Longus: Daphnis and Chloe 0856685631, 9780856685637

Table of contents :
Daphnis and Chloe
LONGUS Daphnis and Chloe
Contents
Preface
Bibliography
Introduction
1) Author and date.
2) Romance and pastoral
Manuscripts
Commentary
BOOKFOUR
Index

Citation preview

A ris & P hillips C lassical T exts

longus

Daphnis and Chloe

with an introduction, translation and notes by

J. R. Morgan

LONGUS Daphnis and Chloe

A ris & P hillips C lassical T exts

LONGUS Daphnis and Chloe Translated with an introduction and commentary by

J. R. Morgan

Aris & Phillips

Aris and Phillips Classical Texts are published by Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford

Introduction, Translation, Commentary O J. R. Morgan 2004 Teubner Greek text C K. G. Saur, Miinchen & Leipzig All rights reserved. No part o f this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying or recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system without permission in writing from the publishers.

ISBN 0 8S668 562 3 cloth ISBN 0 85668 563 1 paper

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record o f this book is available from the British Library.

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................... vii Bibliography ..............................................................................................ix INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................... 1

DAPHNIS AND CHLOE ...................................................................... 21 Book One ............................................................................................ 23 Book Two ............................................................................................. 51 Book Three ........................................................................................... 83 Book Four .......................................................................................... 113 COMMENTARY .................................................................................. 145 Book One ........................................................................................... 150 Book Two ........................................................................................... 176 Book Three .........................................................................................200 Book Four ..........................................................................................223 Index

Printed in Great Britain by Antony Rowe Chippenham

251

Preface There has been a huge revival of interest in the Greek novels over the last thirty years. These hitherto marginalised works o f the post-classical period seem suddenly to have been admitted into the canon o f important literature. However, although the critical literature is proliferating at an alarming rate, the marketplace is still not exactly awash with commentaries on them. But, at the very moment when this lack o f a basic scholarly tool needs to be addressed, the whole concept o f the traditional, philological commentary is being called into question. In some respects, this is not a traditional commentary. I have not entered into complex textual and linguistic questions; instead I have tried to give my reader a taste o f what I think it means to read a Greek novel as a work o f literature. My notes are therefore in large part concerned with matters o f narrative technique and structure, with response, meaning and interpretation, and with cultural context. They are replete with parallels, but not, I hope, gratuitous ones. Intertextuality is an essential theme o f the commentary, and I have tried to give the reader the information needed to locate Longus in relation particularly to the traditions o f the novel and pastoral poetry (with its connections with Hellenistic poetry in general), and to understand what he is doing with those traditions. My own reading o f Daphnis and Chloe (an unfashionably serious one, as it happens) is articulated through the commentary, but I hope that I have at least indicated the possibilities o f other ways to engage with this intriguing text. If I do not convince, I am happy to provoke. The text I have translated is that of the edition by M. D. Reeve in the Teubner series, and 1 am grateful to the publisher for permission to reproduce it. A skeletal and very selective apparatus criticus indicates, without further comment, its departures from what is found in the manuscripts only where these materially affect the meaning of the text, or where there is significant doubt about the true reading. In the translation I have used the editorial symbols < > and [ ] to indicate words respectively added to or subtracted from the transmitted text by the editor. This commentary has been long - too long - in its gestation. I owe debts of gratitude to many, especially to Aris & Phillips for their patience. I must also thank Professor Hugh Mason o f the University o f Toronto for letting me see a typescript of his forthcoming book on Longus and Lesbos. 1 have tried out my ideas on several generations of students at the University o f Wales Swansea, and have been much encouraged by their enthusiasm for Longus. I am particularly grateful to three with whom I read sections o f the novel in Greek for helping me to think clearly about specific points: Nicola Turner, Stephen North and Janine Evans. At various stages

Vlll Bryan Reardon, Christopher Collard and Joan Booth have sustained me with their interest and support. More than anyone, however, I must thank my family, for keeping me in touch with humanity. The pages that follow are dedicated to my parents, little in return for much.

Bibliography Abbreviationsfollow the conventions o f L A nnie Philologique Adams, J. N. (1982) The Latin sexual vocabulary. London. Alpers, K. (1996), “Zwischen Athen, Abdera und Samos. Fragmente eines unbekannten Romans aus der Zeit der Zweiten Sophistik”, in M. Billerbeck, J. Schamp, (edd.), Kainotomia. Die Erneuerung der griechischen Tradition, 19-55. Freiburg. Anderson, G. (1993) The second sophistic. A cultural phenomenon in the Roman empire. London. Amott, W. G. (1994) “Longus, natural history, and realism”, in Tatum 1994,199-215. Beavis, I. C. (1988) Insects and other invertebrates in classical antiquity. Exeter. Bemsdorff, H. (1993) “Longos und Lukian (zu Verae historiae 2,5)” W S106:35-44. Billault, A. (1983) “Le mythe de la syrinx dans Daphnis et Chk>£”, Recherches sur I ’imaginaire 10: 16-26. Billault, A. (1991) La creation romanesque dans la litterature grecque a Vepoque im piriale. Paris. Binder, G. (1977) “Aussetzung”, Enzyklopadie des Marchens, 1.1048-65. Berlin & New York. Birchall, J. (1996) “The lament as a rhetorical feature in the Greek novel”, GCN 7: 1-17. Boas, G. (1933) The happy beast. Baltimore. Bonner, C. (1907) “An interpretation of Longus ii.15”, C P h2:338-40. Borgeaud, P. (1988) The cult o f Pan in ancient Greece. Chicago & London. Basing, L. (1968) “Zur Bedeutung von ‘renasci’ in der Antike”, M H 25:145-78. Boswell, J. (1988) The kindness o f strangers. New York. Bowie, E. L. (1985) “Theocritus* seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus”, CQ 35: 67-91. Bowie, E. L. (1995) “Names and a gem: aspects o f allusion in Heliodorus’ Aethiopka”, in D. Innes, H. Hine, C. Pelling (edd.), Ethics and rhetoric. Oxford. 269-80. Bremmer, J. (1990) “Adolescents, symposium and pederasty”, in O. Murray (ed.), Sympotica. Oxford. 135-48. Bretzigheimer, G. (1988) “Die Komik in Longos* Hirtenroman Daphnis und Chloe”, Gymnasium 95: 515-55. Brioso Sinchez, M. (1977) “Sobre la interpretacMn de simil de Dafnis y Cloe 11,5,3”, Emerita 45:379-85. Buxton, R. (1987) “Wolves and werewolves in Greek thought”, in J. Bremmer, (ed.), Interpretations o f Greek mythology, 60-79. London & Sydney. Caillois, R. (1937) “Les demons de midi”, RHR 115: 142-73; 116: 54-83, 143-86.

Bibliography

Bibliography

Cairns, F. (1972) Generic composition in Greek and Roman poetry. Edinburgh. Cairns, F. (1979) Tibullus, a Hellenistic poet at Rome. Cambridge. Cairns, F. (1984) "Theocritus’ first idyll: the literary programme", fVS 97: 89-113. Calder, W. M. (1983) “Longus 1.2: the she-goat nurse”, CPh 78:50-1. Carson, A. (1986) Eros the bittersweet. Princeton. Casson, L. (1974) Travel in the ancient w orld London. Castiglioai, L. (1906) ‘Osservazioni critiche a Longo sofista, Senofonte Efesio e Caritone 1: per un’ edizione di Longo”, Rev. Fil. 34:293-316. Castiglioni, L. (1928) "Stile e testo del romanzo pastorale di Longo”, RIL 61:203-23. Cave, T. (1988) Recognitions. A study in poetics. Oxford. Chalk, Η. H. O. (1960) “Eros and the Lesbian pastorals of Longos”, JH S 80: 32-51; reprinted in Gartner 1984,388-407. Cichorius, C. (1922) Rdmische Studien. Leipzig. Connor, W. R. (1988) “Seized by the Nymphs: nympholepsy and symbolic expression in classical Greece” C lA n tl: 155-89. Cresci, L (1981) "II romanzo di Longo Sofista e la tradizione bucolica”, Atene e Roma 26: 1-25; translated as “The novel o f Longus the sophist and the pastoral tradition” in Swain 1999,210-42. Daiby, A. (1996) Siren feasts. A history o f food and gastronomy in Greece. London & New York. Dale, A. M. (1952) “κισσυβιον”, C R 2 :129-32. Dahneyda, G. (1932) "Longus et Alciphron”, in M ilanges G. Glotz 1.277-87. Paris. Deligiorgis, S. (1974) “Longus’ art in brief lives”, PhQ 53:1-9. Demiston, J. D. (1934) The Greek particles. Oxford. DOrrie, H. (1936) review o f G. Dalmeyda, Longus. Pastorales. GGA 198:345-50. Du Bois, P. (1988) Sowing the body. Chicago. du Quesnay, I. M le M (1979) “From Polyphemus to Corydon: Virgil, Eclogue 2 and the Idylls o f Theocritus”, in West, D & Woodman, A., (edd.), Creative imitation and L a in literature, 35-69. Cambridge etc. du Quesnay, L M. le M (1981) “Virgil’s first Eclogue”, Papers o f the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3:29-182. Effe, B. (1982) “Longos. Zur Funktionsgeschichte der Bukolik in der rOmischen Kaiserzek” Hermes 110: 65-84; translated as “Longus: towards a history o f bucolic and its function in the Roman empire” in Swain 1999,189-209. EfTe, B. (1987) “Der griechische Liebesroman und die Homoerotik. Ursprung und Entwickhmg einer epischen Gattungskonvention”, Philologus 131:95-108. Eisner, J. (1995) Art and the Roman viewer. Cambridge. Engelmann, R. (1904) “Ein neues Urtheil Salomonis und die Friesbilder der Casa Tiberina”, Hermes 39:146-54. Epstein, S. J. (1995) “Longus’ werewolves”, CPh 90:58-73. Forehand, W. E. (1976) “Symbolic gardens in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe”, Eranos 74:103-12.

FusiUo, M. (1990) “Le conflit des Emotions: un topos du roman grec 6rotique”, MH 47: 201-21; translated as “The conflict o f emotions: a topos in the Greek erotic novel”, in Swain 1999,60-82. FusiUo, M. (1991) Naissance du roman. Paris. First published 1989 as II romanzo greco: polifonia ed Eros. GSitner, H. (1984) Beitrage zum griechischen Liebesroman. Olms Studien 20 Hildesheim. GoldhilL S. (1986) “Framing aid polyphony: readings in HeUenistic poetry”, PCPS 212:25-52. Goldhill, S. (1995) Foucault's virginity. Ancient erotic fiction and the history o f sexuality. Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. (1950) Theocritus. Edited with a translation and commentary. Cambridge. Gow, A. S. F. & Page, D. L. (1968) The Greek anthology: The Garland o f Philip and some contemporary epigrams. Cambridge. Green, P. (1982) “Longus, Antiphon and the topography o f Lesbos”, JH S 102:210-14. Grimal, P. (1957) “Le jardin de Lamon i Lesbos”, RA 49:211-14. Guida, A. (1981) “Nuovi testimoni di Longo e Achille Tazio”, Prometheus 7:1-10. Guida, A. (1985) “More on she-goat nurses”, CPh 80:142. Higg, T. (1971) Narrative technique in ancient Greek romances. Skrifter utgivna av Sven ska Institute! i Athen 8. Stockholm. Hagg, T. (1983) The novel in antiquity. Oxford. Haiperin, D. M. (1983) Before pastoral: Theocritus and the ancient tradition o f bucolic poetry. New Haven & London. Hardie, A. (1997) “Philitas and the plane tree”, Z P E 119:21-36. Harris, W. V. (1989) Ancient literacy. Cambridge, Mass. & London. Herrmann, L. (1981) “Velius Longus auteur de Daphnis et Chloi” Latomus 40: 378-83. Holzberg, N. (1995) The ancient novel An introduction. London & New York. Hubaux, J. (1953) “Le dieu amour chez Properce et chez Longus”, BAB 39:263-70. Hunter, R. L. (1983) A study o f Daphnis and Chloe. Cambridge. Hunter, R. L. (1996) “Longus, Daphnis and Chloe”, in G. Schmeling, (ed.), The novel in the ancientworld, Mnemosyne Suppl.159.361-86. Leiden. Hunter, R. L. (1999) Theocritus. A selection. Cambridge. Imbert, C. (1980) “Stoic logic and Alexandrian poetics”, in M. Schofield, M. Bumyeat, J. Barnes, edd., Doubt and dogmatism: studies in Hellenistic epistemology 182-216. Oxford. Kestner, J. (1973-4) “Ekphrasis as frame in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe", CW 67: 166-71. Kloft, H. (1989) “Imagination und Realit&t. Oberlegungen zur Wirtschaftsstruktur des Romans Daphnis und Chloe", GCN2:45-61. Konstan, D. (1994) Sexual symmetry. Love in the ancient novel and related genres. Princeton.

x

xi

Bibliography

Bibliography

Kuch, H, ed. (1989) Der antike Roman. Untersuehungen zur literarischen Kommunikation und Gattunsgeschichte. Verflffendichungen des Zentralinstituts filr ahe Geschichte und Archttologie der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Band 19. Berlin. Kudlien, F. (1989) “Kindesaussetzung im antiken Roman: ein Thema zwischen Fiktionalitflt und Lebenswirklichkeit”, GCN 2 :25-44. Larson, J. (2001) Greek nymphs. Myth, cub, lore. Oxford. Legrand, P. E. (1907) “κα πυράς”, REG 20:10-17. Leo, F. (1908), “Virgils erste und neunte Ecloge”, Hermes 38: 1-18; reprinted in Leo F. (1960) AusgewdhJte kieine Schriften, ed.E.Fraenkel, 11-28. Rome. Levin, D. N. (1977) “The pivotal role o f Lycaenion in Longus’ Pastorals”, RSC 25: 5-17. Ling, R. (1990) Roman painting. Cambridge. Littlewood, A. R. (1967) “The symbolism of the apple in Greek and Roman literature”, HSCPh 72: 147-81. MacAlister, S. (1996) Dreams and suicides. The Greek novel from antiquity to the Byzantine empire. London & New York. McCail, R. C. (1988) “Did Constantine o f Sicily read Daphnis and Chloe?” Byzantion 58:112-22. McCulloh, W. E. (1970) Longus. New York. MacQueen, B. D. (1985) “Longus and the myth of Chloe”, ICS 10:119-34. MacQueen, B. D. (1990) Myth, rhetoric, and fiction. A reading o f Longus’s “Daphnis and Chloe". Lincoln & London. Maehier, H. (1990) “Symptome der Liebe im Roman und in der griechische Anthologie”, GCN 3:1-12. Maritz, J. (1991) “The role o f music in Daphnis and Chloe", GCN4: 57-67. Mason, H. J. (1979) “Longus and the topography o f Lesbos”, ΤΑΡΑ 109:149-63. Mason, H. J. (1995) “Romance in a limestone landscape”, CP 90:263-66. Merkelbach, R. (1962) Roman und Myster'tum in der Antike. Munich and Berlin. Merkelbach, R. (1988) Die Hirten des Dionysos. Stuttgart Miralles, C. (1973) “Πενία y κήπος. Sobre algunos ideales de vida humana en la antigugdad tardia”, BIEH 7:79-99. Mittelstadt, M. C. (1967) “Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe and Roman narrative painting”, Latomus 26:752-61. Mittelstadt, M. C. (1970) “Bucolic-lyric motifs and dramatic narrative in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe", RhM 113:211-27. Mittelstadt, M. C. (1971) “Love, Eros and poetic art in Longus”, in Eons perennis. Saggi critici di filologia classica raccolti in onore di P rof Vittorio Agostini, 305-32. Turin. MOllendorff, P. von (2000) A u f der Suche nach der verlogenen Wahrheit. Classica Monacensia 21. Tubingen. Morgan J. R. (1992), “Reader and audiences in the Aithiopika of Heliodoros”, GCN 4: 85-103.

Morgan, J. R. (1993) “Make-believe and make believe: the fictionality o f the Greek novels”, in C. Gill, T.P. Wiseman, edd., Lies and fiction in the ancient world, 175-229. Exeter. Morgan, J. R. (1994) “Daphnis and Chloe: Love’s own sweet story” in Morgan and Stoneman 1994,64-79. Morgan, J. R. (1997) “Erotika mathemata: Greek romance as sentimental education”, in Somm erstein, A. H., Atherton, C., edd., Education in Greek fiction. Nottingham Classical Literature Studies 4.163-89. Bari. Morgan, J. R. (1997b) “Longus, Daphnis and Chloe”: a bibliographical survey, 19501995, A N R W 2 3 4 3 :2208-76. Morgan, J. R. (2001) “The prologues of the Greek novels and Apuleius”, in A. Laird and A. Kahane (edd.). The prologue o f Apuleius’ Metamorphoses; a handbook. 152-62. Oxford. Morgan, J. R. and Stoneman, R., edd.(1994) Greek fiction: the Greek novel in context. London & New York. Moritz, L. A. (1958) Grain-mills and flour in classical antiquity. Oxford. Mynors, R. G. (1990) Virgil’s Georgies. Oxford. Nesselrath, H.-G. (1990) Die attische mittlere Komddie. Berlin & New York. Nilsson, Μ. P. (1967) Geschichte der griechischen Religion, 3rd.edn. Munich. Nisbet, R. G. M & Hubbard, M. (1970) A commentary on Horace: Odes Book 1. Oxford. O’Connor, E. M. (1991) “A bird in the bush: the erotic and literary implications o f bucolic and avian imagery in two related episodes o f Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe", RhM 134:393-401. Pandiri, T. A. (1985) “Daphnis and Chloe: the art of pastoral play”, Ramus 14:116-41. Perkins, J. (1995) The suffering self. Pain and narrative representation in the early Christian era. London & New York. Pfeiffer, R. (1968) A history o f classical scholarship from die beginnings to the end o f the Hellenistic age. Oxford. Philippides, M. (1980/81) “ The ’digressive’ aitia in Longus”, CW 74:193-9. Philippides, M. (1983) “The prooemium in Longus’s Lesbiakd', CB 59:32-5. Reardon, B. P., ed. (1989) Collected ancient Greek novels. Berkeley etc. Reed, J. D. (1997) Bion o f Smyrna: the fragments and the Adonis. Cambridge. Reeve, M. D. (1982) Longus. Daphnis et Chloe. Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Leipzig. Reitzenstein, R. (1900) “Die Hochzeitdes Peleus und der Thetis”, Hermes 35:73-105. Rohde, E. (1914) Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaiifer, 3rd.edn. revised by W.Schmid. Leipzig. Rohde, G. (1937) “Longus und die Bukolik”, RhM 86: 23-49; reprinted in GSrtner 1984,361-87. Rosenmeyer, P. A. (1992) The poetics o f imitation. Cambridge. Scarcella, A. M. (1968) La Lesbo di Longo sofista. Rome; reprinted in Scarcella 1993, 285-312.

xii

xiii

xiv

Bibliography

Bibliography

Scarcella, A. M. (1970) “ReaM e letteratura nel paesaggio sociale ed economico del romanzo di Longo Softsta”, Μαία 22:103—31; reprinted in Scarcella (1993) 241-57. Scarcella, A. M. (1993) Romanzo e romanzieri greci. Naples. SchOnbetger, O. (1989) Longos. Hirtengeschichte von Daphnis und Chloe. 4th.edn. Berlin. Schmidt, E. A. (1969) “Hirtenhierarchie in der antiken BukolikT”, PhUologus 113: 183-200. Simon, E. (1962) “Dionysischer Sarkophag in Princeton”, MDA1(R) 69:136-58. Stanzel, K.-H. (1991) “FrQhlmgserwachen auf dem Lande. Zur erotischen Entwicklung im Hirtenroman des Longos”, WJA 17:153-75. Stark, I. (1989) “Religiose Elemente im antiken Roman”, in Kuch 1989:135-49. Stephens, S. A. & Winkler, J. J., edd. (1995) Ancient Greek novels: the fragments. Princeton. Swain, S., ed. (1999) Oxford readings in the Greek novel. Oxford. Tatum, J. ed. (1994), The search fa r the ancient novel. Baltimore & London. Teske, D. (1991) Der Roman des Longos als Werk der Kunst. Orb is Antiquus 32. Mtlnster. Thomas, R. F. (1992) “The old man revisited: memory, reference and genre in Virg.Georg.4,116-48”, MD 29:35-70. Thompson, D’A. W. (1895) A glossary o f Greek birds. Oxford. Thompson, S. (1956) Motif-index o f folk-literature. Copenhagen. Toohey, P. (1992) “Love, lovesickness, and melancholia”, ICS 17:265-86. Toynbee, J. M. C. (1971) Death and burial in the Roman world. London. TQtnpel, K. (1889) “Lesbiaka”, Philologus 48:99-130. Turner, P. (1960) “Daphnis and Chloe: an interpretation”, G&R 7:117-23. Van Groningen, B. A. (1958) “Quelques probtemes de la pofeie bucolique grecque”, Mnemosyne 11:293-317. Van Thiel, H. (1961) “Ober die TextOberlieferung des Longus”, ΛΑΑΠ04:356-62. Verpoorten, J.-M. (1962) “La stibas ou P image de la brousse dans la soci6t6 grecque”, R H R 162:147-60. Vieillefond, J.-R. (1982) “Pour i’amour du grec... Xenophon, Longus, Lucien et autres auteurs grecs dans 1’oeuvre de Paul-Lou is Courier”, Cahiers Paul-Louis Courier 2.7-8. Vieillefond, J.-R. (1987) Longus. Pastorales. Collection des university de France. Paris. Virgilio, R. di (1991) “La narrativa greca d ’amore: Dafhi e Cloe di Longo” Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 386 (1989). Memorie: classe de scienzi morali, storiche, e filologiche, serie 8, vol.32, fasc.4, 301-44. Rome. Wagenvoort, H. (1956) “Rebirth in antique profane literature”, in Studies in Roman literature, culture and religion, 132-49. Leiden. Wallace, P. W. (1968) “μή with the participle in Longus and Achilles Tatius”, AJPh 89: 321-33.

