Theocritus, Dioscuri (Idyll 22): Introduction, Text, And Commentary 3525252110, 9783525252116

727 111 7MB

English Pages 251 [250] Year 1997

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Theocritus, Dioscuri (Idyll 22): Introduction, Text, And Commentary
 3525252110, 9783525252116

Citation preview


Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle/Siegmar Döpp/Hugh Lloyd-Jones Günther Patzig

HEFT 114



Theocritus: Dioscuri (Idyll 22) Introduction, Text, and Commentary


Verantwortlicher Herausgeber: Hugh Lloyd-Jones

D ie D eutsche B ib lio th e k - C IP -E in h eitsa u fn a h m e Sens, A lexander:

T heocritus: Dioscuri. (Idyll 22) : introduction, text, and com m entary / A lexander Sens. - G ottingen : Vandenhoeck und R uprecht, 1997 (H ypom nem ata ; Η. 114) ISBN 3-525-25211-0

Ο Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1997 Printed in Germany. - Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

T able of Contents PREFACE.......................................................................................................7 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 11 I. Structure and Unity................................................................................ 13 II. Date of Composition and Relationship to Other Hellenistic Poetry.....24 III. Dialect, Language, and Style...................................................................36 IV. M eter..................................................................................... 42 V. The Transmission of the Text................................................................. 47 Manuscripts.........................................................................................47 Papyri.................................................................................................. 49 Early Editions..................................................................................... 50 The Manuscript Tradition...................................................................51 The Early History of the Text.............................................................55 TEXT.............................................................................................................. 59 Sigla................................................................................................................ 60 Δ ιόσκουροι.................................................................................................. 61 COMMENTARY........................................................................................... 73 ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................... ;225 INDICES


P reface In preparing this edition I have been fortunate to receive help and encouragement from a number of colleagues and friends at Georgetown University and elsewhere. The late John Rowe Workman first introduced me to Hellenistic poetry when I was an undergraduate. Richard F. Thomas encouraged my work on Theocritus from its inception; his friendship, criticism, and advice continue to be of great importance to me. Sir Hugh Lloyd-Jones generously read and improved several drafts of the entire work. I can only hope that he will not be overly disappointed in the final product. Other friends, too, generously undertook to read the work at various stages or provided advice on specific points. I am delighted to thank in particular Edward Bodnar, S.J., David Christenson, Cynthia Damon, Mary Depew, Marco Fantuzzi, John Glavin, Frederick Griffiths, Albert Henrichs, Richard Hunter, Catherine Keesling, Brian Krostenko, Joseph O'Connor, Victoria Pedrick, and Hayden Pelliccia for their criticisms and advice; it is a special pleasure to express my gratitude to S. Douglas Olson for the care with which he read the penultimate draft of the book. The acuity of all these scholars saved me from a number of slips and infelicities and, had I been less stubborn, might have saved me from more. Ariana Traill checked references, and her comments led me to redraft several passages. Elizabeth Brooks and Stacy Bergendahl helped check the indices. It hardly needs to be said that whatever errors remain are entirely my own responsibility. I am also delighted to thank the Dean of Georgetown College, Robert B. Lawton, S.J.; the Georgetown University Graduate School; and the National Endowment for the Humanities for grants that allowed research time unencumbered by summer-school teaching. My greatest debt, however, is to my family, whose love and support made this book possible: my parents, Osna and Richard; my brother, Joshua; and especially my wife, Christina, and my children, Emilia and Jonah. The final draft of the manuscript was finished in September, 1996, and I have in general not been able to take account of work that came to my attention after that date. Arlington, Virginia March, 1997



I. Structure and U nity The opening line o f Theocritus’ twenty-second idyll1 announces a hymn honoring the Dioscuri: ΰμνέομεν Λήδας τε καί αίγιόχου Διός υ!ώ. The generic expectations thus established are fulfilled by the form of the poem, which is Theocritus’ most explicit imitation of a rhapsodic Homeric hymn.2 It adopts from the Homeric hymns their three essential structural characteristics: an introduction stating the subject of the poem and naming the principal attributes of the honorand(s), a main narrative section, and an envoi in which the poet asks the honorand(s) to be pleased (χαΐρε/χαίρετε) with his song and to provide some benefit in exchange.3 Theocritus modifies this basic structure in several ways, however. Most obviously, in the main body of the idyll, the poet treats each of the twins separately in distinct narratives rather than together in a single one, so that the hymn may in fact be divided into four units: Proem Narratives Farewell

1) 1-26, of which 25-6 form the transition to 2) the Polydeuces narrative 27-134, and transition 135-6 to 3) the Castor narrative 137-213 4)214-23

Such a division of the narrative section by itself would be a relatively simple change, but Theocritus has introduced even greater complexity into the basic frame of the hymn. He also deploys the hymnal form as an organizing scheme for the proem (1) and for both of the two central narratives (2 and 3), each of which is designed as a hymn-within-a-hymn, with its own introduction, narrative, and envoi. The proem, for example, is modeled closely on the longer of the two Homeric hymns to the Dioscuri (hh. 33) and, like that hymn, features a short narrative describing the twins’ rescue of ships in trouble at sea. The introduction of the poem’s subject in the opening lines also serves as an introduction to that rescue narrative, while the invocation of the twins at the conclusion of the narrative (23-4) stands in the same structural position in relation to the ship-rescue narrative as the χαιρε-address does to the narratives of the Homeric hymns. Verses 25-6 function as both the conclusion of the proem and the introduction to the “Polydeuces hymn,” the bulk of which consists of the long narrative in 27-134; similarly, 135-6 serve both as envoi to Polydeuces and introduction to Castor’s narrative in 137-213, and 214-23 1 I retain the conventional but problem atic and potentially m isleading term “ idyll” as a m atter o f convenience; for the issue, and for the order o f the poems in modern editions, see now Gutzwiller, esp. 129-33. 2 For hymnal elem ents elsewhere in the corpus, see Hunter, TA G P 46-52. 3 On the form o f the Homeric hymns see generally Race 102-6; R. Janko, H e r m e s 109 (1981) 9 -24; Clay.


function as an envoi both for the “Castor hymn” and for the poem as a whole. The combined effect is one o f integration and unity, with each section of the poem closely linked to the one that follows. Verbal and thematic correspondences between the central narratives and between the proem and the epilogue reinforce this effect. The two narratives that comprise the bulk of the poem both recount the story o f a single combat between one of the twins and an opponent, but these combat narratives diverge starkly in tone and substance. In the first, Polydeuces defeats the Bebrycian king Amycus in boxing after the latter has failed to receive the Dioscuri hospitably. The tone of the episode is light, sometimes humorous, and throughout the episode the Dioscuri are models of gentlemanly behavior. Whereas Apollonius in his account of the same conflict (A.R. 2.Iff.) has Amycus die at Polydeuces’ hands,4 Theocritus’ Polydeuces mercifully extracts from his humbled opponent a simple pledge to behave nicely to strangers in the future (132-4). The tone of the second narrative is generally more serious and somber. The Dioscuri, and Castor in particular, are presented as the aggressors, and the focus is rather on their irresistible and brutal might than on their mercifulness. The twins have abducted the Leucippides, who have already been betrothed to Idas and Lynceus. In a long and ostensibly damning speech to which the twins seem to offer no reply,5 Lynceus himself lays out the case against the Dioscuri and offers to fight a duel with Castor to resolve the dispute while minimizing the damage suffered by either side. In the ensuing combat Castor disables his opponent, but instead o f sparing the loser he chases him down and kills him. Idas is killed by a thunderbolt from Zeus as he attempts to avenge his brother’s death, and the episode concludes with a comment by the narrator on the great might of both the Dioscuri and their father, Zeus. Despite the sharp differences between them, the two narratives are clearly companion pieces, closely bound to one another by a series of verbal and thematic correspondences.6 The following verbal parallels are particularly noteworthy: (a) 183 εις μέσον ηλυθε ~82 ές μέσσον σύναγον. (b) 185-6 eoe 8 ’ aÜTioc ακρας έτινάξατο δούρατος άκμάς / Κάστωρ (shortly following Lynceus’ speech) ~ 78~9 eòe δ ’ αυτωο ηρωας ιών έκαλεσσατο πάντας / ... Κάστωρ (shortly following the stichomythia).

4 For the relationship between the Apollonian and Theocritean narratives, see below, pp. 24-33. 5 For the textual problem involved see Commentary on 171-80, and below , p. 17. 6 T hese links, m any o f w hich have been noticed by recent scholars (K urz 104; Hutchinson 145, 162-7; Laursen 82-3), disprove G ow ’s view that Theocritus incom petently dashed o f f the C astor narrative as a com panion piece to a Polydeuces narrative previously composed for another occasion.



(c) 191-2 φόνον αύτις / τεϋχον έπ ’ άλλήλοισι - 82 φόνον άλλήλοισι πνέοντες. (d) 195 φοίνικα ... λόφον ~ 72 φοινικολόφων. (e) 196 τού μέν άκρην —88 του δ' ακρον. (f) The climax of the duel in 196-8 clearly evokes the climax of the boxing match in 118ff.: 196-8 σκαιόν ... σκαιω ~ 119 σκαιή μέν σκαιήν, 197 φάσγανον όξύ φέροντος ~ 121 ήνεγκεν ... πλατύ γυΐον, 197 ύπεξαναβάς ποδί -1 2 3 ύπεξανε'δυ κεφαλή. Castor’s step back with his left foot in 197 perhaps varies Amycus’ step forward with his right at 120. (g) 198 ό δέ πληγείς —105 αύταρ ό πληγείς. (h) 203-4 ό δ ’ ές στόμα κείτο νενευκώς / Λυγκεύς - 90-1 πολύς δ ’ έπε'κειτο νενευκώς / ές γαΐαν (sc. Άμυκος). (ί) 213 αΰτοί τε κρατε'ουσι καί έκ κρατε'οντος έφυσαν - 5 6 μήτ’ άδικους μ ή τ’ έξ αδίκων φάθι λεύσσειν and 131 τον μέν άρα κρατέων περ άτάσθαλον ούδέν έ'ρεξας. These echoes invite a reading of the two narratives against one another and thus underscore the fundamental contrasts between them. Polydeuces’ boast in 56 and the narrator’s observation that Polydeuces, κρατέων περ, did nothing outrageous to his opponent (131) stand in clear opposition to the focus on the twins’ overwhelming might (213 κρατε'ουσι ... έκ κρατέοντος) at the end of the Castor narrative. Similarly, the various correspondences between the two battles—and their conclusions in particular—call attention to the pointed difference between Polydeuces’ show of mercy towards his defeated opponent and Castor’s far more brutal and violent treatment of the disabled Lynceus. A further, thematic link between the narratives also serves as an index of their difference. Idas and Lynceus, the twins’ opponents in the latter half of the poem, were themselves Argonauts, and are in fact juxtaposed with the Dioscuri in both Callimachus’ and Apollonius’ Argonaut catalogues (Call. fr. 17 Pf.; A.R. 1.146-55). The unity among the Argonauts implicit in the bivouac scene of the first narrative (cf. Commentary on 30) thus stands in sharp contrast to the open hostilities between former Argonauts in the second. Herein, moreover, lies an irony: whereas in the first narrative a boxing match between strangers ends without mortal violence, in the second φίλοι fight each other with the weapons of war, and with terrible results.7

7 Hunter, T A G P 58, who rightly points out that in this respect the narratives reverse the action o f the Ilia d , w here boxing is a “ ‘sporting’ struggle betw een allies (cf. 11. 23) and armed duels are fought out between enemies.”


The formal balance created by these connections and oppositions between the two narratives is characteristic of other Theocritean poems as well.8 The bipartite structure of the hymn’s central section also occurs in such bucolic poems as the symmetrical Idyll 6, where an introduction and conclusion of equal length frame two contrasting but complementary songs, and Idyll 7, whose central section consists of two songs sung by rival goatherds. A similar balance may also be found in Idyll 1 and in Simaetha’s monologue in Idyll 2, which is divided into two parts by a change in the refrain. Theocritus’ general fondness for bipartite, antithetical structures is, in the case of the Dioscuri, specially fitting, since elsewhere the twins are themselves embodiments of duality, alternation and contrast: Greek poetry from ari early period reports that after their apotheosis they spent alternate days in death and in life, and many versions made the twins sons of different fathers—Polydeuces o f Zeus, Castor of the mortal Tyndareus.9 For his part, however, Theocritus draws no distinction between the ancestries of Castor and Polydeuces and makes no mention of Castor’s death and its aftermath. By contrast, in Pindar’s tenth Nemean ode, where these details are treated fully and to which Theocritus frequently alludes at the conclusion o f his Castor episode,10 the mortal Castor’s demise in the conflict with the sons of Aphareus leads Zeus to offer Polydeuces the choice of living continuously on Olympus by himself or spending alternate days on Olympus and under the earth along with his brother. Theocritus makes his Castor survive the conflict with the sons of Aphareus, and there is thus no reference to an apotheosis. This is especially surprising when we consider that elsewhere in ancient literature the conflict of the Dioscuri with Idas and Lynceus inevitably leads to Castor’s death. Theocritus has thus pointedly excluded from the episode that normally led to the twins’ apotheosis any reference to that apotheosis. As a result, in the absence of any indication to the contrary, he keeps open the possibility that both the twins are to be understood as already divine in the two central narratives, as they are unambiguously in the proem. Indeed, the hymnal form encourages such a reading.11 The opponents whom the brothers face in the idyll do not share the reader’s privileged perspective on the twins’ ambiguous status. Their ignorance 8 There.are m any acute observations about the form o f Theocritus’ poem s in Hutchinson 1 4 3 -2 1 3 , and in K. G utzw ilier, T h e o c r itu s ’ P a s to r a l A n a lo g ie s (M adison 1991); on T heocritean antithesis generally cf. U. O tt, D ie K u n s t d e s G e g e n s a tz e s in T h e o k rits H irten g ed ich ten (Hildesheim 1969). 9 E.g. Pi. N . 10.80-2. 10 Of. Commentary on 2 0 7 -9 ,2 1 0 -1 ,2 1 2 . Similarity thus calls attention to the sig nificant divergence betw een Theocritus and Pindar, as with the verbal echoes in the paired narratives themselves. 11 For the ordinary connection between hymns and gods, cf. PI. Lg. 700b; Hunter, TA G P



is crucial to both narratives, but especially pronounced in Lynceus’ case. Although the stated purpose of the second narrative is to honor Castor, the focus is almost entirely on his opponent Lynceus, whose long speech makes an apparently compelling case against the Dioscuri. Wilamowitz, troubled by the absence of any overt justification for the twins’ brutal behavior and by other textual considerations, suggested that a section of text in which Castor vindicated the twins’ claim to the girls has been lost after 170. His proposal has been adopted by subsequent editors, though it has in recent years been challenged by a number of critics (cf. Commentary on 171-80). An important consideration is that although Lynceus’ speech is rhetorically powerfiil as a self-contained piece, in context it starkly reveals Lynceus’ naiveté. Most fundamentally, Lynceus’ speech in several places directs our attention to his ignorance about his rivals’ true divine background.12 In verses 164 and 170, for example, he goes to unnecessary lengths to mention the twins’ father, whom he believes to be Tyndareus, and the affiliation between his family and that of the twins, but the reader knows full well that Lynceus is actually mistaken about the twins’ paternal ancestry. With Lynceus as speaker, the puzzling use of ομαιμος, “kinsman,” in 173 acquires similar point:13 to Lynceus’ mind, the alleged affinity with the Dioscuri aggravates their abduction of the Leucippides, but in fact his belief in an actual blood connection with the divine Polydeuces is itself misguided. His ignorance on this score is crucial. The twins could reply that as the sons of Zeus they have a special claim to the girls in dispute, but such a response is not necessary, since the reader is well aware of the twins’ background, and while certainty is impossible, it would be very much in keeping with Theocritus’ general fondness for irony to leave Lynceus’ naive accusations unanswered. Lynceus, unaware of the twins’ real status, fails to recognize their greater claim to whatever girls they choose, or to see the folly of his attempts to persuade them of their wrongdoing. As he himself points out, his earlier efforts to win them over lacked χάρις, but not (as he believes) simply because they failed to persuade; rather, his earlier speeches were, like his present one, completely ill conceived from the start. When, in the concluding speech frame (181), the narrator remarks that the god did not make Lynceus’ words vain, the ambiguity is perhaps particularly pointed. The god in question may be Zeus, who will soon kill Idas, but Richard Hunter has recently suggested that it could also be Castor himself, in which case the line is fraught with savage irony: for the divine Castor, the death of Lynceus and his brother is indeed an ολίγον κακόν.14 12 There is a detailed discussion in Sens, “Lynceus”; cf. Hunter, TA G P 67-73. 13 W ilam ow itz’ view th at the w ord m ust m ean “sibling” w as an im portant factor informing his belief in a lacuna after 170. 14 T A G P 72. For other ironies that em erge i f Lynceus is the speaker o f 171-80, c f Commentary on 181,205-6.


Lynceus’ naiveté emerges in other, sometimes amusingly ironical ways as well. In both style and content the outer frame and the duel that follows his speech suggest an affiliation between this conflict and the battles of the Iliad, but despite the fact that the Apharetiadae pursue their brides’ abductors in full armor and with “epic” gusto (137-44), Lynceus opens his monologue by expressing confusion at the twins’ readiness to fight. Similarly, his insistence that he is really not a man of many words (153) when he is about to report at length a speech he has already delivered many times suggests what Griffiths (356) has aptly called an “engaging vanity” typical of other Theocritean speakers as well. Lynceus is a man out o f his element, a lover not a fighter, illsuited to the Iliadic world in which he finds himself and unable fully to comprehend the nature of his situation. For despite the Homeric bravura with which he initially pursues the Dioscuri, Theocritus’ Lynceus is an ordinary man. Even the remarkable eyesight that traditionally allows him to see even through solid objects or under ground, and that (in Pindar) allows him and his brother to track down Castor and his brother, has been diminished to all but the point of absurdity: the hapless fellow simply makes accurate use of his eyes (cf. Commentary on 194). This deflation o f the heroic to the commonplace finds close parallels in a variety of other Hellenistic poetry (e.g. Id. 24, passim) and has a comical analogue in the sweating Amycus’ actually shrinking from enormous to miniscule (113-4). The change is poignant: the once mighty Lynceus, who elsewhere plays such an important part in bringing about Castor’s death, is here an impotent, if endearing, Everyman, badly overmatched by an opponent of heroic (not to say divine) might and ferocity (cf. Commentary on 171). Though his ignorance does not have the same mortal consequences, Amycus also badly underestimates his rivals: he is the son of Poseidon, but has no idea that his opponents are themselves the offspring of an even greater god. Like Lynceus, he refers to them as σνδρες (55), though the narrator uses this characterization only of Amycus himself (94, 115) in the Polydeuces narrative.15 He boasts that he will be called “The Boxer” (69 ό πυκνής) only to have the narrator pointedly address the victor as πύκτη Πολύδευκες (132). The dénouement of the episode—Amycus’ promise to be nice to strangers in the future—reveals Polydeuces to be a “civilizing power,” 16 but it is not sufficient to see the twins merely as Hellenistic gentlemen bringing manners to savages. The narrative may rightly be understood as a clash between Greek and barbarian, between civilized and uncivilized, but it may also be read, like the Castor narrative, as an encounter between gods>and a mortal who fails to 35 The point m ust not be pushed, however, since a t 3 1, the word is used generically o f the Argonauts, after 29 θεώ ν φίλα τέκνα; in the Castor episode, it is used o f Castor and Lynceus together (200). 16 Cf. W ilamowitz, TGB 186.



understand their divinity.17 Two local legends—one transmitted by Herodotus, the other by Pausanias—present telling similarities to the Amycus episode, and as such provide a cultural background against which the episode may be read. In the first, Herodotus (6.127.3) relates the Arcadian legend that a certain Euphorion received the Dioscuri in his house and as a consequence (cmò τούτου) came to welcome all strangers. Herodotus offers nothing more, but the obvious implication of the tale is that, like Amycus, Euphorion was less gracious to strangers before the Dioscuri arrived, and that, also like Amycus, he learned to treat strangers better as a result of their visit. Pausanias (3.16.2-3) reports a story associated with the house of the Dioscuri in Sparta. According to this legend, the Spartan Phormion acquired the house in which the Dioscuri had once lived, and later the twins came to visit ξένοις άνδράσιν έοικότες. When they asked to be put up in the room “in which they had particularly rejoiced when they were among men,” Phormion responded that the room was being occupied by his virgin daughter and thus not available, but that they could stay wherever else they wanted; the following day the girl had completely vanished. In this second story and presumably in the first as well, we see the Dioscuri as gods walking the earth in the guise of mortal strangers and punishing or—as they do in the Amycus episode—correcting those who failed to welcome them in the manner they expected.18 The gravity with which in the second legend the Dioscuri react to Phormion’s otherwise seemingly reasonable response to their request for a specific room may also serve as a salutary reminder of the brutality with which gods sometimes treat mortals who stand in their way, however inadvertently. The possibility that gods may behave destructively and violently under such circumstances is especially important to bear in mind when we turn to assess the twins’ behavior in the second narrative, where the ostensible impropriety of their abduction o f the Leucippides is compounded by Castor’s merciless treatment of the wounded Lynceus. The episode can be read with profit as a subversion of the heroic tradition: the twins act with a force and violence typical o f Homeric heroes, stealing other men’s women and slaying their opponents without remorse, but at least part of the episode’s point is “to show that in his savagery Castor is just as extreme as Amycus; heroism itself is denigrated.” 19 In the logic of the poem, however, the Dioscuri in the Castor episode are also at least potentially not mere mortal heroes but divine beings whose interests Lynceus and his brother have been foolish and unfortunate 17 Such encounters, w hich are comm on throughout ancient literature, play a prom inent part in several o f the m ajor Homeric hym ns ( h D e m ., h A p h r., hh. 7); cf. Hunter, T A G P 72-3. The notion that gods in disguise regularly visit m en to inspect their ϋβριν τε καί εύνομίην is expressed already at p 485-7; on the closely related “hospitality” theme, cf. Hollis 341-54. 18 Such tales are hardly unique to the Dioscuri, but the twins elsewhere played a special role as patrons o f ξένοι in cult; cf. Commentary on 60. 19 Thomas 233; cf. Effe 68-70.



enough to oppose. Seen in this way, the poem presents two sharply contrasting but nonetheless complementary portraits of the divine twins: one in which they are restrained and merciful, the other in which, like other gods in Greek literature of all periods, they selfishly exercise their divine prerogatives with wanton might. Together, these portraits suggest the range of the twins’ numinosity: merciful savior gods under some conditions, they may also destroy violently and brutally anyone who dares oppose them.20 In the second narrative, the Dioscuri are, in human ethical terms, hardly at their best; no justification of their behavior is ever made explicit. Instead, the narrative shows us, with some sympathy, the confused and ultimately helpless response of a mortal who unwittingly comes into conflict with irresistible deities he neither recognizes nor understands. The surprising focus on Lynceus rather than on the narrative’s stated subject, Castor, is at once a product of Theocritus’ interest in the reaction of the individual confronted with forces beyond his control (an interest characteristic of other Hellenistic writers as well)21 and a mark of the poet’s innovative approach to his material throughout the hymn. In each of the central narratives, Theocritus has rewritten an episode drawn from full-scale epic poetry as a self-contained unit that, although thematically and verbally linked to the rest of the poem, nonetheless remains discrete from it. The first narrative apparently looks to a near-contemporary model—the account of the same boxing match in Apollonius’ Argonautica22—as well as to comic and satyric treatments of the encounter, whereas the second narrative relates an event found in older models, the cyclic Cypria and Pindar N. 10. Whether the narratives can or should be classified as epyllia (indeed, whether epyllion existed as a recognizable category)23 remains an open question, but it is in any case d ear that, as self-contained narratives on heroic themes, both share a general affinity with other Alexandrian narratives such as Callimachus’ Hecale, Moschus’ Europa, and Theocritus’ Idylls 13, 24, and (if it be his) 25. The temptation to read the poem’s two narratives as critiques of epic itself has proved irresistible to scholars, who have suggested that Theocritus is either demonstrating how (in the case of the first narrative) such stories are properly to be treated by a sophisticated modern poet, or (in the case o f the second) providing a cautionary example of the pitfalls of a Homericizing style.24 Such views, unfortunately, depend on the unfounded assumptions that the first 20 Of. Hunter, T A G P 69-70, who sees three com plementary aspects o f the Dioscuri in the poem: “the saving intervention, the preservation o f comm only accepted m oral values, and the pow er w hich can seem inexplicable, particularly when it is exercised in a w ay w hich does not always seem ‘fair’.” 21 Cf. Bulloch 51. 22 On the much-debated relative chronology o f the tw o poem s, cf. pp. 24-33. 23 For discussion, Cameron 447-53. 24 A related view is to be found already in E. Schwartz, C hara kterkö p fe a u s d e r a n tiken L itera tu r (Leipzig 1903) 2.63.



narrative is refined and the second inelegant and that Theocritus, like Callimachus, was opposed to post-Homeric epic in general and critical of Apollonius’ Argonautica in particular. It may well be reasonable, for example, to see “the contrast between the two fights as a difference between the ‘new’ and the ‘old’”25—both in terms of the episodes’ literary models and even, perhaps, in terms of the behavior of the Dioscuri—but it underestimates the poem’s subtlety to conclude with Moulton that the Polydeuces narrative is written in a modern, “Callimachean” style reflective o f its modem civilizing values, whereas the Castor narrative is more traditionally Homeric in style and reflects archaic values that Theocritus rejected.26 Rather, such differences as exist in the narratives’ style, focus, and tone are the product of Theocritus’ typically Alexandrian preoccupation with creating variety and avoiding uniformity. Both narratives are in their own ways highly refined,27 and, in each case, all indications suggest that Theocritus is reworking an epic narrative he in fact admired in order to demonstrate his own individuality and creativity.28 The poem’s hymnal epilogue raises as an explicit issue the relationship between Theocritus’ compositions and Homeric epic, especially the Iliad. In this final section, the poet first bids the honorands rejoice and in traditional hymnic manner appeals to them to favor his poetry (214-5). Then, in an implicit justification of this request, he expands more generally on the mutually beneficial relationship between poets and their subjects. “All poets (άοιδοί),” he writes in 215-7, “are dear (φίλοι) to the Tyndarids, to Helen, and to the heroes who sacked Troy bringing assistance to Menelaus.” The language of this passage links the envoi to the proem, where in 23-4 the Dioscuri are invoked as (among other things) φίλοι and, uniquely, as κιθαρισταί and άοιδοί. The assertion that the twins themselves are poets may lend programmatic significance to their activity in the storm narrative;29 in any case, by establishing an affiliation between them and the poet himself,30 the identification o f the twins as άοιδοί also serves the rhetorical purpose of preparing for and reinforcing Theocritus’ subsequent claim to their goodwill and friendship. In further support of his appeal for patronage, Theocritus in the final lines of the hymn illustrates the benefits poets bestow by contrasting Homer’s treatment of the Dioscuri in the Iliad with his own treatment of them: Homer, he insists, glorified the twins by composing the Iliad (218-20), and he 25 Hunter, T A G P 64. 26 M ouiton 46; for a current discussion o f the problems with such interpretations, see now Cameron 431-6. 27 See below, pp. 41-2. 28 Sens, “Proem” ; H unter 8-9. 29 See below, p. 32, and Commentary on 8-22. 30 The affiliation is reinforced by the fact that the description o f the Dioscuri as ά οιδοί at line end is picked up in the succeeding couplet by α ρ ξ ο μ ’ άείδειν and ά είσ ω , both also versefinal.


