1. Cf. Effe, B., ‘Die Destruktion der Tradition: Theokrits mythologische Gedichte’, RhM 121 (1978) 48–77.
2. Nagy, G., ‘Mythological exemplum in Homer’, in Hexter, R. and Selden, D. (edd.), Innovations of antiquity (1992) 326 points to the ‘mentality of the unchanging’ as a requirement of paradigms.
3. The quotations in inverted commas are from Goldhill, S., ‘The failure of exemplarity’, in De Jong, I. J. F. and Sullivan, J. P. (edd.), Modern critical theory and classical literature (1994) 51–73, an especially important work for the theoretical concerns of my paper; this article does not, however, consider Hellenistic poetry, and the early versions of my paper were written before it appeared.
5. PCG IV, pp. 192–200 K.-A.
6. On the comic adaptation of the theme in these plays, cf. above all Mewaldt, J., ‘Antike Polyphemgedichte’, AAWW 83 (1946) 271–7. A new study of the comic exploitation of the Cyclops is being prepared by G. Mastromarco.
7. Cf. Holland, G. R., ‘De Polyphemo et Galatea’, LSKPh 7 (1884) 185 and 209.
8. PCG II, pp. 381–3; VII, pp. 41–3; II pp. 44–6 K.-A., respectively.
9. In a similar form the maxim itself is attested also in Eur. fr. 663 N.2, but its association with the Cyclops is to be found only in Philoxenus and Theocritus (and Callimachus, probably in relation with Theocritus: below n. 14); hence it is a plausible hypothesis, though only ex silentio, that Middle Comedy did not make use of the paradigmatic value of the Cyclops' song.
10. Cf. Holland (n. 7) 192–200, which perhaps is still the most thoughtful attempt to reconstruct the contents of Philoxenus' dithyramb; cf. also Sutton, D. Ferrin, ‘Dithyramb as Δϱᾶμα: Philoxenus of Cythera's Cyclops or Galatea’, QUCC 42 (1983) 37–43.
11. For this double focusing in Idyll 11, cf. above all Ott, U., Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten (1969) 194–8, and Hopkinson, N., A Hellenistic anthology (1988) 150–4.
12. Deuse, W., ‘Dichtung als Heilmittel gegen die Liebe: zum 11. Idyll Theokrits’, in Steinmetz, P. (ed.), Beiträge zur hellenistischen Literatur und ihrer Rezeption in Rom (1990) 59–76 is the latest important paper on this subject (cf. also Cozzoli, A.-T., QUCC 77 (1994) 95–110). A detailed survey of the question is to be found in Goldhill, S., The poet's voice: essays on poetics and Greek literature (1991) 250–5.
13. Goldhill (n. 12) 250–9; cf. also Griffiths, F. T., ‘Poetry as pharmakon in Theocritus Idyll 2’, in Arktouros: Hellenic studies presented to B. M. W. Knox (1979) 81–2.
14. Cf. Pasquali, G., ‘Epigrammi callimachei’ (1919), now in id., Scritti filologici (1986) I, 314–16; Gow, and Page, , HE II, 157. ἐπωιδή and φάϱμαϰον are metonymic synonyms dealing with the pains of love in Eur., Hipp. 478–9 (a reference I owe to E. Magnelli); in Eur., Alc. 966ff. φάϱμαϰον means the actual text of the spell.
15. On the medical-magical spells, Lanata, G., Medicina magica e religione popolare in Grecia (1967) and Furley, W. D., ‘Besprechung und Behandlung: zur Form und Funktion von ΕΠΩΙΔΑΙ in der griech. Zaubermedizin’, in Philanthropia kai eusebeia: Festschrift für A. Dihle (1993) 80–104.
16. Cf. for instance Eur., Hipp. 478ff. (n. 14 above), Longus 2.7.7 ‘there is no medicine for love, neither to be eaten nor to be drunk, nor any charm to be sung (), but only kisses and a fond embrace’, and Ovid, , Rent. 259–60.
17. Heim, R., ‘Incantamenta magica Graeca et Latina’, JCPh Suppl. 19(1893), 514–20 provides a collection of instances.
18. Marc. Emp. 8.58 Helmr.
19. Alex. Trall. II, p. 581 Puschm.
21. Gorg., Vorsokr. 82 B 11.10 D.-K. attests that the ancients believed that an ἐπωιδή might be ἀπαγωγός of one thing, and ἐπαγωδός of something else.