Wehrli, F. (1965) “Einheit und Vorgeschichte der griech isch-rdm ischen Romanliteratur”, Aff/22:133-54; reprinted in Gartner 1984,161-82. Weidner, H. (1994) “Greek cricket cage”, Cultural Entomology Digest 3 (1994) [http://www. insects.org.ced3/greek_crcages.html]. Weinstock, F. (1934) “De somniorum visionumque in amatoriis Graecorum fabulis vi atque usu”, Eos 35:29-72. West, M. L. (1983) The Orphic poems. Oxford. West, M. L. (1992) Ancient Greek music. Oxford. Wickenhauser, A. (1948) “Doppehrihitne”, Biblica 2 9 :100-11. Williams, F. (1978) Callimachus. Hymn to Apollo. A commentary. Oxford. Winkler, J. J. (1985) Auctor & Actor: a narratological reading o f Apuleius' The Golden Ass. Berkeley. Winkler, J. J. (1990) The constraints o f desire. The anthropology o f sex and gender in ancient Greece. London & New York. Wojaczek, G. (1969) Daphnis. Untersuchungen zur griechischen Bukolik. Beitriige zur klassischen Philologie 34. Meisenheim am Gian. Wouters, A. (1989/90) “The e’ikovec in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe IV 39, 2: Beglaubigungs-apparat?’, SEJG 31:465-79. Wouters, A. (1991) “Longus’ Daphnis en Chlo6. Het prooemhim en de ingelaste verhalen”, HZnMTL 45: 213-42; translated as Wouters, A. (1994) “Daphnis et Chlo6: le prooemium et les histoires ench&ssees, k la lumi£re de la critique r6cente”, LEC 62:131-67. Zeitlin, F. I. (1990) “The poetics o f eras; nature, art and imitation in Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe”, in D. M. Halperin, J. J. Winkler, F. I. Zeitlin, edd., Before sexuality: the construction o f erotic experience in the ancient Greek world, 417-64. Princeton. Zimmermann, B. (1994) “Liebe und poetische Reflexion. Der Hirtenroman des Longos”, Prometheus 20:193-210.

xv

Introduction 1) A uthor and date. One of the two primary manuscripts (V) gives the author’s name as Longos, the other (F) as Logos. The suggestion that a heading such as Λ όγος A (Book 1) was misread as the author’s name, and that V’s version is an attempt to produce a recognisable name from the error, would leave the author anonymous. However, the common Roman name Longus is attested in Lesbos, where the story is set O f particular interest is the family of Pompeii Longi recorded in inscriptions from Mitylene.1 These will be the descendants of Greeks given citizenship by Pompey the Great, possibly related to the historian Theophanes of Mitylene. One o f them bears the name A. Po[mpei]us Longus Dionys[odor]os (IG.XII Suppl.249, probably 1st century B.C.), suggestively close to the name o f Dionysophanes, father of Daphnis and leading citizen o f Mitylene in the novel.2 The family of Theophanes was connected with the cult o f Dionysos; the Lesbian Pompeia Agripinilla appears as priestess o f a Dionysiac circle near Rome in the 2nd century.3 The cult clearly plays some part in the novel; see §3 below. The questions of whether the novel demonstrates any personal acquaintance with the island of Lesbos and whether its action takes place in real geography have been much debated.4 In a forthcoming book, Hugh Mason presents the arguments for a Lesbian connection in the fullest terms yet I find his case broadly convincing. Although some elements of L’s countryside clearly derive from the conventions of literary pastoral, too many details for co-incidence, on matters such as natural features, flora, fauna, climate and political organisation, both reflect the realities of Lesbos and are not to be found either in other pastoral or, in many cases, in factual texts treating of Lesbos. This is not quite to say that Longus’ landscape is a photograph o f the real Lesbos, since he at least combines genuine Lesbian features in an unrealistic way. Nor would 1 follow Mason in his speculation that the novel celebrates the return to Mitylene, in the reign of Antoninus Pius, of the important personage M. Pompeius Macrinus (cos. 115), sometimes referred to as “the new Theophanes”. Nevertheless, the text was apparently written by someone who knew Lesbos at first hand, and it is likely that this personal connection was one reason for the choice of setting. The accumulation of evidence makes it plausible that the author was named Longus. We have no objective external evidence to date the novel or its author. No papyrus fragments have been identified, and there is no known allusion to Daphnis and 1 Cichorius 1922, 323. 2 The name of Dionysophanes may in any case be authentically Mitylenian (4.13.1 n). 3 1G. Urb.Rom. 160; Merkelbach 1962, 193 and 1988, 17 ff. All dates are of the Common Era, unless otherwise specified. 4 Scarcella 1968a; Mason 1979, 1995; Green 1982; Bowie 1985.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Chloe before the 9th century, when a scene was perhaps imitated by Constantine of Sicily.5 The scholarly consensus is to date the work to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, but none o f the arguments adduced is in itself conclusive. O f most interest has been the relationship between Longus and the pastoral epistles o f Alkiphron. There are undoubtedly resemblances, but whether these are the result o f direct imitation and, if so, by whom, is uncertain. Moreover, the dating of Alkiphron depends on exactly the same sort o f putative relationship with the epistles of Aelian. The debate is reviewed by Hunter 1983,6 if. Other arguments derived from the apparent value of the drachma in the novel or the apparent powers o f masters over slaves6 are too slippery to be of much use, since we cannot know whether such details reflect the time of the novel's composition, or are part of a mise en seine in an idealised and chronologically indeterminate past. More recent attempts to produce evidence for dating are no more convincing. There are clearly some affinities between the painting described in the preface and some styles o f Roman narrative wall-painting, but nothing specific enough to connect with any particular period, particularly as the painting is supposed to emanate from a distant fictional past Bemsdorff 1993 finds allusions to Daphnis and Chloe in Lucian’s True Histories, which would provide a date before 180, but the points in question are pastoral commonplaces. The arguments of Herrmann 1981 and di Virgilio 1991, respectively identifying Longus with the Roman scholar Velius Longus (active under Hadrian) and positing ideological links with the emperor Maximinus Thrax (235-238), strike me as altogether fanciful. Mason's speculative connection with “the new Theophanes” produces a date in the 140's. Pending conclusive proof, a date in the second half of the 2nd century is a plausible guess. This was the heyday of the Greek novel. In particular Daphnis and Chloe shares with Achilleus Tatius the opening gambit of a description o f a painting and a reaction against the romantic convention of love-at-first-sight Holzberg 1995, 93 suggests that Longus was imitating Achilleus Tatius, whose novel can be quite precisely dated by its allusions to the revolt of the Egyptian Boukoloi in 172. Whether or not there is direct dependence, the two authors clearly belong at roughly the same stage o f the history o f the genre, when novelists were moving away from simple narrative to a more experimental engagement with the possibilities o f literary fiction. 2) Romance and pastoral Five examples o f the Greek “novel" or “romance” survive in their entirety. In roughly chronological order they are 0 Chariton, Kallirhoe\ ii) Xenophon of Ephesos, Ephesiaka; iii) Achilleus Tatius, Leukippe and Kleitophon\ iv) Longus; v) Heliodoros, Aithiopika. This list is supplemented by two extended summaries o f otherwise lost novels by the 9th-century patriarch Photios (The Wonders beyond Thoule o f Antonius

Diogenes and the Babyloniaka o f Iamblichos), and by numerous papyrus fragments.7 The earliest known novel is the so-called Ninos Romance, an up-market copy of which had become waste-paper by 100; the latest is that of Heliodoros, which I believe dates from the second half of the 4th century, though some scholars put it a century or more earlier. There seems to have been a definite bulge in novel-writing and (to judge by the papyri) novel-reading in the 2nd century. The surviving novels may not be a representative sample o f the genre. Three of them (including Longus) survive only precariously, while the fragments show that fiction covered a wider spectrum of subjects and styles than is to be found in the extant novels. Our sample has been filtered through the sensibilities of Christian Byzantium, whose copyists were responsible for the transmission o f classical literature and whose public clearly preferred tales o f chaste love to sensational and sexually explicit narratives. The surviving texts form a tightly coherent corpus, quite different in form and tone from the comic Latin novels o f Petronius and Apuleius. Canonically, they tell o f a beautiful and aristocratic young couple who fall in love at first sight, are separated, travel the world in search o f one another, until they are reunited and live happily ever after. Their adventures are stereotyped: shipwreck and encounters with pirates and brigands, embroilment in military enterprises, attempts on their fidelity by unwelcome third parties, and various close brushes with death, including the apparent death o f one of the partners. Within the broad schema there is some scope for variation: in Chariton and Xenophon o f Ephesos, for example, the lovers are married before their adventures begin, whereas Achilleus Tatius and Heliodoros reserve the wedding to form the climax of the novel; physical separation is kept to the minimum in Heliodoros and Iamblichos, who experimented with an inner emotional distancing between the lovers. The love o f the protagonists is equal, reciprocal and passionate, and provides a basis for marriage; this is quite different from classical pederastic or matrimonial models o f inequality in sexual relations.8 High value is set on fidelity and chastity, but varies in its emphasis. Xenophon o f Ephesos and Heliodoros maintain foil mutual chastity; Chariton's heroine, for the best of reasons, makes a second, bigamous marriage, while Achilleus’ lovers attempt premarital sex (thwarted by the timely arrival of the heroine’s mother) and his hero later services a lustful widow on a jailhouse floor, before escaping in drag. The novel never entered the mainstream of classical literature. The few references by ancient critics are uniformly negative, suggesting a lingering mistrust o f fiction (easily confused with lies), and some unease with the erotic or sentimental subject matter. The sweet odour of vaguely illicit pleasure hangs around these texts. The number and range of fragments show that, although there once existed more novels than survive, this was never a mass-market literature. Rather, the novels were unofficial reading for the literary elite. There is, however, a marked difference between the two earliest novels (Chariton and Xenophon of Ephesos), and the rest Chariton and

5 6

7 8

2

McCall 1988. DOrrie 1936; Dalmeyda 1932.

The major texts and fragments are translated in Reardon 1989. Konstan 1994.

3

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Xenophon o f Ephesos tell then* story simply and unpretentiously. This is not to say that they are inferior literature, written by or for morons. Chariton at least is an accomplished stylist, posing as a latter-day Xenophon, whose story fills in the pages of history left empty by Thoukydides, and presupposing an intimate knowledge of Homer in his reader. The later novelists, on the other hand, have higher aspirations; they breathe the air of the Second Sophistic, an extraordinary re-florescence o f Greek culture that combined elements o f university, theatre and circus. Their prose is self-consciously artful. Achilleus Tatius fills his story with rhetorical and scholastic discussions of abstruse and titillating topics, and engages in a guerrilla war against the conventions of the genre, which he stretches to the verge o f parody. Heliodoros’ novel is a towering edifice o f extreme narrative complexity and stylistic flamboyance that subsumes most classical literary traditions. Longus’ star shines on the outer rim of this novelistic galaxy. His is the most original and the least bound by generic convention o f all the novels. The vestiges of the canonical plot are discernible, but the elements of travel and adventure have atrophied. The action never leaves Lesbos. Pirates put in a cameo appearance, and briefly abduct Daphnis, but he is rescued in a comic manner before he is out o f swimming-distance from home (128-30). Similarly Chloe is abducted by military invaders, but these are hostilities over a ridiculous incident, rapidly brought to an end (2.13 ff.). The role o f the rival is played by Dorkon (1.15 ff.) and Lykainion (3.15-20), but they are comically downgraded versions o f the stereotype and ultimately have a different function. More importantly Longus jettisons the formula o f love-at-first-sight, which reduces love to a static datum around which a plot can be organised. Daphnis and Chloe’s love develops over time, and this constitutes the plot, replacing the hackneyed adventures; their travel is affective rather than geographical. Longus* version of love is more overtly sexual (and religiously profounder) than that of the other novelists: for much of the book Daphnis and Chloe would willingly lose their virginity but do not know how to, an ignorance which replaces separation as the engine of the plot Eventually Daphnis commits infidelity in a graphic scene o f sexual initiation (3.18 f.). In making these adaptations, Longus expected his reader to be aware of how novels generically ought to be. The humorous impact of the miniaturised adventures depends on knowledge of more canonical versions; the narration of the protagonists* sexual tumblings derives its charge from the knowledge that generic rules require Chloe to retain her virginity, and that the happy ending is thus endangered less by external threats than by the possibility that the lovers will succeed in doing what they want to. Longus in other words exploits the central texts o f the novel tradition as functional intertexts. Among the most significant o f Longus’ innovations is his setting. Daphnis and Chloe does not unfold in the palaces of kings or in the bourgeois world of the city. The action is set in the countryside; hero and heroine are goatherd and shepherdess, although we know from the opening chapters that they are not what they seem and that their true identity is waiting to be discovered. Many details o f their life and environment derive from the literary tradition o f pastoral poetry, whose most famous exponent was

Theokritos, a Syracusan working in Alexandria in the 3rd century BC. His pastoral poetry takes the form o f conversations and songs of fictitious herdsmen, but although shepherds had doubtless sung songs from time immemorial, this literary pastoral is an intensely urban mode, partly focused by nostalgia for a more natural life-style, partly exploiting an imaginary landscape to generate new perspectives on real problems. Theokritos’ poetry is immensely sophisticated and self-aware; it shares the Alexandrian aesthetic of his contemporary Kallimachos. Theokritos was followed in pastoral by other poets of Hellenistic Greece, notably Moschos and Bion, and by various later anonymous writers whose work was included in the Theokritean corpus. This school was imitated by Latin poets, including Virgil. Pastoral motifs and themes are widespread in the literature and visual arts of the Roman Empire. As noted in the commentary, Longus makes frequent verbal allusion to Theokritos, adapting and reworking pastoral motifs to fit a narrative context9 A good example is the transformation o f the amoebean singing-contest into the beauty competition between Daphnis and Dorkon, which is a vital link in the plot (1.15.4 ff.). The debt is acknowledged in the reference to a “Sicilian goatherd” at 2 3 3 3 . Theokritos mentions an older poet, Philhas of Kos, as his master (7.39 ff), and it is no co-incidence that an important secondary character in Longus’ novel bears the same name.10 Only wretched scraps of Philhas’ poetry survive, and whether his oeuvre included anything which could be categorised as pastoral is much disputed; but h is probable to the point of certainty that Philetas’ scenes in the novel contain more allusions to Philitas than we shall ever be able to recognise with any precision. I take a maximalist line on Philitas: similarities between Longus and Latin poetry, for example, which cannot be traced to Theokritos , are best explained as deriving from Philhas, and in the commentary I note a number of other places where his influence is likely or possible. The idea o f a grove as locus o f poetic inspiration is associated with Philitas by Propertius (3.1.1), and surely underlies both Longus’ prologue and the grove-like (23.5) and highly symbolic garden of Philetas. This looks very much like a programmatic statement of literary affiliation, especially as Longus uses the same form of the same verb (έξεττονηοσμην) o f his own authorship (pr.3) and o f Philetas’ horticulture (2 3 3 ), echoing its application to poetic composition by Theokritos, in the very poem where he acknowledges his debt to Philitas (7.51). Philetas’ garden is thus an analogue for the novel. Philetas’ role as praeceptor amoris may well reflect a pose struck by Philitas, and his encounter with Eros in his metaliterary garden might allude to a typically Hellenistic meeting between Philitas and his inspiring god. Several of the names in Daphnis and Chloe (Daphnis, Amaryllis, Chromis, Tityros, Kleariste) are taken from Theokritos; the first four are also prominent in Latin

4

5

9 For full treatment see Cresci 1981, Effe 1982 10 The name of the poet was often written as Φ ιλητας, but for convenience I use different spellings to distinguish between the two: ‘Philitas’ for the poet and ‘Philetas’ for the character.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

pastoral, reinforcing the novel’s pastoral pedigree. Other names (Chloe, Dorkon, Dry as, Lamon, Lampis, Myrtaie, Nape) are, despite appropriate connotations, not found in extant pastoral, though some may derive from lost non-Theokritean models such as Philitas. Longus also neglects some of the central names o f pastoral (Corydon, Damoetas, Meliboeus, Menalcas), as if to distance his novel from the full poetic tradition. The very name o f Longus’ hero constitutes the single most important allusion to Theokritean pastoral, but also focuses Longus’ dialogue with his predecessor. Theokritos’ Daphnis dies, programmatically, of unhappy love; his poetry offers a complex and ambiguous view o f love, enigmatically close to tragedy. For Longus, Eros is a benevolent deity, who not only guides his story to its happy aiding, but also informs and powers the whole of creation, as expounded by Philetas. This difference leads him to correct Theokritos on a number of occasions, programmatically at 2.7.7, which reverses Theokr.l 1.1 ff. (details in 2.7.7 n). In feet, one aspect o f Daphnis and Chloe’s maturation is precisely their movement from a Theokritean assumption that love is a disease in need o f cure to an uninhibited enjoyment o f its pleasures on their wedding-night Post-Theokritean pastoral became more sentimental and less realistic, answering to the increasingly nostalgic idealisation of rural life by sophisticated citydwellers. The countryside had become a repository for values o f simplicity and integrity felt to be absent from the complexity and pressures o f urban existence, from which it offered imaginative escape. Although at first sight Longus seems close to this current of “soft” pastoralism, his engagement with it was intensely reflexive and ironic: as with romance, Longus’ treatment o f pastoral is also a critique o f generic conventions. While he points clear trails to his pastoral forbears, he reveals just enough o f the real countryside o f subsistence agriculture, where starvation and grinding poverty were kept at bay only by deadening labour and peasant guile, to ensure that his reader recognises the unreality o f the “soft” pastoral ideal. Within the story urban characters use the countryside to live out their pastoral fantasies: the drains have to be cleared, the garden weeded and the grapes polished, reality must be hygienically packaged before it is acceptable to the fastidious urban tourists. “Soft” pastoral literature commodifies the countryside in the same sort o f way, and as Longus makes fun of the urban holidaymakers in his story, he simultaneously makes fun of his narrator and reader, whom he casts as city people enjoying a literary holiday in a clichd-ridden fantasy. In fact, just as being on holiday implies having a return-ticket to the workaday world, the pastoral ideal can never be a viable permanent alternative to urban reality, and to imagine that it is, is a sentimental fallacy. What it can do is to offer imaginative perspectives on the reality on which it seems to turn its back. This double and ironic perspective (the country seen from the city and the city seen seeing the country) is, though not always exploited, implicit in pastoral, which is consequently one of the most readily reflexive and self-referential forms of literature. The unreality o f the pastoral countryside constitutes it as a space o f the imagination, accessible only through the literary act. The allusions to Theokritos and Sappho with which Longus colours his

