lyric narratives, the addressees are both named and characterized (akk?, Setaiva, qpaive naXov xiv y?g jtoxae?oo?jiai ?ov%a, ba?\iov, xa X^ov?a d' cEx?xa etc., 10-16), but the presence of the maid Thestylis and the representation of an action in progress are features it shares with the mimetic Idylls. Early in the poem there is an unusual combina tion of form at its most assertive (i.e., a refrain) with busy detail and hectic activity (1-63). The oddity of a narrator who shapes but does not filter is less obtrusive than it might be since the events "narrated" are simultaneous with the time of narrating (to which the refrain refers). The context also helps: the refrain (iDy^, etaie xv xfjvov e\iov Jioxi b(b\ia xov av??a) seems to function as part of the ?y(?yr\ spell being enacted56. After the departure of the maid Thestylis at line 63, howev er, the poem becomes more narrative than mimetic. Addressed now directly to "Lady Moon", the narrative switches to the past tense, while the refrain, still in the present tense, refers to the act of narrating (qpQ?Ce? \isv x?v egcoft' ?Oev ?xexo, Jt?xva SeX?va, 69, etc.). By this means the character-narrator keeps her present wretched self to the fore when describing the earlier progress of her love. At the climax of the tale, the format changes again: the refrain is dropped altogether and the narrator moves rapidly from past ( ? ? (x?v e?jiev, 138) to present (oajxeQOV, 147) to future (oia , 164). With line 164, "I will manage my desire as I undertook to do", Simaetha returns us to the beginning of the poem where she announces her intention of seeking out her lover at his wrestling school: $aozv\iai Jtoxi x?v Tiiiayrixoio JtaXmoxQav auQiov, ?>? viv toco, xai |ji?jn|)0(xai ota \iz Jtoie? (8-9)57. Past, present and fu speaking in oratio recta) in mid-sentence (84) or mid-speech (89, 104, 108, 111, 114, 119, 122, 127, 131). Homeric character-narrators, by contrast, refrain from introduc ing their present, narrating selves into the tales they tell. 56 'Ay(oyr\ spells regularly include the command "bring". See, e.g., PGM IV 1412, 1457, 1510, 1590; VII 305, 471, 985; XXXVI 364. 57 H. Hommel ('Bemerkungen zu Theokrits PharmakeutriaV, Wien. Stud. 69, 1956, 187-202= Effe [above, note 40] pp. 89-104. The latter is cited) is right to challenge translations of v Jt?oxav which involve the idea of past endurance ("ut hucus que toleravi" [Fritsche], "as till now I have endured it" [Gow], p. 97). His argument that her "undertaking" refers to "das Gesetz... nach dem nicht ohne ihr eignes Zutun ihre Liebe angetreten war und dessen Konsequenzen sie zu tragen hat, gleich als h?tte sie damit ein Versprechen abgegeben" (p. 97) seems farfetched, however. 120 C. Damon ture, event and story are presented more seamlessly in this than in any other Idyll58. Which is not to say, of course, that no readerly interpreta tion is called for. Indeed, an act of interpretation is built into the poem in the figure of Thestylis, who, though less vocal than any other charac ter in the mimetic Idylls (she says nothing), has her say nonetheless: Thestylis seems to find her mistress's amorous plight more amusing than tragic (Em%aQ\ia, 20), and she shows it by her less-than wholehearted cooperation (19). One might say that she gives the first reading of the scene depicted in the Idyll. The rapid survey of the preceding paragraphs provides an over view of the variety of mimetic and narrative formats found in the Idylls. But a comparison of Idylls 5 and 6 suggests that variety is not all that Theocritus achieves. Idyll 5 is mimetic, rather than narrative, and like the mimetic Idylls 15 and 4 it presents unclassical subjects in a welter of detail. Like the beginnings of Idylls 2 and 4, however, it shows this detail of character and event constrained by form, not only in the strict ly amoebaic contest proper, but also in the more loosely amoebaic preliminaries59 and in the larger structure, which (as in Idylls 1 and 7) balances two not quite symmetrical entities, the challenge (which Lacon wins)60 and the contest (which Comatas wins). The ironic author appears here, as in Idyll 3, undercutting his own contest. They are vying, says Lacon, to see which is the better (not best) ?ouxoXiaoxac (67-68)61. Then, the contestants hardly claim to sing62 (though