22. And in Idyll 11 as well?: the relative chronology of Idylls 6 and 11 appears to be insoluble, see below n. 28.
23. Modern scholars disagree and both interpretations have their supporters. The ‘ironic’ interpretation began with the ancient scholia, whose misogynistic moralism is noteworthy (cf. ad 17a ). It has been followed by Legrand, Ph.-E., Étude sur Théocrite (1898) 174; Dörrie, H., Die schöne Galatea (1968) 28; Ott (n. 11) 77–8, and Lawall, G., Theocritus' Coan pastorals (1967) 70–2. On the contrary, this ironic interpretation is rejected by Gow and Dover in their commentaries, and (cautiously) by Gutzwiller, K., Theocritus' pastoral analogies: the formation of a genre (1991) 126–7 (on line 19 she comments that ‘the texture of the line does not really support or suggest irony’).
24. The preparations for a sumptuous banquet in the Cyclops of Antiphanes (PCG II, 130–1 K.-A.) might refer to an imminent wedding feast of Polyphemus and Galatea (cf. Wüst, E., RE XVII (1937) 1956; Dörrie (n. 23) 18–19, but these seem more likely to be dreams and wishful thinking on the part of the Cyclops: cf. Nesselrath, H.-G., Die attische mittlere Komödie (1990) 273 and n. 87. In Holland's (n. 7) opinion (p. 201) Galatea eventually yielded to the Cyclops' love in the final part of Philoxenus' play, but this hypothesis lacks strong support.
25. Both literary, cf. Propertius 3.2.7–8, and iconographic, cf. Dörrie (n. 23) 44–5 and Subias, S. Montón, LIMC, V. 1, 1000–5.
26. Above all on the ground of Appian, Ill. 2.3 (the three sons of Polyphemus and Galatea as eponyms of Celts, Illyrians and Galatians).
28. It is impossible to ascertain whether Idyll 11 was written before Idyll 6 or not, because in general terms the humour of the paradoxical reversal enacted in Idyll 6 might simply have presupposed the treatment of the Cyclops in love by Philoxenus and by the comic poets. Nevertheless a few correspondences in motifs and expressions – which are stressed, perhaps a bit too much, by Ott (n. 11) 72–3 – seem to make the first hypothesis more plausible.
29. After explaining his strategy about Galatea, the Cyclops looks at his reflection in the sea, and sees himself as handsome: fair the beard, fair ‘my one eye’ (line 36), white the teeth. Perhaps just seeing his one eye, menacingly threatened by the prophecy of Telemus, leads the Cyclops to the formal apotropaic gesture of lines 39–40 ‘to cheat the evil eye, thrice I spat into my bosom as the hag Cotyttaris taught me’ (cf. Eur., Hec. 1275–6, and Gershenson, D. E., ‘Averting Βασϰανίρ in Theocritus: a compliment’, CSCA 2 (1969) 145–55), with which Dametas' song is concluded, as well as the averting of Telemus' prophecy which had introduced it.
30. Or, better, a peculiarly irreverent extortion by menacing, which has nothing of the piety we would expect to find in a prayer.
31. Most scholars believe that this extreme vagueness was intended to produce a mysterious atmosphere; in my opinion, for his new genre, whose material has hardly any thing to do with divine-heroic themes, Theocritus happily left to the complicity of his learned readers the details of almost the only ‘bucolic’ myth which, though being popular in its origins (cf, most recently, Pretagostini, R., Aevum (ant.) 5 (1993) 76), had already become a theme of high literature. Indeed, Daphnis appears to have been cited by Stesichorus, cf. PMGF 279–80 D. (on the weakness of the arguments against Stesichorean authorship cf. Lehnus, L., SCO 24 (1975) 191–6, and Vox, O., Belfagor 41 (1986) 311–17). Between the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 3rd cent. Daphnis was mentioned by Timaeus (FGrH 566 F 83), by Hermesianax, (CA p. 96, frr. 2 and 3 P.), and by Aetolus, Alexander (CA p. 128, fr. 15), while Sositheus even wrote a satyr-play about him, TGF 99 F la–3 S.
32. Gutzwiller (n. 23) 99.
33. The wit of lines 105–7 is explained by a passage of the Quaest. nat. by Plutarch, where the question is faced: cur apes citius pungunt qui stuprum dudum fecerunt? (V, p. 399 Bernardakis): cf. Gow ad loc.
34. The story was already in Horn. Il. 5.330–54.
35. Cf. for instance Lanza, D., ‘Redondances de mythes dans la tragédie’, in Calame, C. (ed.), Métamorphoses du mythe en Grèce antique (1988) 141–9.