Lesbos confirm that this is overtly a magic realm of poetry, in which the pastoral fantasy can be enjoyed without being mistaken for an alternative reality, and, simultaneously, the implicit concerns and hidden assumptions o f the constituent genres can be thematised and explored. Some scholars go so far as to exclude Daphnis and Chloe from the novel colon and categorise it instead as prose pastoral, but to de-emphasise either o f its component forms is to miss the point o f Longus’ intertextual play. Formally, as a hybrid between the genres o f romance and pastoral, Daphnis and Chloe may not have been as unique as it now appears. A papyrus fragment11presents another fictional narrative with a pastoral setting. It concerns the significantly named Staphylos (“bunch o f grapes”), abandoned at birth in a vineyard by his mother Hippotis, rescued and brought up in the palace of king Dry as, who seems to be his father. It is unclear what sort o f work this fragment emanates from. Its narration is too rapid to sustain a full-length novel: it may be a short story or come from an introductory section (like DC 1.1-6) or subordinate narrative in a larger work. There is a definite mythographical colouring to it, corresponding quite closely to the quasi-mythic atmosphere o f Daphnis and Chloe, although the literary level, as far as one can judge, fells well below Longus’. The recurrence o f the name Dry as in the two works is also striking, but possibly not significant12 There were pastoral episodes in Iamblichos’ Babyloniaka

6

7

3) Myths and religion In naming his hero, Longus alludes principally to Theokritos, and ensures that we see the reference by drawing attention to the generic appositeness o f die name (1 3 2 ). However, the figure o f Daphnis predates Theokritos, and the outlines o f a coherent myth emerge in a number o f writers.13 This Daphnis was a cowherd, son o f Hornes and a Nymph, exposed at birth in a laurel-bush, raised by Nymphs or shepherds and taught to play the pipes by Pan. He swore love to a Nymph, but broke his oath o f fidelity after being made drunk by an amorous princess, for which he was punished with blindness. He was the originator o f bucolic song. The earliest literary treatment o f the myth seems to have been by the Sicilian poet Stesichoros in the 6th century BC; it was also related by the historian Timaios o f Tauromenion. However, the story o f exposure among laurels (daphne) is clearly an aetiology invented to explain Daphnis’ name, implying a rather longer ancestry. The story was later treated with some freedom. In the 3rd century BC the playwright Sositheos wrote a satyr-play called Daphnis or Lityerses, whose plot included the abduction o f Daphnis’ beloved by pirates and his rescue o f her with the help o f Herakles. The story underlying Theokritos 1 is obscure, perhaps 11 PSI 1220; Stephens and Winkler 1995,429 ff. 12 Another fragment (PSI 725, Stephens and Winkler 1995,416 ff.) might include goatherds and a king Olenios whose name would recall that of the goat which nursed the infant Zeus, but readings and supplements are uncertain at the crucial points. 13 Diod.4.84.2 ff., Parthen.£rof.Path.29, Ael. P a r./fail 0.18, Serv ed Virg.£c/.5.20, 8.68, Philargyr.ad Virg.£c/.5.20, Z.Theokr.8.93a.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

deliberately so, but seems to present Daphnis as a rustic Hippolytos, punished by Aphrodite for setting himself against Eros, the punishment taking the form o f an impossible love. The death o f Daphnis is variously narrated; in Theokritos he wastes away from love, but other versions feature some form of metamorphosis. Longus clearly appropriates from these predecessors the connection o f Daphnis with love and music and the pastoral setting, but his plot is his own invention. At a number o f points, however, Longus seems to allude directly to earlier versions of the story: more specifically: 0 the peculiar Spring o f Daphnis referred to in an incomprehensible passage (4.42) seems to relate to Servius’ account (ad Virg.£c£5.20) o f a fountain “which is called Daphnis99 which sprang up in the very place from which Hermes took Daphnis up into heaven. ii) at 4 2 2 2 Daphnis threatens to kill himself by leaping from a rock into the sea. This recalls a version o f the myth in which the blinded Daphnis fell to his death from a rock (l.Theokr.8.93a) iii) at least nine names are attested for the nymph who loved Daphnis. Among them is Lyca (Philargyr^d VirgJ£c/.520); this is possibly taken up in Daphnis* encounter with Lykainion (3.15 ff.), interestingly a passage where Philitas is arguably involved. iv) the abduction o f Chloe by the Methymnaians (220.3) and her restoration by Pan (226 ff.) correspond to the events of Sositheos* play (Serv.ad VirgJSc/. 8.68). v) an epigram by Zonas (Anth.PaL9.566) tells how Pan fell in love with Daphnis after seeing him bathing. This is very close to the scenes in 1.13 ff., where Chloe*s sight of the naked Daphnis bathing is the start o f her love. In Virgil’s fifth Eclogue Daphnis is referred to as the originator o f the cult of Bacchus and undergoes some sort of apotheosis. It has been argued that the figure of Daphnis was from the beginning connected with Dionysiac cult.14 The Dionysiac dimension emerges also in Longus’ novel: Daphnis and Chloe are compared to Dionysos and a maenad (1.16.4,222), the Dionysiac festival o f the wine-harvest twice features prominently in the plot and there is a midwinter sacrifice to Dionysos at 3.9.2. The climax o f the story is generated by the appearance of Daphnis* father Dionysophanes (“Dionysos manifest”) and his reunion with his lost child. It is tempting to connect this thread with the cultic interests o f people connected to Longus* family (see §1 above). By the time of the novel’s composition the cult had lost its original orgiastic wildness, and had become bourgeois and respectable. Its iconography suggests that Dionysos was conceived as the generative and regenerative power of nature, the annual natural cycle figuring the death and rebirth of the individual devotee. Thus the seasons, which structure Longus’ narrative (see §4a below), feature prominently on Dionysiac sarcophagi, which also depict rustic scenes, including the vintage: the production o f the wine from the grape is easily read as a symbol o f death and

transfiguration. Although its adherents were largely urban, much o f the ritual o f the cult took place in the countryside, and cult officials, as attested in in sertio n s from various parts o f the empire, were given rustic titles such as boukolos and aipolos (cowherd and goatherd). Merkelbach argues on the basis of this sort of evidence that Daphnis and Chloe is a cultic text, encoding initiation rituals o f the Dionysiac religion, which themselves encoded the myths and beliefs o f the cult He even finds some evidence of children being dedicated to the cult at birth in a ceremony involving god-parents and recognition tokens (reflected in Daphnis and Chloe's exposure and adoption), followed by full initiation at puberty, possibly with some sexual teaching as preparation for adult life (reflected in the Lykainion episode). Episodes of the plot (which covers two years, the sacral period of initiation) stand for different stages in the process o f initiation, with its characters as mystagogues. The visit o f Dionysophanes for the vintage not only depicts a typical act o f worship but also figures the manifestation of the god, and the rebirth of the devotee into blessedness, reunited with his heavenly father after die tribulations of earthly life. This reading is untenable, despite its attractions. We simply do not know about many details of the cult, and Merkelbach resorts to circular arguments to supply them from the novel. His evidence is gathered from widely different geographical and historical contexts, and we should be wary o f assuming that there was a consistent Dionysiac theology and practice which we can recover simply by adding up the scattered bits of evidence. The allegory only works if certain parts o f the story are disregarded; Merkelbach argues that these were included to throw the uninitiated off the scent, but it is arbitrary simply to discard the evidence that does not fit the theory. More importantly, this reading neglects the ironies and equivocations o f the literary text; Dionysophanes is not just a good father, he is also a selfish and materialistic exposer of children, and the pastoral impulse, which ought to represent the attractions o f the cult, is systematically ironised and deconstructed. The novel is altogether more complex and slippery than Merkelbach allows. Nevertheless, I believe that Daphnis and Chloe has something coherently serious and religious to say. Philetas* sermon on the nature o f Eros (2.7.1 ff.) is surely the kernel o f the work, although Longus’subtle narrative strategy appears to insulate his narrator from its importance. The god is presented there as the benevolent and allpowerful principle that underlies all creation. Human sexuality, with which the plot is concerned, is only one aspect of him; the animals, the birds and their music, the botanical fecundity, the movement of the seasons all reveal his agency. In relation to humanity, Eros is the Good Shepherd, a strikingly innovatory image o f Longus’ own (unless Philitas is evoked here!), and the Nymphs and Pan are his intermediaries, steering the story to its happy ending under his supervision. The cycle of the seasons certainly carries implications about the continuity of life, but more through the propagation of the species through successive generations than through the survival after death of the individual. The three inset myths make the point that transitions and metamorphoses, including death, are, for all their pain, indispensable elements o f an

8

14 Merkelbach 1962, 1988, Simon 1962, Wojaczek 1969.

9

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

ultimately benevolent and cyclical dispensation. The intertextual dialogue with Theokritos (see §2 above) revolves around this fundamental point about Eros, and pastoral and romantic conventions are redeployed to illustrate it It may be possible to connect Eros to Orphic and Dionysiac theology, as argued influentially by Chalk 1960, but I do not think it is necessary to commit Longus to any formal system o f religious belief in order to understand his message.

await the arrival of the absentee landlord. The final book is a comic intrigue, leading to recognition and marriage. Only then can Daphnis finally share his sexual knowledge with Chloe, apparently without pain or loss of blood. It is clear from this summary that there are two quite distinct forces at work hi Daphnis and Chloe’s progress to maturity: instinct and instruction. These two components correspond to the two organising principles o f the text On the one hand, Daphnis and Chloe’s love runs parallel to the cycle of the natural year. It is bom in spring, becomes more heated in summer, and takes its first step towards fruition in autumn, at the time of the grape harvest Winter is a dead time, but the second spring brings rebirth, the second summer crisis, resolved by marriage in the second autumn, when the natural world is fruiting. It is hardly co-incidental that the novel is composed in four books; and while it is not the case that each book covers a single season, there is a clear seasonal patterning, with the two autumns each occupying a complete book (2, 4). This structure underwrites the idea that love is the primal power o f nature, voiced in Philetas’ sermon (see §3 above). However, it is overlaid by another, equally clearly sign-posted, structure, articulated by the most important secondary characters in the novel. Dorkon knows “the names and deeds of love”. These two items of knowledge point forward respectively to Philetas and Lykainion, and form the novel’s educational agenda. Educational vocabulary clings to both Philetas and Lykainion. This structure separates human from animal sexuality, both in the sense that it intervenes at cruces where instinct alone is inadequate to carry the protagonists forward, and in the sense that it denotes a difference. Philetas is a privileged figure, Daphnis and Chloe’s forerunner as Eros’ elite; this is what qualifies him to be a recipient of a manifestation of the god and a mouthpiece for Eros’ power. His own experience of Eros, however, is social as much as sexual. Furthermore, the fiasco of imitating the goats, for all its comedy, makes the serious point that animal copulation, performed standing and from the rear, is fundamentally different from human love-making as euphemistically encapsulated in Philetas’ three remedies. Lykainion (“little she-wolf’) is a sexual predator with an element of the animal about her. Her tuition equips Daphnis to perform sex, but also unwittingly gives him the specifically human power o f choosing not to act on his impulses. Daphnis, and the reader, must wait until the sexual act can be performed within the social sanction o f marriage. This structure underwrites love as a social and cultural construct

10

4) Themes and structures This section summarily draws together some o f the strands of my reading that can be traced in detail through the commentary. Some o f them concern points raised in the foregoing paragraphs. a) affective development and erotic education: the story moves between the poles of innocence and experience, childhood and adulthood. When they first enter the pastoral space, Daphnis and Chk>e are naively at one with nature, imitating its springtime songs and frolics (1.9). Sexuality enters their lives in a symmetrical pair o f episodes. First Chloe experiences feelings for Daphnis as she watches him take a bath and then Daphnis undetgoes a similar awakening when he wins a kiss from Chloe in a competition with the cowherd Dorkon. Neither understands what is happening, though the reader easily recognises their symptoms as love-sickness. Their innocence is emphasised by the contrast with Dorkon, who “knows the name and deeds o f love” (1.15.1). When he gives Chloe wooing gifts, she does not understand their purpose, because she is still ignorant o f the cultural codes of courtship; and when he tries to rape her disguised as a wolf, Daphnis and she laugh it off as a merry prank (121). With the arrival o f summer, their childish games become more physical, culminating m an erotically charged incident with a cicada (126). At the end of Bk.l a shared bath arouses intense and painfully incomprehensible feelings. Autumn brings their first enlightenment, when Philetas tells them of an epiphany o f Eros in his garden, expounds the god's powers and recalls his own experiences in love. Daphnis and Chloe now know that they are in love, but although Philetas instructs them in the “remedies of love” (2.7.7) - a kiss, an embrace, and lying down together naked - they are unable to take the next step, partly because some sort of inhibition holds them back, partly because Philetas’ instructions were couched in a euphemism which they take all too literally. After a winter o f separation, the second spring comes as a contrast to the first: this time they notice the mating o f the animals and Daphnis asks Chloe to try Philetas’ third remedy. They end up trying to imitate the copulation o f the goats, without success. This impasse is resolved by the intervention of Lykainion, a woman from the city, who takes Daphnis into the woods for a hands-on tutorial. Knowledge again brings inhibition: Daphnis is deterred from trying out his new-found skills on Chloe by Lykainion's warnings about the pain and blood that will attend the loss of her virginity. The second summer introduces the issue of formal marriage, a decision on which must

11

b) socialisation and gender differentiation: as children of nature, Daphnis and Chloe lack inhibitions. Chloe feels no shame in touching Daphnis* naked body as he bathes, or in engineering situations where the experience can be repeated. Although the textual symmetries emphasise that Daphnis and Chloe’s experiences are exactly parallel, in these early stages Chloe is running ahead of Daphnis, in that she is the first to experience arousal. This may reflect the fact that girls reach puberty earlier than boys; but it also sharpens the reversal that is to come.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Philetas’ intervention subtly alters the balance o f the relationship. Daphnis becomes increasmgly the more active partner, ending up on top in a passionate clinch (2.11). When the lovers swear oaths of fidelity (2.39) there is a new element of aggressive competitiveness; more importantly they swear by different gods, she by the Nymphs and he by Pan. The Nymphs and Pan thus become markers of differentiation, the first representing the feminine, the latter the masculine aspect of sexuality. These aspects are defined in the series o f inserted myths (1.27, 2.34, 323), which present a paradigm o f gender roles with a female Nymph as the victim o f Pan’s male erotic aggression. Further, Chloe rejects Daphnis’ oath, because of Pan’s promiscuity, thus pinpointing another crucial difference in conventional gender roles, and foreshadowing Daphnis’ assignation with Lykainion. In the second spring Daphnis’ dominance grows. He wants to experiment with the third remedy, while Chloe stalls. Lykainion’s tuition is restricted to Daphnis. He does not share his knowledge with Chloe, who remains ignorant about sex until her wedding-night This knowledge empowers him, as a man, to control his beloved’s progress to fulfilment, and she seems to surrender the initiative willingly to him, suddenly too modest to ask why he has become less ardent in his embraces (3.24.3). By the end o f Bk.3 Daphnis has grown into the conventional male role. His objective now is marriage: innocent love is overlaid with social issues of finance, familial ambition and propriety. In the final episode of Bk.3 Daphnis symbolically asserts his machismo, in disregard o f Chloe’s pleas, to bring her a prize apple from the top of a tree. In Bk.4, Daphnis and Chloe are potentially man and wife rather than boy and girl, and it is here that virginity first becomes an issue: Dionysophanes’ first reaction on learning of Chloe’s existence is to take his son aside and ask discreetly just how far they have gone. The series o f metamorphosis-myths in Bks.1-3 is answered in Bk.4 by Chloe’s transformation from child to wife, marking her final assimilation to the Nymph/Pan model. On the wedding-night, the relationship between the newly weds is that of teacher and pupil. The development of love, then, is marked by a shift from equality and spontaneity and towards the conventions of society. This shift is normative, and allows for what appear to us as double standards. Males are expected to be promiscuous and dominant; females faithful and submissive. This point is illustrated clearly by the parallel figures o f Dorkon and Lykainion, both “wolves”. They each fill the novelistic role o f rival; but are characterised very differently, as rapist and as benevolent seductress. It is clearly all right for a young man to have premarital sex with another partner, in a way that would be unthinkable for a respectable girl; indeed if he did not he would not be in a position to educate his wife.

and that he will be strangely altered when he does. The forest is the magic kingdom of childhood; it is painful but necessary for Christopher Robin to leave it Memory cm take us back to childhood, but the loss of innocence and adult nostalgia irreversibly alter perspectives. Daphnis and Chloe treats the same theme in a not dissimilar way. Pastoral is inherently well suited to the theme of transition from childhood to adulthood. The pastoral space is imbued with nostalgia for a lost past, whether the loss is o f innocence or happiness. The primitive beginnings o f the human race are analogous to and to some extent interchangeable with the primitive beginnings o f each individual. As both species and specimen, we have the sense that progress is bought only at die price o f colour, immediacy, freedom, bliss, all lost in the twin processes o f civilisation and adolescence. Pastoral allows us to recapture that lost past: for the adult reader Daphnis and Chloe and Pooh both have a palpably Proustian sense o f time regained. But pastoral time never existed except in being regained: only literature can take us to a paradise whose happiness depends on illiteracy and ignorance. Not for nothing does Piglet suspect that three sticks arranged in the shape o f a letter A are a Trap. Within the pastoral space, Longus has staged a story o f transition, which we can describe as initiation, rite of passage, or simply growing up. The Nymphs’ transfer of Daphnis and Chloe to Eros (1.72) marks the beginning of the end of childhood, and coincides with their entry into the liminal space of the pastures. What Lykainion does with Daphnis "makes him a man" (3.193), and it is only his fear o f blood that prevents Chloe "becoming a woman" (324.3). At the end o f the novel, the lovers leave the countryside and go to the city for the first time in their lives. Although they return to celebrate the actual marriage and spend much of their time thereafter in the country, that excursion translates the irreversible movement from childhood to adulthood into geographical and social terms. Like readers of the novel, Daphnis and Chloe themselves have become outsiders with a return ticket Within the main story, the thane o f loss is delicately, even obliquety handled. There are parallel scenes when Daphnis and Chloe dedicate their rustic gear to the rural gods, as objects for which they will no longer have any use (426.2, 4.32.3). They irresistibly recall Christopher Robin’s forewell to his toys, as he is extracted from the enchanted place of pastoral childhood to face the responsibilities o f a man in the town. Lykainion’s making a man o f Daphnis brings him, in the short term, more care and responsibility than joy. For a more overt exploration of the idea, we have to turn to the three inset myths. As noted above, they present a paradigm o f gender-roles where the female is the victim o f male violence, and in this respect form a crescendo, reflecting the increasing sexuality o f the lovers’ relationship. In all three, the female undergoes metamorphosis, providing an aetiology for something in the pastoral landscape: the song of the wood-dove, the sound o f the panpipes, the echo. Metamorphosis is an extreme form of transition, the loss of one’s self, but in these myths it is the door to a kind of immortality, the prelude to a new beauty. Violence and loss are thus necessary preconditions for the creation of lasting harmony. These myths counterpoint the main narrative, and their series is completed in the fourth book by the metamorphosis o f

12

c) childhood and adulthood: in Winnie the Pooh Christopher Robin lives with his soft toys in an enchanted forest, where there are babies but no sex. At the end o f The House at Pooh Com er he has to leave the forest to go to school, and in a heart-rending scene says good-bye to his favourite bear, knowing that he will visit the forest less and less,

13

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Chloe from virgm to bride. She must lose her old self, not just her maidenhood but the freedom and spontaneity of innocence. The price hurts, but it has to be paid, because childhood, though charming, is sterile. From Chloe’s transition arises new beauty, that of married love and family, through which she will be perpetuated.

commentary on Longus’ own text; and indeed the prologue concerns precisely the dialectic o f reality and art as components o f the novel. These three interlocking spheres, the erotic, the horticultural and the literary, are specifically linked by the idea o f imitation (mimesis). Daphnis and Chloe’s education proceeds in part by imitation, both of nature and o f human beings; nature and art imitate each other in the gardens; and literature, from Plato onwards, was conceived as a mimesis o f reality; Longus’ Alexandrian poetics involve him in imitation o f crucial intertexts, such as Theokrhos, Sappho and Philitas, while he professes to be imitating a painting.