the 58 The story of Simichidas in Idyll 7 is the closest comparandum: he begins with a move from present to past (fj? XQOvo?, 1, i.e., "at some time before now") and ends with a present wish for future bliss (jtaCcuux, 156), but one can't help wondering whether there isn't a significant gap between Simichidas the present narrator and Simichidas the participant in past events. In Idyll 2 there is no room for any such gap. 59 "Loose" in the sense that strictly parallel sets of responses are a times inter rupted by ordinary conversational exchange. G. Serrao ('Uldillio V di Teocrito: realt? campestre e stilizzazione letteraria', Quad. Urb. 19, 1975, 73-109) calls it "il modo diffusamente agonale" (p. 84), which is not quite precise. 60 L. E. Rossi ('Vittoria e sconfitta nell'agone buc?lico letterario', Giorn. it.filol. 23, 1971, 13-24, esp. pp. 18-22) shows the best appreciation of this balance. I cannot understand Ott's contention (above, note 20, p. 23) that Comatas wins these initial rounds. 61 The abilities of Corydon in Idyll 4 are similarly undistinguished: he is only tic HekiTix?? (30). For the superlative, cf. 7, 27-29, 37-38. 62 T. G. Rosenmeyer (The Green Cabinet : Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley 1969, 138) is almost unique in his appreciation of this point. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 121 landscape is still singing, as it was in Idyll 1) : after the initial ?ia e?oo(iat (22) their activity is described in terms of speaking64 or strug gling (arcefoieiv, 22; ?iyeiv, 78; JtoteQto?eiv, 60; ?pio?eiv, 23, 30, 67, 136), not singing65. Lacon's musical contribution is necessarily limited by his lack of an instrument (4)66, and the verdict pronounced by Mor son, a city dweller67 and destroyer of rustic appurtenances (64-65), is no pronouncement of poetic merit, since it is palpably motivated by his desire for a slice of the prize (140)68. Finally, Comatas exults not be cause he is officially the better ?ouxoXiaotac, but because he can laugh at Lacon and has a lamb to his credit. The animals, so sympathe tic to their herdsmen's delight in Idylls 1 (151-152) and 6 (45) have to be told to snort (5, 141) and shown how to frolic (144). A prominent feature of Idyll 5 is the inability of the two herdsmen to agree on a shared locus for their contest, despite repeated efforts by the animals to bring the two together (lines 1-4, 100-103, cf. 6, 45). After 29 lines of wrangling Lacon calls a halt: aurore \ioi Jtox?Qio?e xai auT?fre ?ouxoXia?oeu (60). Idyll 6 begins with two herdsmen com ing together el? ?va x<*>qov (6, 1). These herdsmen are of the same age 63 As the equivalence of 5, 101 and 1, 12 makes clear. More singing: HataXei?etai (5, 33) X?kevvxi (34), Xdkayzvvxi (48), xaX?v ?ou?ewa (46, cf. the uncomplimentary oqp?? ?ou?ecov t?rayo? evavt?ov, 29, of human sounds). 64 'Aofi (31) is strictly provisional and in accord with the "prettyness" of the locus amoenus with which Lacon tries to persuade Comatas. Bovxo?,iao?eadai and ?ovxoXiaoxac in themselves do not specify bucolic song. According to Dover (above, note 24, p. lv) the verb was modeled, likely by Theocritus, on verbs of utterance, and his examples include verbs of both speech and song. In Idylls 1 and 7 the adjective ?ouxoXixoc modifies a term providing the song element (1, 20, uotoa?; 1, 64 and 7, 49 ?oi???). 65 Other Idylls are full of song vocabulary: 1, 19, 23, 24, 61, 64 (etc.), 145, 148; 3, 38, 52; 6, 4, 20; 7, 49, 72, 78; 10, 22, 50; 11, 18, 81. Comparably unmusical terms are found only at 4, 32 alveoo and, surprisingly, 7, 128, where x?oo9 ecp?u-av introduces Simichidas' song. 66 Comatas' loss of a vaxo? (2) is less obviously relevant to the quality of the contest, but it should be noted that it is Lycidas' goat-skin apparel, among other things, that makes him so exceedingly "like a goatherd" (7, 15-16). 67 The cowherd suggested by Lacon is rejected by Comatas (62-63). 68 J. Van Sickle (The Unity of the Eclogues: Arcadian Forest, Theocritean Trees', Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. 98, 1967, 491-508) questions the palatability of "tough he-goat" (p. 498). See also C. P. Segal, 'Thematic Coherence and Levels of Style in Theocritus' Bucolic Idylls9, Wien. Stud. 11, 1977, 35-68 (= Segal, Poetry and Myth [above, note 20] pp. 176-209. The former is cited) pp. 51-52. 