36. , ‘bearing in my bosom apples of Dionysus’. A surface interpretation of this line as simply referring to Dionysos' protection of the apple (he was considered to have been the protos heuretes of it: cf. Neopt. Par. fr. 1 P., CA p. 27) is certainly possible, all the more so by virtue of the parallelism with the following line 121 ‘and on my brows the white poplar, the holy plant of Heracles’ (this interpretation was actually proposed by Athen. 3.82d). But surely the fashionable version by Philitas-Callimachus-Diodorus will have led many readers to think of the apples of Hippomenes as well (such an interpretation is attested by two different scholl. ad loc): ‘apples of Hippomenes’, namely a deceitful token of love, would be especially suitable to the psychology of Simaetha, as she recalls the ‘I would have done’ speech by deceitful Delphis.
37. seems to be idiomatic for ‘making an offer of love’ in Th. 5.88 (cf. Σ), but the erotic symbolism of the apple is elsewhere widespread in classical texts, cf. Foster, B. O., HSPh 10 (1899) 39–55, and Littlewood, A. R., HSph 72 (1967) 147–81.
38. It is possible, but hazardous to guess from Philitas' silence about any race between them, and from Σ Th. 2.120b (p. 290.3–4 W.), that in Philitas' version Hippomenes won the love of Atalanta by simply presenting the apples: cf. Kuchenmüller, W., Philetae Coi reliquiae, diss. Berlin (1928) 73–4.
39. Verdenius, W. J., ‘Ἀλφεσίβοια’, Hermeneus 39 (1957) 4–7.
40. After all, even the genealogical association of Alphesiboea alone with Pero seems to have been un-traditional, and the ancient authors who narrate the progeny of Pero either (i) quote Talaus, the father of Adrastus and so the most pre-eminent and well-known character of that progeny (Hes. fr. 37.8 M.-W.; [Apollod.] 1.9.13; Σ Pind. Nem. 9.30b), or (ii) quote two partially different triads: Talaus, Areius, Laodocus (Apoll. Rh. 1.118–9), or Perialces, Aretus/Areius, Alphesiboea/Alcesiboea (Pherecyd., FGrH 3 F 33).
41. It appears to be incorrect to distinguish an Arcadian Atalanta (the hunter) from a Boeotian one (Atalanta of the race); the distinction was probably a late one: cf. Irving, P. M. C. Forbes, Metamorphosis in Greek myths (1990) 74–5 n. 44.
43. As is rightly noted by Gutzwiller (n. 23) 35. In a version mentioned by Plin. NH 25.47, Melampus resorted to a pastoral potion of goat-milk and hellebore in order to cure the Argive women; hence Gutzwiller 217 n. 51 remarks that ‘according to Verg. Ecl. 6.48–51, the Proetides thought they were cows, so that Melampus’ cure is simply a herdsman's cure applied to these deluded girls’.
44. Hellan., FGrH 4 F 135; Diod. Sic. 5.49.4, 5.77.1.
45. Cf. Piccaluga, G., ‘Adonis, i cacciatori falliti e l'avvento dell'agricoltura’, in Il mito greco: Atti del Convegno di Urbino, 7–12 maggio 1973 (1977) 42–5.
46. Cf. Segal, C., ‘Adonis and Aphrodite’ (1969), now in id., Poetry and myth in ancient pastoral (1981) 70–2.
47. It is significant that the poet of Idyll 20 makes his cowherd stress the pastoral character of all the items he lists in a similar series of exempla of beloved pastoral characters (lines 33–43); this list lacks all the implicit ambiguity of the Theocritean paradigms. This is an excellent example of the loss of the Theocritean ‘distanzierte Ironie’ (B. Effe), which ultimately led to idealising bucolic mannerism.
48. Cf. Forbes Irving (n. 41) 75.
49. Myth. Vat. 1.39; Serv. ad Verg. Aen. 3.113; Hygin., Fab. 185. In the Ovidian version (Met. 10.703–4) Atalanta and Hippomenes are metamorphosed into lions, and yoked to Cybele's cart (cf. also Myth. Vat. 2.46–7). In Nonnus (12.88–9), who may have borrowed from an ancient version (cf. Forbes Irving (n. 41) 202), only Atlanta is metamorphosed into a lioness by Artemis.
50. Cf. Pherecyd., FGrH 3 F 33; Paus. 4.36.3; [Apollod.] 1.9.12; Σ Od. 11.287 and 290 (and Eustath. 1685, 6–13) and Σ Th. 3.43–45a, b, c.