does the same, though in his own elegant way (221-3). The entire passage reflects the characteristically Alexandrian desire to affiliate one’s work with Homeric epic while demonstrating an independence from the poetry of the past.31 Theocritus’ highly refined compositions, the soothing strains of clear­ voiced Muses (λιγεών μειλίγματα Μουσεων), are at once the product of external influences, here embodied by the Muses (who represent perhaps not just the source of poetic inspiration but also the specific literary models on which the poet draws), and at the same time intensely the product of his own unique ingenium (καί ώς έμός οΐκος υπάρχει). Nowhere in the passage is there any blanket condemnation of large-scale epic as an appropriate medium for literary expression in general. The poem’s final lines present a puzzling difficulty, however, since Theocritus’ assertion that Homer glorified the twins by composing the Iliad (218-20) is manifestly exaggerated. The Dioscuri are mentioned only once in the Iliad, and in that passage (Γ 236-44) are notable precisely for their absence. In the course of the teichoscopia, Helen, surveying the forces gathered for the duel between Paris and Menelaus, remarks that she is unable to see her brothers Castor and Polydeuces, and speculates on the reason for their failure to appear: either they have remained at home in Lacedaemon, or, though present at Troy, they have stayed away on the present occasion out of shame. In a poignant intrusion, the narrator provides the true explanation: the twins are already dead and buried in Lacedaemonian soil. The inevitable discrepancy between this less than glorious reality and the more elevated importance Theocritus assigns to the Dioscuri in Homer can hardly be the result of carelessness or ignorance.32 Nor is there likely to be a reference to the Cypria, in which the twins did play a more substantial part.33 Other explanations of varying degrees of probability have been offered: the passage has been understood as an ironic subversion of archaic epic;34 as the mark of an incompetent narrator (not identical to Theocritus) not fully in control of his material;35 and even as an implicit criticism of the violence of the Iliad.36 Hutchinson is at any rate probably right that the final lines contain an implicit a fortiori argument, according to which readers (and honorands) are to contrast the treatment afforded the twins by Homer with the poet’s own more elaborate treatment.37 There is a further dimension, however. By allowing both twins to survive unscathed the episode in which their time on earth ordinarily comes to an end, Theocritus’ version of the dispute with the Apharetiadae eliminates the standard reason for their 31 For the programmatic significance o f the passage see.pp. 32-3. 32 P a ce Gow 2.385. 33 The possibility was rejected by Gow a d lo c ., but recently revived by Cam eron 436. 34 Effe 70. 35 Griffiths 363-7. 36 Laursen 92. 37 H P 163 n.33.



failure to make the trip to Troy. The startling claim of the final lines may thus constitute a literary game, serving favorably to accentuate the difference between the Theocritean and Homeric treatments: if we follow Theocritus’ version, the twins would have been present on the occasion—the duel between Paris and Menelaus—that Helen notices their absence. That occasion, moreover, is itself an important thematic and verbal model for the Castor narrative. Having already made the duel at which the twins fail to appear a central model in the immediately preceding narrative while at the same time removing the practical reason for their absence from Troy, Theocritus goes on in the epilogue to write as if they had actually played a major part in the Iliad after all.38 In addition to its obvious engagement with antecedent literature, the hymn may have a further, real-life resonance as well. As beings on the boundary between the human and divine worlds, the Dioscuri, “like Heracles, ... were seen as guiding lights for those hoping to break out of the mortal sphere into the realm of the gods,”39 and as such occupied a place of marked importance in the Ptolemaic court. In several respects the affinities between the Ptolemies and the twins are obvious: Ptolemy I and Berenice were apotheosized as Θεοί Σωτήρες—the dedication of the famous lighthouse “to the Savior Gods” may refer either to them, to the Dioscuri, or to both40*—while Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe were apotheosized as Θεοί ‘Αδελφοί. Arsinoe, in fact, may have been responsible for establishing the cult of the Dioscuri at Alexandria, and both Philadelphus and his successor Euergetes shared temples with the twins.45 The Dioscuri, inseparable siblings who successfully negotiated the transition from mortal to immortal, will have had special, evocative power for Philadelphus and his sister-bride, and it is therefore not impossible that an Alexandrian audience42 of a poem whose opening addresses the Dioscuri as δύ’ αδελφοί and σωτήρες and whose conclusion underscores their role as patrons of poets would have thought of the ruling couple.43*

38 Sens 335-50. 39 B urkert213. 40 C f Fraser 1.18-9. 4 5 Cam eron 433-4; Fraser 1.207. The connection betw een the tw ins and the queen, whom at Id. Ì5 .1 10 Theocritus compares to their sister Helen, is demonstrated clearly by Callimachus’ poem on her apotheosis (fr. 228 Pf.), w here it is they who snatch her o ff to heaven, ju st as they carried o f f H elen upon her death— and as, in the course o f th e poem , they abduct the Leucippides in life. 42 For the date and place o f composition, see below, pp. 24-35. 43 F.T. Griffiths, T h eo critu s a t C o u rt (Leiden 1979) 52 n.5 sees the poem as a purely literary exercise whose Ptolem aic resonance does not transcend the proem, “especially as the tw ins descend to barbarity in the second episode,” but Cameron 43 3 -6 makes a convincing case that the Dioscuri “do indeed in som e sense represent the Ptolem aic saviour-gods.”


IL D ate of Composition and Relationship to Other H ellenistic P oetry No external evidence exists for the date of Theocritus’ hymn to the Dioscuri or, for that matter, for the date of any other poem in the Theocritean corpus.44 A few idylls offer some internal evidence for approximate absolute dates in the 270s or early 260s 45 but in the case of the Idyll 22 the most that can be done is to situate the idyll in chronological relationship to the other third-century poems with which it shares verbal and thematic points of contact. Such relative chronologies are necessarily complicated by the nature of “publication” among learned Hellenistic poets, who must often have had access to one another’s works in advance of their publication in the form in which we now have them. It is thus easily possible that an early version of a given poem influenced the idyll, but that a later version of the same work drew from it instead.46 Nonetheless, some very tentative conclusions about the chronological relationship of Idyll 22 to other near-contemporary works may be drawn. The most important evidence for the relative dating of the poem derives from the nexus of connections among the hymn, Theocritus’ Idyll 13 (Hylas), and Apollonius’ Argonautica. Polydeuces’ boxing match with Amycus, recounted in Id. 22.27-134, and the rape of Hylas, the subject of Idyll 13, are themselves related in contiguous passages of the Apollonian poem—the latter at the end of Arg. 1, the former at the beginning of Arg. 2. Both idylls share specific points of contact not only with their counterparts in the Argonautica but also with each other. The relative chronology has been widely discussed, without any clear consensus yet having emerged. There appears to be no way of deciding with certainty which of the idylls was composed first, but the evidence for the relationship between the hymn (and Id. 13 for that matter)47 and the Argonautica is more abundant. Köhnken argues that Theocritus’ version of the Amycus episode is traditional and Apollonius’ innovative and that therefore Theocritus’ must have been written first.48 To be sure, Theocritus’ treatment of the episode is indebted in tone and contents to earlier accounts, whereas 44 For the ancient biographical tradition on Theocritus, cf. Gow l.xv-xvi. 45 Cf. Gow l.xvii-xxii. I d y ll 16 seem s to have been w ritten ca. 27 5 /4, shortly after H iero’s accession to power; Id y lls 15 and 17 were com posed betw een A rsinoe’s m arriage to Ptolem y (betw een 279 and 274) and her death in July 268; I d . 17 seems to date to som e tim e after 274. For the date o f Id. 24, cf. below, n. 83.

46 Cf. H unter 7-8. 47 For the H ylas episode, cf. B. E ffe, H e r m e s 120 (1992) 2 9 9 -3 0 9 (arguing for Apollonian priority), with bibliography. 48 K öhnken 84-121. Köhnken rightly rejects the subjective view o f earlier scholars that since T heocritus’ versions are som ehow o f esthetically higher quality than A pollonius’, the latter m ust have been composed first.



Apollonius’ version contains several details not attested earlier (see Commentary on 27-134, 37-43, 131-4). Köhnken’s argument is nonetheless unconvincing, not only because the alleged originality of the Apollonian version itself rests on shaky foundations,49 but more importantly because there is in any case no reason to believe in an organic, unidirectional development from traditional to innovative, especially when the two narratives serve manifestly different functions in their respective poems.50 In fact, the evidence, taken cumulatively, strongly suggests that Theocritus knew Apollonius’ version of the boxing match when he composed Idyll 22.51 A general consideration is that both the Amycus and the Hylas episodes are well integrated into the Argonautica, where they belong naturally in any case, and it may therefore be thought more likely that Theocritus’ treatment of both events as isolated narratives was inspired by contiguous narratives in Apollonius’ poem than that Theocritus independently chose these two episodes as subjects for different idylls.52 By itself, of course, this argument does not carry the full force of cogency, though it is supported by specific verbal connections among the poems. The following cross-references argue for the priority of the Argonautica to Idyll 22: 1) The Argonauts’ disembarkation onto the Bebrycian shore and preparations for the evening in Idyll 22 closely resemble their arrival and evening preparations in Mysia in both Idyll 13 and the Argonautica : ένθα μιής πολλοί κατά κλίμακος άμφοτέρων εξ τοίχων ανδρες εβαινον Ίησονίης από νηός· έκβάντες δ ’ επί θΐνα βαθύν καί ύπήνεμον ακτήν εύνάς τ ’ έστόρνυντο πυρεία τε χερσίν ένώμων. (Id. 22.30-3) έκβάντες δ' επί ΘΤνα κατά ζυγά δαΐτα πένοντο δειελινοί, πολλοί δέ μίαν στορέσαντο χαμεύναν. λειμών γάρ σφιν εκειτο μέγα στιβάδεσσιν δνειαρ,

49 J. Griffin, C R 16 (1966)300-2; Vian 1.135. 50 Cam pbell, “N otes” 40; on the differences betw een the tw o accounts, cf. R. Lenk, W Z H a lle 33.6 (1984) 2 2 -32. T he com parison o f the tw o scenes in D. H agopian, P o llu x ’ F a u stk a m p f m it A m yko s (Vienna and Stuttgart 1955), though interesting, offers little convincing evidence for the relative chronology. 51 But cf. pp. 30-1 for a possible contradictory piece o f verbal evidence. 52 H utchinson 192; D over 181. Cam eron 2 5 1-3, 430-1 in fact draw s the opposite conclusion: he suggests that ju st as in A r g . 4 A pollonius juxtaposes tw o episodes from Callimachus (the Anaphe episode from A e tia 1 and the Hydrophoria story from Ia m b 8), so too he borrow s and juxtaposes episodes drawn from Theocritus at the end o f the first and the beginning o f the second books.



έ'νθεν βούτομον οξύ βαθύν τ ’ έτάμοντο κύπειρον. (Id. 13.32-5) ένθα δ* επειθ’ οι μέν ξύλα κάγκανα, τοί δέ λεχαίην φυλλάδα λειμώνων φέρον ασττετον άμήσαντες στόρνυσθαι· τοι δ ’ άμφί πυρήϊα δινεύεσκον οί δ ’ οίνον κρητήρσι κ έ ρ ω ν η ο ν έ ο ν τ ό τε δαίτα, Έκβασίω ρέξαντες ύπο κνε'φας Άπόλλωνι. (A.R. 1.1182-6) The intricate verbal interconnections among these passages unfortunately do not themselves yield fully convincing arguments for a relative chronology,53 but the narrative that directly follows in each case is more helpful. Like Heracles and Hylas in Mysia, the Dioscuri immediately take leave of their companions, who are making preparations for the evening, and soon come to a spring (22.37ff.~13.39ff.~A.R. 1.1221ff.). Whereas Heracles and Hylas both have specific tasks in mind, the Dioscuri seem only to be tourists, and wander off looking at “the diverse, uncultivated woods” (36). Their curious interest in trees, however, is readily explicable if Theocritus had in mind the corresponding passage from the Argonautica. There, Heracles, who like the Dioscuri is a υιός Διός, leaves his companions for the woods in order to find a suitable tree from which to make a replacement for the oar he has broken on the voyage: α ύτα ρ ό t δαίνυσθαι έτάροις εύ t έπιτείλα ς [cf. 35 άποπλαγχθέντες εταίρων], / βη ρ ’ Υμεν εις ύλην υιός Διός (A.R. 1.11878). The interconnection between the two passages makes the best sense if Theocritus has modeled the departure of his Dioscuri on the well-motivated departure of Heracles without ascribing to them an explicit motivation. To imagine that Apollonius is here reworking Theocritus is rather more difficult. 2) The opening o f the Polydeuces narrative in 27-8 (ή μέν αρα προφυγούσα πέτρας εις εν ξυνιούσας / ’Αργώ καί νιφόεντος άταρτηρον στόμα Πόντου) bears an interesting resemblance to Apollonius’ description of the Argonautic expedition at the beginning of the Argonautica : oY Πόντοιο κατά στόμα καί δια πέτρας / Κυανέας βασιλήος έφημοσύνη Πελίαο / χρυσειον μετά κώας έύζυγον ήλασαν ’Αργώ (2-4; cf. also 4.1002—3).54 Griffiths, who pointed out the similarity in his unpublished dissertation, argued that it would be more likely for Theocritus to echo the opening of the entire 53 On th e argum ent for Theocritean priority presented by H. Tränkle, H e rm es 91 (1963) 5 0 3-5, cf. Serrao 129-40. V.J. M atthews, L C M 10 (1985) 6 8 -9 argues that the connections show the priority o f Id. 13 to Id. 22. 54 The participle προφυγοΟ σσ in 27 finds a suggestive parallel at A.R. 2.413-5, w here the sam e verb is used o f the impending voyage through the Symplegades: εί δε κεν α δ τ ις / τ ά σ δ ' (sc. π έ τ ρ α ς ) ήμίν π ρ ο φ υ γ ο υ σ ιν ές Ε λλ ά δα ν ό σ το ς ό π ίσ σ ω / εσσετοη, α ο π α ο τ ώ ς Kt π αρά σέο καί τ ό δαείην.



Argonautica at the beginning of his narrative on a theme from the Argonautic saga than for Apollonius to recall the Theocritean passage at the outset of his entire work.55 Some support for Griffiths’ view is provided by Idyll 13, where the passage describing the voyage of the Argo also contains clear points of contact with the opening lines of Apollonius: note Id. 13.16τό χρύσειον εττλει μετά κώας, 21 εϋεδρον ές 'Αργώ.56 That the descriptions of the Argo’s voyage in Idylls 13 and 22 both share points of contact with the opening lines of Apollonius’ poem argues for Apollonian priority, since it is easy to imagine that Theocritus would have recalled in both passages the opening of the work from which he drew his inspiration, but somewhat more difficult to suppose that Apollonius would have chosen in the opening lines of his more complex and comprehensive poem, which itself draws on a variety of antecedent works, specifically to recall the two separate Theocritean poems that happen to deal with stories from the Argonautic tradition. If it is Theocritus who reworks Apollonius, the reminiscence of Apollonius’ initial description of the Argo’s voyage at the opening of each Theocritean narrative serves the function of setting what follows against the backdrop of Apollonius’ treatment of the same episode. No comparable motivation is likely to have impelled Apollonius to allude to Theocritus in the very first lines of his poem. In itself, this argument can at best be suggestive, but its probability is enhanced by the existence of another connection between the Polydeuces narrative and the proem of the Argonautica, since an accumulation of examples conforming to a similar pattern increases the plausibility of each individual case. The invocation of the Muse in Id. 22.116-7, where the narrator claims to be merely a ύποφήτης of the Muse (cf. Idd. 16.29,17.117), is clearly related to the first mention of the Muses in the Argonautica at A.R. 1.22 ΜοΟσαι 6 ’ ύττοφήτορες εΐεν άοιδής.57 One poet is looking to the other, and if, as now seems likely, Apollonius’ ύττοφήτορες means “interpreters” rather than “inspirers,” the imitator is reversing the relationship between the Muses and the poet in his predecessor’s work. Significantly, the account of the finale of the fight in the lines immediately following Theocritus’ invocation (118-30) is closely connected in language and theme to the end of the fight in Apollonius’ poem (2.90-7); the details of the two accounts are at marked variance with one another, and it is clear that one poet is “correcting” the other’s version. In both passages Amycus aims a savage blow at Polydeuces and the latter dodges it with a movement of his head (123 άλλ’ δ γ ' ύπεξανέδυ κεφαλή ~A.R. 2.92-3 ό δ ’ άίσσοντος ύπέστη, / κρατα παρακλίνας); note also 126 πυκνοί δ ’ άράβησαν όδόντες ~ A.R. 2.83—4 βρυχή δ ’ ύπετελλετο όδόντω ν / 55 F T . Griffiths, T h e o c ritu s’ H y m n to the D ioscuri (diss. Harvard 1974) 108-10. 56 Cf. Hunter, A A 123 n.89. 57 For the relationship, cf. now O. Vox in F. D e Martino, ed., K leos 1.1994 (Bari 1995) 163-5.



ασττετος (the boxing match in the Iliad mentions only the crashing of jaws (Y 688)). The two accounts diverge pointedly in several respects: a) in Apollonius, Amycus raises himself up on the tips of his toes (άερθείς), while in Theocritus he leans forward (κλινθείς) in order to grab his opponent’s hand; b) the downward punch that the Apollonian Amycus throws at Polydeuces’ head is in Theocritus an uppercut beginning at Amycus’ flank; c) in Apollonius Polydeuces kills his opponent with a single massive blow, while in Theocritus he pummels him with a rapid flurry of blows and does not kill him. That this Theocritean passage is immediately preceded by an appeal to the Muse that bears a close connection to the first mention of the Muses in the Argonautica may contribute to the probability that Apollonius wrote first, since a reference to the prologue of Apollonius’ work in Id. 22.116-7 would serve the special purpose of calling attention to the reversal of the Apollonian bout’s conclusion in the immediately succeeding lines. Again, it is less easy to see why Apollonius should have chosen to recall Theocritus in his poem’s first reference to the Muses. 3) The storm narrative of the proem (8-22) shares apparent connections both with the account of the Argo’s voyage through the Symplegades at A.R. 2.586-7 and with the description of the preparations for departure at A.R. 4.887-8 (cf. Commentary on 8-22, 11). A concentration of connections with the Argonautica in the relatively short Theocritean storm scene may suggest the priority of Apollonius’ version, since on balance it may be thought slightly more likely that Theocritus would have conflated in one short passage references to different passages o f the Argonautica than that Apollonius dispersed elements from the Theocritean passage into various sections of his own poem.58 More importantly, in the context o f Theocritus’ storm scene an echo of the Apollonian Symplegades episode would have a special significance that is lost if Apollonius is reworking Theocritus.59 Theocritus’ Polydeuces narrative opens with the assertion that the Argo had already traversed the Symplegades when it reached the land of the Bebryces. In this detail Theocritus differs pointedly with Apollonius, who situates the episode in the Propontis, before the Argonauts have traversed the rocks.60 In its context, Theocritus’ insistence on the priority of the Symplegades traversal to the encounter with Amycus looks prima facie like a correction of some earlier account. A reversal of Apollonius on this detail, moreover, would form a clever counterpart to a 58 A sim ilar argum ent, based on different perceived points o f contact, is m ade, tentatively, by F.T. Griffiths, op. cit. (above n. 55) 85-6. 59 W hat follows repeats an argument made already at C Q 4 4 n.s. (1994) 66-74. 60 Similarly, in Id . 13, Theocritus diverges from Apollonius on the m anner in which the A rgo traversed the Sym plegades, claim ing explicitly that the ship passed through unscathed, whereas Apollonius and others state that the end o f the A rgo’s stem post was clipped o ff in the passage; cf. Gow 2.236.



reference to the Argo’s divinely assisted voyage through the Symplegades in the proem. If one assumes Apollonian priority, the intertextual link that the proem establishes between the storm-tossed ships and Apollonius’ Argo has special point: having already recalled in the storm scene Apollonius’ version of the Symplegades episode, Theocritus proceeds to assert, correcting the relative order o f the episodes in the Argonautica, that the Argo had already completed its passage through the rocks before arriving at Bebrycian territory. No such point, on the other hand, emerges if one imagines that it is Apollonius who reworks Theocritus. 4) At 34 the description of Polydeuces as οίνωπός is an apparent reference to the downy ruddiness of an incipient beard (see Commentary ad loc.). Apollonius for his part describes Polydeuces before the bout as έ'τι χνοάοντας ίούλους / άντέλλων (2.43-4). As Μ. Campbell (“Notes” 38-9) recognized, Theocritus’ oblique and evocative characterization is more likely to be a reference to Apollonius’ more concrete description than a source for it. Campbell suggests that the epithet, which is often applied to Dionysus, recalls the description of Polydeuces in Dionysiae terms at A.R. 2.40-5, but neither the adjective nor Apollonius’ description need have specifically Dionysiae overtones. Other points of contact between the Apollonian and Theocritean episodes: 32 ύπήνεμον ακτήν varies Apollonius’ νήνεμος ακτή o f the Bebrycian territory at 2.162, in the context of the celebration immediately following the victory over the Bebrycians. As in several other passages, Apollonius uses a rare Homeric word (νήνεμος is a Homeric hapax at Θ 556), whereas Theocritus alters it slightly. 37-43: the locus amoenus described in these lines resembles in various respects the locus amoenus in Aeetes’ courtyard at Colchis (A.R. 3.219-27). Both contain αέναοι κρήναι with features likened to κρύσταλλος (in the dative). Note also 38 αί δ ’ ύπένερθε/ ~ 3.221 al δ' υπό τήσιν/; elsewhere Apollonius has the clausulae ταί δ ’ ΰπένερθεν (1.945*) and οΥ θ’ ύπένερθεν (2.259*). 44, 97: Theocritus calls Amycus υπέροπλος at 44 and υπερφίαλος at 97. Apollonius calls the Bebrycian king υπεροπληέστατος άνδρών at 2.4 and his servant Oreites Άμύκοιο βίην όπε'ροπλος όπάων at 2.110; Amycus’ words are υπερφίαλοι at 2.54, the Bebrycians themselves υπερφίαλοι at 2.129 and 758. The two poets use the adjectives in different ways, however: in Apollonius the words refer principally to the bad character of Amycus and his companions,



whereas in Theocritus they denote primarily (though perhaps not exclusively) the Bebrycian king’s physical size.61 80-2 ~ A.R. 2.67-9. In both cases the passages are followed in the next line by ένθα, and two lines after that by the rare Homeric form ϊδρείη in the same unHomeric verse position (85 ~ A.R. 2.72). It is worth noting that Apollonius uses Ιδρείη within a simile, Theocritus in the narrative itself; similarly, θείνοντες at 108 has a counterpart in an Apollonian simile at 2.81 (θείνωσι). 94: Theocritus’ simile comparing Amycus to Tityus, who is called yaiqtov υιόν at η 324 and Γαίης έρικυδέος υιόν at λ 576, cannot be independent from Apollonius’ comparison of the Bebrycian to a child of Typhoeus or of Earth herself: άλλ' ό μέν η όλοοΤο Τυφωέος ήέ καί αυτής / Γαίης είναι εικτο πέλωρ τέκος, οΤα πάροιθεν / χωομε'νη Διί τέκεν (2.38-40). At A.R. 1.75962, however, Tityus is a τέκος of Earth only in a complicated sense: Elare actually gave birth (έ'τεκέν γε ) to him but then Earth raised him up and brought him forth again (θρέφεν δε καί αψ έλοχεύσατο ΓαΤα). Π is therefore not impossible that the use of Tityus in the simile that corresponds to Apollonius’ comparison of Amycus to an offspring o f Earth constitutes an oblique and playful “correction” of Apollonius’ version of Tityus’ birth. 104-5 μέσσης ρινός υπερθε κατ' όφρύος ηλασε πυγμή, / παν 5' άπέσυρε μέτωπον ές όστέον are related to A.R. 2.108-9, from the fight with the Bebrycians that immediately follows Polydeuces’ victory: υπέρ όφρύος ηλασε χειρί / δρύψε δε ο! βλέφαρον, γυμνή δ ’ ύπελείπετ’ ónoonq.Vian (1.181 n.3) argues that this connection provides strong evidence for the priority of Theocritus’ poem to the Argonautica. The Theocritean passage looks unambiguously to N 614-6: ήτοι ò μέν κόρυθος φάλον ήλασεν ίπποδασείης / ακρον υπό λόφον αυτόν, ό δέ προσιόντα μέτωπον / ρινός υπέρ πυμάτης. Since Vian also finds several other points of contact between the Homeric and Apollonian passages (λάξ in both A.R. 2.106 and N 618, έν κονίησιν in A.R. 2.107 and N 617, A.R. 2.107 τοΰ δ ’ δσσον ιόντος ~ Ν 615 προσιόντα), he proposes that Theocritus drew from Homer, and that then Apollonius reworked the Theocritean passage while introducing several additional reminiscences of Theocritus’ model. The relationship between the Apollonian and Homeric passages, on the other hand, depends on prior knowledge of Theocritus’ poem. Vian’s argument has merit, and the link poses a serious challenge to the view that Apollonius’ poem was written first, but to my mind this evidence cannot overcome the weight of the other textual indications of Apollonian priority. The very remoteness o f the connections between Apollonius and Homer is itself perhaps significant: the alleged links

61 Cf. Campbell, “Notes” 40-1.



between the Apollonian and Homeric passages involve common ideas and expressions and it is difficult to be sure that Apollonius was thinking of this specific Homeric passage at all, though one must admit that the existence of a concentration of putative links in this context is suggestive.62 An interesting fact that has gone too little noted is that at A.R. 2.161-3 the Argonauts sing a hymn in honour of Polydeuces’ boxing victory: Όρφείη φόρμιγγι συνοίμιον ύμνον αειδον / έμμελέως· περί δε' σφιν ίαίνετο νήνεμος ακτή / μελπομένοις· κλείον δέ Θεραπναΐον Διός υία. The following points of contact between the Castor narrative and the Argonautica may be noted:63 178 ώλλοι nóvTac έυφρανέουσιν έταίοοικ ~ A.R. 3.365* ώλλ οι nóvTEc* δσοι συνέπονται εταίροι. 202 Τυνδαρίδης Xayóvoc τε καί όμφαλοΟ· έγκα τα δ ' εί'σω ~ A.R. 2.663-4 πέρι δ ’ α σ πετος ίδρώς / εϊβεται έκ λαγάνω ν τε καί* αΰχένοςομματα δε'* σφι/

209 μέλλε κασιγνήτοιο βαλεΐν σφετέροιο φονήα ~ A.R. 1.595-6 οΰδ’ ετι δηρόν / μέλλον ΰπέκ ποταμοΐο Βαλεΐν Άμύροιο ρέεθρα. The likely priority of Apollonius’ poem to Idyll 22 means that the latter also postdates Aratus’ Phaenomena, which was composed at the court of Antigonus Gonatas, and therefore to be dated sometime after 276.64 The Argonautica itself echoes the Phaenomena in various passages,65 and in several places the proem of the idyll shows marks of Aratean influence.66 That it is Theocritus who borrows from Aratus and not Aratus from Theocritus is in any case guaranteed by the artful symmetricality of these points of contact in the storm narrative in 8-22. Both the constellations that are violated in verse 9 of the proem and those that reappear after the intercession of the Dioscuri (19-22) are described in language of clearly Aratean flavor (cf. Commentary on 8-22). The storm narrative thus both opens and closes with allusions to the Phaenomena, In the opening line of the scene the ships meet with imminent disaster because they “do violence to” the constellations by ignoring or

62 λάξ, which occurs six tim es in the Iliad and twice in the O dyssey, nowhere else occurs in close conjunction with sv κονίησι. 63 Gow 2.382 wrongly supposed that there were no sim ilarities betw een the idyll and the A rg o n a u tica outside o f the Am ycus episode. 64 A ratus’ poem is conventionally dated to the m iddle years o f the 270s, though W ilamowitz {H ellenistische D ich tu n g (Berlin 1924) 2.276) thought that it was written a decade or so later. 65 Fraser 1.635-6, Mooney 24. 66 Effe 65 n.32; M. Pendergraft, Q U C C 24 (1986) 47-54; Sens, “Proem” ; Hunter, TA G P


rejecting their prognostications, and in this context the application of Aratean language to the constellations is appropriate and significant, since Aratus’ poem itself explicates the meaning of the very celestial bodies violated by Theocritus’ vessels. Theocritus’ ships, in other words, have neglected the lessons provided by Aratus, and this act of violation leads them to the brink of disaster, from which they are saved only by the intervention of the Dioscuri; after their intercession, the returning fair weather brings with it the return of Aratus as a linguistic model. That in the storm narrative references to Aratus frame references to Apollonius is at the very least curious, and it may be possible to see in this pattern of reference to contemporary poetry a clever if oblique comment on Theocritus’ own manipulation of Apollonius in the idyll. In the lines immediately following the passage, the narrator addresses the Dioscuri as poets, a designation by which they are not otherwise known. This identification of poet and honorands is reinforced by the repetition of forms from the root άειδ'/άοιδ- in three successive lines (24-6), the first of which refers to the Dioscuri, the succeeding two to the poet’s own activity. In the storm passage, ships intertextually associated with Apollonius violate stars connected to Aratus, who returns as a model after the intervention of the Dioscuri, and it is therefore tempting to speculate that the twins’ intercession on behalf of ships that have “done violence to” Aratean stars might serve as a metaphor for the poet’s own reworking of Apollonius in the ensuing Castor narrative. The Phaenomena was widely admired by Hellenistic poets as a paragon of learned refinement (cf. Call. ft. 460 Pf.), and by suggesting that ships linked by allusion to Apollonius’ poem have done violence to stars described in Aratean terms, Theocritus may be having a smile at Apollonius’ expense. Even if this is so, however, there is little reason to think that the poet’s attitude to the Argonautica was a hostile one. Many scholars, including Gow and Wilamowitz, believed that Theocritus’ version of the Amycus episode shows the poet “ranged” on the side of Callimachus in a literary feud between Callimachus and like-minded poets on the one hand and Apollonius on the other,67 but whether such a feud ever existed is now very much in doubt.68 In fact, Theocritus’ treatment of his predecessor’s work seems more a mark of admiration than of dissatisfaction with Apollonius. To be sure, Theocritus’ poetry, whatever we are to make of the well-known and controversial passage in which Lycidas expresses disapproval of the builder who would seek to build a house as tall as Mt. Oromedon and of “birds of the Muses” who seek in vain to contend with Homer (Id. 7.45-8),69 clearly shows a general affiliation with 6 7 Gow l.xxiii. 68 Cf. m ost recently Cameron 225-8. 69 T his passage w as once w idely held to be an attack on those who w ould write Hom ericizing epic, but cf. now Cameron 410-22; Hutchinson 201-12.