14

15

d) nature and art: one function o f Longus’ pastoral setting is to allow an environment devoid o f cultural influence. It is almost like a laboratory in which “natural love” can be studied. Paradoxically, as we have seen, “natural love” turns out to include instruction as well as instinct, and to lead lovers towards existing social norms, which are thus re­ authorised as “natural”. Or, phrased differently, nature and art are both indispensable for love to reach its fulfilment The novel’s erotic educators, as well as answering to the “name and deeds o f love” agenda, also correspond to the pairing of nature and art: Philetas tells o f the nature of love and links love to nature, while Lykainion teaches erotic technique, though nature takes over as climax approaches. The relationship o f nature (physis) to art (techne) concerned literary theorists in the ancient world, particularly in the relative weight to be attached to natural genius and literary craftsmanship. For example, ps-Longinus (22.1): “art is perfect when it appears to be nature, and nature is successful when it includes an art that remains unseen.” The rhetorician Hermogenes stresses the necessity for a combination o f both qualities in successful literature.15 Longus taps into this contemporary debate in a complex way. The prologue, for example, sets up a comparison between the beauty o f the painting (art) and the grove where it is located (nature), adjudicating in favour of die painting. At the very beginning o f the narrative, a description o f the beautiful city o f Mitylene again entails a combination o f art and nature. This conjunction is at its most explicit when Longus writes o f the beauties o f the coast past which the Methymnaians cruise (2.12.2). The places where nature and art combine most paradigmatically, however, are the two gardens, balancing each other at the beginning of die autumn books. In gardens the beauty and fecundity o f nature is shaped and enhanced by human intervention. The second o f the gardens, Dionysophanes’ park, is treated to an elaborately artful description, which stresses the fusion of art and nature, each seeming to be the other (4.4.S). The first o f the gardens, Philetas’, is an analogue to the novel itself (above §2) and is more explicitly connected to the erotic themes o f the novel, being the site of Eros’ epiphany. Philetas’ plants are fertilised by Eros bathing in the spring that waters them, but Love, like the garden he visits, needs human help to attain his potential. This clear parallel between the gardens and Longus’ concept of human love renders the former symbolic. However, they have a yet further dimension as literary sites, particularly if we accept the close connection between Philetas and the poet Philitas (§2 above); the gardens’ symbiosis of art and nature, in other words, ties in directly to the literary theories noted above. They must be read as metaliterary

e) country and city: we have seen (§2 above) that pastoral entails the city, but not all pastoral does so as overtly as Longus. In that the city is conceived as a place from which to escape, even in a strictly temporary sense, the “soft” pastoral countryside is inevitably formed as a refuge from all the qualities that make the town objectionable. Almost by definition the two constitute the poles o f an ethical antithesis. Longus’ countryside is described in prose of incantatory beauty. It is immune from rainfall and bad weather, except for a Christmas-card snowfall. Even in mid-summer, its rivers are deep enough to swim in. Daphnis and Chloe’s shepherding leaves them plenty o f time for leisure, and there is no discernible hardship. Their food is simple but ample (in the novel dietary and ethical codes cohere), and the rustic community at large has sufficient disposable assets to make frequent presents to one another. Threats to the idyll come from outside. The young city-rich from Methymna cause havoc and ultimately war. The casually promiscuous and predatory Lykainion has been imported from the city. The urban landlord Dionysophanes’ retinue includes a homosexual parasite, who threatens to have Daphnis removed to the city to serve his perversions. The ostentatious wealth o f the city has no place amidst the jolly poverty o f the country-folk, and on the one occasion when Daphnis needs money, to enter the lists as one o f Chloe’s suitors, he finds it, symbolically, hidden beneath a putrefying carcass. The real fathers o f Daphnis and Chloe exposed their children from selfish and financial motives; those children are nursed and rescued by philanthropic animals and shepherds. Easy pastoral o f this sort was not uncommon at the time.16 The Euboian oration of Dion o f Prousa is a good example o f how it could be exploited for ethical ends. The idea o f “good poverty” was sometimes realised in practice in idyllic gardens and country houses, but the bucolic utopia is in stark contrast to more strenuous cults of rejection such as Cynicism and Christianity. We can use modem parallels to understand the phenomenon. It is the same impulse which drives the affluent to buy cottages in Provence, where they can live out an idyll o f rural simplicity that bears no relation to the real life-style o f the locals, and then to write about it so that the not so affluent can enjoy the same fantasy in their imaginations. The point is to allow the expression o f dissatisfaction with our real life without offering the kind o f viable alternative that would seriously challenge the way we intend to go on living it This is what the urban

15 For other examples see Teske 1991,98 ff.

16

See Miralles 1973 for a good discussion.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

reader o f antiquity would be looking for in Longus’ novel, and to some extent it is what the narrator (see §4g below) thinks he is offering. However, Longus evokes the facile antithesis of town and country only to deconstruct it behind his narrator’s back. If the city causes violence, violence is also endemic in the countryside, in the form of wild wolves and bucolic rapists. The materialism o f the town has a counterpart in the peasant shrewdness of the pair’s fosterfathers, who are tempted to leave the babies to die and rescue only the valuable tokens, who look on the children as an investment against the day when their true parents are discovered, and who engage in razor-sharp haggling over the issue of marriage. Lykainion may be promiscuous, but she is more positively handled than her rural counterpart Dorkon. Her erotic tutorial is only partly founded in selfish motives, and rescues Daphnis from desperation, after imitation o f the beasts has proved ineffective. The perverted sex Gnathon urges on Daphnis is akin to that o f the animals.17 In the end he redeems himself and plays an important part in the resolution leading up the marriage o f the lovers. Although Chloe's beauty is never in question, it is only when enhanced by urban cosmetics that it attains its full glory, even in the eyes of Daphnis himse!f(432.1). So the city is not all bad nor the country all good. Neither is sufficient without the other. The protagonists’ love requires input from both, and the recognition of their true identities entails an accommodation with both. The brief glimpse o f their future lives at the end o f the novel makes it clear that they are poised in a sort of equilibrium between the purely rural and the purely urban. For Longus town and country are special instances o f the wider synthesis o f ait and nature.

transformation from child to wife supplies the absence of a myth in Bk.4. Like the heroines o f the myths, she will be metamorphosed into an artistic object that will ensure her immortality; she lives on as the very book we have in our hands, and the deepestlevel author of the book is Eros himself. Just as he controls the experiences o f Daphnis and Chloe so as to bring them to a full understaiding of himself, so he is in the process of producing a narrative (Daphnis and Chloe) through which all humanity can vicariously attain to similar knowledge. The word mythos was regularly used by rhetorical theorists to denote a narrative transparent in its untruthfulness, so Longus is alluding to the fictionality of his story here; all the mythoi are greeted with pleasure, as the novel will bring pleasure to all mankind. What is more, Philetas’ account o f Eros is to Daphnis and Chloe also a mythos (2.7.1 n); they derive instruction about the deepest truths in human life from something in which they do not believe factually. Just as the myths are part of the story’s educative agenda and demonstrate that untrue stories can embody profound truths useful to real life, so Chloe, as a fiction, will be educative in the life o f her readers. Longus has thus used his dialogue with Thoukydides to stake his claim that fiction can be both pleasurable and a vehicle for the deepest level of knowledge. Understanding our lives involves subjecting raw experience to processes of selection, interpretation and structuring; in other words turning them into fictional narrative. Experience understood becomes fiction, and fiction teaches us the truth about ourselves and the world. Through fiction we learn imaginatively what we cannot learn experientially. Fiction is at the heart of Daphnis and Chloe’s maturation and, by transference, the reader’s too. The novel, like Love itself, usefully brings liberation from the charming sterility of childhood innocence, even as it pleasurably indulges nostalgia for the loss o f that innocence.

16

f) tru th and fiction: in raising these issues of nature and art, Daphnis and Chloe reflects on its own status as fiction, and on the function o f fiction in general.18 The prologue makes some large claims about the work’s utility, which evoke and subvert the famous programmatic statement of the historian Thoukydides. Just as Thoukydides’ history claims to embody universal truths of human nature which future readers will find useful in making sense o f the world, so Longus* novel claims to be a propaedeutic for the universal experience of love. But whereas Thoukydides renounced die pleasures of myth for the utility o f history, and pleasure was the characteristic aim of fiction19 - a distinction which came to epitomise that between fiction and history - for Longus pleasure and utility are inseparable. His work is both history (pr.l) and myth (2.272). This last passage reveals that Chloe is “a maiden from whom Love (Eros) intends to make a story (imythos)”. This is complexly self-referential. As a mythos, Chloe is equated with the three inset myths; we have already seen that her

17 Though the important word διτισθέν, “from behind” may be a textual error at 4.12.1. 18 Morgan 1994, 73 fif. 19 Cf. Apul. Met. 1.1 (“lector intende, laetaberis”) also Hor. A.P.333%Macrob. Comm.in SomnScip.X.2.6 ff, Char.8.1.4; Morgan 1993, 176-92.

17

g) author and n a r ra to r Daphnis and Chloe is an extremely subtie and elusive text, not least m its narrative technique. It is unique among the extant novels in having a 3rdperson narrator who is himself a fictional character. His is the voice that speaks in the prologue and tells us the stoiy of the discovery of the painting. That stoiy at one level provides provenance and authentication for the novel, but at another it is already part of the fiction, not just physically inside the cover of the book but inside the frame o f the novel as well. If the discovery of the painting is a fiction, the discoverer is fictitious too; another function o f the prologue is to give us a fix on this narrating voice and help locate him in relation to the (silent) author, from whom he is distanced in several ways. At first he gazes at the painting without understanding it, and without even seeming to realise that it is a unified narrative. He is driven to find an exegete, who is his only source o f information. The story that begins after the prologue is a retelling o f that of the exegete, who was himself expounding someone else’s creation. The invention of the story is thus doubly distanced from the voice which narrates it, emphasising, even before the narration begins, that the story has (fictionally) an existence separate from this particular telling of it; the narrating voice is not that o f the controlling authorial

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

intelligence, but rather o f a failed reader driven by desire. Further, the narrator is characterised by the prologue as an urban pleasure-seeker, whose relation to the countryside mirrors that o f the young Methymnaians and Daphnis’ brother Astylos inside the story. Like them he approaches the countryside with characteristically urban attitudes, displayed in the way he tells the story but distanced by complex irony from the author. In practice this strategy has a number of effects. First, just as the naive protagonists are viewed with ironic humour by the more sophisticated narrator and his reader, so there are places where the narrator himself is subjected to a more covert form of ironic humour, the prime example being his ridiculous excursus on bovine natation in 1.30. In a more general way, Daphnis and Chloe's awareness o f its own artificiality and its ironic play with the literary conventions that inform it belong at the level of the author and are at the expense o f the narrator. Secondly, we must not look to the narrator for a full understanding o f the story he tells, though, of course, die silent author takes care that the material is supplied on which it may be attained. Thus, for example, the narrator makes no connection between the image he discovers in the prologue and the images dedicated by Daphnis and Chloe at the end o f the story, and he does not register the importance o f Phiietas* sermon about Eros. He seems unaware o f the effect the sight o f Chloe's bared breasts have on Dorkon as together they haul Daphnis out o f the wolftrap with her breast-band, though it motivates the next stage in the story. He typecasts Lykainion and does not write the other story about her that the author has planted just beneath the surface, or explore the full complexity of her shifting motivations. He does not make the identification o f the three heroines of the inset myths (Pitys, Syrinx and Echo) with the three Nymphs who guide the story, although their names leap out of the text at us at crucial junctures (1 2 9 2 , 2.7.6, 2.28.3, 2.29.3, 321 ff.) to indicate their agency. Thirdly, in general terms Daphnis and Chloe is told - and invites us to read it as if it were a simpler and more conventional story than it really is. This is because the narrator is made to impose on the raw material a pair o f contrasting but inseparable urban attitudes. One element of his urban persona is to idealise the countryside, through the sentimental fantasies of “noble simplicity” and “pastoral innocence” which constitute “soft” pastoral ism. As we have seen, the story itself resists this simplification, and repeatedly exposes its falsity. Conversely, the urban perspective also entails disdain, manifested as amused superiority or even downright disgust and hostility, towards the lack o f sophistication in the real countryside and its inhabitants. The poles of this ambivalence are perfectly figured by the changing attitudes of the young Methymnaians, who begin with an idyllic rural holiday but move to contemptuous aggression when things turn sour. One way o f describing this textual complexity is to think in terms o f a “narrator’s text” and an “author’s text”. The narrator is established by the prologue as a sort o f lens between us and the story. We can simply accept what we see through the

lens - read the “narrator's text” as the “narrator’s narratee” - or we can correct for its distortions - read the “author’s text” as the “author’s narratee”. A good example of the complexity o f reading Daphnis and Chloe is the episode of the cicada and the swallow in Bk. 1. The incident carries a palpable erotic charge, and also coheres with some of the work’s large-scale truths about human sexuality and its relation to the natural scheme of things, but those truths are, as often elsewhere, concealed under a patina o f easy and patronising charm. There is also a clear linkage with the narrator’s prayer for sophrosyne(pr.4), as he attempts, as it were, to screen out the quasi-pomographic nature o f the scene, by imposing a prim ethical perspective on a story which defies his telling of it. A similar effect is achieved with the marriage negotiations towards the end of Bk3. We can piece together an elaborate interplay o f realistic character in the hard-nosed poker game played out between the protagonists’ foster-families, each o f which knows that it has a blue-chip financial investment The coherence and the wry humour suggest that this interplay is intentionally there, but it can only be found by reading against the narrator’s grain. Like the urban characters in the novel, who insist on a Disneyland version o f the country, the narrator and his narratee evade the complexities and realities of true subsistence agriculture, and accommodate country life instead to the patronising urban-based categories of the sentimental or the burlesque. More subtly read, Longus’ countryside acquires a solidity, a dignity, and a moral depth that challenge these facile urban perspectives. If I am right in suggesting that the narrator, by the author’s intention, gives only a partial view of the story, we are left with the problems of how to identify the hidden “author’s text”, and whether and exactly how it is to be privileged over the surface barrator’s text”. It is worth remarking, however, that the deliberate destabilisation and fragmentation o f narrative authority is characteristic of Hellenistic poetry and that Longus’ poetics, as well as his primary intertexts, are solidly Hellenistic. There are two obvious ways in which the authorial presence can make itself felt firstly by the apparently casual inclusion of details which the narrator fails to emphasise but which enable a different take on the stoiy; secondly, and more importantly for a reading o f the novel as whole, through elaborate structural symmetries and symbolisms which signpost important connections and significances. The text can be read quite happily as a delightful work of sophisticated^ simple pastoral charm, and it is not altogether wrong to do so. But the big issues are there for those who choose to pursue them, though ostensibly minimised by the peculiar sophistication o f Longus’ technique. Let me give two simple examples. When Daphnis and Chloe are first sent out to the flocks, they assume their duties happily, “as if it were a great office” (1.8.3). The narrator is ironic about their naivety and the charming pettiness of rural life. But the novel reveals that shepherding is the analogue o f Love’s providential care for humankind, and thus it really is a “great office”. And when Lykainion offers to teach Daphnis how to do what he wants to Chloe, he responds “as if he was about to be taught something important, something truly heaven-sent” (3.182). But even as the narrator and his reader, for whom sex is the most ordinary thing in the world, smile at Daphnis’ naivety, we are

18

19

20

INTRODUCTION

rem itted by the Platonic allusion that Love truly is heaven-sent, and that what Daphnis is about to learn is the outward and visible sign of the benevolent dispensation that drives all creation. It is a recurrent trope that the narrator’s irony is turned back on himself, that in assuming himself more sophisticated than his characters he reveals himself as less profound than the story and its best reader. However, it would be wrong, I think, to try to disentangle die narrator and the author too systematically in terms o f narratorial surface and authorial structure. Despite the dichotomy I have been discussing, the narrator remains Long us, in a sense that Encoipius can never be Petronius. Indeed, were it not for the procedures o f the prologue, one might phrase this argument in terms of an imperfectly resolved tension between incompatible attitudes on the part o f the author himself. As it is, the unstable antiphony o f the novel always leaves us unsure that we are reading it correctly, whether we are missing something vital or reading more than is really there. Its very evasiveness, the co-existence and coalescence o f its voices, its avoidance o f overt answers and pre-digested interpretation, are all facets of its didactic power, compelling the reader to work as hard in activating the text as the narrator claims to have worked in producing it

M anuscripts There are only two independent witnesses to the (more or less) full text of Daphnis and Chloe. These are: V

Vaticanus Graecus 1348, written in the first quarter of the 16th century;

F

Florentinus Conventi soppresi 627, written in the late 13th century.

Other surviving manuscripts have been shown by Van Thiel 1961 to derive from V, though with occasional contamination from F. Their scribes however, made some worthwhile corrections, which are noted in the apparatus, along with those of modem editors that are incorporated into the text here printed. For full discussion of the manuscripts, see Morgan 1997b, 2224-7.

LONGUS DAPHNIS AND CHLOE ΔΑΦΝΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ

ΛΟΓΓΟΙ ΠΟI MEN IKON ΤΩΝ KATA ΔΑΦΝΙΝ ΚΑΙ XAOHN ΛΟΓΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟΣ P "*

Έ ν Λ έσ β φ Θηρών έ ν ά λ σ ε ι Ν υμφ ώ ν θ έ α μ α ε ίδ ο ν κ ά λ λ ισ το ν ών είδο ν, ε ίκ ά ν ο ς γρ α φ ή ν , Ισ το ρ ία ν έρωτος·. Καλόν μ έν καί τ ό ά λσ ο ς, ττολυδενδρον, άνθηράν, κ α τ ά ρ ρ υ τ ο ν μ ία π η γ ή π ά ν τ α έ τρ ε φ ε , καί τά άνθη κ α ί τ ά δένδρα- ά λ λ ’ ή γρ α φ ή τ ε ρ π ν ο τέ ρ α , κα\ τ έ χ ν η ν Ιχ ο υ σ α π ε ρ ιτ τ ή ν κ α ι τ ύ χ η ν ε ρ ω τικ ή ν , ώ σ τ ε π ολλοί κ α ί τ ώ ν ξ έν ω ν κ α τά φ ή μ η ν ή ε σ α ν , τ ώ ν μ έ ν Ν υμφ ώ ν Ικ έ τ α ι, τ ή ς δέ ε ίκ ά ν ο ς θ € α τα ί. 2 Γ υ ν α ίκ ε ς έ π ’ α υ τ ή ? τ ίκ τ ο υ σ α ι κ α ί ά λ λ α ι σ π α ρ γ ά ν ο ις κοσμ οθσαι, π α ιδ ία έ κ κ ε ίμ ε ν α , π ο ίμ ν ια τρ έ φ ο ν τα , π ο ιμ έ ν ε ς ά ν α ιρ ο υ μ ε ν ο ι, ν έο ι σ υ ν τιθ έ μ εν ο ι, λη σ τώ ν κ α ταδρομή , π ο λ εμ ίω ν Εμβολή, πολλά άλλα και 3 π ά ν τ α έ ρ ω τ ικ ά . Ίδά ντα με κ α ί θ α υ μ ά σ α ν τ α π ά θ ο ς έ σ χ ε ν ά ν τ ιγ ρ ά ψ α ι τ ή γ ρ α φ ή , κ α\ ά ν α ζ η τη σ ά μ έ ν ο ς Ε ξ η γ η τ ή ν τ ή ς είκ ά νο ς τ έ τ τ α ρ α ς β ίβ λ ο υ ς Ε ξεπονη σ ά μ ην, α νά θη μ α μ έν Έ ρ ω τ ι κ α ί Ν υμ φ α ις κ α ί Π α ν ί, κ τ ή μ α δέ τ ε ρ π ν ό ν π ά σ ιν ά ν θ ρ ώ π ο ις, δ κ α ί ν ο σ ο θντα ίά σ ε τ α ι κ α ί λ υ π ο υμ ενον π α ρ α μ υ θ ή σ ετα ι, τ ό ν έ ρ α σ θ έν τα ά να μ ν ή σ ει, 4 τ ό ν οΰκ έ ρ α σ θ έ ν τ α π ρ ο π α ιδ ε υ σ ε ι. Π ά ν τ ω ς γ ά ρ ο ΰ δ ε ίς Έ ρ ω τ α Ι φ υ γ ε ν ή φ ε υ ξ ε τ α ι μ έ χ ρ ις ά ν κ ά λλ ος ή κ α ί όφ θαλμ οί β λέπ ω σ ιν. Ή μ ίν 6ε ό θ ε ό ς π α ρ ά σ χ ο ι σωφρονοθσι τ ά τώ ν άλλων γρ ά φ ειν. 1 Π ά λ ις έ σ τ ί τ ή ς Λ έσβου Μ ιτυ λ ή ν η , μ ε γ ά λ η κ α ί καλή- δ ιε ίλ η π τ α ι γ ά ρ ε ΰ ρ ίπ ο ις ύ π ε ισ ρ ε ο υ σ η ς τ ή ς θα λά σ σ η ς καί κ εκ ά σ μ η τα ι γ ε φ υ ρ α ις ξεστοΟ κ α ί λευκοθ λίθου. Ν ο μ ίσ ε ις οΰ π ά λ ιν όρ ά ν ά λλά νήσον. 2 Τ α υ τ η ς τ ή ς π ά λ εω ς τ ή ς Μ ιτυ λ ή ν η ς όσον ά π ό σ τ α δ ίω ν διακ οσ ίω ν ά γ ρ ό ς ή ν ά ν δ ρ ό ς ε ΰ δ α ίμ ο ν ο ς , κ τ ή μ α κ ά λ λ ισ τ ο ν όρη θηροτράφ α, π ε δ ία πυροφάρα, γή λο φ ο ι κλημ άτω ν, ν ο μ α ί π ο ιμ ν ίω ν , καί ή θάλασσα 2 π ρ ο σ έ κ λ υ ζ εν ή ιά ν ο ς Ε κ τ ε τ α μ έ ν η ς ψ ά μ μ ψ μαλθακή. Έ ν τ φ δ ε τίζφ τά? άγόλα? κατήλαυνον όπειγόμενοι πρό? τά φιλήματα καί ίδόντε? 3 άλλήλου? άμα μειδιά μάτι προσόδραμον. Τά μόν οΰν φιλήματα όγόνετο καί ή περιβολή τών χειρών ήκολούθησε, τό δό τρίτον φάρμακον όβράδυνε, μήτε τού Λάφνιδο? τολμώντο? είπόίν μήτε τή? Χλόη? βουλομόνη? κατάρχεσθαι, όστε τύχη καί τούτο όπραξαν. 11 Καθεζόμενοι ύπό στελόχει δρυό? πλησίον άλλήλων καί