51. Van Leeuwen, J., Homeri carmina. Odyssea (1917) 308 maintained that Od. 11.291–6 implies an ancient version of the myth, where ‘sibi ipsi potius Melampus armentis … emeret puellam amatam’, and this opinion is now substantially shared by Gantz, T., Early Greek myth (1993) 185–6. Also for the second, Argive part of Melampus' story a version probably existed, in which Melampus acted for his own selfish interest, while the mythological koine, from Hesiod onwards, gave Bias a share in the fruit of his skills. According to Hes. fr. 37.10ff. and most other sources, after the Thessalian deed of Melampus, both Bias and Melampus left Pylos and settled in Argos; there, once again through his magico-therapeutic skills, Melampus managed to free the daughers of king Proitus (or the women of Argos) from the madness provoked by Dionysos (or by Hera); as reward, both Melampus and Bias received one-third of the kingdom. Conversely, both Horn. Od. 15.238–41 and Pherecyd., FGrH 3 F 114 are silent about Bias' having moved from Pylos and settled in Argos, and they represent Melampus as accomplishing his Argive deed for his own sake and profit (he alone finally shares the kingdom).
53. The Homeric scholia carefully integrate both Odyssean passages into a detailed telling of the standard version, but the reading of Homer by a Hellenistic author might be quite different from the approach of the scholiasts, who were practically compelled to read Homer through the filter of a well-settled mythological encyclopaedia.
54. Here again the scholia took care to exploit their knowledge, and to overinterpret: , in the spirit of the koine version.
55. According to H. E. Butler, in the first edition of his commentary to Propertius (1905, p. 177) only a single version existed of the myth, and Propertius simply added to it a fresh nuance of his own (‘he implies that though Melampus worked unselfishly for his brother's sake, it was love for Pero that sustained him through all his hardships’); in this first ed. Butler added: ‘it is possible, however, that a form of the legend existed which made Melampus himself a suitor for her hand’. In the second edition, by Butler and E. A. Barber (1933, p. 198), the possible alternative hinted at in the 1905 edition became the principal interpretation. This last alternative version is also favoured by M. Rothstein, P. J. Enk, L. Richardson (cf. also Schwartz, J., Pseudo-Hesiodeia (1960) 601). Camps, W. A. (Propertius. Elegies book II (1967) 84) wavers between the hypothesis of the alternative version and a further explanation: Propertius did not mention Bias, because he was ‘content for his illustration with the fact that Melampus was a uates and humiliated for a loved woman, slurring over the fact that the woman's lover was not himself.’
56. Propertius would thus be the first witness, after Theocritus, to a peculiar Theocritean interpretation of a myth, just as he is the first author known to us who treated (following Theocritus' Idyll 6?) the story of the Cyclops requited by Galatea (above, n. 25).
57. In my opinion Propertius too retains some ambiguity of this kind in the expression Amythaonia … domo (both Melampus and Bias were Amythaonii) and this ambiguity, even when solved, ironically increases the bitterness of the affairs by hinting at their being internal family affairs (he who won the spoils and he who enjoyed them were brothers).
58. Atallah, W., Adonis dans la littérature etl'art grecs (1966) 53–6 and 72–3.
59. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972) I, 197–8.
60. 4356–9 G.-P.: in a humorous ἀϱά, the sleep of Endymion is the unpleasant fate which Meleager wishes upon whomever the loved Heliodora favours. An epigram by Philodemus (AP 5.123) recalls the passion of Selene for Endymion without any grim implications, but the point of view of Selene was obviously much safer than Endymion's!
61. Cf. Hes. fr. 177.10–12 M.-W. (as it is usually restored, cf. Th. 969–71); Hellan, . FGrH 4 F 23 and Conon, , FGrH 26 F 1.21 (Iasion makes love to a phantom or a statue of Demeter); Dion. Hal. AR 1.61; Strabo vii fr. 49 Baladié; [Apollod.] 3.12.1 (Iasion had tried to rape Demeter); besides Simon, E., LIMC V. I, 627.
62. The identification of the two figures is first attested by Hellan, . FGrH 4 F 23; cf. Hemberg, B., Die Kabiren (1950) 105.
63. Cf. Diod. Sic. 5.48.4 and Clem. Alex. Protr. 2.13.3. A sculpture in the northern pediment of the Hieron probably represents the birth of Eetion: cf. Lehmann, P. W., Samothrace III.1: the Hieron (1969) 288–301. The connection of Eetion with the Samothracian cults of the Hellenistic age is proved by an inscription of the beginning of the 1st cent.: the Samothracian boule confers an award on the epic poet Herodes of Priene for a poem about Eetion and Dardanus, Cadmus and Armonia (cf. IPriene 68–9 H. von Gaertr.).