“Caliimachean” esthetic principles, inasmuch as it reflects a preference for relatively brief, highly polished compositions in which no word is wasted. The conclusion of Idyll 22, which bears an interesting similarity to the passage of Idyll 7, suggests much the same idea: Theocritus like Homer brings honor to the Dioscuri, but his own compositions are not grandiose works of monumental proportions, but refined λιγεών μειλίγματα Μουσεων (221), limited in scale by the scope o f Theocritus’ own innate talent and predilections. All of this, however, hardly reflects hostility to post-Homeric “epic” per se or to the Apollonian literary project in particular, and it seems more likely that in reworking Apollonius’ version of the Amycus episode (and of the Hylas episode as well), Theocritus means to show that he himself could recast Apollonius’ “epic” narrative in a new form and that he could do a poet whose work he admired one better. The chronological relationship between the hymn and the various works of Callimachus, whose period of productivity seems to have extended over the entire reign of Ptolemy II and beyond it as well, is naturally complicated. There are clear points of contact with the Hymn to Artemis (cf. Commentary on 1 and on 116-7) and possibly a connection with Epigram 5 (cf. Commentary on 19), but in neither case is it possible to establish a relative chronology. The date of neither Caliimachean poem is certain, though the former may be very late;70 the latter celebrates a dedication at the temple of Aphrodite-Arsinoe Zephyritis, but this temple’s date o f foundation is unknown.71 The Dioscuri and the sons of Aphareus were apparently juxtaposed in Callimachus’ catalogue of Argonauts in the Aetia (fr. 17 Pf.; cf. A.R. 1.146-55), the first two books of which seem to have preceded the Argonautica and were therefore probably also prior to Idyll 22. Callimachus’ poem may well have influenced the idyll, and if more o f it were extant we would undoubtedly learn much of relevance for Theocritus’ poem. There do not appear to be significant points of resemblance between the hymn and the extant fragments of Hecale. Hollis, however, dates that poem before both the Argonautica and Theocritus’ Idylls, and while certainty is impossible, this seems likely to be right.72 The date of the Nicander who wrote the Theriaca and Alexipharmaca is a vexing problem. Many scholars place this Nicander in a subsequent generation of poets,73 but Alan Cameron has recently argued forcefully that the author of those poems lived during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus.741 find in Idyll 22 at least one possible point o f contact with Nicandrian poetry (Id. 22.143 70 Cf. Bom mann vii-xi; Bulloch 43. 71 Cf. G ow -Page on C all. H E XIV; for an excellent study o f the epigram cf. K. Gutzwiller, Class. A nt. 11 (1992) 194-209. 72 Hollis 26; Cameron 437. 73 Cf. A.S.F. Gow and A.F. Scholfield, N icander: The P o em s a n d P o e tic a l F ra g m en ts (Cambridge 1953) 3-8. 74 Cameron 194-208.


κοίλοισι βαρυνόμενοι σακέεσσι/ ~ Nie. Th. 434 λυγυοίσι βαρυνόυενοι θαμέεσ σ ιν / ì. but if the composer of the Theriaca was in fact a near contemporary of Theocritus, there is no way to be absolutely certain of the direction o f influence. 7 5 Nor do the numerous points of contact between Idyll 22 and the other poems in the Theocritean corpus offer secure bases by which to establish certain relative chronologies. The stichomythia of the first narrative strongly suggests that Theocritus had already written some o f the “bucolic” poems before composing the idyll (cf. below, pp. 40-1). The most striking correspondences, however, are with Idylls 13 and 25.76 O f the hymn’s relationship with the former something has already been said (above, pp. 24-7); the latter’s authenticity and date are uncertain. Of the other points of contact between the hymn and the remaining poems in the Theocritean corpus, the connection between 215-23 and Id. 17.5-8 may offer some very tenuous evidence for the relative chronology. The passages in question are as follows: φίλοι δε τε πάντες άοιδοί Τυνδαρίδαις 'Ελένη τε καί άλλοις ήρώεσσιν, Ίλιον οΤδιέπερσαν άρήγοντες Μενελάω. ύμΐν κΰδος, ανακτες, έμήσατο Χίος άοιδός, ύμνήσας Γίριάμοιο ττόλιν κα! νήας ’Αχαιών Ίλιάδας τε μάχας Άχιλήά τε πύργον αυτής· ύμίν αΰ καί εγώ λιγεών μειλίγματα Μουσέων, οΐ’ αύταί παρέχουσι καί ώς έμός οΐκος υπάρχει, τοϊα φέρω· γεράων δέ θεοίς κάλλιστον άοιδαί. (Μ. 22.215-23) ήρωες, τοί πρόσθεν άφ' ημιθέων έγένοντο, ^εξάντες καλά έργα σοφών έκύρησαν άοιδών αύτάρ εγώ Πτολεμαίον έπιστάμενος καλά είπεϊν ύμνήσαιμ1, ύμνοι δέ καί αθανάτων γέρας αυτών. (Μ. 17.5-8) In both passages the narrator uses the treatment of heroes by earlier poets as a foil for persuading his honorands of the value of the poetic gift they are receiving from him. The gnomes with which each passage concludes are clearly related, 7 7 but also differ pointedly from one another. In Id. 17.8, the expression 7 5 For other possible links betw een the tw o poets, see Gow and Schoifield, op. cit. (above, n. 73) 7 n .l. Cameron 204 calls the connections alleged there “rather dubious.” 7 6 Id . 13: Commentary on 30-6; Id. 25: Commentary on 48-9. 7 7 Note also the enjam bment o f ύμνήσαιμ’and το?α φ έρ ω in identical m etrical positions in Id . 17.8 and Id. 22.223 respectively.



ύμνοι δέ καί ά.θανάτων. γέρας αυτών itself reworks and caps (note καί) the Homeric expression δ γαρ γέρας έστί θανόντων: hymns are an honor even for the immortals. No Homeric passage lies so directly behind Id. 22.223 γεράων δέ θεοΐς κάλλιστον άοιδαί. where the narrator goes further: songs are not merely an honor even for the gods, but are in fact the very best of honors for them. I should not wish to claim that Theocritus could not have written Id. 22.223 without having already written Id. 17.8, with its close connection to a specific Homeric expression, but on balance it does seem to me slightly more likely that in Idyll 22 he does the claim of Idyll 17 one better—-just as in Idyll 17 he has capped a common Homeric expression—than that, having already asserted that songs are the best honors for gods, he then went on to make the clearly less grandiose claim of the hymn to Ptolemy. 7 8 The argument is tenuous at best, but the conclusion to which it leads—that Idyll 22 was written some time after the mid 270s, the earliest that Idyll 17 can have been written—is in any case generally consonant with the other indications for the approximate date of the hymn. 7 9 The picture that emerges is thus a consistent if not entirely precise one. The idyll was probably written some time after about 275, after Theocritus had already become established at Alexandria, and following the composition of Aratus5 Phaenomena, at least the first two books of Apollonius’ Argonautica, the first two books of Callimachus’ Aetia and likely the Hecale as well. Gow (l.xxviii-xxix) suggested that Idylls 13 and 22 were near in date to Idyll 16 (i.e., ca. 275/4), but Pfeiffer (2.xlii-xliii) objected that if the idylls really do postdate the Argonautica and if that poem postdates Callimachus’ Aetia, the Aetia itself would have to assigned an excessively early date (“non multo post initium saeculi III”). It is quite reasonable to suppose, however, that the poems were published within fairly close chronological compass, and if the Argonautica was written in the final years of the 270s or first years of the 260s m dA etia I-II slightly before it, 8 0 Idyll 22 (and 13 as well) could easily have been written quite shortly therafter. 8 1 In principle, of course, nothing excludes a slightly later publication date, 8 2 but for the most part the datable poems seem to belong to the latter half of the 270s and early 260s,83 and it seems likely that the hymn too was written during the early years of Philadelphus’ reign. 7 8 Bulloch 4 2 -3 tentatively advances a pair o f sim ilar argum ents for the relationship between Call. h. 3 and h . 5. 7 9 Gow l.x x v iii-x x ix suggested that Id y ll 22 w as com posed before 17, for w hich he suggested a date o f 273/2. 8 0 See now Cameron 247-62. 81 Cf. Campbell, “N otes” 41. 8 2 Cf. Gow 1.xxix, 2.591 ; Campbell, “Notes” 41. 8 3 C am eron 5 4 -5 follow s L. Koenen, E in e a g o n istis c h e In sc h rift a u s Ä g y p te n u n d frü h p to le m ä isc h e K ö n ig sfeste (M eisenheim am Glan 1977) 39-63, 7 9 -8 6 in assigning Id y ll 24 to the m id 280s.



The idyll was widely read and imitated by subsequent generations of Greek and Roman poets. The fragments of Euphorion preserve a clausula similar to one found in the hymn (cf. Commentary on 90), though here the connection is too slight for us to have any confidence about direct borrowing. Among Roman writers, Virgil clearly draws on the poem in his account of the boxing match between Entellus and Dares in Aeneid 5, 8 4 and perhaps elsewhere as well (cf. Commentary on 32-8), while Ovid’s version of the conflict between the twins and the Apharetiadae in the Fasti borrows from and “corrects” Theocritus’ account of the same event (cf. Commentary on 137-40, 210). Signs of the poem’s direct influence on Horace are less certain, though c. 4.8.31-2 perhaps owes something to the ship rescue in 17-8 (cf. Commentary on 17) and c. 1.12.27-32 to the description of the improving weather in 19-22 (cf. Commentary on 19-20). Later, Valerius Flaccus allusively signals his familiarity with Theocritus’ account of the boxing match between Amycus and Polydeuces (cf. Commentary on 44-52). The poem was particularly popular with Greek poets living under the Roman Empire; the works o f the epigrammatist Lucillius, Gregory of Nazianzus, the two Oppians, Nonnus, and Quintus Smyrnaeus together contain abundant reminiscences of it.

III. D i a l e c t , L a n g u a g e ,

a n d S ty le

An important attribute of Theocritean and much other third-century poetry is its unrelenting and often learned engagement with antecedent texts, and in particular with the Homeric epics. Fundamental to this engagement is the poet’s desire at once to show his affiliation with Homer and to make clear his innovativeness. This tension between similarity to and difference from Homer is implicit in the final, programmatic lines of Idyll 22 (see Commentary on 235-23, 222-3) and played out at the linguistic level throughout the poem. In Idyll 22, dialect plays an important part in signaling Theocritus’ affiliation with Homer and with the Ionic Homeric hymns. The Theocritean corpus is dialectaily diverse, 8 5 and the manuscripts often diverge widely on matters of dialect, so that it is frequently difficult to decide among metrically equivalent Doric, epic/Ionic, and even Attic forms. In the case of our poem, however, there are good indications that the predominant dialect coloring is epic/Ionic. In XTrM the title is followed by the notation έν k o iv q Ίάδι, and Cf. Vergilius 41 (1995) 49-54 and Commentary on 127. Gow l.lxxii-lxxx divides the idylls by dialect into the following categories: “poems in Doric” (genuine: td d . 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 26; dubious o r spurious: 8 , 9, 19-21, 23, 27); “poems prevailingly in E pic dialect with an admixture o f Doric” ( J d d . 13, 16, 17,24); “poems in E pic and Ionic” (Jdd. 12, 22 and 25) and “poems in Aeolic” (Jdd. 28-31). Gow offers little discussion o f his groupings; for an excellent discussion o f the assum ptions on w hich they are based, see now Hunter, T A G P 38-45. 84 85



while this is in itself hardly conclusive, its evidentiary value is somewhat strengthened by the fact that these same witnesses themselves offer a predominantly Doricizing text. 8 6 The earliest papyrus (Π i, first century CE) mostly transmits epic/Ionic forms, 8 7 as does D, which unfortunately contains only lines 69-223. Moreover, Idyll 22 contains a number of metrically guaranteed forms unique to epic/Ionic and not found in the Doric part of the corpus. Thus, for example, the epic aorist of έρχομαι (ηλυθ- ), occurs twice in the poem but elsewhere in the corpus only in Idylls 12 and 25, both of which appear on other grounds to have an epic/Ionic coloring; other metrically guaranteed forms absent or very rare in the Doric poems include, for example, the verbal form ήεν, the adverb αίψα, the particles αν and ήτοι, the numeral δύω, the pronominal form σφισι, and the adjectives δς and σ φ έτερος . 8 8 Conversely, Idyll 22 contains no metrically guaranteed Doricisms, so that all Doric forms in the paradosis may have in fact replaced metrically equivalent epic/Ionic ones. All of this generally supports editors who follow Ahrens in restoring epic and Ionic forms in place of Doric ones, and Gow classifies the hymn together with Idylls 12 and 25 as a poem exclusively in epic/Ionic rather than as a predominantly epic poem with an admixture of Doric forms. 8 9 Nonetheless, the practice of third-century poets, including Theocritus himself, cautions against the assumption that the text must be absolutely uniform in dialect. In Idylls 13, 16, 17, and 24, for example, Doric forms are apparently overlaid on an essentially epic substratum, and conversely both Theocritus in the Doric idylls and Callimachus in his Doric fifth and sixth hymns introduce Homeric forms that are not features of Doric. 9 0 The authority of the manuscripts on questions of dialect is notoriously suspect, and the earliest papyri contain both Doric and epic/Ionic forms side by side. In the first 6 8 lines, for which D does not exist, I have not felt the remaining manuscripts alone to be reliable witnesses on this score, and have followed all modern editors in replacing most Doric forms (but cf. 1 Λήδας, where epic Λήδης is plausible) with their Ionic equivalents. Sometimes the decision to do so is supported by other considerations: in the opening line of the poem, for example, the best manuscripts offer ύμνέομες, but the apparent predominance of epic/Ionic dialect forms elsewhere in the poem makes it improbable that 8 6 A s Gow Llxxvii notes, however, the ascription need not be m ore authoritative than the annotation Δωρίδι added to Id. 25 in T r and in “one m s or another” o f the various poems in epic with an admixture o f Doric. 8 7 But cf. 60 οπ ενθοις corrected to απελθοις; 80 σπειραισιν. 8 8 Cf. Hunter, T A G P 41-2. 8 9 See above, n. 85. 9 0 Cf. G. Fabiano, G R B S 12 (1971) 52 8 -9 : “ W hat seem s chiefly to characterize T heocritus’ poetic language is the instability o f the system at every level, from the least phonetic unity, which always enjoys a considerable autonomy inside the changeable convention o f the dialect, to the structure o f the Id ylls as complex syntheses o f different literary genres.”


Theocritus would have marked the idyll as Doric in the very first word . 9 1 Elsewhere in this section of the poem the papyri or testimonia preserve epic equivalents to the Doric forms that have intruded in the manuscript tradition. For lines 69-223, I have accepted the Ionic equivalents preserved in D and elsewhere. In 80, however, both D and the first-century (1j appear to agree with Tr in transmitting σπείραισιν, and in the absence of other evidence I have thought it better hesitantly to follow Wilamowitz in retaining this form than to accept Ahrens’ σπείρησιν . 9 2 Similarly, the unambiguous presence of other Attic forms throughout the poem shows that Theocritus could have written αδελφούς rather than Meineke’s άδελφέους in 5, 9 3 and although manuscript support for this part of the poem is by no means deep, I have tentatively retained the former. At the level of vocabulary and usage, Theocritus shares with other Alexandrian writers a special concern with the text of Homer and with the contemporary controversies attending its constitution and interpretation, and in Idyll 22 as elsewhere he shows a taste for rare and debated Homeric forms. Homeric hapax legomena are common; in several cases these words occur in Homer in passages whose authenticity was doubted by ancient scholars. In at least two passages (166 dual dat. νώι, 178 ώ λλοι) Theocritus uses forms favored by Zenodotus but not features of the Homeric vulgate; 9 4 in 146 the use of μάχαιραι as weapons of war has an antecedent in the Zenodotean text, though in this case a direct reference to Zenodotus is rather more dubious. The poet is also fond of words of controversial meaning, as in the case of όλοίτροχοι in 49, where the context suggests that he understood the word to mean “completely round” rather than “destructively running” (though the latter sense is not excluded); other examples of words used in debated ways include ισκον “said” (167), λισσάδι “smooth” (37); and perhaps Ινδ ά λ λ ο ντο “resembled” (39). Innovations on Homeric usage abound. Homeric words are given unHomeric meanings (e.g. 218 κϋδος other than of living men, έμήσατο “produced”) or quantities (e.g. 81 μάκρους with light penult), Homeric expressions are varied slightly, used in new ways, or reversed entirely (oppositio in imitando); to the last of these categories belongs the description of Aphareus’ gravestone as a τυκτήν / μάρμαρον “hewn marble” (210-1), since 9 1 Cf. Hunter, T A G P 32. Another particularly unlikely Doric form is the elided 3rd person pi. ά π ο λ ή γ ο ν τ(ι) transmitted in 19, where M eineke’s ά π ο λ ή γ ο ο σ ’ should alm ost certainly be accepted (cf. Commentary a d Ioc.). 9 2 Cf. M olinos Tejada 38: “con todas las reservas que la parquedad de la documentación impone, parece arriesgado eliminar todas las formas dóricas del idilio XXII.” 9 3 In 139 άδελφεώ is metrically necessary. 9 4 T he poetry o f both Callim achus and A pollonius also show s a fam iliarity w ith the Zenodotean text o f Homer; cf. Rengakos p a ssim ; R. Pfeiffer, H isto ry o f C la ssic a l S ch o la rsh ip (Oxford 1968-76) 1.139; Mooney 50-1.



this expression varies the Homeric practice with μάρμαρος, which is always masculine and modified by an adjective of almost diametrically opposite sense (όκριόεις, i.e. unhewn). As often in Alexandrian poetry, analogy is a powerful force in the production of novel usages. For example, in 16 άρρήκτοισι “unbroken” (of hail) seems to have the connotation “dense, thick,” on the analogy of Y 150, where the adjective is used of a divinely produced cloud; ύπεξανέδυ in 123 varies the meaning of this Homeric hapax legomenon at N 352, on the model of the shorter (έξ)αναδύω, which may mean either “rise up out o f ’ or “shrink back from.” A further mark of innovation is the juxtaposition of unHomeric and even unpoetic words with forms and expressions drawn from epic. Often the effect is startling, sometimes humorous. The comic αδηφάγος deflates the epic seriousness of the invocation of the Muse in 115, just as in 194 the prosaic ακριβής marks a humorous distance from the grandiose tradition concerning Lynceus’ extraordinary vision. Similarly, the use of the quotidian and unpoetic ενώ πιον, a word belonging firmly to the koine, in Lynceus’ “Homeric” speech introduction (152) contributes to the undermining of his selfaggrandizing claim not to be a man of many words, and diction of apparently technical medical character (e.g. 105 άπέσυρε, 112 συνίζανον) helps lend to the account of the boxing match an air of almost scientific precision. As impressive the display of learning in Idyll 22 and other Theocritean poetry is, Theocritus’ use of Homer and other antecedent poetry amounts to far more than either mere showmanship or simple mechanical manipulation. Like his contemporaries Apollonius and Callimachus, Theocritus expects that his poetry be read against the backdrop of the specific Homeric scenes it evokes. For the reader who recognizes and refers back to Theocritus’ model, reminiscence of a particular Homeric passage often endows the new context with a deeper level o f meaning than would otherwise emerge from a straightforward reading of the text. Lynceus’ claim that he is ού πολύμυθος (153), for example, takes on special richness when we recognize that his words link him both to the aggrieved Telemachus, who is accused of being πολύμυθος himself, and to Menelaus on the occasion of his making a plea that the Trojans hand over his wife Helen (cf. Commentary ad loc. ). Indeed, each of the two central narratives continually echo several particular Homeric contexts. The Polydeuces narrative looks especially to Odysseus’ encounter with Polyphemus and to the boxing match between Odysseus and the beggar Irus; in each case, Odysseus gets the better of a man who has failed to receive him hospitably. The models for the Castor narrative are more widely varied, but several Homeric contexts are especially important: Menelaus’ indecisive duel with his wife’s abductor Paris in the third book of the Iliad, the conflict between Agamemnon and Achilles over a captured woman in that same poem, and the dispute between the house of Odysseus and the suitors of the Odyssey all recur regularly as models and share obvious affinities with the Theocritean context.