8 (3) ή τοΟτο ... έρώ μένος Jackson; εΐ τοΟτο .. όρώμενος F (ό ίρώμενος V) | τά αύτλ Jackson; ταΟτα VF(5) καρτερήσομε D.Heinsius; ματψήσομεννΡ 9 (1)(καύ ... «α transp. Villoison (2) add. West | συγβτακλιθήναι Seiler, ουν κατακλιθήναι VF 11 (1) add.Reeve I σώμασι Wyttenbach; στόμασι VF | χειλών Jackson; χειρών VF

BOOK TWO

59

why we pray for the day to com e sooner. (3) This m ust be love, and w e m ust be in love with each other unawares. Or perhaps this is love and I am the only one in love? Then why do we feel the sam e pain? Why do we both long to see one another? (4) Everything Philetas said was true. The little boy in the garden was the sam e one that appeared to our fathers in that dream and told us to graze the flocks. H ow could anyone catch him? He is small and will get away. And how could anyone get away from him? He has wings and will catch you. (5) We m ust appeal to the Nym phs for aid. But Pan was no help to Philetas when he was in love with Am aryllis. We must try for those cures he m entioned: a kiss, an em brace and lying naked on the ground. There is a frost, but with Philetas as precedent, we shall endure i t ” 9 ( 1 ) Such was their nocturnal seminar. The next day, when they led their flocks to pasture, they kissed one another on sight, which they had never done before, and hugged and embraced; but they flinched at the third cure, taking their clothes o ff and lying down. That was too forward not ju st for maids but for young goatherds as well. (2) So another night o f sleeplessness, o f reflection on what had happened, o f remorse for what had been left undone. “We kissed, and it did no good. We embraced, and that was no better. Lying dow n together must be the only cure for love. We must try that as well. There is bound to be something in it more effective than a kiss.” 10 (1) Follow ing these reflections, as you m ight expect, they dreamed dreams o f love too: o f their kisses, their embraces. And all the things they had not done during the day, they did in their dreams: they lay naked with one another. (2) N ext m orning they woke even more possessed, and started whistling their flocks down, impatient for kisses. The m om ent they saw each other, they ran to m eet with a smile. (3) The kisses duly occurred, and the embrace ensued, but the third remedy was slow in coming, for neither did Daphnis have the courage to m ention it, nor did Chloe like to take the lead, until quite by accident they did this as well. 11 (1) They were sitting side by side at the foot o f the trunk o f an oak, and having tasted the sweetness in a kiss, their appetite

60

ΔΑΦΝΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ

γευσάμενοι τη? όν φιλήματι τόρψεω? άπλήστω? όνεφοροΟντο τή? ήδονή?· ήσαν δό καί χειρών περιβολαί θλΐψιν τοί? σώμασι 2 παρόχουσαι κατά τήν των χειλών προσβολήν. Βιαιότερον 6ή τού Δάφνιδο? όπισπασαμόνου κλίνεταί πω? όπί πλευράν ή Χλόη, κάκ€ίνο? δό συγκατακλίνεται τ ο σ ιλ θ ώ ν Courier μοντ] γάρ δέδοικα ίιϊε F; μύνη γάρ δεδοικα (ίσελθείν post χήνα V 17 (1) ανίσταται V; εγείρεται F (2) αΐ μοι Reeve; ίμοΐ VF (3) ίτερπνονί del. Reeve

95

catch him; (3) on one occasion she had even waylaid him when he was by him self and given him a set o f pipes as a gift, and honey in the com b, and a deerskin bag. B ut she hesitated to say anything because she divined his love for Chloe; indeed she could see he was quite devoted to the girl. (4) Previously she had deduced this from the movem ents o f their heads and their laughter, but early this m orning, pretending to Chrom is that she was o ff to visit a neighbour who was having a baby, she had followed behind them, and, concealing herself in a bush so as not to be seen, had heard every word they said and seen everything they did. Even Daphnis’ tears had not escaped her. (5) Full o f com passion for the poor pair, and thinking that a double opportunity had presented itself, on the one hand to effect their salvation and on the other to satisfy her own desire, she hatched a schem e on the following lines. 16 (1) The next day, saying she was o ff to visit the wom an who was having a baby, she went (no hiding this tim e) to the oak where Daphnis and C hloe were sitting, and, giving an accurate impression o f a woman in distress, said, (2) “Save me, Daphnis; I’m in trouble. An eagle has earned o ff one o f my twenty geese, the best one. With such a heavy weight to cany, he couldn’t get air-borne and take him to that rock up there where he usually goes, but has com e to earth with him in this wood down here. (3) Please, in the nam e o f the Nym phs and Pan over there, com e into the wood - I’m afraid to go by m yself - and rescue my goose. My numbers are one short now; please don’t turn a blind eye. (4) You m ight kill the eagle too, and then it w on’t go on stealing lots o f your lambs and kids. C hloe will look after your flock while you are gone. The goats m ust know her, she is always grazing with you.” 17 (1) Daphnis had no suspicion o f what was to come. He got up at once, and picking up his crook set o ff after Lykainion. She was leading him as far away from C hloe as she could, and when they were in the thickest part o f the wood she told him to sit down by a spring. “Daphnis,” she said, “you are in love with Chloe. (2) I was told this by the Nym phs in a dream last night. They told me about the tears you shed yesterday, and told me to come to your aid by teaching you the deeds o f love, which are not ju st a kiss, an embrace and what the rams and billy-goats do. This leaping is different and m uch sweeter than theirs; for the pleasure it brings lasts a longer time. (3) So, if you would like to be rid o f your troubles, and sam ple the delights you are seeking, come, m ake yourself my [delightful] pupil, and to please the Nym phs over there I’ll teach you.”

|

ΔΑΦΝΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ % 18 Νύμφαι? έκείναι? διδάξω." Ούκ έκαρτύρησεν ό Δαφνί? ύφ’ ήδονή? άλλ’ άτε άγροικο? κα\ αίπόλο? και έρών καί νύο? πρό των ττοβών καταπεσών την Λυκαίνιον Ικύτευεν ότι τάχιστα διδάξαι τήν 2 τέχνην βι’ ή? δ βούλεται δράσει Χλόην, καί ώσπερ τι μύγα και θεόπεμπτον άληθω? μύλλων διδάσκεσθαι καί ύριφον αύτή σηκίτην δώσειν έπηγγείλατο καί τυρού? άπαλου? πρωτορρύτου γάλακτο? καί 3 τήν αίγα αυτήν. Εΰρούσα δέ ή Λυκαίνιον αίπολικήν αφθονίαν οίαν ού προσεδύκησεν ήρχετο παιδευειν τόν Δάφνιν τοΟτον τόν τρόπον έκύλευσεν αυτόν καθίσαι πλησίον αυτή? ώ? Ιχ ε ι καί φιλήματα φιλεΐν οία εΐωθε καί όσα καί φιλοΰντα άμα περιβάλλειν καί 4 κατακλίνεσθαι χαμαί. Ώ? δε έκαθύσθη καί έφίλησε καί κατεκλίθη, μαθοΰσα ένεργεΐν δυνάμενον καί σφριγώντα από μέν τή ? έπί πλευράν κατακλίσεω? άνίστησιν, αυτήν δέ ύποστορέσασα έντύχνω? έ? τήν τύω? ζητουμύνην όδόν ήγε, τό 6k ύντεύθεν ούδέν περιειργάζετο ξύνον αυτή γάρ ή φύσι? λοιπόν ύπαίδευε τό πρακτύον. » Τελεσθείση? 6k τή? ερωτική? παιδαγωγία?, ό μέν Δάφνι? ετι ποιμενικήν γνώμην ύχων ώρμητο τρύχειν επί τήν Χλόην καί όσα πεπαίδευτο δραν αΰτίκα καθάπερ δεδοικώ? μή βραδύνα? έπιλάθοιτο, 2 ή δε Λυκαίνιον κατασχοθσα αύτόν ύλεξεν ώδε· “ύτι καί ταύτά σε δει μαθεΐν, Δάφνι. Έγώ γυνή τυγχάνουσα πεπονθα νΰν ούδύν (πάλαι γάρ με ταθτα άνήρ άλλο? έπαίδευσε, μισθόν τήν παρθενίαν λαβών), Χλόη 6k συμπαλαίουσά σοι ταύτην τήν πάλην καί οίμώξει καί κλαυσεται κάν αϊματι κείσεται πολλφ [καθάπερ πεφονευμύνη]. 3 Αλλά συ τό αίμα μή φοβηθή? άλλ’ ήνίκα άν πείση? αύτήν σοι παρασχεΐν άγαγε αύτήν εί? τούτο τό χωρίον, ϊνα κάν βοήση μηδεί? άκούση κάν δακρύση μηδεί? ϊδη κάν αίμαχθή λούσηται τή πηγή· καί μύμνησο ότι σε άνδρα έγώ πρό Χλόη? πεποίηκα." 28 Ή μέν ούν Λυκαίνιον τοσαύτα ύποθεμύνη κατ’ άλλο μύρο? τή? ύλη? άπήλθεν ώ? In. ζητούσα τόν χήνα, ό 6k Δάφνι? εί? λογισμόν άγων τά είρημύνα τή? μέν προτύρα? όρμή? άπήλλακτο, διοχλείν δέ τή Χλόη περιττότερον ώκνει φιλήματο? καί περιβολή?, μήτε βοήσαι θύλων αύτήν ώ? πρό? πολύμιον μήτε δακρύσαι ώ? άλγούσαν 2 μήτε αίμαχθήναι καθάπερ πεφονευμύνην άρτιμαθή? γάρ ών έδεδοίκει τό αίμα καί ένόμιζεν ότι άρα έκ μόνου τραύματο? αίμα γίνεται. Γνου? δέ τά συνήθη τύρπεσθαι μ ετ’ αύτή? έζύβη τή? 18 (4)ένίργίΐν δυναμινον V; τ ϊ tuspytTv F 19 (2) [καθαττίρ πεφον«υμένη] del. Castiglioni

BOOK THREE

97

18 (1) Daphnis could not contain him self for pleasure. Like the rustic and goatherd he was, in love and young, he fell at Lykainion’s feet and begged her to lose no tim e in teaching him the art which would enable him to do what he wanted to Chloe. (2) As if he was about to be taught som ething important, som ething truly heaven-sent, he prom ised to give her a kid fattened in the pen, soft cheeses m ade from the cream o f the milk, and the nanny-goat too. (3) Having encountered a pastoral generosity o f a sort she had not expected, Lykainion set about educating Daphnis in the following way. She told him to sit beside her, ju st as he was, and kiss her with the sam e kind and the sam e num ber o f kisses as usual, and, as he kissed her, to put his arms around her and lie dow n on the ground. (4) He sat down, kissed her, and lay down, and when she found that he was ready for action and lusty, she raised him from his position on his side, spread herself beneath him, and artfully guided him into the way he had been seeking so long. From that point, she m ade no unusual exertions: nature herself was now teaching him what to do. 19 (1) W hen this erotic tuition was at an end, Daphnis, who still had the thoughts o f a shepherd, was eager to run to Chloe and immediately do everything he had been taught, as if he was afraid he would forget it i f he delayed. But Lykainion held him back, and said, (2) “There is one more thing you m ust learn, Daphnis. Because I am a woman, it didn’t hurt m e at all ju st now - another m an taught m e this lesson long ago, and took my virginity as his fee. But w hen C hloe does this sort o f wrestling with you, she will scream and cry and lie in a pool o f blood [as if murdered]. (3) D on’t be scared o f the blood, but when you persuade her to give herself to you, bring her to this spot, so that no one can hear if she shouts, no one can see if she weeps, and if she bleeds she can wash in the spring. And do not forget that I have made you a m an before Chloe.” 20 (1) With these words o f advice, Lykainion went o ff to another part o f the wood, still, so she said, in search o f her goose, but Daphnis fell to thinking over what she had said; his earlier eagerness had gone, and he was reluctant to pester Chloe beyond a kiss and an embrace, because he did not want her to shout at him as if he were an enemy, or weep as if she was in pain, or bleed as if she had been murdered. (2) Being a novice, he was frightened about the blood, and thought that blood surely only comes from a wound. Resolving to enjoy ju st the usual pleasures with her, he emerged from the wood, and when

98

ΔΑΦΝΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ

(ίλη? καί όλθων tva όκάθητο στεφανίσκον ίων πλέκουσα τόν τε χήνα τοΟ αετού των όνόχων όψεύσατο όζαρπάσαι καί περιφύ? όφίλησεν οίον όν τή τέρψει Λυκαίνιον τοΟτο γάρ όζήν ώ? 3 άκίνδυνον. Ή δό τόν στέφανον όφήρμοσεν αυτού τή κεφαλή κα\ την κόμην όφίλησεν ώ? τών Ιων κρείττονα καί τή ? πήρα? προκομίσασα παλάθη? μοίραν καί άρτου? τινά? όδωκε φαγείν καί όσθίοντο? άπό του στόματο? ήρπαζε καί οΐίτω? ήσθιεν ώσπερ νεοττό? δρνιθο?. α Έσθιόντων δό αυτών καί περιττότερα φιλουντων ών ήσθιον, ναύ? άλιεων ώφθη παραπλόουσα. Άνεμο? μόν ούκ ήν, γαλήνη δό ήν, καί έρεττειν όδόκει καί ήρεττον ερρωμόνω?· ήπείγοντο γάρ 2 νεαλεί? ΙχθΟ? εΐ? τήν πόλιν διασώσασθαι τών τινι πλουσίων, Οίον οΰν εΐώθασι ναΰται δραν ό? καμάτων αμέλειαν, τούτο κάκείνοι δρώντε? τα? κώπα? άνεφερον εΤ? μόν αυτοί? κελευστή? ναυτικά? ήδεν ψδά?, οί δε λοιποί καθάπερ χορό? όμοφώνω? κατά καιρόν τή? 3 όκείνου φωνή? όβόων. Ήνίκα μόν ούν εν άναπεπταμένη τή θαλάσση ταΰτα όπραττον, ήφανίζετο ή βοή χεομενη? τή? φωνή? εΐ? πολύν άόρα· έπεί 6k άκρq. τινί ΰποδραμόντε? εΐ? κόλπον μηνοειδή καί κοΐλον είσήλασαν, μείζων μέν ήκουετο βοή, σαφή 6k 4 έξεπιπτεν εί? τήν γήν τά τών κελευστών φσματα. Κοίλο? γάρ τό πεδίον αυλών ύπερκείμενο? καί τόν ήχον εί? αύτόν ώ? δργανον δεχόμενο? πάντων τών λεγομένων μιμητήν φωνήν άπεδίδου, Ιδίφ μέν τών κωπών τόν ήχον, 1δίj] del. Naber 26 (2)πλούσιος V; πλούσιος άλλ’ ούδέ ελεύθερος εΐ καί πλούσιος F (4) add. Dalmeyda

BOOK THREE

103

came in droves from far and wide to ask Dry as for her hand in marriage; som e brought a gift, others made big prom ises i f they won her. (2) N ape was elated by the prospects; her advice was to marry Chloe off, not to keep a girl o f her age at hom e any longer, when any day now she m ight lose her virginity while out grazing, and m ake a m an o f one o f the shepherds in return for apples or roses. She said they should make her the lady o f a house, reap a big profit for them selves and put it aside for their own natural child - a little boy had been bom to them not long before. (3) At first Dry as was bewitched by what she said, since every suitor m entioned gifts inordinately large for a shepherd girl, but then, that the m aiden was o f too high a class for agricultural suitors and that i f she ever found her real parents she would make him and his wife very wealthy, he put o ff his reply and temporised, and in the m eantim e he was better o ff by a considerable num ber o f presents. (4) W hen she heard about this, her life became a com plete misery. She kept it secret from Daphnis for a long time, because she did not want to make him unhappy; but he pressed her, questioned her persistently, and was unhappier for not knowing than he would be if he knew. So she told him everything: that she had a lot o f wealthy suitors, the arguments N ape was using in her enthusiasm for the wedding, that Dryas had not said no, but [that he] had deferred the m atter till the grape harvest. 26 (1) Daphnis was distraught to hear this, and sat dow n and wept, saying he would die if Chloe stopped grazing, and not only him but the sheep as well if they lost a shepherd like her. Then he pulled him self together and began to cheer up. His idea was to talk her father round; he started counting him self as one o f her suitors and expected to beat the others easily. (2) There was ju st one thing that bothered him: Lamon was not a wealthy man. This was the only thing that made his hopes slim, but all the same he decided, with C hloe’s agreement, to ask for her hand. He did not have the courage to say anything to Lamon, but feeling no such qualm s with M yrtale, he told her o f his love and broached the subject o f marriage. She raised it with Lam on that night. (3) He responded harshly to the request, and had hard words to say to her for recom m ending a mere shepherds’ daughter as wife to a boy who in his recognition tokens gave signs o f high estate, and who would make them free and m asters o f a larger farm, if he found his family. Knowing