122 C. Damon and occupation, those in Idyll 5 differ in both respects. The more amic able atmosphere of Idyll 6 in enhanced by the relegation of the initiat ing challenge and the proposal of stakes (to which so many acrimonious lines are devoted in Idyll 5) to the background of the narrative frame: that Daphnis did issue a challenge may be inferred from the imperfect ?pio?ev (5), that stakes were made is only revealed after they have been exchanged with mutual goodwill and a kiss. The purpose of the contest and the criteria for victory are simply omitted. No judge is present to play favorites. The competition pieces, too, are very different. First of all, they are songs (?tei?ov, 6, 4), not dialogue. Then, neither sings in propria persona69: Daphnis assumes the mask of a friend of Polyphe mus, Damoetas adopts the persona which Daphnis recommends to him (by his choice) and speaks as the Cyclops7 . Daphnis' character demon strates friendly concern and advice, Polyphemus makes a response, not a rival statement. There is no verbal mockery or one-upmanship, no deliberately disconcerting changes of subject (these being the techni ques used by Lacon and Comatas in their contest)71. The reader is insulated from such heat as any contest must generate by the frame (neutral, or perhaps even amicable72, in tone) which surrounds it. The contrast of Idylls 5 and 6 is one of mode: mimetic and narrative modes, the building blocks, as we have seen, of Homeric epic, are here ex amined in discrete units. Our survey, then finds in the collection no two poems with the same formal constituents73. In the narrative poems, we see Theocritus experimenting with the components of the author-narrator-story fabric; in the mimetic Idylls, Theocritus interposes different kinds of authorial filters between a scene and the verbal representation of the scene. The same taste for experimentation is perceptible in all of the poems ? there is no division between pastoral and non-pastoral Idylls in this area, at 69 P. Wulfing-Martitz ('Zum Wettgesang der Hirten in der Siebenten Ekloge Ver gil', Hermes 98, 1970, 380-382) discusses the effect of first-person references on the tone of Vergil's argumentative amoebaic eclogue (7). 70 Rather than going off on another tack, as, e.g., Simichidas does in Idyll 7. 71 Ott (above, note 20), pp. 21-23. 72 Idyll 11, the other Polyphemus poem, is addressed with goodwill to a friend in need. 73 I have omitted Idylls 16 and 17 from the account, since I find it difficult to postulate any gap between speaker and author in poems which are, it seems to me, designed to produce a material effect that will be felt by the author. Narrative and Mimesis in the Idylls of Theocritus 123 least74. It is not coincidental that I have so often used one Idyll to make a point about another; it seems to me that the poems constitute a set of studies on (among other things) the processes of writing and reading. The multi-voicedness of the Theocritean corpus has received much attention of late75, and has been variously explained. For Gol dhill, it marks an evasion of responsibility, a declaration of the fact that the poet had no legitimate voice any longer76. Hutchinson, on the other hand, sees in what Theocritus produces a set of "piquant and delect able combinations"77. I would argue for a bolder Theocritus than Gol dhill's and a more purposeful one than Hutchinson's; if Callimachus' boast was "I sing nothing unattested", Theocritus' was, I submit, "I make the witnesses sing". I hope I have shown that he is as interested in the role of the jury, in the act of interpretation, as in the testimony itself. Harvard University 74 On an early collection (late 2nd century A.D.) of Theocritea which contained both pastoral and non-pastoral Idylls, see A. W. Bulloch, 'An Early Theocritus Book (POxy. 2064+3548): Placing Fragments', Class. Quart. 37, 1987, 505-512. 75 Cf. Berger (above, note 39, p. 15): "The zero-degree impersonator's relation to his speaker and this speaker's relation to his material may easily become the main objects of the reader's attention". 76 S. Goldhill, 'Framing, Polyphony and Desire: Readings in Hellenistic Poetry', Proc. Cambridge Philol. Soc. 212, 1986, 25-52, esp. 29-31. 77 Hutchinson (above, note 12) p. 190.