Although a close reading of the poem requires the recognition and interpretation o f such allusions, at the surface level the hymn is not an excessively difficult work, but rather a highly accessible poem of deceptive erudition, written in a straightforward and direct style that evokes the manner of early epic. Only rarely is deep learning required to understand the basic meaning of what the poet wrote (an exception is 166 νώι, where some scribes were befuddled). Occasionally (e.g. 16 άρρήκτοισι, 34 οίνωττός) the full significance of a given word emerges only obliquely and allusively, but for the most part vocabulary is traditional, and the syntax and word order hold little in the way of surprises. Hyperbaton, when it occurs, is rarely radical. The most striking example occurs at the climax o f the battle between Castor and Lynceus in 196-8. Here the marked departure from “normal” word order is decidedly unHomeric, though not unusual in Hellenistic poetry, 9 5 and perhaps evokes the confusion and disorder of the movements being described. Another example of Theocritus’ manipulation of word order to produce a special effect is the difficult passage at 177-80, where Lynceus’ sentiment at first appears straightforward but is greatly complicated by the final word, the enjambed demonstrative τάσδε, which requires the reader to reevalute what is meant by ώλλοι in 178 (see Commentary adloc.). A notable feature of the poem’s narrative sections is the absence of extended similes in the Homeric manner. The Castor episode lacks them entirely, while the few that do occur in the Polydeuces narrative are generally short; only the description of Amycus’ muscles in 49-50 is developed at any length, and this is in fact based directly on a specific Homeric passage. Callimachus’ Hymns show a similar resistance to full-scale epic similes, though the Hecale9 6 and Apollonius’ Argonautica do not. Two passages in particular deserve special mention for the issues they raise. The first of these is the surprising stichomythia embedded in verses 5474 of the Polydeuces narrative. Scholars most often cite comic or tragic drama as models, but in fact Theocritus’ own poems of bucolic subject matter provide a closer and more striking parallel for the incorporation of dialogue into hexameter narrative. Like encounters between Theocritean herdsmen, the meeting occurs in a locus amoenus prominently featuring a spring, and leads to an amoebean exchange and contest, albeit one o f physical combat rather than song; the description of Amycus calls to mind descriptions of herdsmen both Homeric (Polyphemus) and, more obliquely, Theocritean (e.g. Lycidas) . 9 7 Such intertextual links necessarily complicate and blur rigid distinctions among the various constituent parts of the Theocritean corpus, but it is in any case 9 5 For Theocritus, cf. Dover liii-liv. Caliiraachean practice is often far more radical: cf. Hollis 14. 9 6 Frr. 18.13ff., 48.7ff., 69.1 Iff. Hollis, with Hollis 14-5. 9 7 See Commentary on 44-52, 54-74.



certainly reasonable to see here a form of literary play, in which the poet in this passage assimilates his “heroic” narrative to what must have already been, at least for him, a recognizable poetic type; 9 8 whatever the precise development of pastoral as a genre, we are surely very close to something like genre “mixing” or “contamination. ” 9 9 Such playfulness reflects the general eclecticism of the poem, whose hymn form serves as a backdrop against which the poet manipulates and adapts a wide variety of antecedent literature. The second passage is the account o f the duel between Castor and Lynceus, which Gow thought a careless pastiche of Homer; others have been equally critical of the writing but have sought to explain its ostensible resemblance to Homeric battle narratives as a reflection of the episode’s brutal and archaic morality—“a code of force which Theocritus, no doubt, found quite as objectionable as the old-fashioned poetry which embodied it”10010*— or as a parodie example o f the sort of drivel produced by “latter-day Homeridae. ” 301 Such views depend on assumptions about what “refined” Alexandrian narrative poetry ought to be like, and it is salutary to remember how small and unrepresentative a sample of Hellenistic literature actually survives. 3 0 2 In fact, the duel narrative is not at all a crude patchwork of Homeric expressions. To the contrary, Theocritus in this section of the poem consistently reworks and varies the Homeric language he is borrowing. Here too, Homeric words are regularly used in new ways, formulae altered. There are touches of wry humor (e.g. 194), the jingle o f 185 (like that of 137-8) and the hyperbaton of 196-7 may as easily be thought marks of refinement as of inelegance, and the compression o f narrative time in 193-5 and elsewhere perhaps reflects a characteristically Alexandrian interest in abbreviating scenes that Homer might develop at greater length. Early epic, moreover, is not the only model for the passage, which in several places may show the influence of, among other works, Euripides’ Phoenissae (Commentary on 177-8, 187-8, 197). Nonetheless, the narrative surely has the effect of seeming more Homeric than anything that Callimachus—or even Apollonius, for that matter—has to offer. 1 0 3 The “Homeric” style of Idyll 25 is comparable, however, and we would do well to remember Gow’s comment on that poem: “Tfheocritus], like other Alexandrians, is a Protean poet whose style and vocabulary vary with the dialect and the poetic genre in which he happens at the time to be writing.” Cf. Thomas 233-6. L.E. Rossi, B I C S 18 (1971) 85 with 93 n.7; cf. Hutchinson 164 n.34, G. Fabiano, G R B S 12 (1971) 519, 526. 1 0 0 Moulton 46. 101 Griffiths 359. 3 0 2 For example, continuous passages o f C allim achus’ H e c a le that survive by accident present a m ore representative picture than fragments preserved for the novelties they cite, and show the poem to be closer in style to Homer than the hexameter hymns; cf. Hollis 11-12. 103 Cf. Kurz 103; Hunter, TA G P 1A . 98




Kurz quite rightly attributes the more overtly Homericizing style of the duel narrative to a typically Alexandrian concern with ποικιλία even within one poem, 1 0 4 but it is also important to recognize that the “epic” style of the duel narrative parallels the style of the opening frame and that the style of both passages serves a special function in the immediate context of the Castor narrative: the Homeric flavor of the passages framing Lynceus’ long speech contributes to the sense—which emerges from the speech itself—-that Lynceus is sadly out o f his element, a man of post-Homeric values and sensibility trapped in an “Iliadic” frame, who fails to understand the reality, played out at the stylistic level in the surrounding narrative, of the world in which he finds himself. 105

IV . M


To differing degrees, all of the major Hellenistic poets refined the hexameter they inherited from early epic in order to create a smoother verse. Theocritus’ hexameter is relatively variable and flexible, with generally fewer restrictions than are found in Callimachus and other contemporary writers. A crude but telling indicator of this relative flexibility is that, according to O’Neill’s calculations, Theocritus has a markedly lower percentage of words localized in “normal” positions in the verse than do Apollonius or Callimachus. 1 0 6 There are, moreover, marked differences among the bucolic, mimic, and epic groups. In general, the hexameter of the bucolic poems is least like the Homeric verse, that of the “epic” group most like it. The meter o f Idyll 22 is in several respects quite Homeric, though it nonetheless still shows a number of refinements. Prosody Several points may be noted: a) On the whole, Theocritus allows a greater degree of “Attic correption”—whereby a syllable containing a short vowel followed by a combination of mute and liquid remains light—than does either early epic or other third-century poets, though he is generally less free in this regard in Idylls 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, and 24.107108 Such correption, which is relatively rare in Homer, occurs in Theocritus about three times more frequently between words than within individual words, 508 and is especially common in the third and fifth

K urz 104. Cf. above, pp. 16-8; Sens, “Lynceus” ; Hutchinson 166 already points out that the Homeric language is not necessarily parodie (cf. Cameron 436). 1 0 6 E.G. O ’Neill, Jr., K C 58(1942) 116-8,152, 154. 1 0 7 Hunter, T A G P 30. 1 0 8 A. Mojena, G ioita 70 (1992) 55-^0. 104 105



foot. 1 0 9 Manipulation of Homeric quantities is naturally a standard component of the poet’s arsenal, as at 126 πυκνοί ... όδόντες, where a Homeric expression is given a new prosody. b) On the analogy of Homeric practice, Theocritus allows ordinarily short syllables to occupy the princeps under certain metrical conditions: 1 1 0 1 1 ) short final vowels before an initial λ, μ, v, ρ, σ (e.g. 121 cmò λαγόνος; cf. 19 άπολήγουσ’ ), as well as *f and *8 f in expressions of Homeric pedigree (see below); 2) short final vowel before initial plosive (e.g. Id. 1.75, IB.5); 3) short vowel + v, ρ, ς before initial vowel (e.g. Id. 15.90). c) Theocritus at times follows Homeric practice with originally digammated words (e.g. 190 ivi δεινοΤσι), especially dative oi; we cannot know for certain, however, whether he fully understood the effects of the digamma in early epic. Dactyls and Spondees West notes that overall Theocritus, like Aratus, has more contracted bicipitia (i.e. spondees) than Homer, except in the fourth foot, whereas Callimachus and Apollonius have less contraction, except in the second foot. 1 !1 The general predominance of dactylic fourth feet in the Theocritean corpus is directly related to the increased importance of the bucolic diaeresis, especially in the bucolic poems, since word break after the fourth foot is rarely preceded by contracted fourth biceps (cf. below); the tendency for the fourth foot to be dactylic is therefore not so pronounced in Idyll 22, where the proportion of feet with bucolic diaeresis closely approximates the proportion for Homer. In general, Theocritus’ “epic” poems have less contraction than do either his bucolic or mimic ones; of these groups the bucolic poems have the greatest amount of contraction. For Idyll 22, in fact, the ratio of dactyls to spondees closely approximates that for Homer, except that the increased predominance of the feminine caesura in Theocritus (see below) leads to a greater number of dactylic third feet; the verse of the poem is thus overall more spondaic than Callimachus’ or Apollonius’ . 1 5 2 The percentage of lines in the poem with no Kunst 74-8. The follow ing is drawn from West 156. 111 W est 154. 1 1 2 The follow ing table lists m y calculations for the percentage o f dactyls by foot in Id. 22, along with E. G. O ’N eill’s tabulations (T C S 8 (1942) 159) for 1000-verse selections o f the Ilia d (1-2.453), the O d y ssey (1-3.170), Apollonius ( 1 . 1- 1 0 0 2 ), Callimachus (hh. 1 - 4 , 6 , I h c . (as 109 510

F oot

Id. 22




62.3 57.8 92.4 70.9 95.1*

62.1 62.5 85.5 70.1 95.4

62.2 57.0 84.4


69.9 95.4

T. 53.0 50.2 77.4 82.5 98.2

Call. 74.0 51.3 91.3 80.9 92.9

A.R. 71.5 57.8 8 6 .1

80.5 92.0


more than one spondee is 65.5%, with 18.4% consisting entirely of dactyls; for the Iliad the corresponding figures are 61.3% and 19.1%, for the Odyssey 58.9% and 18.6.113 Similarly, while Callimachus has only one verse with spondees in both the third and fourth foot (h . 6.72), Idyll 22 alone contains three examples ( 8 8 , 146, 156), and Iliad 1 about 20 in 611 verses . 1 1 4 Theocritus’ favorite patterns in Idyll 22 and elsewhere 1 1 5 are DSDDD, SDDDD, DDDDD; others occurring with some frequency in the poem are DSDSD, DDDSD, SDDSD, and SSDDD. The shapes SSSSD and SSSDS occur once each in Idyll 22 (156 and 39 respectively), and rarely in the other poems. Spondaic Fifth Foot Spondaic fifth feet occur in 4% (9 total) of the poem’s verses. This proportion is lower than it is for Homer (5%), for Theocritus’ epic poems as a group (7%), and for Callimachus (7%), Apollonius ( 8 %), Aratus (17%), Euphorion (17%), or Eratosthenes (24%).116 The proportion for Theocritus’ mimic poems is 3%, and for the bucolic group 1.3%; in Nicander it is 2.6%. The following observations may be made: a) the great majority of such lines end in a word of four syllables. Trisyllabic final words occur occasionally; for Theocritus the overall proportion of tetrasyllable to trisyllabic words in such lines is 10:1. 1 1 7 In Idyll 22, both examples of trisyllabic spondaic line ends have Homeric antecedents: 100 (where enclitic τε is closely linked to γναθμούς), 174. Six-syllable words of the shape ^ -----x are rarer still. 1 1 8 b) lines with spondaic fifth foot rarely have a contracted fourth biceps, though Theocritus is less restrictive in this regard than some other Hellenistic poets (cf. below, p. 45).

*M y figures for I d . 22 are based on the assum ption that verse 6 6 originally contained a dactylic fifth foot. T he updated tabulations o f M. Brioso Sänchez, H abis 8 (1977) 57, who considers the full corpora o f the poets in question, differ only insignificantly from O ’N eill’s. 115 H unter 42 with n.186; B.A. van Groningen, L a p o é sie v erb a le g re c q u e {Am sterdam 1953) 202. On the basis o f the percentages given by ML Brioso Sänchez, H abis 7 (1976) 4 0 , 1 calculate the figures for Apollonius and C allim achus to be 6 7 .6 % /2 2 .0 % and 72.0%/22.3% respectively. 1 1 4 The figures for Callimachus and the I lia d are from Hollis 17. For Callimachus, the num ber o f candidates is severely dim inished by the strong tendency in the C allim achean hexam eter for lines with m asculine caesura to be follow ed by bucolic diaeresis, which itself cannot be preceded by a spondaic fourth foot. 115 Cf. M. Brioso Sänchez, H abis 7 (1976) 39; Kunst 6 . In varying proportions, these are also the favorite shapes in H om er, H esiod, the H om eric hym ns, A ratus, C allim achus, Apollonius, and Euphorion: cf. van Groningen, Joe. cit. (above, n. 113); Brioso Sänchez, a r t cit. 40. 1 1 6 Figures are from W est 37, 154. 1 1 7 W est 154 n.48. 5 1 8 /d . 34.33, 16.93,24.85, 1 2 7 ,2 5 .6 6 .In such cases the final word is a com pound verb.



Main Caesura AII verses in the poem have a main caesura in the third foot except 72, where it is postponed to the fourth foot. 1 *9 Of the remaining 222 verses, 166 (74.8%) have a feminine rather than a masculine caesura. The predominance of the feminine caesura is characteristic of Hellenistic hexameter in general, but is far more pronounced in Theocritus’ “epic” poems (71.5% overall) than in the bucolic and mimic idylls (50 and 52%, respectively) . 19 2 0 The figures for Apollonius and Callimachus are 67% and 74% respectively (78% in the Hecale);12112in early epic the proportion of lines with feminine caesura to those with masculine caesura is 4:3 (West 36). Of lines with masculine caesura in the poem, the bare majority (57%) also have word break after the fourth foot (bucolic diaeresis), though the proportion is far less than it is in the bucolic poems of the corpus (8 6 %, according to West 154 n.46). Bucolic Diaeresis522 Somewhat fewer than half of the verses in the hymn contain a word break following the fourth foot (47% ) . 123 This figure conforms to the overall figure for Homer (47%, according to West 154) and is only slightly smaller than the overall figure for Theocritus’ entire epic group including Idyll 22 (49.5% ) . 1 2 4 In Theocritus’ mimic poems 59% of all verses have bucolic diaeresis, but in the bucolic poems the figure is 74%, and it is therefore noteworthy that in Idyll 22 an especially high concentration of such lines occurs in the description of the idyllic locus amoenus and its resident Amycus in 37-52 (87.5%), since this passage has clear affiliations with Theocritus’ bucolic poetry (cf. above, pp. 40-1). There is a tendency against having a spondaic fourth foot precede the bucolic diaeresis, especially when the fourth biceps contains a short vowel rendered heavy by position. This tendency is not so pronounced as it is in some other Hellenistic poets, however. In Theocritus 49 lines with bucolic diaeresis also have a spondaic fourth foot (cf. Id. 22.88, 194, 216),125 but Callimachus seems to avoid lines o f this sort completely, 1 2 6 and Nicander has but two examples (Th. 457, 1 2 7 ff. 83.3).

For the restriction ofhephthem im eral caesurae in Hellenistic verse, W est 153. Kunst 47; W est 153. 121 Hollis 19; W est 153. 1 2 2 I adopt the conventional terminology. W est 192 objects to the phrase as “a m odem pedantry” and instead prefers “bucolic caesura.” 1 2 3 These calculations exclude those cases in w hich the w ord break is preceded by a prepositive and those in which the fifth foots begins with an enclitic. 1 2 4 Kunst 53. 1 2 5 W est 154. 1 2 6 The sole possibility is h. 4.226-7, on which cf. Maas 62. 1 2 7 ύ π ο δ ρ ά ξ ομμασί λεύσ σ ω ν; cf. Id. 22.194 ακριβής ομμασι Λυγκεύς. 119 120



Word Break in Other Positions In other places, too, Theocritus is more flexible than some of his contemporaries: a) There is a tendency against words beginning in the first foot and ending with the second trochee (Meyer’s First Law), but this is not absolutely observed: exceptions in Idyll 22 occur in 70 /ή καί αεθλον, 96 /άμφοτέρησιν, 105 /π α ν 6 ’ άπέσυρε, 111 /π α ν συνέφυρε, and 177 /ήμετέροισι . 1 2 8 Words of the shape ( ...) x - ^ | ending with the second foot are extremely rare (Giseke’s Law) ; 1 2 9 there are no examples in the hymn. 1 3 0 b) Word break after contracted second biceps is restricted, especially when this syllable consists of a short vowel (Hilberg’s Law: cf. West 155, Maas 62),131 though it is by no means as consistently avoided as in Callimachus. Unambiguous exceptions in Idyll 22 are 178 ώλλοι, 214 Λήδας. In 166, 170 and 2 1 1 , postpositive δ(έ) mitigates the break after σφων, αμφω and αυτόν respectively; in 63, the break is less strongly felt after the combination of enclitic and proclitic (ε’ί σευ). c) Meyer’s observation that words of the shape |^-1 should not be placed before the caesura (Meyer’s Second Law) does not hold true for Theocritus (examples from Idyll 22 in 59, 71, 145, 179, 220), though in other Hellenistic poets there is some tendency against iambic words in this position. 1 3 2 d) Word break after fourth-foot trochee is avoided (Hermann’s Bridge). The only unambiguous violation is Id. 18.15 κής έτος έξ έ'τεος, Μενέλαε, τεα νυός αδε. The other examples are all mitigated in various ways and, as Gow notes (on Id. 8.10), “apparent rather to the eye than to the ear. ” 133 e) Words of the shape j ^ - | and |— | rarely end with the fifth princeps. 1 3 4 f) Monosyllabic line endings are usually preceded by bucolic diaeresis, though this is hardly the firm rule that it is for Callimachus. Most exceptions involve enclitics closely bound to the preceding word {Id. 22.100,153, al.), but other words occur occasionally (e.g. Id. 22.89 όρίνθη δέ πλέον ή πρίν, Id. 15.29 ϋδατος πρότερον δεΐ). It is noteworthy, however, that the genuine bucolic poems of the corpus seem to contain no exceptions. Elision Elision of nouns, verbs and adjectives, common in Homer, is greatly diminished in Hellenistic poetry. Idyll 22 contains 8 examples of such elision in

128 129 130

Cf. Fantuzzi 229. W est 155. V erse 83, cited fay Fantuzzi 229-30, involves enclitic σφισι and is thus not a pure

case. 131 132 133 134

Exceptions are given by Fantuzzi 229, Kunst 26-7. W est 155. Cf. Fantuzzi 232. W est 155.



its first hundred lines (four of these in the stichomythia between Polydeuces and Amycus), whereas West notes that the opening hundred lines of the Iliad have 19.135 Theocritus is less strict than Callimachus about avoiding elision at the main caesura (in Idyll 22 at 19 αίψα 6 ' άπολήγουσ 1 άνεμοι, 91, 195 (both δ ’)). 136 Hiatus and Correption Hiatus is allowed following the princeps in all verse positions, though especially in the first and fifth feet. After a contracted biceps hiatus is greatly restricted; most of the eight examples in the corpus involve η or originally digammated oi. 1 3 7 Short final syllables may also stand in hiatus; many examples occur at the feminine caesura. 1 3 8 Most Theocritean examples of hiatus have clear Homeric analogues. Correption is twice as common between feet as it is following the first syllable of the biceps, and most prevalent in the mimic and epic poems, less common in the bucolic ones. 139

V . T h e T r a n s m is s io n

of the


Manuscripts Our current understanding of the manuscript tradition of Theocritus owes a great deal to the work of such a scholars as Ahrens, Wilamowitz, and Wendel, and most recently especially to the labors of Gallavotti, whose edition was based on fresh examination of most known manuscripts. 1 4 0 Gow’s edition relies on Gallavotti’s collations and contains the most conveniently available general overview o f the entire tradition (; more extensive accounts of the witnesses and their interrelationships may be found in Gallavotti’s prefatory essay and the appendix to his edition. The manuscripts and their relationships to one another vary from poem to poem, and I restrict myself here to a brief enumeration and discussion of the principal witnesses for Idyll 22. 141 For Idylls 1 3 5 W est 156; W est (w ho counts 4 exam ples o f elision in the first hundred lines o f the idyl!) calculates that in the first hundred lines o f Aratus, Call. h. 3, A.R. 2, Nie. Th., and Mosch. E ur. there are 4 ,1 , 8 , 4 and 7 exam ples respectively. 136 Examples are listed by Kunst 43-4. 1 3 7 Kunst 107-8. 1 3 8 Kunst 118-20. 1 3 9 Kunst 114, 116-7. i4° G allavotti’s first edition was published in 1946; a third edition, published in 1993, takes account o f new papyrus evidence and reexplores several key issues in the light o f work done since the publication o f his earlier editions. Page references in this section are to the third edition. 141 My descriptions o f the manuscripts and early editions are derived principally from Gow l.xx x -lix ; Gallavotti 297-371; Hicks 1-45.



19-30 and the epigrams, the number of manuscripts is far fewer than for the first eighteen poems in the corpus. In the case of Idyll 22, six mss. are of primary importance: D Parisinus anc. fonds gr. 2726, fifteenth century. The Theocritean material is in four sections: a) Idd. 1-3, 8-13, 4-7, 14, 16, 29, epigrams, Sim. Wings; b) Idd. 17,18,15; c) Idd. 24,22.69-223, 26,28, [Mosch.] 4, Id. 25.85end, 1-84, [Mosch.] 3 (attributed to T.); d) Id. 27, Sim. Axe. In section (c) there is a gap following Id. 24; in section (d), a gap following Id. 27. D also contains prolegomena and the Vat. hypothesis to Id. 15, as well as Aratus and Nicander. The original copyist is identified by Gallavotti as the Cretan George Trivisia, who died in Venice in 1485.142 D once belonged to Scaliger and has corrections by him and several others. The last hand is the same as that of Iunt. M Vaticanus gr. 915, dated to the thirteenth century by Gallavotti, the fourteenth by Wendel. A subscribed list of the names and dates of birth of a certain father’s sons fixes 1311 as a terminus ante quern for the copying o f the ms. , 143 which shows the work of eight contemporary hands. Planudes may have been among those involved in the preparation of the ms. , 1 4 4 which also includes a wide variety o f other Greek poetry, including Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, Lycophron, and Musaeus. The Theocritean material falls into three sections: a) Idd. 2.5-3. 6 , 5.59-13.68,15.71-17; b) Idd. 22, 25; c) Syrinx, Mosch. 2. There are hypotheses to Idd. 3, 6-13, and 16, excepts from Vatican scholia to Idd. 2, 3, 5-12, 15, and ancient scholia to Syrinx. M is in very poor condition, and its pages are disordered. P Laurentianus xxxii.37, thirteenth or fourteenth century. The Theocritean material is in three parts: a) Idd. 1, 5, 6 , 4, 7, 3, 8-13; b) Idd. 15, 14, 2; c) [Mosch.] 3, Id. 16, Syrinx, Id. 22.1-18, Id. 17. P also contains prolegomena, hypotheses to Idd. 1, 3-16, scholia (Laurentian for Idd. 1, 3-10, Vatican for Idd. 11-15), as well as Pindar’s Olympian and Pythian odes and Libanius’ Epistles. The ms. was once owned by Evangelisto CapodiFerro, and is noteworthy for standing in unique agreement with Π3 in several places. 542*545 T r Parisinus anc. fonds gr. 2832, first half of the fourteenth century. The ms. falls into two sections: a) Idd. 1, 5, 6 ,4 ,7 , 3, 8-13; b) Idd. 2,14,15,16,25, [Mosch.] 4 (attributed to T.), Id. 17, [Mosch,] 3 (attributed to T.), Idd. 22, 18, 20, 21, Bion 1 (attributed to T.), Id. 23, [Bion] 2 (attributed to T.), Syrinx, Dosiad. Altar (with illustrations), and Syrinx again (with illustrations). There 542 143 544 545

Gallavotti 338. Cf. Gallavotti 325; Hicks 27. N.G. Wilson, S cholars o f B yzantium (London 1983) 236-7. Hicks 9.



are also hypotheses to Idd. 2-18. Though it is not Triclinius’ autograph, the ms. preserves the Triclinian recension and scholia, 1 4 6 and seems to be a collection of poems that Triclinius felt were genuinely Theocritean. 1 4 7 It was once owned by Janus Lascaris. V Vaticanus gr. 1824, probably early fourteenth century . 1 4 8 The manuscript contains all or parts of Idd 1-16, 19, 22, 23, 25, assorted other bucolic poetry, and the Thoman recension of E. Ph. (in another hand). For the Theocritean material, two main sections are evident. In the first (a), Idd. 1, 5, 6 , 4, 7, 3, 8-13 are preserved complete, while the second (b) preserves parts of Idd. 2, 14 (complete), 15, 16, 25, [Mosch.] 4, [Mosch.] 3, Id. 22 (92-185), Mosch. 1, followed by Id. 19, Bion 1, Νεκρ. 'Άδ., Id. 23, and the end of Pediasimus on the Syrinx and Dosiad. Altar with commentary. There are hypotheses to Idd. 1-10, 12-15, and Moschopulus’ commentary on Idd. 1 and 5. The ms., which had already suffered damage and lost pages before X was copied, was further damaged after the copying of X (see below). X Vaticanus gr. 1311, fifteenth century. The Theocritean material falls into three parts: a) Idd. 1-15, 18, [Mosch.] 3, Idd. 28, 29.1-8; b) Idd. 16, 25, [Mosch.] 4.1-13, [Mosch.] 3.35-end, Id. 22.1-44 and 92-185, Idd. 18.51-end, 20, 21, Mosch. 1, Id. 19, Bion 1, Νεκρ. ’Ά δ .,/J . 23, [Bion] 2; c) Id. 24.1-87, Syrinx. X also preserves Pindar’s Olympian odes and Tzetzes on Hesiod. For the section of the ms. that contains Id. 22.1-44 and 92-185, X is a copy of V, which itself now contains only lines 92-185 of the idyll. X is thus an important witness for the first 44 lines of the poem, which were contained in V but lost from it after X was copied. For the relationship of this ms. and its exemplar V to the Aldine editions, see below.

Papyri Π| POxy. 1806 (Pi Gallavotti, 1495 Pack 2), late first century CE. Ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S. Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri 15 (London 1922) 180-4. Fragments of four consecutive columns. The first two contain small scraps of Id. 22.8 and 38-9 respectively, the latter two the ends of 22.40-69 and beginnings of 70-84. Π2 perg. du Louvre 6678 + perg. Rainer (Pe Gallavotti, $p4 Gow, 1488 Pack2), ca. 500 CE. Ed. K. Wessely, WS 8 (1886) 221-30 and Mitteilungen aus 1 4 6 To avoid confusion on this score Gallavotti called it R, but Gow , whom I follow, retains Tr. 1 4 7 Hicks 14. 1 4 8 Cf. Hicks 11-2. Gow assigns it to the fifteenth century.


der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 2 (Vienna 1887) 78-9. Fragments of a parchment codex containing scraps o f Idd. 1,4, 5, 13, 26, 15, 16, and 22 (33-5 and 65-8). For Id. 22, Π2 contributes no readings worthy of note. One of the eight surviving leaves shows that Idylls 4 and 5 occurred in that order; another leaf shows that Idylls 13 and 26 appeared consecutively. The fragments have now been reexamined by J. Bingen, CÉ 57 (1982) 309-16, who notes that Id. 1 begins the top o f a page and thus probably opened the collection. Π3 PAntinoe (Pa Gallavotti, ip 3 Gow, 1487 Pack2), ca. 500 CE. Ed. A.S. Hunt and J. Johnson, Two Theocritus Papyri (London 1930). Sixteen leaves of a papyrus codex falling into three sections. The first of these (A) contains fragments of Idd. 1 and 5 followed by the beginning of a poem that might be eitheri/. 6orId. 7; the second (B) contains part or all o f /w-3 (cf. A.R. 2.363, 808,1089); * at A.R. 4.1538,1744. Note what amounts to a reversal of ε 330: in the Homeric passage, raging storm winds carry Odysseus’ raft this way and that, whereas T. uses the phrase in connection with the calm following the cessation of the storm.