ΔΑΦΝΙ Σ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ

BOOK THREE

έλευθέρου? θήσει καί δεσπότα? άγρών μειζόνων, ή Μυρτάλη διά τόν έρωτα φοβούμενη μή τελέω? άπελπίσα? ό Δάφνι? τόν γάμον τολμήση τ ι θανατώδε? άλλα? αύτψ τή? άντιρρήσεω? αΙτία? 4 άπήγγελλε· "Πένητέ? έσμεν, ώ παί, καί δεόμεθα νύμφη? φερούση? τι μάλλον οΐ δέ πλούσιοι καί πλουσίων νυμφίων δεόμενοι. Ί θ ι δή, πείσον Χλόην, ή δέ τον πατέρα, μηδέν αίτείν μέγα καί γ α μ ε ίν πάντω ? 64 που κάκείνη φιλεί σε καί βούλεται συγκαθευδειν πένητι καλψ μάλλον ή πιθήκψ πλουσίψ." 27 Μυρτάλη μέν οΰποτε έλπίσασα Δρυαντα του'τοι? συνθήσεσθαι μνηστήρα? έχοντα πλουσιωτέρου? εύπρεπώ? ψετο παρητήσθαι τόν γάμον, Δάφνι? δε ούκ είχε μέμφεσθαι τά λελεγμένα. Λειπόμενο? 6k πολύ των αίτουμένων τό σύνηθε? έρασταί? πενομένοι? 2 επραττεν έδάκρυε, καί τά? Νιίμφα? αίθι? έκάλει βοηθού?. Αί δε αύτψ καθευδονπ νυκτωρ έν τόί? αυτοί? έφίστανται σχήμασιν έν οί? και πρότερον, έλεγε δε ή πρεσβυτάτη πάλιν "γάμου μεν μέλει τη? Χλόη? άλλφ θεφ, δώρα 64 σοι δώσομεν ήμεί? & θέλξει 3 Δρυαντα. Ή ναΟ? ή τών Μηθυμναίων νεανίσκων, ή? τήν λόγον αί σαί ποτέ άίγε? κατέφαγον, ήμέρφ μέν εκείνη μακράν τή? γή? ύπηνέχθη πνεύματι, νυκτό? δέ πελαγίου ταράξαντο? άνέμου τήν 4 θάλασσαν εί? τήν γήν εί? τά? τή? άκρα? πέτρα? έξεβράσθη. Αύτή μεν ούν διεφθάρη καί πολλά τών έν αύτή, βαλάντιον δέ τρισχιλίων δραχμών υπό τού κιίματο? άπεπτυσθη καί κεΐται φυκίοι? κεκαλυμμένον πλησίον δελφίνο? νεκρού, δι’ δν οΰδεί? ούδέ προσήλθεν όδοιπόρο?, τό δυσώδε? τή? σηπεδόνο? παρατρέχων. 3 ’Αλλά σύ πρόσελθε καί προσελθών άνελού καί άνελόμενο? δό?. 'Ικανόν σοι νύν δόξαι μή πένητι, χρόνψ δέ ύστερον Ιση καί 28 πλούσιο?.' Αί μέν ταύτα είπούσαι τή νυκτί συναπήλθον, γενομένη? δέ ήμέρα? άναπηδήσα? ό Δάφνι? περιχαρή? ήλαυνε £οίζψ πολλφ τά? αίγα? εί? τήν νομήν καί τήν Χλόην φιλήσα? καί τά? Νυμφα? προσκυνήσα? κατήλθεν έπί θάλασσαν ώ? περιρράνασθαι θέλων καί έπί τή? ψάμμου πλησίον τή? κυματωγή? έβάδιζε ζητών τά? 2 τρισχιλία?. Έμελλε δέ άρα ού πολύν κάματον έξειν ό γάρ δελφί? ούκ άγαθόν όδωδώ? αύτφ προσέπιπτεν έρριμμένο? καί μυδών, οί τή σηπεδόνι καθάπερ ήγεμόνι χρώμενο? όβού προσήλθέ τε εύθύ? καί τά φυκία άφελών ευρίσκει τό βαλάντιον, άργυρίου μεστόν. 3 Τούτο άνελόμενο? καί εί? τήν πήραν ένθέμενο? ού πρόσθεν άπήλθε278

Daphnis to be in love, M yrtale was afraid that, if his hopes o f m arriage were dashed for good and all, he m ight take some fatal step. So she gave him different reasons for the refusal. (4) “ We are poor people, my son, and what we need is a bride who brings a bit m ore with her. They are rich, and need rich bridegrooms. Look, get Chloe to agree, and let her get her father to agree not to ask a big price and to marry her. After all, she likes you too, and would rather sleep with a good looking poor man than a rich m onkey.” 27 (1) M yrtale expected that Diyas never would agree to this as he had wealthier suitors, and thought she had found a seemly way o f saying no to the marriage. Daphnis could find no fault in her arguments, and, as he was a long way short o f what Dryas was asking, he fell to doing what lovers with no money usually do: he wept, and again he called on the Nym phs to help him. (2) That night, as he slept, they appeared to him in the same forms as before, and again it was the eldest who spoke. “C hloe’s marriage is the responsibility o f another god, but we will give you gifts which will bewitch Dryas. (3) The ship o f the young M ethym naians, whose willow rope your goats once ate through, was carried far from land by the breeze that day, but during the night a seawind stirred up the sea, and she ran aground on the rocks o f the headland. (4) The ship herself broke up, along with m ost o f what was on board, but a purse o f three thousand drachmai was washed ashore by the waves, and is lying covered with seaweed next to a dead dolphin, the effect o f which has been that no wayfarer has so m uch as gone near it, in their hurry to get past the stink o f putrefaction. But you must go near: go near and pick it up: pick it up and give it away. (5) For now it is enough for you not to seem poor, but in tim e to come you really will be rich.” 28 (1) So saying they departed with the night, and when day dawned, Daphnis leapt out o f bed, and joyfully started to drive his goats to pasture, w histling loudly. He kissed Chloe and knelt before the Nym phs, then went down to sea as if he intended to cleanse himself, and began walking along the sand by the water’s edge looking for the three thousand. (2) O f course he was not to have much difficulty: he was assailed by the foul reek o f the dolphin, beached and deliquescent, and, using its putrefaction to guide his path, as it were, he went straight to it, lifted o ff the seaweed and found the purse, full o f silver. (3) He picked it up and put it in his bag, and did not leave until he had proclaimed the name o f the Nym phs and the

104

27 (1) πλουσιωτέρου? V; πλουσιωτάτου? F (4) add. Castiglioni 28 (1) add. Korais

105

106

ΔΑΦΝΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΧΛΟΗ

BOOK THREE

πρίν τα? Νύμφας εύφημήσαι καί αύτήν την θάλασσαν. Καίπερ γάρ αίπόλος ών, ήδη κα\ τήν θάλασσαν ένόμιζε τής· γη ς γλυκυτέραν ώς είς τόν γάμον αύτφ τής Χλόης συλλαμβάνσυσαν. 29 Είλημμένος δε των τρισχιλίων ούκέτ’ έμελλεν άλλ’ ώς πάντων άνθρωπων πλουσιώτατος, ού μόνον των εκεί γεωργών, αύτίκα έλθών παρά τήν Χλόην διηγείται αύτή τό όναρ, δείκνυσι τό βαλάντιον, κελεύει τά ς άγέλας φυλάττειν έσ τ’ άν έπανέλθη, καί συντείνας σοβεί παρά τόν Δρύαντα καί ευρών πυρούς τινας άλωνοτριβοθντα 2 μετά τή ς Νάπης πάνυ θρασυν έμβάλλει λόγον περί γάμου· "Έμοί δος Χλόην γυναίκα. Έγώ καί θερΐζειν οΐδα καλώς καί κλδν άμπελον καί φυτά κατορυσσειν* οΐδα καί γήν άροθν καί λικμήσαι προς άνεμον. ’Αγέλην δε όπως νέμω μάρτυς Χλόη. Πεντήκοντα αίγας παραλαβών διπλασίονας πεποίηκα· έθρεψα καί τράγους μεγάλους καί καλούς, πρότερον δέ άλλοτρίοις τ ά ς α ίγα ς 3 ύπεβάλλομεν. ’Αλλά καί νέος είμί καί γείτων ύμίν άμεμπτος, καί 4 με έθρεψεν αίξ ώς Χλόην δϊς. Τοσοθτον 6k τών άλλων κρατών ουδέ δώροις ήττηθήσομαι· εκείνοι δωσουσιν αίγας καί πρόβατα καί ζεύγος ψωραλέων βοών καί σίτον μηδέ άλεκτορίδας θρέψαι δυνάμενον, παρ’ έμοΟ δε αϊδε ύμίν τρισχίλιαι. Μόνον ϊστω τοθτο μηδείς, μη Λάμων αυτός ούμός πατήρ'· άμα τε έδίδου καί 3· περίβολων κατεφίλει. Οί δε παρ’ έλπίδα ίδόντες τοσοθτον άργυριον αύτίκα τε δώσειν έπηγγέλλοντο τήν Χλόην καί π είσ ειν ΰπισχνοΟντο τον Λάμωνα. 2 Ή μέν δή Νάπη μετά τοθ Δάφνιδος αύτοθ μένουσα περιήλαυνε τάς βοθς καί τοΐς τριβόλοις κατειργάζετο τόν στάχυν, 6 6k Δρύας θησαυρίσας τό βαλάντιον ένθα άπέκειτο τά γνωρίσματα ταχύς παρά τόν Λάμωνα καί τήν Μυρτάλην έφέρετο μέλλων παρ’ αύτών, 3 τό καινότατον, μνάσθαι νυμφίον ευρών 6k κάκείνους κριθία μετρούντας οΰ πρό πολλοθ λελικμημένα άθυμως τε έχοντας ότι μικρού δεΐν όλιγώτερα ήν τών καταβληθέντων σπερμάτων, έ π ’ έκείνοις μέν παρεμυθήσατο, κοινήν όμολογήσας ένδειαν πανταχοθ 4 γεγονέναι, τόν 6k Δάφνιν ήτεΐτο Χλόη καί έλεγεν ότι πολλά άλλων διδόντων ούδέν παρ’ αύτών λήψεται, μάλλον δέ τ ι οΐκοθεν αύτοΐς έπιδώσει· συντεθράφθαι γάρ άλλήλοις κάν τstr./mag. 1.12 evokes a similar playground, with boating, love,

BOOK TWO 12.2

COMMENTARY

187

music, hunting and fishing, all of which figure in DC; Alkiphr.1.15 is a fisherman’s letter relating the hire of his boat by pleasure-seeking young Athenians, whom he overcharges, as L’s peasants overcharge the Methymnaians. Like the gardens in the novel, the ideal countryride is an amalgam of nature and art The Methymnaians’ holiday thus incorporates pastoral into pastoral and subjects it to the author’s irony. (3) rock-fish: semi-technical term (AristoL//w/.anwi.488b7), applied particularly to types of wrasse, prized by gastronomes, hooks dangfing from reeds on a thin line: the affected periphrases focalise an unfamiliarity with piscatorial technicalities, on the part of character, narrator and reader alike. Fishermen were part of the pastoral fantasy: [Theokr].21 is entitled Αλιεις (“Fishermen”) and one of Alkiphron’s books of fictional letters consists of letters from fishermen. They are also at home in the novel: see 3.21.1; there is a pastoral fisherman in an obscure section (3) of Photios’ summary of Iamblichos’ Babybniaka; and Hld.'s deaf fisherman, Tyrrhenos, is a star-tum (5.18 ff). (4) wild geese, ducks and bustards: plausible ornithology: Amott 1994,202 f (5) autumn set in: the end of the normal sailing season Fear of bad weather provides motive in the ensuing narrative (2.19.3,2.21.1,3.12).

2.13 (1) rope for lifting a stone: 2.1.2 n After treading, a heavy stone is dropped repeatedly from a height to smash the residue and force out any remaining liquid. L’s ideologically primitive countryside lacks hi-tech items like screw-presses. The phrase k άνολκην λίθου is from Thouk.4.112. (3) make their ship Cut they have pulled her out of the water (implied by the imperfect of repeated action at 2.12.5). The catastrophe arises from a chain of chances for which no one can be justly blamed. The boat should have been safe even without a rope, but the wind makes the sea choppy, so that the waves come just a little further up the beach and float her off, even the direction of the wind is a functional detail. (4) chewed off the green willow-shoot: Engelmann 1904 connects this passage with a scene in a painted frieze from the Casa Tiberina (or Famesiana) in Rome, now in the Museo delle Terme. At the left a goat stands in (or behind) a boat, while two men, one with a hunting spear, the other with another goat and shepherd’s stick, gesticulate in its direction; at the right the same two men stand before a seated judge with an armed retinue. This differs from L in that: a) the dispute is judged by a person of authority; b) if the goat is floating away in the boat, both parties have cause to be aggrieved ova- the loss of property. Other sections of the frieze depict a series of wise judgements, which has been identified as relating to the Egyptian wise king Bokchoris, possibly derived from an Ionian novella-cycle. L thus seems to be adapting a proverbial instance of judicial wisdom, embodied in the sententious verdict at 2.17.1. As this is voiced by Philetas, it is tempting to speculate that the episode relates to something in the poetry of Philitas.

2.14 (1) from the hills: the wind off the mountains of Lesbos is mentioned by Sappho (47 LP). (3) lost not a little property: unlike being overcharged for food or having a rope stolen, the loss of the ship and her contents is too serious to be shrugged off. This is where the bucolic holiday ends, and the Methymnaians become intruders rather than visitors, picked up a doglead: meaningful reversal of 2.2.6 (DC like dogs off the lead): pastoral happiness is liberating, but urban life restricts and dehumanises; cf.2.20.3, where C is treated like a sheep or goat. However, we must remember than Dorkon dehumanised himself (1.20.3), and jealousy will make rustic Lampis like a pig (4.7.3). (4) judicial hearing: courtroom drama is a staple of the novels (Char.5, most of Ach.Tat7-8, Hld.8,9, 10.9 ff; ApuLA/ef.3.1 ff, Petr. 107; there is a pastoral trial in Dion’s novelistic

188

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 14.4

0 .7 2 4 ft). L extracts amusement by placing legal terminology in the mouths of two homyhanded gaffers, and by assimilating courtroom oratory to the conventions of amoebaean pastoral

BOOK TWO 17.3

COMMENTARY

189

best, making the implicit assimilation of the hooray-henries to Homeric heroes doubly incongruous; c) independent of the Homeric allusion, foe image of jabbering birds further undermines the dignity of foe pastoral courtroom, putting up a fight himself: unlike 2.14.4. The new machismo is for C’s benefit

2.15 (3) Such fine clothing: L’s version of a topos of the romantic shipwreck; cf. Hid. 1.3.2: “There was great quantity aid great variety, but they passed over everything except gold, silver, precious stones, and silk”; Xen.Eph.1.10.4, ‘"all they needed was being put aboard, a large selection of clothes of all kinds, a great deal of gold and silver, and a great abundance of food”. The casually mentioned money becomes functional at 3.27.3 f. grazes his goats on the sea: obscure. Bonner 1907 suggested a pun on αίγες as: a) “goats”; b) “waves” (so AnemkL2.12, “we familiarly call big waves αίγες”; also Η β ^Λ ^.α Ιγες). For this to work satisfactorily, there would have to be a sense in which a sailor “grazes waves1*, which I cannot find. And a double meaning activated here would undermine the references to goats at the beginning of D’s reply and in Philetas1 verdict The point is simply that a sailor is the antithesis of a goatherd, so that to compare D to a sailor is to call him an incompetent goatherd; Brioso S&chez 1977.

2.16 (1) Chloe was there: she has come with the other country folk (2.14.4). and said: D’s speech is paradoxically more rhetorically effective than the Methymnaians1, whose attempt to talk down to the adjudicator backfires. D’s speech picks up and reverses details from his opponents’, much as in his exchange with Dorkon (1.16 n). It is divided into two distinct sections, which combine to form a chronologically ordered narrative: a) he begins by refuting their concluding insult (νέμει τά ς αίγας/νεμω τά ς αίγα ς) and turning it into a counter­ accusation, applying their offensive word πονηρός (“useless”) to their hunting skills; the remark about “badly-trained hounds” is calculated to wound as πεπαιδευμένος (“educated” as well as “trained”) was a buzz-word by which the elite defined itself; this section ends with an echo of the Methymnaian’s concluding simile (έπι την θάλασσαν symmetrical with έπι της θαλασσής in 2.15.3), but his comparison of their dogs to wolves signifies enmity rather than mere incompetence (an echo of his attack on Dorkon, 1.16.2 n);. b) the second section is structured as an anticipation and deflection of three imagined objections, a recognised technique termed προκαταληψις; each is introduced by anaphoric αλλά; they form an ascending tricolon, in terms of both length and the shifting of blame to the Methymnaians themselves. (3) arbutus or thyme: established items of pastoral botany. For arbutus, the so-called strawberrytree: Theokr.5.129, 9.11, Viig.£c/.3.82; recommended as goat-fodder at Viig.Geofg.3.300 f. For thyme: Virg.Ec/.5.77, 7.37, but nowhere in Theokr. (so perhaps from Philitas). Neither plant occurs elsewhere in DC: D is most erudite when most pastoral. 2.17 (1) Philetas the adjudicator swore: L (not the narrator) implies that Philetas is swayed more by the audience’s reaction than the facts of the case; the rustic court is handled with irony by the author and respect by the narrator. Thus the delegation of the case to another court (i.e. the gods) is for the latter sententious piety, but for the former a ploy to conceal partiality. Philetas* oath by Pan and the Nymphs reflects the themes of the earlier episode (as 2.3.2). (3) starlings or jackdaws: from two similes in the Iliad (16.583, 17.755X where inferior warriors fleeing a hero are compared to starlings or jackdaws scattering before a hawk or falcon. The humour plays on several levels: a) the incongruity of comparing this mstic brawl to epic warfare; b) reversal of the Homeric situation: here the starlings are aggressive and come off

2.18 perfect peace: the idyll momentarily resumes with recapitulations of foe bathing and Hiring scenes from Bk. 1. yeast-bread: leavened bread; realistic here as leaven for bread often took the form of active yeast in grape-must (PlinJVd/.//fr/.18.102; Dalby 1996, 91), in plentiful supply directly after the vintage.

E(v)b Escalation of hostilities and abduction of Chloe (2.19-21.1) 2.19 (1) by road: either a long walk along the coastal road, or a harder one over the northern hills, citizen assembly: the fictional Methymna combines elements of democracy (a citizen assembly making major decisions) and aristocracy (private concerns of leading families dictating state policy), making a formal supplication: phraseology from Athenian constitutional practice. Originally the suppliant placed an olive branch bound with wool (ίκετηρία) on an altar, the cultic act became a political formality for requesting a favour from the authorities (e.g. Andok.1.110, Aristot AtkPolAZ.6, Dem.18.107, 24.53, Aischin. 1.104, 2.15). L borrows several phrases from Attic orators and historians for foe sake of classical colour. (2) did not breathe a word: the characterisation of the young Methymnaians changes as soon as they are in the city. From easy-going holidaymakers they become political manipulators concerned with saving face. They thus adopt foe second urban perspective on the country­ folk: not models of the simple life but simpto n s who ought to know their place, by usage of wan Attic formula; cfAischin.2.33. (3) unheralded wan another formula L means foe phrase to denote a war begun without formal declaration (as Hdt5.81X but the more usual Attic sense is a war to the finish which cannot be ended by negotiation (ΧβηΛ/ια6.3.3.5, Dem. 18.262, Aischin.2.37, 2.80, PlsLLaws 626a, PlutAr.30); L’s war is in fact brought to a close by heralds (3.2.2). raid their coastline: military vocabulary, perhaps from Thouk.2.32.

2.20 (1) row the ships: the technical term αύτερέτης (“self-rowing”) is from Thoukydides (1.10.4, 3.18.4, 6.91.4). Mitylenaian farms: foe same places as 2.12.1 f.; the unity of setting emphasises the disruption, large numbers: ascending tricolon, foe first two members linked by anaphora (πολλά μεν... πολύν δε \ the third emphasised by litotes (ουκ ολίγους). (2) in the vidnity: the Methymnaians do not venture far from their ships; it is hardly an heroic campaign, not tending his goats: 1.21.1 n. dead beech tree: 1.12.3 n. This is the beech’s only appearance, as if to separate this incident from intimate and erotic scenes with oak and pine. The deadness of the tree is tymbolic commentary on D’s lack of moral fibre. (3) Chloe was with the flocks: here begins her abduction, symmetrical with D’s by pirates: 1.28.1 n. Unlike those of other novelists L’s abductors are not an erotic threat; that would only complicate his paradigmabcally “natural” story of erotic discovery. In one version of the Daphnis myth (Setv.ad Viig.£c/.8.68) his beloved, Piplea, was abducted by robbers, leading to a worldwide search. If L has this in mind, his game is to arouse and then thwart expectations. Hurling abuse at the statues: their hybris motivates and predicts divine redress. The simple ethical antithesis of pastoral is temporarily reasserted in preparation for foe next episode: foe Methymnaians’ godlessness and belligerence is opposed to the peace and piety of foe country.

190

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 21.2

E(v)c Divine intervention (2212 - 29) 221 0 ) toiling at the oars: the detail is not merely realistic: the absence of wind and the need for oarage keep C close to home. Seeing no goats: the ascending tricolon enacts D’s mounting ooncem: first he looks for his own animals, then for C’s and finally realises that she herself is gone, usually Chloe’s delight: poignant reminder of 1.24.4. 0 ) He ran _ he ran _ he ran: anaphoric tricolon, the oak where they used to sit: 1.12.5 n. The familiar tree is in poignant contrast to D’s dead beech.