65. Cf. Hemberg (n. 62) 106–7.
66. This possibility was pointed out to me by Prof. A. Henrichs during the discussion of this paper at Harvard.
67. Also Diod. Sic. 5.48.4 bluntly interrupts his reference to the founded by Iasion, because about them ; cf. also Apoll. Rh. 1.919–21.
68. Theocritus (1952 2) II, 75.
69. Cf. Hopkinson, N., Callimachus. Hymn to Demeter (1984) 32–5.
70. Cf. Cole, S. Guettel, Theoi Megaloi: the cult of the Great Gods at Samothrace (1984) for a recent discussion of the evidence. The largest buildings in the Samothracian sanctuary were the Hieron, the Arsinoeion and the Great Propylaia: the Arsinoeion was named after Arsinoe (who is known to have fled to Samothrace to seek asylum in 281 B.C., after the death of Lysimachus) and dedicated by her either while she was still the wife of Lysimachus or as a wife of Ptolemy II (the opposite views are maintained by Guettel Cole 112, n. 177 and Roux, G. and Lehmann, Ph. W., ‘The history of the Rotunda of Arsinoe’, in Samothrace VII: The Rotunda of Arsinoe (1992) 231–3); the Great Propylaia was dedicated by Ptolemy II before the death of Ptolemy Soter and while Arsinoe was still queen of Macedon (cf. Fraser, P. M., Samothrace II.1: the inscriptions on stone (1960) 6 f.).
71. Theocritus at court (1979) 98–104, and Cairns, F., ‘Theocritus, Idyll 26’, PCPS 38 (1992) 1–38.
72. As Fraser (n. 59) I, 586 rightly pointed out about Callimachus.
73. For the similar homage to the Samothracian gods in Apollonius (Arg. 1.915–21), cf. R. Hunter, ‘The divine and human map of the Argonautica’, Syllecta Classica (forthcoming).
74. In chap. 5 of Theocritus and the archaeology of Greek poetry (Cambridge, forthcoming).
75. Here the Nymphs even appropriate the most private seat of the Muses, but elsewhere also they replace the Muses as inspirers of the pastoral singers (cf. Id. 1.12; 5.140 and 149; 7.92). In Id. 16.3 Theocritus had called the Muses ‘gods, singers of gods’, and differentiated them emphatically from his role as a poet for mortals (Hieron II, in that case). In the bucolic poems the Muses keep their traditional role as gods of poetic inspiration only within the refrains of the song about Daphnis in Idyll 1; Daphnis is the archetypal cowherd, and is placed in a mythic environment deliberately remote from any ‘realistic’ and human dimension (see above, p. 20f.). That Daphnis is called ‘he whom the Muses loved, nor did the Nymphs mislike him’ (line 141) is probably a hint at Daphnis' position half-way between a mythic past and a bucolic present.
The relationship between the allusion to these two common myths and the evocation of the Muses was rightly grasped by Barigazzi, A., ‘Il vino di Frasidamo nelle Talisie di Teocrito’, SIFC 41 (1969) 9–10.
76. Cf. Schmidt, J., RE XX (1941) 518–21.
77. , and , CGF 78 and 290–4 K.
78. , PCG III.2, 159–63 K.-A.
79. As Prof. E. W. Handley pointed out to me during the discussion of this paper in the Cambridge Seminar.
80. Cf. Ovid, Fasti 5.391–414; Hygin. Astr. 2.38.1; Plin. NH 25.66 (also Eratosth, . Cat. 40).
81. Wine also provoked the Centaurs' fight with the Lapiths, and the fact that wine brought bad luck to them was proverbially confirmed: after the Homeric (Od. 21.295–6), the first three words became a proverb: cf. Alcae. Mess. AP 11.12 (=24–7 G.-P.); Callim. AP 7.725 (61 Pf., 1235–6 G.-P.); Nicarch. AP 11.1. Ammonius, , Diff. 374 even uses these three words to exemplify the meaning of the term παϱάδειγμα.
82. Theocritus: select poems (1971), p. 165.
83. Cf. Edquist, H., ‘Aspects of Theocritean otium’, Ramus 4 (1975) 101–4.
84. The importance of the interrogative form of the passage to ‘save’ the author was rightly pointed out by Prof. P. E. Easterling during the discussion of this paper in the Cambridge Seminar.
85. Cf. Goldhill (n. 12) chap. 4 (some anticipations in Fabiano, G., ‘Fluctuations in Theocritus' style’, GRBS 12 (1971) 517–37).