νεφελαι δέ διέδραμον αλλυδις αλλαι: the phraseology and rhythm are Homeric: Λ 486 Τρώες δέ διέτρεσαν αλλυδις άλλος; Μ 461 σανίδες δέ διέτμαγεν αλλυδις άλλη. The line also bears an interesting resemblance to Arat. 867 φαίνωνται νεφελαι ΰπερευθέες άλλοθεν άλλαι. The similarity may be intentional, given the Aratean coloring elsewhere in the passage (cf. 8 , 212nn.), and if so, T. is reversing the direction in which the clouds move in the Aratean line. The end of the line resembles Id. 25.70 έπέδραμον αλλοθεν άλλος. διε'δραμον: in archaic hexameter διατρέχω means “run through” or “run over” (γ 177*, ε 100*; hDem. 317*, Μ. 19.12*); here “ran apart ” . αλλυδις αλλαι : as here, αλλυδις in Homer always occurs together with a form of άλλος. In early epic the distributive expressions αλλυδις άλλ- and αλλοθεν άλλ- have the adjective in the sg., except Φ 503 (αλλυδις άλλα); Hellenistic poets use both the sg. (e.g. Idd. 1.34, 25.70, both *; Arat. 6 8 ; A.R. 2.980) and pi. (e.g. Arat. 19,411 ; A.R. 1.843,4.930). 21 I k ... έφάνησαν: at hh. 33.12 the twins’ own epiphany is described with the simplex: oi δ' εξαπίνης έφάνησαν. For the verb of celestial bodies appearing clearly in the sky, e.g. Th. 2.28; Phld. Sgn. 10.11. 'Άρκτοι τ': the Bears—and for the Greeks especially Ursa Major—were of particular importance for navigation because of their proximity to the pole (Arat. 26-7, 36-44; cf. Hainsworth on ε 272-7). The Homeric occurrences of Ursa Major, the only one of the Bears to appear in early epic, are similarly followed by τ ( ε ) :Ι 487 = ε 273 'Άρκτον θ’, ην καί "Αμαξαν έπίκλησιν καλέουσιν; cf. λ 611 άρκτοι τ ' άγρότεροί τε σύες χαροποί τε λέοντες; Hes. Sc. 186 "Αρκτον τ ’ Οϋρειόν τε μελαγχαίτην τε Μίμαντα. 2 1 -2 Ό νω ν άνά μέσσον άμαυρή / Φάτνη: cf. [Thphr.] Sgn. 23 έν τώ Καρκίνω δύο αστέρες είσίν, οί καλούμενοι Ό νοι, ών το μεταξύ το νεφέλιον ή Φάτνη καλούμενη, τούτο εάν ζοφώδες γένηται υδατικόν, Pliny ΗΝ 18.353 sunt in signo Cancri duae stellae parvae Aselli appellatae, exiguum inter illas spatium obtinente nubecula, quam praesepia appellant, haec cum caelo sereno apparere desiit, atrox hiems sequitur. For the nebula known as the Manger, which does not appear in extant literature before the Hellenistic period, cf. Housman on Manil. 4.530-4. Its dimness is regularly mentioned: e.g. Cic. Aratea ff. 35 Buescu ast autem tenui quae candet lumine Phatne. The language here very likely looks to the description of the Manger at Arat. 892902, where its sudden disappearance marks the coming of a storm, just as here its appearance marks the end of the foul weather: σκέπτεο και Φάτνην. ή μέν τ ’ ολίγη εΐκυΐα / άχλύι βορραίη υπό Καρκίνω ήγηλάζει· / άμφί δέ μιν δύο λεπτά φαεινόμενοι φορέονται / αστέρες, ούτε τι πολλόν άπήοροι ούτε μάλ’ εγγύς / άλλ’ δσσον τε μάλιστα πυγούσιον ώίσασθαι, / είς μέν πάρ βορέαο· νότω δ ’ έπικέκλιται άλλος. / και τοι μέν καλέονται "Ονοι*. μέσση δέ τε Φάτνη. / ητε κεί εξαπίνης πάντη Διάς εύδιόωντος / γίν ετ’



άφαντος όλη, τοί δ' αμφοτέρωθεν ίόντες / ασ τέρες άλλήλων αύτοσχεδόν ίνδάλλονται, / ούκ ολίγα) χειμώνι τότε κλύζονται άρουραι (cf. 994-8); Nonnus likely has both T. and Aratus in mind at D. 1.459 'Όνων* παρά γείτονι Φάτνη/. Wilamowitz’ skepticism (“Aratos von Kos,” NGG (1894) 195—6 = Kleine Schriften 2 (Berlin 1971) 85) about Aratean influence on the passage (first noted by E. Maass, Aratea (Berlin 1892) 259-60) is unwarranted; cf. M. Pendergraft, QUCC 53 (n.s. 24) (1986) 47-52; Sens, “Proem.” Other probable echoes of Aratus occur in the proem at 8 and 20, where cf. nn. 21 άνα μέσσον: for the expression in the sense “in the middle,” cf. Id. 14.9 θρίξ άνά μέσσον/, with Gow ad loc., and to his citations add from other Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic poetry Nie. A l 342; Q.S. 8.286; Nonn. D . 37.673. Cf. 1 Arat. 894 αύτοί δέ καλούνται Ό νοι, ανά μέσον δέ αύτών ή Φάτνη έστίν. άμαυρή: the adjective occurs twice in Homer (δ 824*, 835*), in the expression εΥδωλον αμαυρόν/. The word for dimness of celestial bodies in Aratus, who does not have αμαυρός, is the phonetically similar άφαυρός (227,256*, 277*, 569, 1059), and it may thus be possible to see Theocritean imitation and variation of Aratus at work here. 22 Φάτνη: here in the least common Homeric sedes for φάτνη : * at K 568 (-η), but otherwise (6 x) at line end, all dat. σημαίνουσα ... εϋδια: cf. [Thphr.] Sgn. 51 καί ή τοΰ όνου φάτνη ότε άν καθαρά καί λαμπρά φαίνηται, ευδιεινόν. σημαίνω is the vox propria for the significations of the weather signs in astronomical texts. In hh. 33.16 the twins themselves, probably in the form of “St. Elmo’s fire,” are the ναύταις σήματα (like σημαίνουσα beginning with the 2nd foot) καλά πόνου σφίσιν; cf. 192 2 n. τα προς πλόον: “the things involved with sailing” (i.e. weather conditions); cf. LSJ s.v. πρός C.III. 1. The idiom with the n. pi. definite article is widespread (e.g. S. Ph. 1441 τα προς θεούς; Th. 2.17.4 τω ν πρός τον πόλεμον; Isocr. Paneg, 26; Antipat. GP 299; Phld. GP 3291), though it does not occur in early epic. In general, the definite article appears often in T.’s “bucolic” and “mimic” poetry, while in the “epic” poems its use is greatly restricted; cf. Svensson 659. πλόον: a Homeric hapax, always * in early hexameter (γ 169; Hes. Op. 630, 665, 678, 682). T. may here be thinking of A.R. 2.903 τέμνον πλόον* εϋδχόωντες/. εϋδια : early hexameter has only ένδιος, with long i, at Λ 726, δ 450 (εϋδιος a variant in both), and the noun εύδίη with long penult at hHerm. 325 (conj.). The word is natural in meteorological contexts, and occurs often in Aratus, who uses it variously with long or short penult.



23-6 After the conclusion of the narrative section, the poet again (cf. 17) addresses the twins directly. In this respect, the final lines of the proem correspond to the conclusions of the Homeric hymns, in which the narrator addresses the honorand with the exhortation χαίρε (regularly introducing a request for his or her favor; cf. 214-5n.), before ending the song with the promise of another yet to come. Here a variation of such transitional formulae is used not to bring the poem to an end, but to make a transition to the first of the two central narratives. 23 ώ ... ώ: as elsewhere in T., the presence of ώ with the voc. contributes to a sense of intimacy and affection; cf. 85n., F. Williams Eranos 71 (1973) 52-67, esp. 54-5; for ώ in other poetry cf. G. Giangrande, CQ n.s. 18 (1968) 52-9 (Call, and A.R.); C.W.E. Miller, AJP 24 (1903) 197-9 (A.R.); J.A. Scott, AJP 24 (1903) 192-6 (Horn, and Hes.), 25 (1904) 81^1 (A. and S.). Anaphora o f ώ at line beginning and following the bucolic diaeresis occurs also at Id. 16.1045* ώ Έτεόκλειοι Χάριτες θεαί, ώ Μινύειον / Όρχομενόν φιλέοισαι; Id. 3.18-9* ώ το καλόν ποθορευσα, το παν λίθος, ώ κυάνοφρυ / νύμφα. Repetition is typical of cletic situations, as well as more generally of dramatic interjections and exclamations in Greek, and is common in the Hellenistic period (cf. Bulloch on Call. h. 5.89-90). For the hiatus after ώ , cf. Idd. 16.104, 18.58, 25.193. αμφω ... βοηθόοι ... φίλο* αμφω: cf. later V. Georg. 4.341-2 Clioque et Beroe soror, Oceanitides ambae, / ambae auro, pictis incinctae pellibus ambae. Note the chiastic arrangement, with αμφω framing the plurals βοηθόοι and φίλοι. βοηθόοι : twice in Homer, once of a warrior (N 477*), and once of a chariot (P 481*); the noun is used in the same sedes of a saving Zephyr at Bacch. epigr. 2.3* (AP 6.53.3), and of gods at Call. A.3.22 *, 4.27*. 24 The apostrophe of the twins is once again brought to a close with a stately four-word hexameter (cf. 18n.). Here two traditional attributes of the Dioscuri, horsemanship and athleticism (cf Γ 237 = λ 300, quoted on 2), alternate with two untraditional musical attributes. Of the two traditional attributes, each of which is to some extent appropriate to both of the twins, the first is more specifically applicable to Castor, the second to Polydeuces (cf Bethe 1093); thus their placement replicates the order in which the twins are mentioned in line 2 . ίππηες: * Δ 144, A 52, 529, 724. The Dioscuri are traditionally depicted as horse riders in both literature and art: cf. Alcm. PMG 2 Κάστωρ τε πώλων ώκέων δματήρες ίππόται σοφοί / καί Πωλυδεόκης κυδρός; hh. 33.18 with AHS ad loc.; E. Hel. 1495; LIMC s.v. Dioskouroi 1-54 and passim. As such they are related to other I.-E. horse-riding brothers, most notably the Vedic A?vins; cf. Burkert 212; M. L. West, Immortal Helen (London 1975).


κιθαρισταί ... άοιδοί: the same collocation (in different word order) occurs at Hes. Th. 94-6 (~ hh. 25.2-4): έκ γά ρ τοι Μουσέων καί έκηβόλου ’Απόλλωνος / άνδρες άοιδοί εασιν επί χθόνα και κιθαρισταί / έκ δέ Διός βασιλήες (cf. West ad loc.)\ Hes. fr. 305.1-3 Ούρανίη δ ’ ά ρ ’ ετικτε Λίνον πολυήρατον υίόν / δν δή, οσοι βροτοί είσιν άοιδοί καί κιθαρισταί, / πάντες μέν θρηνεΰσιν έν είλαπίναις τε χοροΐς τε. As in the Hesiodic passage, the two nouns are to be understood in close conjunction, i.e. = poets. The Dioscuri are not otherwise depicted as either citharists or singers, though they are associated with dancing and with the reed tune known as the Καστόρειον (Bethe 1092). Similarly, at Id. 18.35-7, T. attributes preeminence in lyre playing to the twins’ sister Helen. The association of poet and honorands that T.’s description creates here has special literary point (for which cf. intro., p. 29), and we need not suppose that T. is dependent for this detail on some feature of an account now lost to us. άεθλητήρες: άθλητήρ is a Homeric hapax at Θ 164* ούδ’ άθλητήρι εοικας (cf. Matro SH 534.41; [Orph.] Lith. 25; Norm. D. 19.64); the forra άεθλητήρ is not otherwise found until late poetry: Q.S. 4.114*; adesp. AP 1.10.19; Christod. AP 2.234*; Nonn. D. 10.339*, 374, and commonly; Maced. AP 11.59.1. For the Dioscuri’s athleticism, e.g. Pi. N. 10.51; Paus. 2.34.10, 5.8.4. 24- 6 άοιδοί / ... άείδειν I ... άείσω: repetitions of άειδ-/άοιδ- at the end of successive lines (the most common position for forms from this root) are common in the Homeric hymns, especially in transitional passages: hh. 9.7-8, 10.5-6, 19.48-9, 21.4-5, 25.6-7. For the variation of present and future stems cf. Call. hh. 1.92-3,2.30-1. Here the repetition serves to link the Dioscuri, who are themselves άοιδοί, with T. himself: the twins and the poet are engaged in the same enterprise. 25- 6 T. creatively applies a variation on the traditional transitional formulae of the Homeric hymns (e.g. hh. 9.8-9 αύτάρ έγώ σε πρώ τα καί έκ σέθεν άρχομ’ άείδειν, / σεΰ δ ’ εγώ άρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι άλλον ές ϋμνον) to two separate narratives within the same poem. 25 The penultimate line of the proem echoes its second line (25 Κάστορος ... Πολυδεοκεος- ~ 2 Κ άστορα ... Πολυδέι/κεα). Aporetic questions in which the singer wonders about what his subject should be or how he should begin or arrange his material are a regular feature of rhapsodic hymns: hAp. 19,207 πώς τ ’ άρ σ ’ υμνήσω πάντως εϋυμνον έόντα;. Call. h. 4.1-2 τήν ιερήν, ώ θυμέ', τίνα χρόνον +ηποτ+ άείσεις / Δήλον ’Απόλλωνος κουροτρόφον;, h. 1.1-4 (cf. Pi. Ο. 2.1-2, frr. 29, 89a; Ar. Pax 520-2). For the form of the narrator’s query, cf. i 14 τί πρώ τον τοι επειτα, τί δ ’ ΰστάτιον καταλε'ξω;. Such questions have the rhetorical function of suggesting the great bountifulness of the material with which the poet has to work: cf. Race 104-6; Bundy 58ff. (59 on the present passage).



αρξομ’ άείδειν: Τ. varies the common expression άρχομ’ άείδειν* (hDem. 1, hh. 9.8, 11.1, 13.1, 16.1, 22.1, 26.1, 28.1), with the main verb in the present tense. For the construction, cf. Hes. Th. 1 Μουσάων Έλικωνιάδων άρχώμεθ’ άείδειν. The meaning is “I will begin to sing from Polydeuces,” with αρξομαι governing the gen. and the infin. being complementary: cf. West on Hes. Th. 1; Richardson on hDem. 1-3. More common are αρχομαι + gen. without an infin. and αρχομ’ άείδειν + acc. object. 26 άμφοτε'ρους ύμνεων: before stating his choice, the narrator hastens to assure the honorands and reader that both twins will receive equal treatment, the implication being that the decision to treat Polydeuces first is an arbitrary one (despite the much more expansive treatment of him in 2-3). For the synizesis of participial -έωνο£ Idd. 5.29,16.44, e. 19.4. Πολυδευκεα: note the chiasmus πρώτου Πολυδεύκεος ... Πολυδευκεα πρώτον. The order in which T. decides to treat the twins reverses the order in which they are mentioned in the opening invocation. άείσω: the fut. act. of άείδω does not occur in Homer or Hesiod, but appears already at Sapph. PLF 160 and Thgn. 4, the latter in a hymnal context, as later at Call. hh. 1.4, 93, 2.30, 3.186,4.1, Cleanth. CA 1.6; cf. also Bond on E. Here. 681, Ale. HE 149, Mnasalc. HE 2647. 27-134 The Polydeuces narrative, recounting the story of his boxing victory over the Bebrycian king Amycus. The Argonauts land in Bebrycian territory, and while the others prepare for the evening, the Dioscuri wander off into the surrounding woods; they come upon a locus amoenus, in the midst of which sits the enormous Amycus; he and Polydeuces enter into a stichomythic dialogue, in which Amycus refuses to treat the Dioscuri hospitably and challenges Polydeuces to a boxing match; after the Argonauts and the Bebrycians assemble, Polydeuces defeats Amycus in the fight and exacts from him a pledge not to mistreat strangers any longer. As in Id. 13, T. draws on an episode from the Argonauts’ voyage to Colchis to produce a self-contained narrative (cf. intro., pp. 20-1). Structurally and thematically, the episode shares interesting points o f contact with the bucolic poems o f the corpus: after the arrival of the Argonauts in Bebrycia and departure of the Dioscuri into the neighboring woods, an encounter in a locus amoenus leads to a hostile exchange of dialogue followed by a contest (here of boxing rather than singing) with a clearly established prize; Amycus, whose portrayal is based on the monstrous Homeric shepherd Polyphemus (44-52n.), is unambiguously a rustic, though a highly unusual one, and is described in a way that may suggest his connection with herding (44n.). The encounter is cast as one between the barbaric and uncultivated Amycus and the civilized Polydeuces, who behaves with all the refinement and courtesy of a well-mannered Hellenistic gentleman, ultimately teaching the crude Bebrycian to treat strangers with better manners (cf. 134n.). Mistreatment of ξένοι, with whom the Dioscuri are associated in


cult and legend (cf. 60n.; intro., p. 19), also features prominently in both of the two most important Homeric episodes lying behind this section of poem: Odysseus’ encounter with Polyphemus {Od. i; cf. 44-52n.) and his fight with the beggar Irus (σ 1-107; cf. 8 2 ,134nn.). Evidence for the Amycus story before the Hellenistic period is not extensive, but it is clear that several elements of T.’s narrative were already found in earlier versions: Epicharmus wrote a comedy entitled Amycus, and Sophocles a satyr play of the same name, and T.’s version shows an indebtedness in spirit as well as in diction (cf. 115n.) and detail (131-4n.) to such comic treatments (cf. Köhnken 89-93, Horstmann 77); similarly, vase paintings suggest that the artists envision the site o f the contest as a spring (as in T. but not A.R.) and that in the version(s) on which they were relying the conflict similarly arose from a dispute about access to drinking water (cf. 62n.). The most striking antecedent for the narrative, however, is the version of the same encounter at A.R. 2.Iff. In that poem, the encounter with Amycus in Bebrycia and the loss of Hylas in Mysia, an account of which is related in Id. 13, are contiguous episodes—the latter occupying the end o f the first book, the former the beginning of the second—and unambiguous points of contact connect the two Theocritean narratives both with one another and with their Apollonian counterparts (cf. 30-6n.). Some scholars have argued that T.’s version of the Amycus episode was written before Apollonius’, but the verbal and thematic evidence taken together strongly suggests that T. knew the Apollonian narrative when he composed Id. 22. For the relative chronology, see intro., pp. 24-33; 27-9, 30-6, 34nn. The Apollonian and Theocritean versions diverge markedly on a great number of specific points, including perhaps most significantly the nature of Amycus’ punishment (cf. 131-4n.): whereas Apollonius’ Amycus is killed, T. allows him to escape with a promise to reform his ways in the future. This divergence is in keeping with a more general tonal difference, for whereas Apollonius’ version has the seriousness and weight of an epic battle narrative (and is in fact followed by a full-scale battle), T.’s is generally light in tone and punctuated with flashes of real humor (cf. 112-4, 115-7,132nn.). It has sometimes been assumed that here and in Id. 13 T. has it in mind to criticize Apollonius’ approach as inelegant and to show how one would rewrite the same episodes in a more refined, “Alexandrian” style, but such a view derives from insufficiently supported assumptions about Alexandrian literary feuds and the nature of Alexandrian literary interaction. T. reworks his contemporary’s treatment to demonstrate his own originality and to suggest that he can do him one better, but this need not imply that he is generally hostile to Apollonius’ approach; see further intro., pp. 20-1. 27-9 The Argo, having already escaped the Symplegades and the mouth of the Black Sea, reached the territory of the Bebrycians. The narrative inverts the sequence of events as they occur in the Argonautica, where the conflict takes place in the Propontis, before the ship has traversed the rocks; both sites for the



conflict have support in tradition (cf. 29n.) and are in fact geographically compatible (cf. Delage 117-8). The focus on the Argo in these lines (cf. Id. 13.22 οπΊς κυανεάν ούχ άγατο συνδρομάδων ναϋς) is reminiscent of the emphasis placed on the personified ships of the proem, and T.’s inversion of the order of events in Apollonius is perhaps to be taken in close conjunction with the allusion to the Apollonian Symplegades passage in the storm scene of 8-22 (cf. n. ad loc): having already evoked in a different context the Apollonian account of the ship’s journey through the rocks, T. immediately asserts that the Argo had already escaped the Symplegades when it arrived at the territory of the Bebryces. For verbal connections between the proem and the opening of the Polydeuces narrative, cf. 30-1, 40nn. The opening lines resemble E. ΓΓ 241-2 ηκουσιν ές γην, κυανέας Συμπληγάδας / πλάτη φυγόντες, δίπτυχοι νεανία!, but also have something in common with the opening lines of the Argonautica : oY Πόντοίο κατά στόμα καί διά πέτρας / Κυανέας βασιλήος έφημοσύνη Πελίαο / χρύσειον μετά κώας έύζυγον ηλασαν ’Αργώ (2-4; cf. 4.1002-3). It is therefore significant that the passage of Idyll 13 describing the voyage of the Argo contains clear points of contact with the same Apollonian lines: Id. 13.16 το χρύσειον έπλει μετά κώας, 21 εϋεδρον ές 'Αργώ. The similarities between each of the idylls and the Argonautica argue for the priority of Apollonius’ poem, for whereas it is easy to imagine T.’s recalling the opening of the Argonautica in both of his descriptions o f the actual voyage of the Argo, it is far more difficult to suppose that Apollonius should open his work, with its much broader concerns, by recalling both of the Theocritean passages. The reminiscence of the Argonautica here, as in Idyll 13, serves to call attention to the relationship between the ensuing narrative and Apollonius’ treatment of the same event. 27 ή μεν άρα: * E 133, Θ 425, α 319, κ 107, al. Gow ad loc. notes that άρα marks “the narrative which follows as depending on the decision to celebrate Polydeuces first,” but in fact the particle implies the existence o f antecedent events that would have been familiar to the reader but that T. has chosen not to relate; there is a similar use of άρα in the opening line of Id. 18, εν ποκ' άρα Σπάρτα (where ποκ’ is typical of Alexandrian epyllia: cf. Id. 24.1; Call. Hec. ff. 1 Hollis; Mosch. Eur. 1; W. Clausen, HSCP 90 (1986) 164-5), on which cf. H. White, QUCC 32 (1979) 107-8, Hunter, TAGP 149-50; note also δ(έ) in Id. 25.1. Here the implication, whether true or not, is that T. has authority for his version: cf. Hunter, TAGP 64-5, Campbell on A.R. 3.233-4. μέν άρα occurs elsewhere in the corpus only at 131, where the narrator is again pointedly reversing a detail from Apollonius’ account, and possibly at Id. 25.159 (but cf. Chryssafis ad loc.). προφυγοΰσα : the same verb is used of the impending voyage through the Symplegades in the same metrical position at A.R. 2.413-5 εί δέ κεν αδτις / τά σ δ ’ (sc. πέτρας) ήμΐν προφυγούσιν ές ‘Ελλάδα νόστος όπίσσω /


εσσεται, άσπαστώς κε παρά σεο καί τό δαείην; Jul. Aegypt. A P 9.398.1* όλκάς ύδωρ προφυγοΰσα πολυφλοίσβοιο θαλάσσης. In early hexameter * at Z 502, H 309, hh. 8.17 (ali-οντα); cf. Λ 340. πέτρας ... ξυνιούσας: these rocks appear in extant literature first in Simonides (P M G 546), who calls them συνορμάδας, and Pindar (P . 4 .2 0 8 -9 σ υ ν δ ρ ό μ ω ν ... πέτραν); the name συμπληγάδες is first attested at E. M ed . 2 (cf. Page a d loc. ), 1263. In Homer (μ 59-72), Hera sends the Argo through the rocks known as the Πλαγκταί, which are apparently stationary, on its homeward voyage. For the early history of the story, cf. Braswell on Pi. P . 4.208-9, with bibliography; Hoekstra on μ 55-72. The Argo’s traversal of the rocks is described in detail in the A rgonautica, and is mentioned briefly by T. also in I d . 13.22, where he seems again to vary a feature of Apollonius’ account, εις εν ξυνιούσας: A.R 2.321-2 describes the Symplegades similarly: άλλα θαμά ξυνίασιν εναντία! άλλήλησιν / είς εν; cf. 2.564—5 ταί δ ’ άμυδις πάλιν άντίαι άλλήλησιν / άμφιο όμοΟ ξυνιοΰσαι έπέκτυπον. The phrase εις εν is used in the sense o f όμοΰ first at Emp. 31 B 17.7 D-K, and is thereafter common: cf. Headlam on Herod. 8.43, Livrea on A.R. 4.135, Campbell, Q S on Q.S. 12.209-10. The clausula here is a variation of the better attested εις εν ίόντ- (ΐοΰσ-) x /, regular in Hellenistic and post-Hellenistic verse: Arat. 243, 459; A.R. 1.39; Opp. H al. 1.780; Q.S. 4.308, 7.565, 12.470 (cf Campbell, loc. c/O; Greg. Naz. 413.4, 447.9, al. It is borrowed by Greg. Naz. 409.4* εις εν συνιούσας/. ξυν-: probably to be felt as epic (i.e. Apollonian) in flavor; elsewhere T. uses only συν- (the form in Doric: Buck 108), except in ξυνός, for which there exists no equivalent *συνός; cf. Molinos Tejada 333. 28 Αργώ: * in the ship’s one Homeric occurrence (μ 70); cf. A.R. 4.509, Call, fr. 108 P f, etc. νιφόεντος: for the snowiness of the region, cf. Ov. Tr. 3.10.13-6: n ix iacet, e t lactam ne s o l p lu v ia e q u e resolvant, / in d u ra t B o rea s p erp etu a m q u e fa c it. / ergo ubi d elicu it nondum p rior, altera venit, / e t so le t in m u ltis b im a m a n ere locis. The adjective νιφόεις elsewhere in Greek is ordinarily applied to mountains and high peaks (of the sky at Ale. P L F 355, and in the sense “snow-white” at Ion T r G F F 46 and in Nicander (T h . 291, etc.)); otherwise in T. only at Id. 26.33. άταρτηρόν: a rare word from early epic (A 223* άταρτηροϊς έπεεσσιν, β 243 Μέντορ άταρτηρέ; Hes. Th. 610 άταρτηροΤο γενεθλης), attested otherwise only in later hexameter (Opp. H al. 1.370, 2.461, 630, 5.523; [Opp.] Cyn. 4.240, 4.303; [Orph.] L ith . 51*, 351*; Q.S. 1.309*, 424*, 520*, al.). In early epic the adj. is used of humans or their speech, but later the range of uses is expanded. The exact meaning and etymology are uncertain (cf. Frisk, Chantraine s.v). Ancient scholars most often connected the adj. with ά τη, άτηρός (though Et.



Gud. 224.5ff. relates it to τείρω) and glossed it as βλα βερός, σκληρός, χαλεπός, or the like (cf. LfgrE s.v.). στόμα Πόντου: a common expression for the Bosporus. A.R. has o'i Πόντοιο κατά στόμα καί δια πε'τρας at 1.2, 4.1002. The Theocritean passage likely inspired Opp. Hal. 1.617—9: Θρηίκιον δ ’ άνυουσι Βοός Πόρον αιολόφυλοι / έσμοί Βεβρυκίην τε παρέξ αλα καί στόμα Πόντου / στεινόν άμειβόμενοι δόλιχόν δρόμον ’Αμφιτρίτης. The clausula στόμα πόντου/ recurs at Norm. D. 26.227*, 44.116*, 46.364*; Cougny 6.48.2*, 49.2*. στόμα: already in Homer of the mouth of a river at M 24, ε 441, and of a harbor or bay at Ξ 36, κ 90. Πόντου : first by itself of the Black Sea at A. Pers. 879 (στόμωμα Πόντου), and commonly thereafter. The original name for the Black Sea was "Αξεινος Π ό ν το ς, which Greeks understood to mean “Inhospitable Sea” (cf. άταρτηρόν), and from which the euphemistic Εϋξεινος Πόντος was created: cf. Braswell on Pi. P. 4.203(d). 29 Βέβρυκας: a legendary people not mentioned in extant early epic, who were thought to have become extinct by the Hellenistic period (Eratosth. ap. Pliny HN 5.127; I A.R. 2.2). According to Strabo (7.3.2, 12.3.3), the Bebrycians were of Thracian origin, a fact to which T. may make learned allusion in line 77 (cf. n. ad loc.). Ancient sources associate them with various places near the Hellespont (Lampsacus: Charon of Lampsacus, FGrH 262 F 8 ; Abydos: Str. 13.1.8; Lydia: Σ A.R. 2.2; Lyc. 516, 1305, 1474 uses Bebryces as a synonym for the Trojans), but principally with Bithynia (for the derivation of the name Bithynia from Bebrycia, cf. App. Mithr. 1), either on the southern coast of the Pontus (so T.; cf. Amm. Marc. 22.8.14; Solin. 42.1, p. 171 Mommsen; Mart. Cap. 6.687) or the east coast of the Propontis (Dion. Per. 805; Opp. Hal. 1.618). Sites associated with Amycus are found in both locations (cf. R E s.v. Argonautai 759-60), and Apollonius at least seems to have imagined that the Bebrycians’ territory included both areas: see Vian 1.131-2. Mygdon, mentioned at Γ 185-7 as a leader of the Phrygians who encamped by the Sangarius River and fought against the Amazons, was according to legend Amycus’ brother and king of the Bebrycians ([Apollod.] 2.5.9; cf. I A.R. 2.786~7a), who may thus have been thought of as living on or near the Pontus; cf. Preller-Robert 3.844, Delage 117-8. In addition to the Bebrycians living in Asia, there was also a legendary ancient Iberian people bearing this name; these lived on the coast of the Mediterranean to either side of the Pyrenees, and were reputed to be a wild and uncivilized race of herders; cf. RE s.v. Bebrykes. T. treats the penult of Βέβρυκ- as short (cf. 77, 91,110); the first syllable is heavy here, but otherwise light. Apollonius, by contrast, has long υ everywhere but at 2.98 and in Βεβρυκίη at 2.136, and a heavy first syllable everywhere (2.2, 70, 98,129,136, 768, 792). Cf. 81n.