2.22 (I) So, Chloe was snatched: L’s version of another of the novels’ staples, a lament by the hero or heroine, expressive of inner emotions, frequently on separation from the beloved: Char. 1.8, 3.3, 5.1, 5.10, 7.1; XenJEph.2.1, 3.8, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10; Ach.Tat3.16, 5.7; Hld.2.1, 2.4; Birchall 1996. Rhetorical accusation of the god who might have been expected to lend protection is commonplace: Char.3.10, 7.5; Xen.Eph.5.1l; Ach.Tat3.I0, 4.9; Hkl.1.8, 5.2, 6.8. plaits you garlands: D maximises C's claims on the Nymphs. For garlands, cf. 1.9.2, 1.14.4, 1.32.2; for the libation, cf. 2.2.5; C of course has not dedicated her pipes, merely dropped them in the scuffle, but D equates this with the devotion of previous worshippers (1.43) and of the lovers themselves after Doifcon’s death (1.32.2). first milk: the phrase elsewhere refers to the colostrum or beestings produced immediately after birth (Aii&oLHistAnim. 575bl 1, LSJ sv.πρωτόγαλα). It would make better sense here if it could mean the first, creamiest, milk of each milking. (2) No wolf has ever snatched: the pastoral world is vulnerable to destructive intrusion from both civilisation and wilderness, but urban violence is more threatening than even the archetypal threat to pastoral well-being. For C life in the city would be the loss of her selfflood. L here focalises simple perceptions through D; complications and qualifications come later. 0 ) How can I go home: more adaptation of romantic material: cf. Habrokomes’ lamentations at Xen.Eph.5.10.4: T shall arrive in Ephesos alone. My parents will see me without Anthia”. The intertextual smile derives from the fact that Habrokomes has toured the Mediterranean and endured innumerable ordeals, including latterly a spell in a chain gang in the stonequarries of Nuceria. (4) lie here and wait L’s version of the romantic hero’s suicide threat, mirrored by C at 4.27.2: so Char.5.10.8, 7.1.6; Xen.Eph.2.1.4 ff., 5.8.8; Ach.Tat.3.16.5; Hld.1.8.3, 2.1.3, 2.4.4; MacAlister 19%, 43 ff stop you feeling sad?: D has the romance hero’s horror of being forgotten or replaced (Char.3.6.6 ff., 4.3.10, Hld.1.25.5 ff.), but cannot yet conceive the erotic implications of city life for his beloved. So his jealousy is displaced on to her animals, an effect whose humour depends on the reader’s familiarity with genre-conventions and ironically superior perspective.

2.23 (1) slumber carried him off: this is a supernatural sleep; cf.2.26.5, 4.34.1. The pattern of lament followed by oracular sleep is found also at Xen.Eph.2.8.1 f., Apul.M?/. 11.3: L’s plotting remains within romantic convention. For dreams in DC: 1.7.1 n. three Nymphs appeared: only V gives the number of the Nymphs, and only here does L tell us that they are a trinity. The point is important as a subtle hint that the guardian Nymphs are the metamorphosed heroines of the three inset myths: Pitys, Syrinx and Echo. The description explicitly recalls the statues at 1.42, focalised through D, for whom they were familiar objects. (2) the eldest: cf.3.27.2. took pity on hen 1.5.2 ff; the divine agency heavily signed in the earlier scene is now confirmed. [She has nothing in common with plains and Lamon*s little sheep): these words are probably a corruption of something written by L. DC’s true

BOOK TWO 23.2

COMMENTARY

191

social status explains the Nymphs’ interest, but this revelation apparently does not register in D’s consciousness. (4) Pan, whose statue stands there under the pine: c£2.32. Despite Philetas’ story, DC still have not shown Pan due respect His semi-caprine form (224.2) signifies an aspect of male sexuality that D has yet to confront and integrate. Pan co-operates closely with the Nymphs but his involvement marks the beginning of a separation in DC’s gender roles. The pine (πίτυς) beneath which his statue stands is the Nymph Pitys, Pan’s first erotic victim (127.2): the tableau thus embodies both elements of the novel’s divine apparatus and foreshadows the progressive casting of the woman as transfigured victim in sexual relations, never even given him flowers: L has in mind the story of Pan’s epiphany in Aikadia to the messenger Pheidippides before the battle of Marathon: “Pan ... catted him by name and told him to ask the Athenians why they paid him no attention, in spite of his friendliness towards them and the fact that he had often been useful to them in the past, and would be so again in the future. The Athenians believed Pheidippides’ story, and when their affairs were once more in a prosperous state, they built a shrine to Pan under the Acropolis” (Hdt.6.105). familiar with armies: a) Pan is often named as a general in the mythical campaigns of Dionysos (Polyain.12, Luc.Bacch.4, Diod.1.18), in which capacity he is credited with the invention of ranks, the phalanx, and the division of an army into left and right wings; b) from the fourth century BC, he is associated with the phenomenon of panic in armies (2.25.3 n). evO foe be will come: the Nymphs become increasingly oracular towards the end of foe dream: short paratactic clauses, with prominent anaphora and rhyme. (5) Love will take care of you: validating Philetas’ words at 2.62, and reinforcing both L’s erotic theology, and the reader’s knowledge of how romantic stories end.

224 (1) Weeping with joy and sorrow: Greek novelists habitually represent complex emotional states as a combination of opposites; Fusillo 1990. Cf. Hld.4.9.1: T was filled with a mixture of joy and sadness and had the peculiar experience of being moved simultaneously to joy and tears”; L characteristically simplifies the topos. The sorrow is that of separation, soon to end. best of his nannies: D’s new awareness of Pan leads him to make an intuitive genderdifferentiation, recorded but not remarked by the narrator. The difference within sameness of foe sacrifices to the Nymphs and Pan marks them as female and male aspects of the totality of Eros. 0 ) goat-legged and horned: the same two compound adjectives are used of Pan at Luc.Dial.deor.2.2, which L may have known, bucking goat in the other Pan is commonly represented in the visual arts with syrinx and goats; Roscher sv.Pan 1467 ff. The attributes symbolise his twin aspects: vigorous and sexual animality, and music as part of foe cosmic harmony; but the story reverses the obvious significances: music becomes an element of panic fear, and foe animals analogous to human beings under Eros’ care. (4) longest night there had ever been: cf. Hld220.4, “he felt it was the longest night there had ever been”. D’s subjective perception of time is a mark of his emotion; then tire narrative backtracks to cover foe same night from a contrasted perspective. The narration of simultaneous events was a recognised technical problem for historians (Diod.20.43.7, from Douris of Samos) and novelists (Hfigg 1971, 138-88): L exploits it to effect an artistic transition. 225 (1) ten stades or so: about 1.8 km., the furthest either protagonist travels from home until their journey to the city. 0 ) headland: the precise detail contributes to the “reality effect”, and conforms well enough to the NE coast of Lesbos, but L probably had no single real location in mind. Pan, as god of

192

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 25.2

mug ins, was associated with coasts and rocky promontories (Borgeaud 1988, 214 η. 154): thus the scene is set for his intervention, non-martial pleasure: again the Methymnaians are associated with "pleasure", but now of a sinister, excessive kind, pointing the justice of their approaching nemesis. (3) drinking, and revelling, and acting: illusory parallelism is produced by, in two cases, temporal augment and third-person plural inflexion (επινον ... επαιζον), and in the third by prepositional prefix and adjectival agreement (επινίκιον), day was ending: L narrates a panic, a phenomenon whose name indicates its enduring connection in the popular mind with Pan, a god of delusions (Σ.Ειιτ2Λρρ.141, Photsv.TTavoc σκοπός). L indicates his agency by the Nymphs* prediction (2.23.4) and a barbed editorial comment (2.26.5). Typically panic occurs in a military context, at night, with unexplained noises and hallucinations, leading to terrified confusion; Borgeaud 1988, 88 ff. Recurrent features in literary accounts are the suddenness of the onset of panic and the lack of obvious cause (references given by Borgeaud 1988, 229 n.8-9); the ghostly music of Pan's pipes and echoes are specific auditory triggers (Polyain. 12, XEurJVies.36). The fact that these are all present in L suggests that his narrative reflects real beliefs, but the basic model is elaborated novelisdcally, with details from other mythological archetypes (notably Dionysos and Apollo in 2.26.1 ff.). The Greek novel does not generally narrate action on fee divine plane, preferring fee proleptic mediation of dreams and orades. So here fee panic is framed by two explanatory dreams; but fee narrating voice distances itself from the miracles by focalising them through the perceptions of the Methymnaians (225.3-4, 2.26.5) and affecting a quasi-historiographical objectivity (2.26.4). The supernatural events themselves are made realistic by a surplus of concrete detail ablaze with fire: compare Hannibal's use of fire to cause panic (Liv22.16-17). Fire is not a canonical attribute of Pan, but can accompany any divine manifestation. Although this is not a dream, L's readers would have known the belief that dreams of big fires foretold disaster (Artemid2.9). great fleet externalising their worst fears: 2.21.1.

226 (I) more horrific than the night a reversal of normality, as panics generally pass when the situation is clearly visible; cf 2.26.4. ivy with bunches of berries: not usually an attribute of Pan. L is using imagery from fee story of Dionysos: the Homeric Hymn to Dionysos tells how he was abducted by pirates, and then manifested his power in miracles including ivy clambering up the mast (40) and fee metamorphosis of fee crew into dolphins (53). crown of pine: as at Ach.TaL8.6.13 the crown denotes Pan's protection. The pine again evokes Pitys; the three Nymphs of the novel art all operative in this paragraph (Syrinx and Echo appear at 2.26.3, συριγγος ήχος), although they have delegated fee military to Pan (2.23.4). The divine agency is united. (2) Dolphins leapt: 226.1 n; at Hom.Hymn.Apoll.400 ff. Apollo takes on dolphin shape and batters a ship which he then carries to Delphi to pressgang her crew into his priesthood. Possibly L also had in mind the weapon known as "dolphin", a fish-shaped weight dropped into a ship in the hope that it would pass straight through the hull (lAr.JCnights 762, Thouk.7.41.2). (3) the pipes a trumpet parallelism and assonance (συριγξ ... σάλπιγξ) put the instruments in stark antithesis, underlining the paradox of fee military use of the pastoral pipes; fee effect is repealed at 228.3 (πολεμικός ... ποιμενικος). A few visual representations appear to associate Pan wife the trumpet (Borgeaud 1988, 136, 245 n.32), but here it encapsulates the opposite of what he usually stands for. (5) everyone with any sense: double reference: a) intratextually, those Methymnaians who are not too far gone in felly are able to recognise panic; but this only exposes their distance from

BCX)K TWO 26.5

COMMENTARY

193

fee novel's theology and morality, as their assumption that a god's anger is caused only by violation of his shrine denotes a failure to understand feat fee entire countryside is a shrine and that its divinities are so closely connected that their insult to the Nymphs is also an offence against Pan. b) metatextually, if those who deny divine intervention and rationalise panics are fools, fee reader is forced imaginatively to accept the narrative at free value; L playfully armours his text against criticism that it does not observe the laws of realism, around midday: 1.22 n. For Pan as midday demon, see Borgeaud 1983, 111. supernatural sleep: ούκ αθεει is Homeric (Od. 18.353).

227 (1) most ungodly of all mankind: from Hdtl.159 (Apollo reprimanding Aristodikos for sacrilege), in your heart’s madness: from Horn./? 24.114, of Achilkus’ "madness" in abusing Hektor’s corpse. (2) Love intends to make a story: recalling Sappho’s description of Eros as μυθοπλόκος ‘^weaver of stories" (188 LP, context unknown). An intensely and complexly self-referential moment a) the story (or myth) to be made out of C is, of course, the book we are reading (cf Apul.A/e/2.12, "1 would be a big and incredible story and become books”). The prologue has already indicated feat L is not (or purports not to be) fee inventor of fee story he tells. At the deepest level that honour fells to Eros, who designed the heroine’s destiny from the start to be a text to instruct in the nature of love; fee important phrase in the prologue, describing the novel as a "story of Love" now takes on its second, subjective, sense (Pr. 1 n). Between L and Eros stand DC themselves, whose autobiographical painting L transcribes; the novel is feus doubly begotten from inside itself, doubly authenticated as "true" in both factual and spiritual senses; b) as a "myth" C will be not just a story, but a story wife a meaning, on a level with fee three inset myths (127, 2.34, 3.23) and supplying fee absence of a myth in Bk.4. Like the heroines of fee myths, C will be metamorphosed into an artistic object that will give immortality; she will become fee novel, not just the subject of fee novel. The myths stake out fee novel's central issues and themes, and are part of its educative agenda; just so C, qua myth, will be educative in the life of her reader, c) L seems to regard fee novel as fee story of C rather than of D and C. This is partly a product of fee narrative situation, partly a reflection of generic priorities (Char's novel was entitled KaUirhoe, Hld.'s often referred to as Charikleia); nevertheless fee hint is given feat C's story is the essence of the book, its paradigm of general relevance. Bibliography. MacQueen 1985 and 1990; Morgan 1994. (3) food for fish: alluding to Horn.//. 19.268, βόσιν ιχθυσιν. 228 (I) Bryaxis: connected wife βρυαζω, "wax wanton", fixing fee moral character of the Methymnaians; an allusion to Pan's cult titles, Bryaktes. For the technique of naming: 1.6.3 n. Here the postponement is artful; the connotations of Bryaxis' name reveal that even he has been all along an instrument of the divine purpose. (2) crown of pine on her head: without being told about the pine-crown, they recognise it as a magical token identifying the girl at issue, even before Bryaxis makes the association with Pan. (3) sound of pipes was heard again: Pan's music has dominated the episode. Its reversion to its true nature signifies the restoration of bucolic normality, and marks the structural peripeteia. Again, the three Nymphs lurk in fee Greek text, assisting Pan (πιτυος ... συριγγος ήχος); cf.226.1 n.

194

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 29.1

229 (1) apparently fall of joy: 1.31.4 n. goats belonging to the other goatherds: only an animal lights campaigner would ask how many beasts are packed into this ship. Again DC are marked out from toe rustic commonalty, whose animals are carried off to Metoymna. (2) proclamation of the name of Pan: the Metoymnaians undergo a sort of conversion, cease to be villains, and, like D, enter the protection of the novel's gods. (3) before they had weighed anchor, benevolent miracles with anchors and dolphins, exact mirror-images of 226.2. The third miracle, the shattering of the oars, is reversed in the word Ιπλεον (“started to sail”): the ships go home with no human effort

E(v)d Pastoral interlude (230-39) E(v)dl Reunion and celebrations (2.3033) 230 (1) the second pasture: 1.82 n. colapsed in a swoon: emotional reunions are frequent in romance. For toe swoon, cf. Xen£ph.5.13J, “When they saw each other, they recognised each other at once, for that was their fervent desire. They embraced each other and fell to the ground”; Hld2.63, “They continued in this vein, until in the end they collapsed, both at once, to the ground, where they lay clasped in a mute embrace that seemed to fuse their very beings”. Here only D passes out: 1.12.3 n. The parallel reunion after D’s abduction (1.31.1) lacked the hugs and kisses. The difference registers the lovers’ development following Philetas’ tuition. (2) brought him back to life: cf 2.18. (3) She told the whole story: 1.312 n. pine budding on her head: this could mean a) that the pine was growing from her head, or b) that there was a garland on her head. The pine-crown and toe goats’ ivy have disappeared as miraculously as they came. (5) offering of milt: 2 2 3 n.; later, when Pan gets alcohol, the Nymphs get unfermented grapejuice (2.31.1 f.) The sacrifice of a goat to the Nymphs is from Theokr.5.11 f.

231 (1) and roasted some: normal practice was first to roast some meat in the sacrificial fire and consume it at once, then to boil the rest for the feast afterwards. The sacrifice at 2.31.3 reinstates the normal order, but the point here is one of gender differentiation: 2.31.2 n. coaches of leaves: part of the Thcokritean furniture (5.34, 7.67), and an element of the idealised countryside, in literature (e.g. D.Chrys.0.7.65X cult and refined pleasure; Verpoorten 1962. L recalls Plato's picture of the “first city”: “they will sit down to feast with their children on couches of myrtle and bryony; and afterwards they will drink wine and sing hymns to toe gods with garlands on their heads, and enjoy each other’s company” (Rep2 312b). wolf attacked them: 2 2 2 2 n. (2) pastoral poems from the past: the phrase suggests poems in the Thcokritean style, which presented themselves as shepherds’ songs. The pastoral tradition is thus relocated inside a fictional world, which is itself located within toe pastoral tradition; an elaborate game of pedigree and infinite literary regress, signed up by toe attention-seeking alliteration; a similar effect at 2.33.3. slept right there: the urban fantasy of campfires and nights under the stars, crowned the goat: toe differences within similarity between this sacrifice and the first begin to map out the opposition between Pan’s masculinity and the Nymphs' femininity: a) the pine-wreath embodies Pitys, the first victim of Pan’s sexuality; b) the intoxicating wine hints at his potential violence and the larger bowl at his stature and strength; c) the reversal of roasting and boiling moves him away from the woman’s realm of cooking-pot and kitchen towards toe man’s preserve of open fire and barbecue; d) the dedication of the skin emphasises male physical attributes (horns), and even involves a sort of penetration of toe pine (ένέττηξαν τη ιτίτυι).

BOOK TWO 32.1

COMMENTARY

195

232 (!) Tityros: a programmatic pastoral name, prominent at the beginning of Viig.Ec/. 1; also in Ecl3 , 5, 6, 8, 9 and later Roman pastoral (Calp.Sic.3, 4; Nemes.1.1, 2.84, Eins.99 ft). It occurs in Theokr. (3, 7.72), but if Bowie 1985 is correct that Tityros originated in the poetry of Philitas, there would be special point in his cameo role here as son of Philetas. The Souda (sv.’Επίχαρμος) names the father of the Sicilian comic playwright Epicharmos, a protopastoralist, as Tityros; a clearly fictitious literary ancestry. By origin the name is toe Doric form of σατυρος, appropriately caprine; Tityros is compared to a young goat at 2.32.1. Tityros’ physical attributes form part of a complex of connections. His hair and skin recall Dorkon (1.16.1 n) and Eros (2.4.1 n), with whom he also shares his boisterousness: Tityros is walking proof of the role of Eros in Philetas’ life, and a symbol of toe biological and social continuity he produces. His similarity to a kid betokens the interconnection of animal and human in Eros' dispensation, leaped lightly: exact recall of DC’s imitation of the kids and lambs (1.92). (2) had a drop or two: literally, “a little soaked”; a colloquialism from comedy (MenjEprtrep.170, DysklZX, EubouLfrg.126), used humorously in laier prose (LucJ)iol.deor. 232, Alkiphr.4.13.12 [imitating L?], Hid. 1.15.8,3.10.2). (3) given the slip: these are comic old men (note that Philetas is no longer a πρεσβύτης; 2.3-11 n); their youthful exploits consist mainly of running away and their successes can be counted on a single finger. Relish the postponement of διέφι/yov (“they escaped”), creating and then deflating toe thought that they had done something significant to pirates, second only to Pan: alluding to Theokr. 12 f., ... άδυ δε και τύ συρίσδες* μετά Πάνα το δεύτερον άθλον άποιση ‘You pipe sweetly too; you will win second prize after Pan”. 233 (3) his smock: toe noun έγκόμβωμα is otherwise unattested except in lexica and a few late Christian texts, though the cognate verb έγκομβόομαι crops up in the fragments of Epicharmos. Polydeukes defines it as a garment worn by slaves over their tunic. A connoisseur’s word from a lost model, perhaps Alexandrian pastoral? stark naked: again like Eros (2.4.1). like a fawn: from [Theokr].8.88 f.: “as the lad rejoiced and leapt up and clapped his hands in victory, so might a fawn leap to its mother”. Sicilian goatherd: implicitly Theokritos of Syracuse; 2.31.2 n. Theokr. was believed to be toe author of the shape-poem Syrinx, which enigmatically refers to Pan’s invention of the pipes, and his love for Pitys, Syrinx and Echo (Gow 1950, 552 ff); but otherwise the Syrinx story is not found in extant Theokr. The motif of payment for teaching a story comes from [Theokr].8.85 f,, where toe proposed fee is a goat and a syrinx has just been won in a contest Here the goat and pipe stand for Pan and Syrinx, so that fee and story are an exact exchange.