ει’σαφίκανε: here in one of its two Homeric sedes (the other being line end): * Ξ 230, hAp. 225. The diction is faintly reminiscent of X 112: βη δέ φέρων. μάλα 5 ’ ώκα φ ίλον πατέρ’ είσαφίκανεν (cf. χ 99). Apollonius consistently alternates between the two Homeric verse positions: 3.888*, 1179 (line end), 4.540*, 614 (line end), 773*, 777 (line end), 1761*. θεών φίλα τε'κνα φέρουσα: perhaps reminiscent of v 88-9 (the Phaeacian ship) ώς ή ρίμφα θε'ουσα θαλάσσης κύματ’ έταμνεν, / άνδρα φέρουσα θεοίσ’ έναλίγκια μήδε’ έχοντα. Like the Phaeacian vessel, the Argo carries its passengers to a land where some o f their number at least will meet with inhospitable treatment (cf. 36n.). θεών φίλα τέκνα: collectively true of the Argonauts (though Jason himself is a notable exception: cf. Hunter on A.R. 3.401-21, Campbell on A.R. 3.365-6), including of course the Dioscuri. For this description of the Argonauts, cf. Id. 13.27-8 θείος άωτος / ηρώων; A.R. 1.970 άνδρών ηρώων θείος στόλος, 3.365-6 ώλλο! ττάντες δσοι συνέττονται εταίροι / αθανάτων υΐε'ς τε καί υίωνοί γεγάασιν. For θεών ... τε'κνα, cf. Id. 13.2ώτινι τούτο θεών* ττοκα τεκνον* εγεντο; λ 631 θεών έρικυδέα τε'κνα/; Hes. Th. 240 μεγήριτα τε'κνα θεάω ν/, 366 θεάων άγλαά τε'κνα, fr. 204.101 τέκνα θεών μι[. For φίλα τέκνα, cf. 8 315, Κ 192, hD em . 138, Id . 24.22,27.32, Àntipat, GP 467*, a l. 30-6 The description of the Argonauts’ disembarkation and preparations for the night shares unambiguous points of contact with both Apollonius’ and T.’s own accounts of the Argonauts’ arrival in Mysia at the beginning of the Hylas episode: A.R. 1.1182-6 ένθα δ ’ έπειθ’ oi μέν ξύλα κάγκανα, το) δέ λεχαίην / φυλλάδα λειμώνων φε'ρον άσπετον άμήσαντες / στόρνυσθακ τοί δ ’ άμφί πυρήϊα δινεύεσκον I οί δ ’ οίνον κρητήρσι κέρων ττονε'οντό τε δαίτα, / Έκβασίω ρέξαντες uno κνέφας ’Απόλλωνι; Id. 13.32-5 έκβάντες δ ’ επί θίνα κατά ζυγά δαίτα πε'νοντο / δειελινοί, πολλοί δέ μίαν στορέσαντο χαμευναν. / λειμών γάρ σφιν έ'κειτο μέγα στιβάδεσσιν ονειαρ, / ε'νθεν βούτομον όξυ βαθύν τ ’ έτάμοντο κύπειρον; cf. Luc. VH 1.32 ύστερον δέ ά να σ τή σ αντες τους εταίρους τη ν μέν ναυν ΰπεστηρίξαμεν, αυτοί δέ τά πυρεία συντρίψαντες καί άνακαυσαντες δείπνον έκ τώ ν παρόντω ν έποιούμεθα (perhaps inspired by Τ. and Apollonius). For the connections among these passages, cf. B. Otis, Virgil; A S tu d y in C iv iliz e d P o e tr y (Oxford 1964) 399; D. Levin, A p o llo n iu s’ A rg o n a u tic a R eexa m in ed : The N e g le c te d F irst a n d S e c o n d B o o k s (Leiden 1971) 132-3; V.J. Matthews, IC U 10 (1985) 68-9. The argument of H. Tränkle, H e rm e s 91 (1963) 503-5 that these passages show the priority of T.’s idylls to the A rg o n a u tica is unconvincing: cf. Serrao 129-40. The relationship among the passages is more than simply verbal: like Heracles and Hylas in Mysia, the Dioscuri immediately take leave o f their companions, and, like Hyias, soon come to a spring in a locus a m o en u s (22.37ff. ~ 13.39ff. ~ A.R. 1.1221ff.); cf. 62n. In pointed contrast to Hylas’ and Heracles’ departures,



however, the Dioscuri’s exploration of the surrounding countryside is not explicitly motivated; the narrator notes only that they are looking at “the diverse, uncultivated woods” (36). Their curious interest in trees would be more readily explicable, however, if T. had in mind the Apollonian passage, where Heracles, who like the Dioscuri is a υιός Διός, leaves his companions for the woods in search of a tree from which to make a replacement for the oar he has broken: α ύ τά ρ ό+ δαίνυσθαι έτά ρ ο ις εδ+ έπ ιτείλ α ς [cf. 35 ά ποπλαγχθέντες εταίρων], / βή ρ ’ ίμεν εις ϋλην υίός Διός (1.1187-8). This all suggests the priority of the Apollonian narrative, where Heracles’ departure is carefully motivated far in advance. 30 £νθα μιής πολλοί: cf. Id. 13.33 πολλοί δέ μίαν στορεσαντο χαμεύναν;38 οΥ μίαν αμφω [cf. άμφοτέρων] εταίροι αεί δαίνυντο τράπεζαν. For the juxtaposition μιής πολλοί cf. Fraenkel on A. A g . 1455. K.J. McKay, “The Symbolism of Harmony (Theokr. 13.33, 22.30; Kail. e p . 41 Pf. = 4 GowPage),” in S tu d i d i filo lo g ia classica in onore d i G iusto M o n a co I: lettera tu ra g r e c a (Palermo 1991) 377-85 speculates that the juxtaposition o f μιής/μίαν and πολλοί in this passage and in the corresponding passage of I d . 13 may constitute a reference to the theme of the unity of the Argonauts in some earlier account. However that may be, any suggestion of unity here stands in pointed opposition to the hostility between one-time Argonauts in the Castor narrative (cf. 138-43n.). μιής: the best mss. have μιας (μιής Paris, gr. 2512, an apograph of Tr), but the citation of this passage at E M 324.20 θάμνης πολλοί κτλ. (an otherwise corrupt quotation, however) may derive from a text with ένθα μιής, and in the absence of D for this line (cf. intro., p. 37) I have therefore written the epic form (μιής at O 416*). μιής ... κατά κλίμακος: the κλΐμαξ or κλιμακίς was the ladder run out from the stern of beached vessels for landings in peaceful territory, and red-figure vases regularly show ships using only one (cf. Morrison-Williams 293); the Argo is depicted with a single ladder on the Talos vase ( L IM C s.v. Argonautai 15) and the Ficoroni cista {L IM C s.v. Argonautai 10). V J. Matthews, L C M 10 (1985) 68-9 suggests that the emphasis on the disembarkation of all the Argonauts by one ladder clarifies a potential ambiguity in 7if.13.32 έκβάντες δ ’ επί ΘΤνα κατά ζυγά δαΐτα πένοντο, where the expression κατά ζυγά could mistakenly be understood with έκβάντες rather than (correctly) with πένοντο (i.e. the Argonauts both disembarked and ate in pairs), which cannot easily be the case here. The interpretation is not implausible, though such a selfcorrection/clarification would be oblique even for T., and the relative chronology for the composition of the two idylls is less certain than Matthews believes. κατά κλίμακος: the gen. is normal: e.g. Lys. 1.9 κατά τή ς κλίμακος καταβαίνουσα.


30-1 άμφοτε'ρων εξ / τοίχων: the phrase mirrors 12-3 τοίχους / άμφοτέρους. The meaning here, however, is that the Argonauts seated on both sides of the ship disembark by a single ladder and not that there are separate ladders located on both the Argo’s starboard and port. 8 ξ: as usual, the monosyllable at line end is preceded by bucolic diaeresis ( 1 1 2 , 169, 171; West 156; Maas 64; intro., p. 46). For έ'ξ at line end cf. Ξ 472 ούδέ κακών εξ/ (cf. Id. 25.38), ρ 518 ος τε θεών εξ/ ; Antim. fr. 144 Matthews (fr. 108 Wyss) σφονδυλίων εξ/. πολλοί ... ανδρες έ'βαινον: an allusion to B 610-1, from the catalogue of ships: πολέεο δ ’ έν νηΐ έκαστη / ’Αρκάδες άνδρεο έΒαινον έπιστάμενοι πολεμίζειν. 31 Ίησονίης: T.’s use of the adj. probably derives from Apollonius: 1.960* Ίησονίης έν Άθήνης/, 1148* Ίησονίην δ ’ ένε'πou oìv / (cf. A.R. 1.988). All of these Apollonian occurrences are from aetiological contexts, and outside of Apollonius Ίασόνιος is used only of shrines and place names. The present collocation is borrowed by Norm, at D. 13.87-8 Ά ργους, / νηός Ίησονίης. Arat. 348 has ώς ήγε πρυμνηθεν Ίησονίς ελκεται ’Αργώ. άπό νηός: cf. ζ 278* ής από νηός; hh. 7.6* έυσσε'λμου από νηός, 33.8 οί δ ’ άπό νηών. 32-8 The rest of the Argonauts prepare for the night, but the Dioscuri wander off into the woods. M. Hügi, Vergib Aeneis und die hellenistische Dichtung (Bern 1952) 127 suggests that Virgil drew on these lines at Aen. 6.5-8. 32 έκβάντες δ’ έπί θΐνα : for the expression, cf. ξ 346-7 αύτοί δ ’ άποβάντες I έσσυμε'νως παρά θΐνα θαλάσσης δόρπον ελοντο; π 358 ο! δ ’ άνστάντες έβαν επί θΐνα θαλάσσης, etc. The phrase έκβάντες δ ’ έπί θΐνα also opens the the thirty-second line of Id. 13. The identical placement of the same expression in the two Argonautic narratives very likely signals that they are to be read in close conjunction with one another, and it therefore does not necessarily follow that T. is drawing on a lost epic source, though this is not impossible. έπί θΐνα βαθύνκαί ύπήνεμον ακτήν: cf. the Argonauts’ first sight of Bebrycian land at A.R. 1.1360-2: oi δε χθονός είσανε'χουσαν / ακτήν έκ κόλποιο μάλ’ εΰρείην έσιδέσθαι / φρασσόμενοι κώπησιν ά μ’ ήελίω έπε'κελσαν. έπί θΐνα βαθυν: έπί θΐνα frequently in Homer, but never *, though έπί θινί and παρά θΐνα are both regularly found in this verse position (cf. LfgrE s.v.). For βαθύς of the shore, cf. B 92 ήιόνος προπάροιθε βαθείης έστιχόωντο. The gender of θίς is most commonly fern., but masc. at V 693, μ 45; Ar. V. 696; Phld. Piet., PHerc. 1428 col. 13.18 (p. 87 Gomperz; Cron. Ere. 4 (1974) 24). It should presumably be so understood here (thus I b A 34 το δέ θΐνα νυν μέν θηλυκώς εϊρηται. εστι δέ καί αρσενικόν, ώς το 'έκβάντες δ ’ έπί θΐνα βαθυν’), though βαθύς may be feminine at hD em . 383 βαθυν ήέρα (cf.



Richardson a d l o c .; for two-termination -ύς adjectives in Homer, cf. Chantraine, G H 1.252), as it is at Eratosth. C A 8 βαθύς διαφύεται αυλών, Call. h. 4.37 βαθύν ήλαο τάφρον. όπήυεμον: “sheltered.” First in trag. (S. A n t. 411; E. C y c . 44); thereafter the attestations oftheadj. come mostly from prose (X. Oec. 18.7; Arisi. H A 559a.3, 568b,25; Thphr. C P 3.6.9; Pollux 1.100; Heliod. 3.7.5, 5.23.3); elsewhere in verse at adesp. A P I 54.1. T. here varies νήνεμος άκτή of the Bebrycian shore at A.R. 2.162, in the context of the celebration immediately following the victory over the Bebrycians. As in other related passages, Apollonius uses a rare Homeric word (νήνεμος is hapax at Θ 556) while T. varies it slightly; cf. PeiTOtta, S IF C n.s. 4 (1925) 85-8. 32-3 The phraseology is perhaps faintly reminiscent of δ 300-1 (Menelaus’ servants) αί δ ’ ισαν έκ μεγάροιο δάος μετά χερσίν εχουσαι, / δέμνια δέ στόρεσαν. Whereas the Theocritean lines clearly suggest that the Argonauts arrive towards evening (so too their arrival in Mysia in the A rgonautica and in Id. 13), A.R. 1.1362 (quoted above on 32) explicitly places their arrival in Bebrycia at daybreak. 33 εύνάς τ* έστόρνυντο: Id . 13.33 πολλοί δέ μίαν στορέσαντσ χαμεύναν; cf. A.R. 1.1182-4 (quoted above). The most common equivalent Homeric formula is (έ)στόρεσαν(-ον) (πυκινόν) λε'χος (I 660, η 340, etc.). πυρεΓά τε χερσίν ένώμων: cf. A.R. 1.1184 (quoted above). For χερσίν ένώμων cf. φ 245* τόξον μετά χερσίν ένώμα,χ 10* καί δή μετά χερσίν ένώμα. πυρεία : fire sticks, first mentioned at h H e rm .111 (also following the fern, caesura), where their invention is attributed to Hermes (Prometheus at D.S. 5.17): Έρμης τοι πρώτιστα πυρήϊα πΟρ τ ’ άνέδωκε. These consisted of a stationary piece of wood called the έσχάρα into which the drill piece, the τρυπανον, was rubbed (cf. Thphr. Ign. 64). The best woods for their construction are discussed at Thphr. H P 5.9.6-7. The πυρεία at S. P h . 36 are probably stones, however (cf. Jebb a d loc.), and I Luc. V H 1.13.32 explains πυρεία as πυρεκβολίτας λίθους (cf. Thphr. Ign. 63). On ancient fire starting techniques, see M.H. Morgan, “De ignis eliciendi modis apud antiquos,” H SC P 1 (1890) 13-64; A.S. Pease, “Scintillae,” C P 34 (1939) 148. 34 The twins make their first appearance in the narrative in a symmetrical line (contrast their introduction at the beginning of the poem: 2-3n.), with proper names at line beginning and end framing the two epithets, and with the single article in the middle of the verse; the balance is reinforced by the sound pattern in αίολό π ω λοο ~ οινω πός (note the chiasmus ο π ω ~ ωπο). Castor and Polydeuces also frame the line in the archaic models for the passage (cf. 2n.).

αίολόπωλος: of Phrygians, who were renowned for their horsemanship (cf. K 431) at Γ 185, hAphrΛ37, both at line end; elsewhere only at Cere. fr. 6 a. 1 Lomiento (C A 8 ) αΐοίλόπωλον. Cf. 136 ταχύπωλε, withn. a d lo c . ò: for the article with only the final name in a series, cf. 140n., K 363, 536, O 36-7, al. Cf. for Homer Chantraine, G H 2.161, and on this passage Svensson 68. οίνωττός: first in E. (P h. 1160, I T 1245, Or. 115, B a. 236,438, H yps. fr. 64.111 Bond, C re t. fr. 82.15 Austin); Hp. nat. m u l. 1.5 (voi. 7, p. 312 Littré), m u l. 111.5 (voi. 8 , p. 238 Littré), de morb. p o p . 7.3.27 (voi. 5, p. 370 Littré); Thphr. H P 3.16.3, 3.18.2; Philip G P 3028; [Simon.] F G E 896; early epic has οΐνοφ, most commonly of the sea, though of oxen at N 703, v 32. Gow a d loc. notes that “[t]he coppery red of ripening grapes is a suitable hue for a sun-tanned hero,” but in fact the adjective serves rather as a marker of Polydeuces’ age: the idea is that he is only just beginning to grow his first downy beard. There is a similar use of ττϋρρός at I d . 6.2-3 ί)ς δ ’ ό μέν αυτώ ν/ ττυρρός, ό δ' ημιγένειος, on which cf. Gow a d lo c. So of an erotically still-desirable youth at Philip GP 3027-8 ήνίκα μέν καλός ?\ς, Ά ρχέστρατε, κάμφί παρειαίς / οίνωπαΐς ψυχός έφλεγες ήιθέων, where the boy’s current attractive state is contrasted with the undesirable full-beardedness that is soon to come (5 ώς δ ’ έπιπερκάζεις μιαρή) τριχί)· For the comparison of the first down of incipient manhood to ripe or ripening grapes, cf. E. C r e t. fr. 82.14-5 Austin παρ’ όμμάτων σέλας I οίνωπόν έξέλαμπε περ[καί]νων γένυν (cf. P h . 1160 άρτι δ ’ οίνωπόν γένυν); Pi. Ν. 5.6 οϋπω γένυσι φαίνων τερείνας ματέρ’ οίνάνθας οπώραν, Chaeremon T r G F l ì F 12 πολλήν οπώραν Κύπριδος είσοράν παρην / ακραίοι περκάζουσαν οίνάνθαις χρόνου. Call. h. 5.75-6 άρτι γένεια / περκάζων, with Bulloch a d lo c. In the preliminaries to the contest at A.R. 2,43-4 Polydeuces is described as ετι χνοάοντας ίούλους / άντέλλων. Τ. allusively suggests the same fact without any explicit mention of beards, hair, or jaw to guide the reader. Such considerations require a slight modification of Campbell’s suggestion (“Notes,” 38-9) that since οίνωπός is regularly associated with Dionysus (e.g. E. B a. 236, 438), T. may have chosen it to recall Apollonius’ description of Polydeuces in Dionysiae terms at 2.40-5: there is no need to see a specific reference to D io n ysu s here, though the allusive way the adjective is used might indeed be thought to argue for the priority of Apollonius’ description. 35 Another carefully arranged verse: two words beginning with ά - alternate with two beginning with è-; the balance is reinforced by the juxtaposition in the center of the line of two pentasyllable words of identical metrical shape (P-----w). For four-word hexameters in the poem, cf. 18n. For the Dioscuri’s apparently unmotivated departure, cf. 30-6n. έρημάζεσκον: the verb occurs first here; elsewhere in verse at Zenod. H E 3643, where it may have a quasi-technical sense (cf. Gow-Page a d lo c .), and



occasionally in late prose (D.L., Eust, a l.). For the imperfect in -εσκ-, cf. 183n.; here the meaning hardly differs from that of an ordinary imperfect. 35-6 άττοττλαγχθέντες ... / τταντοίην: a reminiscence of Odysseus’ first words to Polyphemus at i 259-60* ημείς τοι Τροίηθεν άττοττλαγχθε'ντε*:* 'Αχαιοί / τταντοίοισ' άνέμοισιν. The reference here foreshadows the appearance of Amycus, himself modeled on the Homeric Cyclops (cf. 4 4 52n.). Cf. A.R. 1.1325 άποττλαγχθε'ντες* ελειφθεν, of the Argonauts lost from the expedition during the Hylas episode. 36 τταντοίην ... ϋλην: the locus am oenus in which the twins find themselves resembles not only the land of the Cyclopes, but also Ithaca, where Odysseus will also be received inhospitably (cf. 29n.): cf. Athena’s words to Odysseus upon his arrival at v 246-7 εστι μέν ϋλη / παντοίη, έν 6 ’ άρδμο) έττηετανοί τταρέασι ; Q.S. 2.590-1. έν άρει : * at Hes. Th. 484; Id . 7.51 (where it is the site of Lycidas’ composition of a bucolic poem), οϋρεα are notoriously wild and potentially dangerous places (cf. A. Cameron in M iscellanea d i p o e s ia a lessa n d rin a in m em o ria di A u g u sto R o sta g n i (Turin 1963) 296 n.13, Bulloch on Call. h. 5.118), though they are also the ordinary haunts of T.’s goatherds (Idd. 3.46,7.87,92). θηεύμενοι: in early epic the verb almost always has the connotation “look at with wonder” (= θαυμάζω; cf. Ap. S. 87.31,1 A.R. 1.436; H.J. Mette, G ioita 39 (1961) 49-71), and this is the sense present here (cf. Id . 15.23; A.R. 1.776, 3.445), but elsewhere in Hellenistic poetry the word often means variously “look,” “consider,” or “see, inspect”; cf. Chryssafis on I d . 25.108. At 200 θηεΐτο has the common later sense “watch as a spectator” without any apparent sense of wonderment. This Ionic form of the participle occurs elsewhere in Hellenistic poetry at Call. ft. 115.15 Pf. (?); A.R. 1.436,2.808*, 4.300*; Leoni. Schol. A P 7.579.3. άγριον : as opposed to “cultivated” (cf. LSJ s.v. 1.2). Of ϋλη at Archil. IEG 21.2, S. O T 476-7, Hdi. 1.203, Paus. 1.21.6, al. The adj. has two terminations at T 8 8 * άγριον άτην, Phocyl. 14.6 West, PI. L g. 824a; three at ι 119, al.\ cf. W. Kästner, D ie griechischen A d jektive zw eier E ndungen a u f - O l (Heidelberg 1967) 24-5. The landscape’s wildness anticipates the uncivilized behavior of its denizen (cf. 58 άγριος εΐ), as it does also at i 105ff. (cf. 44-52n.). ϋλην: the most common position for forms of the noun in early epic, which has, e.g., άσττετον ϋλην* (B 455, Ψ 127, hh. 26.10), άγνυτον ϋλην* (Μ 148), δάσκιον ϋλην* (ε 470). 37-43 The Dioscuri arrive at a locus a m o en u s, prominently featuring a spring. In this respect they are like Hylas in Id . 13 and A.R. 1.1207ff. (cf. 30-6n.), who also comes upon a spring following his departure from his companions. The present passage, however, has little in common at the verbal level with the locus am oenus of Id. 13 or the Apollonian spring (cf. Hunter, TA G P 60-1), but

rather shares points of contact with A.R. 3.221-7, where the water in the last of the four αέναοι κρήναι that flow the courtyard of Aeetes’ palace is said to be κρυστάλλω ϊκελον (cf. 39n.); cf. also 38 αί δ ’ ύπένερθε/ ~ 3.221 ai 5 ’ ΰπό τησιν/, 40 άγχόθι πεύκαι/ ~ 3.219-20 άγχι δε τοίο / ημερίδες. Note the affinity between the contexts: in both passages the idyllic setting precedes the appearance of a barbarian king who will inhospitably challenge his visitors to a dangerous contest. Apollonius’ version of the dispute with Amycus takes place on the shore, and thus involves no spring, which is, however, a regular feature on vase paintings of the episode (e.g. L IM C s.v. Amykos 4, 5 (the Ficoroni cista), 11 (early Lucanian, ca. 420-400)), and must have played a role in earlier literary accounts as well. 37 εδρον δ(έ): * E 753, Ο 152, Ο 98; cf. α 106, η 136, a l. So, after his departure from his companions, Heracles in his wandering comes upon a suitable tree at A.R. 1.1190 εδρεν* έπειτ' έλάτην άλαλήμενος (cf. 30-6n.). άέναον κρήνην: springs are a characteristic feature of the ancient lo c u s a m oenus (cf. Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.28, with bibliography), and since those that flowed throughout the entire year without drying up were of great practical value (cf. Giangrande 2.347-52 = E ranos 71 (1973) 68-73), literary springs are often described as “ever-flowing”: cf. e . 4.5-6, S. O C 685-91, Antim. ff. 136.3 Matthews (ff. 84.3 Wyss), A.R. 3.222, C E G (2) 865.2, Kaibel E G 813.2, a l άε'ναον: Homer has only υδατ’ άενάοντα at v 109 (cf. Hes. Op. 550, Antim. fr. 136.3 Matthews (fr. 84.3 Wyss)); αέναος first at Hes. Op. 595 κρήνης S ' αέναου. The epithet thereafter comes to be commonplace of springs, υπό λισσάδι πέτρη: contrast A.R. 2.730-1 τή δ' υπό ττέτραι / λισσάδες έρρίζωνται. Homer has λισσή ... ττέτρη (γ 293, ε 412, κ 4 ) and λις πέτρη (μ 64, 79), both always referring to massive cliffs jutting out from the sea; λισσάς first in trag. (A. S u p p . 794; E. A n d r. 533, H ere. 1148; trag, adesp. T r G F F 365a.l), always modifying πέτρα. In Hellenistic and imperial poetry is appears also at A.R. 2.731, 4.956*, 1717*, Archias GP 3766, Opp. H a l 2.320; such fern, adjectives in -άς were well liked by Hellenistic poets, who coined many new ones (cf. the list in Buck-Petersen 411-5). Ancient critics debated whether the adjectives λίς, λισσός, and the like meant “smooth” or “steep, rugged” (cf. FJW on A. Supp. 794; Wilamowitz on E. Here. 1148; Mooney on A.R. 2.382); λισσή probably has the latter sense at A.R. 2.382, and λισσάς may be used in that way at A. S u p p . 794, E. Here. 1148.' The context here, however, demands the sense “smooth.” 38ϋδατι ... άκηράτψ: modeled on O 303 χερσίν ύδωρ έπιχεΰαι άκήρατον*. Ancient descriptions of such idyllic locations regularly emphasize the freshness of the spring’s water: cf. S. O C 690 άκηράτω ξύν δμβρω; Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.28; Schönbeck 25. Note the variation, ordinary in Homer, in the quantity of the first syllable of ύδωρ, which is long here, short in 62.