E(v)d2 The second myth (2-3437) 234 For the myths as series: 127 n. a) Context: the story of Syrinx is apt here because of toe importance of Pan and his pipes in toe rescue of C, the reason for toe festivities; we are awaiting the return of Tityros with his father’s special set, whose music will effect the transition back to the main narrative (2.38.1). Like the foregoing Metoymnaian episode, the myth centres on a female victim of violence, but the Pan who saved C causes the loss of Syrinx. b) Relation to toe other myths: in comparison with the first myth, this is explicitly erotic. It also marks a heightening of violence, from cattle-rustling to physical pursuit of toe person (note

196

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 34

the repealed βία). These developments are connected with the elevation of Pan from passing reference to central figure. However, his destruction of Syrinx is not deliberate, as that of Echo will be. Like the other myths, this one ends in the metamorphosis of its female protagonist, providing an aetiology of musical beauty in the real world. c) Relation to the main story: the erotic nature of the story reflects DC's progress; they now know “the name of Love", though still ignorant of the sexual act Pan and Syrinx in some way represent DC, as is deariy signed when the lovers assume their roles at 2.37. D must eventually accept his male sexuality, even if this necessitates the victimisation of C; she, for her part, must learn the full implications of her naive wish to be D’s syrinx (1.14.3), and also that to flee male sexuality is impossible and self-destmctive. The raised violence thus looks forward to the events of D C s wedding-night However, the identification of DC with Pan and Syrinx also highlights the differences: Syrinx refuses Pan, who resorts to violence, while D C s relationship is fully consensual and rec^rocal; it is significant that they edit out the anger and violence when they dance the story, indicating that there are other aspects of Pan which D must eliminate or conceal. Seen this way, the myth warns of the futility and tragic consequences of a sexual desire not grounded in mutual love; it rehearses a possibility that the main story avoids. The story of Syrinx is first attested in Ov.Afef.1.689 ff. (generally accepted to be based on some unidentified Alexandrian source). It figures also in Ach.TaL (8.6.7-11, close to L in detail, but not dose enough to be a direct derivation). The story itself is probably a Hellenistic concoction; rival aetiologies ascribe the invention of the pipes to Hermes or Marsyas. L has adapted the story in detail: he makes Syrinx more immediately comparable to DC as a musical goatherd, rather than explicitly a Nymph as in Ovid (690 f.), who does not mention her musicality; he makes her reflect C’s innocence by eliminating Ovid's suggestion (692 f.) that she had often had to fend off unwelcome advances. The metamorphosis itself is handled differently: L leaves open the possibility that Syrinx simply sinks into the marsh, leaving the reeds as a reminder but not a re-embodiment of herself. This de-emphasises both her detestation of her pursuer, and the god's violence; in Ach.TaL he grasps her hair, only to find he is holding reeds instead, then cuts the reeds, only to realise that he has wounded his beloved's body. Only L makes the invention of the panpipes a deliberate act, symbolising the ''inequality" of the love of Pan and Syrinx; elsewhere Pan accidentally produces a musical note by sighing over or kissing the reeds; this variation brings Pan closer to D (1.10.2 n), and shifts the moral balance of the myth, making the creation of the pipes a more appropriate analogue for C's passage from virgin to wife. Bibliography: Philippides 1980-81; Billault 1983; Hunter 1983, 52 ff.; Pandiri 1985, 130 ff; Wouters 1991/94. In this passage scholars have found a number of similarities to Virg.Ec/.2 (esp.31 ff): Cairns 1979, 27; du Quesnay 1979, 59 f.; Bowie 1985, 81 ff; Hunter 1983, 81 ff. is sceptical. Some of the resemblances are not close, and a few can be explained by common use of Theokr., but their clustering in a scene where Philetas is prominent cannot be co-incidence. Again we sense the presence of Phil has; Philetas’ compliment and the idea that a tale in prose can be sweeter than song (2.35.1) acquire vastly more point as self-referential praise if L’s model were Philitas. If Philitas* poetry included an aetiology of the syrinx, he may well have been Ovid's source. (1) beautiful maiden: similarly Echo is the mortal daughter of a Nymph (3.23.1). The mortality of these figures is integral; for them death is a prelude to transfigured immortality, so that they can return as the Nymphs who guide C through the metaphorical death and rebirth of growing up. grazed goats» sported with the Nymphs: Lamon's story is marked by asyndeton, within and between sentences. The parataxis and brevity may be an attempt to characterise the rustic narrator, but over his head, as it were, L weaves a poetry in prose, full of assonance and symmetry, which can hardly be ascribed to Lamon.

BOOK TWO 34.3

COMMENTARY

197

(3) Angrily: cf. Ach.Tat8.6 9, "Pan angrily cut down the reeds" (τέμνει δη τούς κάλαμους ύττ’ οργής). Pan’s anger also features at 3.23 J . L suggests an etymological connection between anger (orge) and the instrument (organon), unequal lengths: the cfogdral syrinx was rectangular, with pipes of the same length stopped internally to produce different notes. The instrument with pipes of different lengths was Italian in origin, and spread to Greece only in the late Hellenistic period The inequality of pipes is mentioned by Latin poets (Virg.Ec/.2.36 f., Tib.2.5.31., OvMet 1.711); and is implicit in the shape of foe Theokritean Syrinx, indicating a post-Theokritean dating for foal piece (Gow 1950,2.554). The connection between foe inequality of the pipes and Pan’s unreciprocated love therefore looks like a late embellishment of the story, probably L's own; it could not derive from Philitas, even if he was L’s model. L plays with two senses of the word ανισος: a) “unequal"; b) “unfair" 235 (1) mighty instrument: a phallic contrast to D’s puny tubes; D’s assumption of the role of Pan and foe presentation of these pipes mark a significant moment on his road to manhood The pipes also denote the continuity of the pastoral elect under Eros* direction. D is Philetas’ successor, as already indicated by the analogy of their experiences (2.8.1 ff); similar pastoral initiatory functions are served by Lykidas* staff (Theokr.7.128 £) and Linus’ pipes (Virg.Ec/.6.69 f.). The thought that they are Pan’s own set is not just stupid amazement on the part of L’s hypostatised observer, but suggests a line of succession from high antiquity. Metatextually, the instruction to pass the pipes on to a worthy successor stakes L’s own claim as literary heir of Philitas and Theokr. (here represented by his central figure, Daphnis). (2) reeds were not blocked: the details characterise Philetas as an expert, but betray L’s ignorance of the technicalities of the syrinx. Except in the most primitive examples, which Philetas’ clearly is not, foe reeds were stopped with wax to make a closed column of air, which resonated when foe player blew across the open end (3) loud and strong: literally "like a young man”; unobtrusively L activates his subtext at 2.5.2 Eros referred to Philetas’ regaining youth as his deepest, but impossible, wish; now we see that through art and divine favour time can indeed be redeemed (4) virtuoso display: the rustic music of the syrinx attracted less critical commentary than urban art-music, so it is hard to tell how realistically this passage describes the playing of a master piper. However, it clearly coheres with foe novel’s artistic agenda: foe sweetness and artistry of Philetas’ playing echo key-terms (τερπνόν, τέχνη) from the prologue, while the stress on mimesis recalls the text’s imitation of the seminal painting. Philetas* playing is thus a paradigm of excellence and an analogue for aspects of the novel itself. L resumes the significant pun on ευνομία (1.5.1 n): a) νομός "pasture"; b) νόμος = “melody"; c) νόμος = "law", reinforcing the larger parallels between foe ordered structure of music, foe shepherd’s control of his flock and the moral order proper to all human society, herd of cattle: L’s use of collective nouns follows the precedent of epic; Horn.//. 11.678 f., Hes.77ieog.445 f.; Hunter 1983, 87. The variation in order produces an inexact chiasmus: a) cows, goats, sheep, b) sheep, cows, goats, sheep’s tune was sweet: the epithets reflect the animals* characteristics. Sheep get sweet music because they are gentle and stand for pastoral poetry; the cattle’s music denotes their physical size (μέγα = a) “big"; b) “loud"); and foe goats’ hints at their belligerence (οξύ * “sharp" as both “high pitched" and “quick to anger'*. 2.36 (1) dance of the wine vintage: dancing was naturally a feature of vinta^ celebrations, but Dryas’ dance is for watching rather than for participation: a pantomime or art-dance. Again this performance encapsulates aspects of L's novel, in particular its εναργεια, or power to make foe reader imagine he is seeing what is described (Pr. n); L courts comparison with his

198

COMMENTARY

BOOK TWO 36.1

own description of the same activities (2.1). The reference to “Dryas really drinking” slyly reminds us that Dryas is already inebriated; we may even remember the “old saying ... that wine persuades old men to dance, even against their will” (Eriphos’ Aiolos, cited by Ath.4.134a-c). the new wine: parallelism emphasised by rhyme, even though the words are in difference cases (πίθους ... γλευκους).

237 (1) this old man won praise for his dance: the three ait forms (story, music and dance) in which the old men have individually excelled are excellently combined in DC’s performance: Lamon provides the subject, Dryas the medium, while Philetas' pipes are incorporated within the performance, as prop and character. It is a short step to self-referential commentary: the excellence of DC stands for that of DC, which too is marked by narrative, music (stylistic euphony and structural harmony) and mimetic realism, took the part of Pan: literally “imitated Pan”; cf. VirgJEc/,2.31, mecum una in sihris imitabere Pana canendo. Possibly L is adapting a motif from a shared pastoral model (Philitas?) (3) Itissed him: the redundant phrasing emphasises the renewed play on Philetas’ name (2.5.1 n). The sequence of kiss and presentation of pipes is based directly on Theokr.6.42 f., “so saying Damoitas kissed Daphnis; and he gave him a set of pipes”.

E(v)d3 Resumed love and oaths (238-39) 238 (1) reunited: the myth of Pan and Syrinx superficially excludes reunion, but at a deeper level metamorphosis redeems the final separation; Syrinx’ essence remains with Pan in the pipes, and L hints that, as one of the three Nymphs, she collaborates with him in the supervision of DC. (2) filled one another's hearts: the ordeals of the Methymnaian episode have brought an affective development, a new emotional and spiritual closeness, culminating in the vows of 2.39. In Eros' master plot this must precede physical consummation. (3) to the pasture: routine resumes, but now, for the first time, Pan is included in DC’s morning pieties, a sign of the development wrought by the Methymnaian episode, lying down: Philetas’ three remedies (from 2.7.7) resume the situation of 2.11.3, closing off the military episode in a sort of ring-composition. The few loose ends tied in the first chapters of Bk.3 do not impinge on DC. Lying down together (not yet naked) is no longer an unintentional afterthought: another step forward, though DC still cannot see beyond the letter of Philetas’ euphemism.

239 (1) contest of love: as in Catull.45, Hor.CW.3.9, where lovers cap one another’s protestations, probably reflecting lost Hellenistic poetic models. The topos surfaces in a rhetorical exercise discussed in Sai.Contr.22: a husband and wife having each sworn to kill themselves if anything happens to the other, the husband tries to dispose of his wife by sending home a false report of his own death; one elaboration of the thesis, by Marulhis, runs: “there were constant contests - I love more - No I do - 1 cannot live without you - Nor I without you. As usually results from contests, we swore oaths”, hinting at a literary tradition of such scenes, swearing oaths: possibly alluding to the Daphnis myth, in which Daphnis swore and broke an oath of fidelity to his Nymph (Introduction §3). Mutual oaths occur in mainstream romance (Xen.Eph.1.11.3 ff.: “ ’let us swear to one another, my dearest, that you will remain faithful to me and not submit to any other man and that 1 should never live with another woman’. When she heard this Anthia gave a loud cry. ’Habrokomes,’ she said, 1 swear to you by the goddess of our fathers, the great Artemis of the Ephesians ... that 1 will not live or look upon the sun if I am separated from you even for a short time’; also

BOOK TWO 39.1

COMMENTARY

199

Ach.Tat2.19.1, Hld.4.18 f.). swore by Pan: the narrator offers no explanation of why DC swear by different gods, but L hints at a new instinctive awareness that male and female sexualities differ in kind and potentially work to different agendas. This is clearest in C’s fear that Pan, as embodiment of active male sexuality, is liable to condone promiscuity. Fidelity and trust become an issue for the first time, pointing up the distance travelled since the opening of the book, when women flirting with D caused C a pain she could not explain ( 2 .2 .2). (2) girlish artlessness: with more knowledge she would have been less open and more devious, αφέλεια (“simplicity”) is also a term of literary criticism (Hunter 1983, 85): in attributing it morally to his heroine L also draws attention to the stylistic qualities of the book that tells her story. (3) Pan is an amorous god: at LucdiaI.deor2.4 Pan says: “1 am amorous (ερωτικός) and I would not be content with being lover to one woman ... I am lover to Echo and Pitys”. C’s fears are realistically based on the two myths she has heard, though she has acquired a small surplus of information somehow. C now knows the name of love and its cognates (ερωτικός ... ήρασθη) but is still vague as to what Pan actually does to the Nymphs. She does not mean words like ένοχλων ... ττραγματα ιταρέχων ... επί ττλείονας Ιλθης as knowing euphemisms, although the more sophisticated reader takes them as precisely that Nymphs who guard the flocks: contrast 3.23.1, where C needs instruction in the taxonomy of Nymphs. The two classes named here are represented for C by Pitys (changed into a tree) and Syrinx (the instrument with which DC guide the flocks). (4) by this flock of goats: 2.39.6 n. never to leave Chloe: an innocent version of [Theok].27J5: “swear not to leave me against my will after sex and go away”, kill her like a wolf: infidelity is equated to the archetypal threat to the pastoral world. This primes the ironies of the episode with Lykainion, who, though lupine, is not malign; nor is D’s method of “killing” her (sexual intercourse) quite what C envisages as appropriate treatment for a wolf. (5) enjoyed being mistrusted: because C’s concern demonstrates her love, and her distrust gives him an opportunity to commit himself, while she loved him: the conjunction φίλησαi φιλούσαν misapplies a commonplace of the “Love your friends and hate your enemies” philosophy: Hes. Works 353, ArchiL23.14 C, PiJyA.2.83 ff, Mosch.6.8. D’s oath commits him to affective reciprocity not physical monogamy: L avoids having him swear an oath that will be broken by his encounter with Lykainion. (6) a young girl and a shepherdess: with typical symmetry the closure reverses that of Bk.1, which focused on D’s innocence (1.32.4 n). The parallel emphasises the shift in their relationship: D has overtaken C, leaving her as the innocent shepherdess and thought: wordplay: νέμω (“herd”, but also “distribute”) and νομίζω (“think”) were known to be etymologically related, gods of shepherds and goatherds: complex ironies: a) the narrator marks C’s naivety and limited horizons; if she were older and worldlier she would know that lovers’ oaths are worthless, and mere beasts have no divine powers; but b) at the author’s level the animals embody in microcosm the benevolent power of Eros the Shepherd over all creation: a deep moral and spiritual truth, which eludes those, including the narrator, who fancy themselves more sophisticated than C; and c) despite the reader’s superior smile, D means what he says and keeps his promise, in a way which will differentiate profound love from mere sex. The book ends with a nice chiasmus.

200

COMMENTARY

BOOK THREE 1

BOOK THREE E(v)e Conclusion of hostilities (3.1-2) The military episode is summarily oonduded in a rapid narrative marked by the vocabulary and mannerisms of historiography. The loose ends must be tied to eliminate any residual threat to the re-established pastoral idyll (which would distract from the novel's agenda), but are held over so that the second book can close with a significant erotic tableau. As compatriots of DC, the Mitylenaians are idealised: their commander behaves with moderation and scrupulous propriety, even where full authority has been delegated to him. He stands in clear contrast to his Methymnaian counterpart, an antithesis encapsulated in their names: Bryaxis barbaric, Hippasos upper-class Greek. Nonetheless, Methymna is largely rehabilitated, displaying adult magnanimity when the truth is discovered. Neither side has any territorial ambitions. So the book opens with a glimpse of a civilised political ideal, highlighting the cynical rustic materialism at the end of the book and undercutting the crude ethical opposition o f city and country.

3.1 (1) counter-attack: όπλα κινεΐν is technical military terminology, ultimately from Thouk. 1.82.1, but frequent in later writers.

(2) three thousand shield: the numbers are perhaps unrealistically large for a city of Mitylene's sire in the classical period. Mitylene's total citizen population at the time of Alexandras is estimated at 6-7000: BQrchner, RE 12 (1925) 2111. Collective singular άσπίς is military terminology: Hdt5.30, Xen^mi6.1.7.10. 3.2 (1) did not plunder: unlike the Methymnaians (2.20.1), who are thus implicitly condemned as “bandits”, advanced rapidly: rather than take the long, easy coastal road, Hippasos goes tty the shortest route across the middle of the island, nowhere near DC. Poor land communications would prevent word of his advance getting far ahead of him. (2) hundred stades: about 1 8 ^ km. In literal geography this would put the meeting with the herald at the bridge over the Achironos (Green 1982,213). (3) normal relations by land and sea: the phraseology is from a famous passage of Thoukydides (122, ob$ έπιμειγνύντες άδεώς άλλήλοις ούτε κατά γην ούτε διά θαλάσσης) (4) with unrestricted powers: the term στρατηγός αύτοκράτωρ is from Thouk.6.72 (of an extraordinary office at Syracuse). L's Mitylene is a classical democracy, but this crisis appointment is more like the Roman dictatorship: 2.19.1 n. (5) peace more to their advantage: perhaps alluding to Hdt 1.87.4, “no one is so stupid that he prefers war to peace”.

F. WINTER (33-11) If the development of love follows the seasons, winter should be a stasis, if not a regression. This poses a problem: how to narrate time in which nothing happens? L begins with separation, but then has to relax the logic of his schema to have any narratable content The shifting of the scene to C's home makes further erotic progress, by experimenting with Philetas' third remedy, impossible (except in a drolly displaced way at 3.10.5), but allows a spirited genre-scene with comic-realistic depiction of the non-idealised peasantry, from whose ironies even DC are not exempt

BOOK THREE 3

COMMENTARY

201

F(i) Seasonal description (33-4) 33 The details of the winter scene are close to Horace’s famous Soracte poem (Od. 1.9), with which L shares deep snow, trees bending under the weight of snow, aid the stillness of frozen water. Horace's poem is based on one by the Lesbian poet Alkaios, of which only the first lines are preserved (fr.338 LP): ύει μεν ό Ζευς, έκ δ* όράνω μεγας χείμων, πεπάγαισιν δ* ύδάτων ροαί Zeus is raining, there is great wintry weather from heaven, and the streams of waters are frozen”. It seems likely that L turned directly to Alkaios for his Lesbian winter, and that his description includes allusions to lines now lost: Nisbet & Hubbard 1970, 119. L's winter is abnormally severe but not implausible, even for Lesbos. Apart from Alkaios, Vitruvius (1.6.1) criticises the town-planners of Mitylene, remarking that when the north wind blows it is too cold to stand in the lanes and squares. Green 1982,210 notes two winters with heavy snow and ice on Lesbos within living memory. Hugh Mason tells me that the winter of 1850, which killed eveiy olive tree in the island, is still remembered as ο Καής (“the scorcher”; cf. 3.10.1) (1) shut off — shut in: two compounds of the same verb, anaphora (π ά σ α ς... πάντας), isocolon, and syntactic parallelism with rhyme and similar clausulae. (2) frozen solid: the extremes of the winter landscape are contrasted: on the one hand abnormal movement (λάβροι μεν), and on the other abnormal immobility (επεπηγει δε); the same antithesis informs Horace’s poem, and is here emphasised by chiasmus. The phrase επεπηγει... κρύσταλλος is from Thoukydides (323.5; sadly not from the Lesbian chapters of that book). (3) spin flax: L nowhere mentions flax fields. The sentence is an ascending tricolon. (4) cattle at their mangers: a Homeric phrase: Gtf.4.535, 11.411, from a simile describing the murder of Agamemnon. L has erudite fun mis^plying his Homeric sources, pigs in their sties: Homeric swine: συφεος (“sty”) is from the Eumaios sections of the Odyssey, while their food is what Kirke gives to Odysseus' metamorphosed sailors (CW. 10242, πάρ ρ άκυλον βάλανόν τ εβαλεν). Strictly, σκύλος is the nut of the holm oak, (πρίνος, not a feature of L's landscape), and βάλανος of the familiar oak (φηγός).

3.4 (I) farm-hands and herdsmen were glad: this enforced domesticity is clearly unusual in L's fictional world, even in winter, but occasional periods of idleness were a reality of peasant life, cautioned against by moral economists like Hesiod and Cato, but assimilated into literary pastoral. L may have specifically in mind Bion fr.2.5, with which he shares not only the sentiment but also the context of comparing the benefits of the seasons (Reed 1997 adkxx): ή και χείμα δύσεργον - έπεί και χείματι πολλοί θαλπόμενοι θέλγονται άεργίςχ τε καί όκνορ. (“but then winter is idle; many delight in winters, warmed by idleness and indolence*'); also Dio Chiys.O.7.18, Alkiphr.227 (both pastoral fictions); Virg.Ge