πεπληθυΐαν: in the sense “be full o f ’ the verb takes the gen. in early epic (at Hes. Sc. 477-8 "Αναυρος / όμβρον χειμερίω πληθών, όμβρω is dat. of cause, “swollen with winter’s rain”). For the construction with the dative, cf. A. Th. 464, E. Here. 372-3 (cf. Diggle 215,450), Call. Hec. 62.2 Hollis (328.2 Pf), fr. 98 Hollis (ff. 280 Pf.), Damoch. AP 6.63.1, Maiist. 25. For the perfect πέπληθα cf. Call. Hec. 62, Herod. 7.84, Alex. Eph. SH 36.2. ai 5' υπένερθε: cf. A.R. 1.945* ταί δ ’ ΰπενερθεν, 2.259* οΥ θ' ΰπενερθεν; Arat. 56* εΐς δ' ΰπενερθεν; in Homer ύπένερθε is * at Λ 147, 186, 215. The Theocritean formulation reappears at Opp. Hal. 2.579 (cf. 51n.). Similar clausulae mark transitions from one aspect of the locus amoenus to another at A.R. 3.221 ai 5' υπό τήσιν/; Id. 7.7 ταί δέ παρ' αΰτάν/ (cf. 40-2n.). 39-41 The pebbles at the bottom of the spring are described in a way that suggests two conventional aspects of such streams: sound and clarity (cf. Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.28). 39 A striking line, with spondees in the first three feet, and a spondaic fifth foot. The unusual rhythm helps to bring out the assonance of -αλλ- (other examples of which are cited by Chryssafis on Id. 25.235), which itself suggests the sound of a gently flowing spring. λάλλαι: Ruhnken’s certain correction of mss. άλλα! is derived from glosses at Hsch. λ 241 (λάλλαι· λάλλας λέγουσι τά ς παραθαλασσίους καί παραποτάμιους ψήφους) and 555.46-9 (λάλλαι- έκ του λαλώ γίνεται ρηματικόν όνομα λάλη, και πλεονασμόν του λ, λάλλη. λάλλαι δε είσι ai ψήφοι ai παραθαλάσσιας ai υπό των κυμάτων κινούμενοι καί ψόφον τινά άποτελοΰσαι). Gow ad loc. observes that the etymology proposed by EM, while likely to be correct, “makes the word somewhat inappropriate to pebbles at the bottom of a glassy pool,” but note that T. in much the same way describes the appearance of the pebbles in terms that are more traditionally applied to the water itself (cf. succeeding nn.); the sound of the spring is thus here suggested indirectly. κρύσταλλο*) ήδ’ άργυρο*): cf. K 438, P 52 χρυσω τε καί άργυρον*; ψ 200 χρυσω τε καί άργυρον* ήδ’ έλεφαντι; τ 56* έλέφαντι καί άργύροο; similar series with άργυρος at δ 73*, κ 45*, hHerm. 249*. κρύσταλλο*) : twice in Homer: X 152, ξ A ll. Both this passage and A.R. 3.2217, which T. seems to have in mind (cf. 37-43n., Campbell on 3.222), ultimately look to X 151-2, where the second of the two springs that flow from the Scamander is compared to ice: ή δ ’ έτέρη θέρεϊ προρέει έικυϊα χαλάζη / ή χιόνι ψυχρή ή έξ ϋδατος κρυστάλλοο. At A.R. 3.227 the last of the four αέναοι κρήναι that flow through Aeetes’ court is said to have water κρυστάλλοο Υκελου during the summer. T. uses a variation of a simile that in Homer and Apollonius indicates the temperature of spring water to describe the appearance of the pebbles at the bottom of the spring, κρύσταλλος here may


mean not “ice” but “rock crystal,” a sense that well suits both the focus on appearance rather than temperature and the close combination of the word with ά ρ γ υ ρ ο ς (cf. Leon. Alex. F G E 1890-1* άλλος μέν κρύσταλλον, ό δ' άργυρον, οί δέ τοπάζους / πέμψουσιν, ?written with this line in mind), but that is attested unambiguously only later (cf. LSJ s.v.). For the hiatus -ω ήδ(ε) at the masculine caesura, cf. Δ 258, o 93. ήδε : The word is epic/poetic; not in Attic prose, though apparently used by Hp. (cf. Gal. 19.102). It is probable in 58, and secure in Id d . 16.87, 17.124,25.139, and in the post-Theocritean Idd. 20.43 and 23.52; in the “bucolic” poems it appears only in Id . 1.106, where it is Meineke’s emendation: cf. Hunter, TA G P 41. The word is common in Apollonius, but of restricted use in Call., occurring only in h. 3 (82, 154, 155), and once in a lyric poem (ff. 228.42); for fr. 260.2 P f, cf. now 577288.2 = H ec. fr. 69.2 Hollis. ά ργυρος: as in the case of κρυστάλλου, the pebbles are compared to a substance traditionally used to describe flowing bodies of water themselves: cf. Hes. Th. 791 δίν^ς ά ρ γ υ ρ ο ς , Panyas. E G F F 18.3, Mosch. F u r. 53, and the very common epithet of rivers άργυροδίνης (e.g. B 753, Φ 8 , 130, Hes. Th. 340). ΐνδάλλοντο: the sense “resemble” with the dat. is attested before T. at PI. Rep. 381e, Lg. 959a, and in Hellenistic and Imperial poetry at Nie. Th. 153, 259, Lyc. 597, 961, Norm. D. 12.308. Whether this use was allowed in the Homeric poems was debated by ancient critics. Ordinarily the verb has the meaning “appear” (cf. V 460, τ 224, h A phr. 178), but at P 213-4 ίνδάλλετο δε σφισί πάσι / τεύχεσι λαμττόμενος μεγάθυμου Πηλεΐωνος Aristarchus read μεγάθυμου Πηλείωνί. Aristarchus’ reading may already have been found in earlier texts of Homer (cf. Erbse on Σ P 214; G. Perrotta, S IF C n.s. 4 (1925) 209-10; conira, Duentzer 117-8, v.d.Valk 2.610), and if so it is not impossible that T. is taking a position on a matter of scholarly controversy (cf. γ 246: αθάνατος ίνδάλλεται είσοράασθα! Aristoph., άθανάτοις vulg.), though this is by no means inevitable. In all of its senses the verb is popular among Hellenistic and later poets: Arab 194*, 901*, 939*; A.R. U 297*, 2.545,3.453, 812*; Hegesianax 577 467.2; Euph. CA 50.3; Lyc. 254; Opp. H a l. 2.233*; [Opp.] Cyn. 3.458*; Q.S. 6.479*; Norm. D. 14.177, al. 40 έκ βυθού: ordinarily of the depths of the sea, as in 17, though cf. βυσσόθεν probably of a river bed at Call. h. 4.127 (cf. Mineur a d loc.). Here the phrase, emphasized by its enjambment, underscores the water’s clarity: the pebbles can be seen all the way from the depths (cf. Ον. M . 5.588-9 p ersp icu a s (sc. a q u a s) a d hu m u m , p e r q u a s n u m e ra b ilis a lte / c a lc u lu s o m n is e ra t). Note the juxtaposition of έκ βυθού and ύψηλαί. ύψηλαί ... ά γχόθι ττεύκαι: the phrase is not unlike A.R. 4.1682 πελωρίη υψόθι* ττεύκη/.



ύψηλαί: the adjective is common in early epic (regularly *), and perhaps for this very reason relatively rare in the major Hellenistic poets: Idd. 11.18,16.98; Arat. 216 (note φασι); A.R. 2.977 (an aetiological context); Call. h. 4.63, 157, e. 23.2; Nie. Th. 641. άγχόθι: here used absolutely, as at A.R. 4.330, Alex. Eph. S H 21.8, Q.S. 5.114, 6.271*, but in all its Homeric occurrences the word governs a gen. (Ξ 412*, Y 762*, V 103, 347); elsewhere in T. at Id . 24.135 άγχόθι πατρός. πεϋκαι: twice in Homer: Λ 494*, Y 328; cf. Hes. S c. 376, 421. The πεύκη is mentioned in a “bucolic” context at Id. 7.88-9 τύ δ ’ υπό δρυσίν η υπό πευκαις / άδυ μελισδόμενος κατεκέκλισο, θείε Κοματα. Pines in general are typical of idyllic landscapes (cf. N-H on Hor. c . 2.3.9, Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.27), and in T. closely associated with goatherds; cf. Lembach 98-100. 40-2 Cf. Id . 7.6-9: Χάλκωνος, Βούριναν δς εκ ποδός άνυε κράναν / ευ ένερεισάμενος πέτρα γόνυ- τα! δέ πα ρ ’ αΰτάν I αϊγειροι πτελέαι τε έύσκιον άλσος ϋφαινον / χλωροϊσιν πετάλοισι κατηρεφέες κομόωσαι. The lines are modeled on ε 63-4 (the woods on Calypso’s island) ϋλη δέ σπέος άμφί πεφυκε ι τηλεθόω σα, / κλήθρη τ ’ αίγειρός τε καί ευώδης κυπάρισσοο. a favorite source for later descriptions of such idyllic scenes (cf. e. 4.5-7 άέναον δέ / ρεΐθρον από σπιλάδων πάντοσε τηλεθάει / δάφναις καί μύρτοισι καί εΰώδει κυπαρίσσω). Like ε 64, verse 41 contains three trees (though in all T. has four) connected by τ(ε) ... τε καί, with the last, the cypress, alone being modified by an adjective, and with the first two consisting of two and three syllables respectively; T. transfers the Homeric epithet for the cypress to the flowers in the following line (42 άνθεά τ ’ ευώδη). 41 The line preserves a slight botanical inconcinnity already found in Homer: both the λεύκη and πλάτανος are appropriate near a stream, since they grow in wet, marshy ground (cf. Thphr. H P 3.6.1), but the cypress demands dry soil (Thphr. H P 2.7.1); likewise, at ε 64, the two trees mentioned before the cypress, the κλήθρη and the αϊγειρος, appropriately favor wet soils, λεΰκαι: the white poplar. P o p u lu s alba. Delphis wears a poplar wreath at Id. 2.121 κρατ! δ ’ έχων λεύκαν, ‘Ηρακλέος ιερόν ερνος. πλάτανοι: the plane tree, P la ta n u s o rie n ta lis. This form of the noun occurs only here in T., who otherwise uses the Homeric form πλατάνιστος (cf. 76n.). άκρόκομοι κυπάρισσοι: the adj. is a hapax in Homer at Δ 533, of the Thracians (cf. Hippon. IE G 115.6). It is used of arboreal foliage at E. P h. 1515-6 ορνις δρυός ή / έλάτας άκροκόμοις άμ πετάλοις [έζομένα] (where δρυός ή / έλάτας is a universalizing doublet), and thereafter appropriately of palms ([Orph.] fr. 225 Kem;D.S. 2.53.7; Nonn. D . 15.112,P a ra p h r. 12.56), but also of the πίτυς (Archias A P 7.213.2). Cypresses lack extensive lateral branches and are capable of attaining very great heights, and T.’s epithet is thus fitting (Cougny 3.281.20 has υψικόμοισιν ... κυπαρίττοις). Note that at i 186,


immediately before the appearance of the Homeric Cyclops, on whom Amycus is modeled (cf. 44-52n.), Polyphemus’ αύλή is said to have been built from δρυσιν ύψικόμοισιν. More speculatively, it may be worth suggesting that if, as seems likely, T. envisioned his Bebrycians as Thracian in origin (cf. 77n.), the epithet forges a further link between the landscape and its inhabitants (cf 36, 44-52nn.), who would themselves have been άκρόκομοι. The tree was widely regarded as ornamental and features prominently within or around literary gardens and idyllic groves and woodlands: cf. esp. Id. 18.29-31 meipor μεγάλα α τ ’ άνέδραμε κόσμος άρουρα / ή κάπα> κυπάρισσος, η άρματι Θεσσαλός Υττπος, / ώδε καί ά ροδόχρως Έλένα Λακεδαίμονι κόσμος, Lembach 121-2. 42 ανθεά τ ’ εύώδη:οί. hD em . 401 άνθεσι ... εΰώδείσιν] ήαρινοΕΐσι]; C ypria E G F F 5.2 πλεξαμέναι στεφάνους εΰώδεας, ανθεα γαίης; h h . 19.25-6 κρόκος ή δ’ υάκινθος / ευώδης θαλέθων; Pies. fr. 26.21 (?) άνθεα μαι[ό]μεν[αι κεφαλής εύώΐδεα κόσμον. For representations of flower odors in early Greek poetry and beyond, cf. S. Lilja, The T rea tm en t o f O d o u rs in the P o etry o f A n tiq u ity (Helsinki 1972) 172-98,186 on this passage, ευώδη: forms of the adjective are * at hh. 26.6, Xenoph. IE G 1.3, Thgn. 830 (pent). Id . 17.37 (-η), e. 8.4 (pent.). The contraction of final -εα to -η in such *es·-stem nouns and adjectives already occurs rarely in the text of Homer (cf Chantraine, G H 1.56), and appears regularly in the Theocritean corpus (cf. Monteil 28). λασίαις φίλα έργα μελίσσαις: an artful unit, arranged chiastically (a [trisyllabic adj. -αις j b [disyllabic adj. -α] B [disyllabic noun -a] A [trisyllabic noun-αις]) and with assonance o f -λ- and-σ -.Call. h. 1.50, Nie. Al. 554,Nonn. D . 5.243, 13.271, Argentarius G P 1307 have έργα μελίσσης at line end; cf. Nie. A l. 445 έργα ... μελίσσης. A.R has έργα μελισσεων at 3.1036 and μελισσεων / έργα at 4.1132-3; cf. Maced. A P 5.240.2 έργα μελισσάων. In such passages, as in the appositional epic expressions on which they are based (e.g. Z 289 πέπλοι παμποίκιλα έργα* γυναικών), έργα denotes the product of labor (the labor itself at Nonn. D . 5.243). Here the application of έργα to the flowers on which the bees work derives from the epic/ko in e use of the word in the sense “cultivated lands” (cf. below). λασίαις: in Homer of “woolly” sheep at O 125, i 433*; but otherwise of the heart or chest (A 189, B 851, Π 554), denoting strength. Here used creatively and with almost scientific precision in reference to the bees’ setae; rather different is the hairiness of the inferior bees at V. G e o rg . 4.93-4 ille horridus a lter / d e s id ia ; c f Varro R R 3.16.20 (of sick bees) p ilo s a e e t horridae, u t p u lveru len ta e. The adj. may sometimes also suggest wisdom or cunning (cf. Σ° O 125 δασύς, τετριχωμένος. σημαίνει δε καί τό συνετός, Alex. Aet. CA 5.1), but if such connotations are present here they are necessarily secondary (pace Fritzsche: “prudentibus”).



φίλα Εργα: for the expression, cf. Hes. Op. 306 σοί 6 ’ έργα φίλ’ έστω με'τρια κοσμεΐν (in close proximity to 305 μελισσάων κάματον), A.R. 4.61* ά τοι φίλα έργα τέτυκται. έργα in the sense “worked land” is a feature of epic (cf. also Tyrt. I EG 5.7, Sol. IEG 13.21, Bacch. 10.44), though to judge from its occurrences in late prose, it was likely also a feature o f the literary koine (cf. Bulloch on Call. h. 5.62); elsewhere with this sense in Hellenistic poetry at Arat. 1126, Call. hh. 3.125, 156, 5.62. T. and other Hellenistic poets regularly follow Homer in their treatment of originally digammated words; cf. καλά έργα at Idd. 15.46,17.6 (constrast 15.20 επ’ εργω, etc.); West 156. μελίσσαις: line end is the ordinary sedes for the word in the corpus {Idd. 7.81, 84, 142, 8.45, 19.1; cf. M 167*); otherwise only Idd. 3.13, 19.6, both before fem. caesura. 43 δσσ’ Εαρος λήγοντος έττιβρυει αν λειμώνας: apparently inspired by Β 467-8 εσταν δ ’ έν λειμώνι Σκαμανδρίω άνθεμόεντι I μυρίοι, δσσα τε φύλλα και ανθεα γίγυεται ' oi γ ’ ύβρισταί τε καί άγριοι ούδέ δίκαιοι / ί^ε φιλόξεινοι or θ 575-6 ήμέν οσοι χαλεποί τε καί άγριοι ούδέ δίκαιοι / όσοι τε φιλόξεινοι. Note the heavy proliferation of π, which helps to underscore Polydeuces’ exasperation; cf. 46-7n.


εΤ: the Attic-Ionic form of the 2nd s. is not in early epic (cf. Chantraine, GH 1.286), nor in Apollonius, Callimachus, or elsewhere in T. πρός πάντα: possibly n. pi. (“to all things”; cf. Gow), but more likely masc. sg. (“to everyone”). For the idea in general, cf. the misanthropic Cnemon at Men. Dys. 6-7 απάνθρωπος τις άνθρωπος σφόδρα / καί δύσκολος προς άπαντας. παλίγκοτος : “hostile.” The word is poetic, but also common in Ionic prose; cf. Fraenkel on A. Ag. 874. In Hellenistic poetry it is * at Nie. Th. 118; Euph. CA 51.12, SH429LÌ2; Megara 92. ήδ’: Hemsterhuis’ correction of mss. ή : a connective rather than a disjunctive is needed, since no meaningful distinction between the alternatives παλίγκοτος and υπερόπτης is forthcoming. Cf. 39n. υπερόπτης: cf. Suda u 334 υπερόπτης· ό παρορών. ό δέ υπερόπτης ών του δικαίου καί υβριστής. The word seems elsewhere to be restricted to prose, first at Th. 3.38.5. 59 τοιόσδ’ oTov όρφς: Amycus’ crass self-description (cf. Eng. “what you see is what you get”) stands in pointed opposition to Polydeuces’ assurance μήτ’ αδίκους μ ή τ’ έξ αδίκων φάθι λεύσσειν in 56; cf. 69 εγγύ ς όράς. For the phraseology, cf. adesp. API 86.2 τοΐος, όκοΐον όρας, ώ παρ’ εμ’ ερχόμενε; Leon. HE 2129-30 ών ό μέν Έρμάς / οΐον όρής μ', ουτος δ' ατερος ‘Ηρακλεης; Ale. HE 106 (quoted above on 47), of the statue of an athlete. For τοιόσδ’ oTov cf. a 370-1* άοιδοΰ / τοιοΰδ’ οΐος όδ’ έστί. ορφς: * Λ 202. τής σής ... έπιβαίνω: in tone and spirit the expression is similar to Id. 5.61 τάν σαυτώ πατέων έχε τας δρύας. The ellipse of γη, χώρα and the like is common in Greek; cf. Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.84. τής σής : * Id. 27.60. O f the 10 occurrences of the definite article in the poem (cf. 22n.), 4 are clustered in the stichomythia (cf. 61, 64, 69), perhaps as a marker of “natural” speech: cf. Svensson 6 8 ; Hunter, TAGP 39-40. γε μεν: adversative (“but at any rate ...”), as often: cf. Denniston 386-7, Gow on Id. 4.60. έπιβαίνω: here “set foot on” (common in early epic: LfgrE s.v. βαίνω II 8 ay ), but at 120 “step in, towards” (cf LfgrE II 8 d); * also at Id. 26.29. 60 The Dioscuri were particularly associated with the reception and proper treatment of strangers (cf. Pi. O. 3.1 Τυνδαρίδαις ... φιλοξείνοις, Lyc. 565), and in Laconia were known by the title ξένοι (Σ Lyc. 565, p. 197 Scheer; cf. Bethe 1095-6). Cf. further 132-4n.; intro., p. 19. έλθοις : the optative in the 2 nd person by itself may serve as a milder form of request or command than the imperative (K-G 1.229, Schwyzer 2.322, Chantraine, GH 2.216); c f, e.g., Ω 556-7 (Priam to Achilles) συ δέ τώ νδ’



άπόναιο, καί ελθοις / σήν ές πατρίδα γαϊαν. Contrast Amycus’ crass reply in the imperative. ξενίων: * at hh. 34.1, and in a different sedes at o 514, 546. T. regularly has forms in ξεν- as well as ξειν- (cf. Monteil 33); ξεινίων is of course impossible in hexameter. On such forms in the text of Homer, cf. Hoekstra on ξ 158. κε : Ahrens’ emendation of TrM’s γε; cf. 122 καί κε τυχών, πάλιν οι'καδ’ ίκάνοις : πάλιν ο’ι'καδ’ again at Id. 2.84*; archaic epic has οί'καδ’ ... πάλιν* (Η 79, X 342), πάλιν ... οι'καδ’* (ο 431); πάλιν οΐκόνδε ^ -~6χ/ (α 360, ζ 110, φ 354, ψ 292; Hes. Ορ. 673). The clausula οί'καδ’ ίκάνοις varies the common Homeric formula with Ικνεομαι: οι'καδ' ίκέσθαι/ (e.g. A 19, O 287, i 530), οί'καδ’ Υκωμαι / (I 393), etc. 61 μήτε ... τ(ε) : for the combination, cf. N 230, E. Held. 454, Lys. 12.72, al. ξείνιζε : Gow suggests “stop this talk of ξε'νια” on the analogy of other verbs in -ίζω/άζω (e.g. E 408, Ar. V. 609, 652, Herod. 1.60, a l), but the verb is better understood in its ordinary epic sense “treat hospitably.” Amycus responds directly to Polydeuces’ last remark and means “don’t you give me gifts (should I ever set foot on your land), and don’t expect them from me.” Note the juxtaposition of ξεν-/ξειν- in parallel positions of successive lines (cf. e. 11.3, etc.). τά τ ’ έξ έμεΰ ούκ έν έτοίμψ: for the expression, e.g. S. OC 1628 πάλαι δή τάπό σου βραδύνεται; E. Tr. 74 ετοιμ’ ά βούλη τ ά π ’ εμού, έξ έμ ε0 :* τ 93, Id. 16.21. έν έτοίμψ: the periphrasis is common in post-Classical prose (Plb., Ph., Gal., J., A ét, LXX, Hist. Alex., al); elsewhere in verse at e. 16.5*, Adaeus GP 41* (both ώς έν ετοίμου). Cf. 212 οΰκ έν έλαφρω /. 62 Artists’ depictions of the encounter often prominently feature water vessels (e.g., LIMC s.v. Amykos 7, 11, and the Ficoroni cista (LIMC s.v. 5, with T. Dohm, Die Ficoronìsche Ciste (Berlin 1972) PII. 2-3)), and Amycus’ refusal to grant the Dioscuri water from the spring surely played a part in antecedent literary accounts as well. The request in any case furthers the intertextual link between the Dioscuri and Hylas (cf. 30-6n.). δαιμόνι’: cf. 145n. πιεΤν: * at Θ 189, Θ 70, κ 386. The partitive gen. with πίνω occurs already in Homer, and is thereafter common, ϋδατος: * at X 152; cf. 38n. ούδ’ άν... σύγε δοίης: Lynceus’ words resonate against the backdrop of the poor reception afforded Odysseus by the suitors of the Odyssey ; the line recalls Odysseus’ words to Antinous, who has just refused to provide him with food, at p 455-7: ού σύ y ' αν έξ oikou σω επιστάτη ούδ’ άλα δοίηο / δς νύν


άλλοτρίοισι παρήμενος ου τί μοι ετλης / σίτου άποπροελών δόμεναι- τα δέ πολλά πάρεστιν. αν : the particle, a feature of Attic-Ionic and the k o in e , occurs also in Id y lls 16 (48, 54) and 24 (116), and in the crasis χώταν at Id. 7.53, but in the “bucolic” poems of the corpus otherwise only in idylls that are probably not by T. (cf. Gow on 8.35, Monteil 48, Molinos Tejada 362, Hunter, TA G P 42). 63 There is some coincidence o f diction with Nonn. D . 16.251 άβροχα διψαλέης τερσαίνετο χείλεα κούρης, though that passage owes more to Nie. Th. 339 χείλε’ 6 π ' άζαλέης αύαίνετο αβροχα δίψης. Wilamowitzproposed emending εί ... τέρσει to ευτε σε ... τέρση, but no change is necessary, γνώσεαι : for the phraseology, cf. e. 15.1* /γνώσομαι εί, B 367* /γνώσεαι δ ’ εί, (with εί, however, meaning “whether” in both cases). The futures of yiyvtooKoo and of οΐδα are regularly used in a threatening sense in Greek: cf. Id. 26.19; E. Supp. 580, Held. 65, IA 675; FJW on A. Supp. 939, Fraenkel on A. A g . 1649. δίψος: the form (as opposed to δίψα) is a feature of Attic ( I 531 T 166, I bT X 2), and of the koine , first secure in Plato and Xenophon; δίψος and δίψα sometimes exist side by side (e.g., PI. R e p . 437d, L X X ) . In poetry the word occurs elsewhere at Antiph. ft. 148.2 K-A, Nie. Th. 395*, 774, Ale. H E 79, Bianor GP 1701, Isidor. GP 3894, Pall. A P 9.377.6. άνειμένα: at β 300 αίγας άνιεμένους σιάλους θ' εϋοντας, the verb has the sense “flay, skin” (cf. E. E L 826, Fisch, a 5185 άνιέναι- δέρειν), the idea apparently being that the skin is loosened to expose the underlying flesh (cf. S. West a d lo c.), and the reference here is presumably to lips parched and peeling. If, however, Valerius Flaccus had this passage in mind at 4.277 a r e n ti... hiatu (from his account of the boxing match, but not directly parallel in context), it is not implausible to think that he may have understood the participle in the less recherche sense, “slack” (i.e. with open mouth; cf. Anaximenes 13 B 1 D-K). άνειμενα is * at Call. h. 6.46, Agath. A P 4.3.115; cf. adesp. A P 9.660.1, Norm. P araphr. 19.54. χείλεα: forms of the noun are * in Homer at a 381, σ 21, σ 410, υ 268. τέρσει: Nie. has τέρσαι at Th. 96, 693*, considered aor. act. inf. by LSJ, though more probably aor. mid. imper. (cf 709); Euph. (?) S H 429 i.l* has ]εριδροσος άνθεα τέρσαι; the active is securely attested at Q.S. 9.386. In Homer the transitive function is performed by τερσαίνω. Hsch. τ 557 τέρσει· ξηραίνει may well refer to this line, but the verb here is probably a minatory future (cf. on γνώσεαι) rather than a present. 64 ά ργυρος η τις ό μισθός: questions of this form have the effect of emphasizing the expected answer; cf. E. A n d r. 1060 συν πατρί δ ’ οίκους η τίνος λείπει μέτα L4 430 υμέναιός τις η τί πράσσεται;, H e c . Ι Π Ι , Η ι ρ ρ . 1 2 6 1 -2 , R h e s. 704, Ar. T h esm . 99-100 μελωδείν yàp παρασκευάζεται./:

125 μύρμηκος ατραπούς, η τί διαμινυρίζεται;, PI. Cri. 50c2 ταϋτα η τί έρούμεν;, Rep. 53ld7 τού προοιμίου, ήν 5 ’ εγώ, η τίνος λε'γεις;. τίς ό μισθός: cf. e.g. LXX Gen. 29.15 άπάγγειλόν μοι, τίς ό μισθός σου έστιν;. The question τίς ό μισθός; is attested with great frequency in later prose (Or., Joh. Chrys., al). έρείς;: an impatient interjection (reasonably so, since Amycus has already proved unwilling to answer direct questions put to him), probably colloquial in tone (cf. ουκ έρεΐς; at Ar. Ach. 580, Av. 67, PI. 71). Wilamowitz takes it as declarative, introducing φ κέν σε πίθοιμεν, but it is probably better to punctuate it, with Gow, as a parenthetical question within a question (e.g. Ar. Nub. 379); for the ambiguity, see Headlam on Herod. 5.44. πίθοιμεν: even in the face of Amycus’ coarse and stubborn opposition, Polydeuces remains interested in persuasion rather than violence. For the aor. of πείθω, early epic distinguishes between intransitive πιθέσθαι and transitive πεπιθεΐν (otherwise sigmatic πείσειε at ξ 123, παρέπεισε at H 120, N 788, V 606, and intransitive πιθήσας at Δ 398, a/.); cf. Chantraine, G H 1.283-4. Transitive πιθεΐν first at Pi. P. 3.28, 65, Bacch. 11(10). 107, Corinna PMG 654 iii.19, A. Supp. 941. The Homeric distinction is preserved by Apollonius and Callimachus (though the evidence for the latter is short); elsewhere T. has επεισε and πείσαι (trans.) at Idd. 7.153 and 4.11, respectively, and πιθήσας (intrans.) at Id. 24.41. For the phraseology here, cf. A 100 τότε κέν μιν ... πεπίθοιμεν/, ! 112 ώς κέν μιν ... πεπίθοιμεν (-ωμεν Ar.), A.R. 3.479 εΐ' κεν πεπίθοιμεν, Call. h. 1.65 α κεν πεπίθοιεν άκουήν. 65 The line is mistranslated by Gow, but rightly explained by Mastronarde 321 with n. 1. Gow renders the line “Put up thy fists and meet me, man to man and face to face,” but it is misleading to make ένί .. άνδρί equivalent to έμοί: Amycus leaves the identity of Polydeuces’ prospective opponent unspecified as yet. Only in 6 8 , after the rules for the match have been settled, does Polydeuces ask whom he will have to face. Translate: “Put up your hands, standing in oneon-one combat with an opponent.” For the language, cf. Amycus’ words to the Argonauts at A.R. 2.14, where there is a similar antithesis: πριν χείρεσσιν έμήσιν έάς άνά χεΐρας άεΐραι. εις ένί ... άνδρί: a reasonable specification given the circumstances, since Amycus is alone while Polydeuces has a companion: the latter is to fight without any help from Castor. χεΐρας αειρον: in different contexts, cf. H 130 άνά χεΐρας άείραι, λ 423 χεΐρας άείρων, A.R. 1.248, 1025,4.228; in boxing matches, A.R. 2.14 (quoted above), Q.S. 4.345 άλλήλοισι καταντία χεΐρας αειραν. έναντίος άνδρί καταστάς: a variation on such Homeric expressions as E 497 ( = Z 106, Λ 214, P 343) ενάντιοι* εσταν Αχαιών, κ 391 έστησαν ενάντιοι *, Ν 448 εναντίον* ΐ'στασ' έμεΐο/. The text of Homer has both adjectival έναντίος


and adverbial εναντίον without any apparent distinction (for possible ancient scholarly debate, cf. Rengakos 76), and both may govern either a dative or a genitive (cf. L fg r E s.v.). For ενάντιος άνδρί, cf. Φ 574 (a panther) άνδρός θηρητηρος εναντίον, Q.S. 3.251. άνδρί: regularly * in Homer. For the possible significance of άνήρ in the narrative, c f 55n.; intro., p. 18. καταστάς : Homer has παραστάς* (of warriors in close combat at K 489, A 261, Y 472, a l.) and in a different sense άναστάς*, but never καταστάς, nor does καθίστημι occur in this sense in its few Homeric attestations (! 202, μ 185, V 274; hA p. 407 ); the sense “take a stand” is possible at Hes. Th. 674 oY τότε ΊΊτήνεσσι κατέσταθεν έν δαΐ λυγρη, but c f West a d lo c . 6 6 A reminiscence of Odysseus’ challenge to the Phaeacians after he has been insulted, and badly underestimated, by Euryalus: των δ' άλλων οτινα κραδίη θυμός τε κελεύει, / δευρ’ άγε πειρηθήτω, έπεί μ’ εχολώσατε λίην,/ η πύ£ ήέ πάλη η καί ποσίν. οϋ τι μεγαίρω (θ 204-6). Polydeuces wonders whether the fight will be restricted to boxing or will also include kicking and presumably something else that has been obscured by corruption at line end. The choices, in other words, are between pure boxing and the pancratium, which allowed kicking and wrestling clinches in addition to punching (on this event cf. J. Jüthner, R E s.v. pankration 619-25, Poliakoff, C S 54-63). πυγμάχος: a Homeric h a p a x at Θ 246 ου γάρ πυγμάχοι είμέν άμύμονες ούδέ παλαισταί / άλλα ποσί κραιπνώς θέομεν. θενων: of kicking, e.g. Ar. Α ν . 54 τω σκελει θένε την πέτραν, Simias CA 26.12. Wilamowitz proposed θένω (aor. subj.), but the grammarians knew a pres. ind. θενω (cf. 1 Pi. P . 4.367a (p. 146 Drachmann), 1 I. 4. 92b (p. 236 Drachmann), Hdn. de pros, cath., p. 449 Lentz {G ra m m a tici G raeci voi. 3.1), a l.) beside the better attested θείνω, and no change is needed to Tr’s θενων: note the typically Theocritean variation θενων ~ 108 θ είνο ντες (c f 164 πατρώιον ~ 205 πατρώη). M ’s θεών arose from the mistaken assumption that running (as in Θ 206, 247, quoted above) rather than kicking is the event at issue here. σκέλος: a Homeric hapax at Π 314*, and elsewhere in T. at Id. 24.111, also in an athletic context; not in Apollonius or Callimachus. Υάμματα δ’ όρθά+: no entirely satisfactory solution has been proposed. With ομματα as object of θενων, όρθά and όρθός are meaningless, and Madvig’s {A dversaria C ritic a I (Copenhagen 1871) 297-8) όρθα (sc. χειρί, i.e. m anu su b la ta ) produces an impossible tautology, since 'Polydeuces can hardly ask, “Fistfighting, or kicking and p u n c h in g as well?”. Cholmeley’s proposal to make ομματα y ' όρθός part of Amycus’ response is extremely improbable given the division of speakers elsewhere, and the words are in any case nonsensical as an answer to Polydeuces’ question. Paley suggests δμμασιν

ορθοΐς, which is itself an idiomatic expression meaning “with direct glance,” i.e. with a gaze devoid of fear, hesitation, or shame (cf. Gow on Id. 5.36; R.F. Thomas, HSCP 95 (1993) 255), and Legrand prints δμμα τόδ' ορθόν as an independent declaration after a mark of interrogation; the self-confidence thus indicated would be similar to that in the clausula of the line’s Homeric model (Θ 206 ου τι μεγαίρω), but neither solution is particularly attractive, and the Homeric model, with its mention of three different athletic competitions, just as likely suggests that some third athletic practice is wanted here as well. More probable on syntactical and semantic grounds is Platt’s δμμα τ ’ όρύσσων, since Philostr. Im. 2.6 reports that while gouging was ordinarily forbidden in the pancratium, the Spartan form of the contest allowed even this tactic (cf. the obscene joke at Ar. Pax 897-8; Homer has όρυσσειν * at κ 305). Thomas’ objection (art. cit.), that T. is unlikely to have defined his pancratium by reference to such a marginal technique, is not insuperable, since it would be in keeping with T.’s learning to have Polydeuces refer to an obscure feature unique to his native Spartan version of the event, though it may be thought improbable that T. would have made his Polydeuces, who is throughout the episode the quintessence of polite and gentlemanly behavior, suggest the possibility of using a tactic that would have been considered a foul in other localities. It is not impossible that the transmitted text originated as a marginal gloss δμμασιν ορθοΐς (vel sim.) on 65 (so Thomas) or even 6 6 itself (if the original was an assertion of nonchalance). Thomas is, however, in any case probably right to suggest that a reference to wrestling is likely at the end of the line (Thomas proposes άντιπαλαίω , which is mere filler); cf. Θ 206, 246, quoted in the preceding notes. Polydeuces would then ask “Shall we restrict ourselves to punching, or shall we kick and wrestle too (i.e. fight a pancratium)?”. A further possibility is that T. wrote not δμματα but αμματα, “wrestling clinches” (for this sense cf. e.g. Opp. Hal. 3.317, Nonn. D. 10.348), a reading present already in the Juntine edition; forms of άμμα often occur in this sedes in later poetry (e.g. Opp. Hal. 4.83, [Opp.] Cyn. 1.123, 4.450, Christod. AP 2.402, Paul. Sil. AP 5. 217.1; frequent in Norm.). The end of the line could then have been occupied either by a nominative participle (creating a chiastic arrangement of participles and their objects at line end) or a finite verb (without connective δ(ε)); neither the Juntine’s αμματα δ ’ ορθά nor Hartung’s άμμασι τ ’ άρθρα construes with what precedes. 67 διατεινάμενος: “exerting an effort,” as at, e.g.. Arisi. EE 1232al4 ό σφόδρα περί μικρά διατεινόμενος, D. 18.142, and often. The verb in any of its senses is prosaic and rare in poetry: cf. Dsc. HE 1483;Q.S. 11.378. σφετε'ρης: the adjective is used of the 2nd pers. pi. from Hes. Op. 2 on, but apparently only here is it equivalent to σός (cf. A.R. 3.395 δή μ ο ν σφωιτέροισιν υπό σκήπτροισι δαμάσσαι). It is used in the sense of έμός at Id. 25.163. For the extension of the adjective’s uses, cf. Schwyzer 2.204; 209n.


μή φείδεο τέχνης: the phraseology is borrowed from Hes. Op. 604* μή φείδεο σίτου/; cf. Nonn. D . 15.329* τεης μη φείδεο ν ευ ρ ή ς/;Ρ ΐ. I. 6.33-5 σφετέρας δ ’ ου φείσατο / χερσίν βαρυφθόγγοιο νευράς / Ήρακλέης. τέχνης: the end of the line is perhaps faintly suggestive of h H e rm . 76 δολίης δ ’ ού λήθετο τέχνης/; cf. δ 455 ούδ’ ό γέρων δολίης έπελήθετο τέχνης/. Τ. uses the word of the pancratiast’s art at Id. 24.114* (cf. Nonn. D. 37.576*, 579*). Amycus’ own boxing style, as it turns out, relies more on brute force than on τέχνη. 68-9 Polydeuces at last asks who his opponent will be; in his response, Amycus once again responds without giving his name. For the exchange, cf. E. Ph. 594-7 (Πο.) τίς ώ δ’ άτρω τος δστίς εις ημάς ξίφος / φόνιον έμβαλών τον αυτόν ούκ αττοίσεται μόρον; / (Ετ.) εγγύς, ου πρόσω βέβηκεν εις χέρας λεύσσεις εμάς; / (Πο.) είσορώ, withMastronardeon596. 68 γάρ: the particle is often used progressively in questions posed after the speaker has already been satisfied about a previous point, as here; cf. Denniston 82-5. Ö T q > : at M 428*, where the vulg. has δτω , Zenodotus preferred δτεω (cf. Duentzer 58; v.d.Valk 2.53), which is also a variant for vulg. δτω at O 664; οτεω is metrically required at β 114. A.R. has the present form at 1.466, 2.412, 4.258. χεΐρας και έμους ... ιμάντας: probably hendiadys = “my thonged hands”; cf. next note, Gow ad loc. έμούς is to be understood with both nouns, συνερείσω: a Homeric hapax at λ 426 χερσί κατ’ οφθαλμούς έλέειν σύν τε στόμ' έρε?σαι/;οί. Id. 25.266 ήγχον δ ’ έγκρατέως στιβαράς συν χεΐρας έρείσας/ (in an agonistic context). The sense here is probably “with whom I shall join my hands in combat,” but, as Gow notes, the verb might also mean “close” (i.e. “clench”), as in Homer (cf. Aret. 1.6.7 χεΐρες συνηρεισμέναι), or “bind” (cf. E. I T 456-7 χέρας δεσμοΐς ... I συνερεισθέντες), with ötco as dat. of disadvantage; the last interpretation would entail a slight zeugma (“bind my hands and my thongs” = “bind my hands with thongs”). 69 The line is so transmitted only in D (and the Juntine). M’s ού σύ ού γύνις έών is presumably the product of diplography by a scribe who initially misread ΟΥΓΥ-; Tr’s οΰ σύ με; άμός represents a secondary stage o f corruption, though άμός, a Doric equivalent of τ ις according to E M 95.22, ΣΕ a 10 (attested in such adverbial forms as άμόθεν (called an Atticism by ΣΜ a 10), άμου, etc.), is anomalous (? originating from a marginal gloss naming the speaker Amycus). As a response to Polydeuces’ inquiry, the verse may seem slightly odd (“not being a sissy (i.e. “like you”), he will be called ‘The Boxer’”), and Wilamowitz printed κέκληκε σ' ό πύκτης, but emendation is unwarranted, since Amycus’ claim that he will be called (κεκλήσεθ') “The Boxer” is fraught with a special irony: the narrator himself will soon address



Amycus’ opponent Polydeuces as πύκτη Πολυδευκες (132). For Amycus’ boastfulness, cf. A.R. 2.57-9, and earlier Y 668-9. έγγυς όρςίς: cf. Amycus’ response in 59 τοιόσδ' oTov όρος, γύννις: Hsch. γ 1015 γύννις· δειλός, άνανδρος, γυναικώδης. The word occurs first in A. (fr. 61 Radt, parodied at Ar. Thesm. 136, and fr. 78a.68 Radt (satyric)), and otherwise in later prose (e.g. Plu. Mor. 234e, D.C. 46.22.3, 59.29.2, Liban. Or. 64.49). κεκλήσεθ’: Thgn. 1203; common in tragedy; Call. h. 4.269. For the form, cf. Chantraine, GH 1.448; Schwyzer 1.783. Elision of medio-passive endings in -αι is common in epic, lyric, and comedy (K-B 1.237-9, Maas 74), and occurs elsewhere in this poem at 25. 6 ττυκτης: cf. Id. 4.33* &περ ό πύκτας/; Lucili. AP 11.161.1, AP 11.258.1 ό πυκτης/. The article is commonly used with the predicate after verbs meaning “to name,” “to call” (cf. Barrett on E. Hipp. 589-90, E. Bruhn, Sophokles, voi. 8 {Anhang) (Berlin 1899) 49-50), and is necessary here: Amycus will be called “The Boxer,” not merely “a boxer.” Euph. CA 77 refers to Amycus as Βέβρυκα πύκτην. Cf. 132n. 70 Cf. Id. 8.11—2 χρήσδεις ών έσιδεΤν; χρήσδεις καταθείναι αεθλον; / χρήσδω το ΰ τ’ έσιδείν, χρήσδω καταθείναι αεθλον. The reader who knows from the narrative that Polydeuces is άεθλοφόρος (cf. 53n.) may find his interest in determining what prizes are at stake somewhat coy. ή καί: on the combination, cf. Denniston 285. Here καί means “also,” and emphasizes αελθον: “is there also a reward on hand (in addition to being allowed a drink)?” αεθλον: T. is not as strict as Callimachus in avoiding words of the shape x—-ending in the second foot (Meyer’s First Law; cf. West 37-8): cf. Fantuzzi 229. Elsewhere in this poem the phenomenon recurs at 96,105, 111, 177. έτοιμον: “ready at hand” (cf. LfgrE s.v.); cf. 61 τά τ ' έξ έμεΟ ούκ έν έτοίμω. In this sedes early epic has only the n. pi. (I 91, 221, a 149, δ 67, al.; Hes. fr. 61). δηρισόμεθ*: Homer has the aor. δηρίσαντο at θ 76 (δηρίσασθαι av./. at P 734) and δηρινθήτην at Π 756 (cf. Euph. CA 98.3, A.R. 2.16), but otherwise uses forms of δηριάομαι; subsequently the pres, δηρίομαι occurs at Pi. 0 . 13.44, the aor. at Id. 25.82, A.R. 1.1343, 4.1767, Opp. Hal. 2.627, adesp. AP 15.5.7; the fut. appears elsewhere at Lyc. 1306 δη ρ ίσ ο ν τα ς. In Homer forms of δηρι(ά)ομαι occur at line end except in Θ 76 (~2— 3'--). For -όμεθ’ αμφω/, cf. o 366 ίκόμεθ’ αμφω/. 71 For the form o f the expression cf. Δ 63* σοί μεν εγώ, σύ δ ’ έμοί; ι 529 εί έτεόν γε σός είμι, πατήρ δ' έμός εϋχεαι εΐναι; Call. h. 4.219* σή μεν εγώ,


σά δέ πάντα; S. OC 1323 έγώ δέ σάς. For έμός κεκλήσεαι, cf. hAp. 324-5 σή κεκλημε'νη ... / ήα. σός μέν έγώ: the adj. similarly indicates subservience at, e.g., S. Ant. 635 πάτερ, σός εΐμι, E. El. 227 πάντως δ ’ είμί σή· κρείσσων γάρ εΐ. κεκλήσεαι, αί' κε κρατήσω: the phraseology is Homeric: Z 260* όνήσεαι, α’ί κε πίησθα; Ν 829* εν δέ σύ τοΐσι πεφήσεαι, α’ί' κε ταλάσσης; Ξ 310* χολώσεαί, α’ί' κε σιωπή. κεκλήσεαι: * at hHerm. 292, hAphr. 148 (cf. Γ 138 κεκλήσβ). 72 The point seems to be that the losing bird in a fight between roosters follows the victor as though his servant (cf. Suda η 620), and was likely called a δούλος; cf. Ar. A v. 70-1 ορνις εγω γε δούλος : ήττή θης τινός / άλεκτρυόνος; Ion TrGFF 53.3, trag, adesp. TrGF F 408a, Pliny HN 19.47. In antiquity, roosters were proverbially pugnacious as well as boastful (cf. A. Ag. 1671), and on both counts they are an appropriate point of comparison for Amycus. Lines without a third-foot caesura are far less common in Hellenistic poetry than they are in earlier hexameter poetry. Elsewhere in the corpus they occur only at Jdd. 8.61, 13.41. Fourth-foot caesura is present at A.R. 1.176, 2.387, both with proper names; never in Callimachus or Euphorion, and once each in Nicander and Moschus, though eight examples are found in Aratus, and Archestratus has one in every eighteen lines on average (West 153). The hepthemimeral caesura and spondaic rhythm of this four-word hexameter (for such lines, cf. 18n.) may suggest epic seriousness, but that effect is undercut humorously by the content. Note the assonance of -οι-, perhaps suggesting the sound of squabbling roosters. ορνίθων: trisyllabic forms of the noun occur only at verse beginning in T., who elsewhere uses the Doric stem in -χ-. φ οινικολόφ ω ν: elsewhere at E. P h . 820 θηροτρόφου φοινικολόφοιο δράκοντος; of the best (most pugnacious) roosters at Geoponica 14.16.2. κυδοιμοί: an epic/poetic word (II., not in Od. or the hymns; Hes. Sc. 156; Anacr. PUG 398.2; Ar. Ach. 573, Pax 255), but also a regular feature of the literary feme (Plb. 5.48.5, LXX Job 38.25, Luc. bis acc. 10, Ach. Tat. 1.8.3, Liban. Epist. 638.2, al.). In Homer it is properly the tumult of battle (cf. Trümpy 158-9), never battle itself, though ancient commentators sometimes gloss it simply as πόλεμος (cf. Hsch. κ 4421, I D E 593), and it seems to have the sense “fights” here. * in Homer at K 523, Λ 52, 164. 73-4 Both birds (though not roosters) and lions are very common in Homeric similes; the latter are an esp. common point of comparison for warriors, and Amycus himself is compared to a wounded lion at A.R. 2.25-9. The barbaric Amycus expresses contempt for such literary distinctions: how the combatants would be described by a poet is of no concern to him.



73 είτ’ oöv ...είτε: εί'τ’ oöv occurs first in Pindar, and in the classical period is largely restricted to tragedy and Plato; elsewhere in Hellenistic poetry at Call, fr. 203.16 Pf., Arai. 98, A.R. 2.1279, 3.394, 4.716, 1412. oöv in such cases indicates indifference to the alternatives offered (Denniston 418-9). όρνίθεσσιν έοικότες: modeled on such Homeric expressions as όρνισιν έοικότες αίγυτποΐσι (Η 59), τεττίγεσ σ ιν έοικότες (Γ 151), σφήκεσσιν έοικότες (Π 259), ανδρεσσιν έοικότες (κ 120), θήρεσσιν έοικότες (ξ 21), ΐρισσιν έοικότες (Λ 27). έοικότες is always * in Homer, but όρνίθεσσι(ν) is never * (P 757, χ 303; Hes. Op, 470, fr. 33a.l4). λε'ουσι: cf. the Homeric λείουσιν έοικότες (E 782, Η 256, Ο 592). For λέουσι, cf. X 262, kHerm. 569. 74 γίνομε©’: for the orthography c f 192n. o u K αλλ κε μαχεσσαίμεσθ’ έπ’ άε'θλφ: the expression recalls and reverses λ 548 ώς δή μή όφελον νικάν τοιώ δ’ έπ ’ άέθλω (cf. A.R. 4.1307), where the prize to which the speaker Odysseus refers is the death of Ajax. As in the case of the contest for Achilles’ arms, the winner of the ensuing contest will triumph by brains rather than brawn. μαχεσσαίμεσθ’: aorists from the stem μαχεσσ- occur occasionally in Homer (cf Chantraine, G H 1.410): cf. esp. N 117-9 ούδ’ αν εγω γε I άνδρί μαχεσσαίμην δς τις πολέμοιο μεθείη / λυγρός έών. Similar forms are * at A 304, B 377, Z 184, β 245. 75 The profusion of gutturals perhaps suggests the raucous sound of the conch, ή (5’ Άμυκος : ή ρ(α) is a common speech-concluding formula in Homer (often in the form ή ρα καί), here creatively applied to the final utterance of stichomythia (cf 53n.). In Homer, the expression is not ordinarily accompanied by the speaker’s name, which is usually given in the introductory formula. Amycus is here named for the first time (having avoided identifying himself in 69); such postponed identification is characteristic of Greek from the earliest period (cf, e.g., X 484-500, o 225-56; Hopkinson on Call. h. 6.31-2). κόχλον έλών ... μυκήσατο: there is a clear connection between this line and Id. 26.20 μάτηρ μεν κεφαλαν μυκήσατο παιδός έλοΐσα. The passage is later a model for Norm. D. 43.299-300 κόχλον ελών*... / ... μυκήσατο*; cf. also D. 1.62~17.93 μυκήσατο* κόχλω/, 43.72. κόχλον : cf. 77n. έλών: regularly * in early epic. μυκήσατο: the verb reappears in T. otherwise at Idd. 16.37, 26.20. There is very likely a pun on Ά-μυκος, of which the initial syllable could be heard as privative (for the variation in quantity ’Άμυκ-/μυκ-, cf. the short u in the epic aor. μύκον). Homer has μυκάομαι once in the pres. part, (κ 413) but for the aor. exclusively uses μύκον/ε (E 749, Θ 393, M 460, Y 260). Before Theocritus the


verb is used of Heracles at E. Here. 870, but otherwise when used of people it is found in comic contexts (Ar. V 1488, R an. 562); cf. Gow on Id. 26.20. κοίλην: the reading of D (cf. Tr2 κοίλαν Tr κοιτάν); M has κοίλον. κόχλος is most commonly masculine, but feminine at A.R. 3.859; Paus. 3.21.6; Naumach. fr. 29.62 Heitsch; Norm. D . 6.274, 40.304; Leont. A P I. 37.4. Some edd. print κοίλον, on the grounds that the fern, would be impossible in close proximity to the unambiguously masc. κόχλου of 77 (cf. Fritzsche, Gow a d lo c .). On the other hand, the close juxtaposition of the same word in different genders would be in keeping with Hellenistic practice elsewhere (cf. Headlam on Herod. 4.21), and is similar in character to, e.g., the juxtaposition of heteroclite forms of different genders at Call. h . 1.94-6 αφενός (n.) ... άφένοιο (m.; cf. 1.84 ρυηφενίην and McLennan on 1.94); cf. 139n. The feminine is supported by what amounts to the agreement of D and Tr against M, and is more likely to have generated the error κοίλον than the other way round. Some commentators, reading κοίλον, understand it as adverbial (“made a hollow sound”: LSJ, Paley), but cf. V. A en . 6.171 cava dum p e rso n a t a eq u o ra co n ch a and Börner on Ον. M. 1.335. 76-7 The lines recall the gathering of the suitors at u 277-8 τοί 6 ' άγέροντο κάρη κομόωντεο ’Αχαιοί / άλσος ϋττο σκιερόν έκατηβόλου ’Απόλλωνος, οί δέ θοώς συνάγερθεν: cf. [Orph.] A rg . 444*, 562* ο! δέ θοώς ηγερθεν; other examples of /ο! δέ θοώς at Dion. B a ss. fr. 16 Livrea; Opp. H al. 3.557, 643,4.547, 5.535, 672; Q.S. 3.705,12.345, 14.329,488. 76 συνάγερθεν: * Q.S. 14.126. Homer has the simplex αγερθεν/ηγερθεν (A 57*, V 287,0 790*, β 9*, al.); in other forms, συναγείρω is used of people at Λ 687, Y 21, O 802, Hes. Op. 652 (of accumulating possessions at 5 90, ξ 323, T 293). υπό σκιερός ττλατανίστους: cf. Id. 18.43-6 πράταί τοι στέφανον λωτώ χαμαί αύξομένοιο / πλέξασαι σκιερόν καταθήσομεν zc πλατάνισ τον / πράται δ ’ άργυρέας έξ όλπιδος υγρόν όλειφαρ / λαζυμεναι σταξευμες υπό σκιερόν πλατάνιστον. Homer has καλή υπό πλατανίστω (Β 307). The shade of the plane tree is a prominent feature o f the lo cu s a m o en u s at PI. P hdr. 229a-b, and is a much-favored feature o f such idyllic scenes in Hellenistic poetry: e.g. Mosch, fr. 1.11-3 αυτόρ έμοί γλυκύς ύπνος υπό πλατάνω βαθυφύλλω / καί παγάς φιλέοιμι τον έγγύθεν δχον άκουειν / α τέρπει ψοφέοισα τον αγρυπνον (Gow: άγροΐκον codd.), οΰχί ταράσσει; Philetas C A 14 θρήσασθαι πλατάνω γραίη ϋπο (context uncertain); Rhianus C A 73.1* υπό χλωρή πλατανίστω; Meleag. H E 4,072-3 δφρα φυγών τον ’Έρωτα μεσημβρινόν ύπνον άγρεύσω I ένθάδ’ ύπό σκιερά κεκλιμένος πλατάνω ; Hermocreon H E 1943-4 ί'£ευ ύπό σκιερόν πλάτανον, ξένε, τάνδε παρέρπων, / ας άπαλω Ζέφυρος πνευματι φύλλα δονεί. It may be of some significance for the present context that in Sparta, homeland of the Dioscuri, ephebic battles were held in an area called the Platanistas: cf. Paus. 3.14.8 καί



χωρίον Πλατανιστάς έστιν ornò των δένδρων, αΥ δη ύψηλαί καί συνεχείς ττερί αυτό αί πλάτανοι πεφύκασιν ... ένθα τοίς έφήβοις μάχεσθαι καθέστηκε. σκιερός: a Homeric d .l: Λ 480, υ 278 (quoted on 76-7); Hes. Op. 574. Elsewhere in T. at Idd. 12.8 σκιερήν* δ ’ υπό φηγόν/, 7.138, 18.44, 46*, 25.227. 77 κόχλου φυσηθέντος: the conch is put to the same purpose by the Taurian herders of E. IT 303 κόχλους -τε φυσών συλλέγων τ ’ εγχωρίους, and in general its use as a trumpet seems to have been thought a mark of primitive or uncultivated peoples: cf. Id. 9.25-7; Hsch. κ 3882 κόχλος· τοίς θαλαττίοις έχρώντο προ τής τω ν σαλπίγγω ν εΰρέσεως; Bühler on Mosch. Eur. 124 (where it is a feature of the mythical aquatic world). For the uncivilized son of Poseidon, the use o f the shell is doubly appropriate. Π] has κόνχου (i.e. κόγχου), which cannot be totally excluded. άεί: again in 215. This is the standard Attic form of the adverb, occurring only rarely in Homer and archaic poetry in general: cf. LSJ and LfgrE s.v.; Mineur on Call. h. 4.18. T. uses all three Homeric forms in roughly equal proportion: άεί 13x, αΐεί 16x, αίέν 13x. For the phraseology, with the separation of άεί from the participle it qualifies, cf. Id. 17.107 μυρμάκων άτε πλούτος άεί* κέχυται μογεόντω ν (similar too is Id. 17.49 σ τυγνόν άεί* πορθμήα καμόντων, though άεί is with στυγνόν). κομόωντες: * at Β 542, Θ 42, Ν 24, but most commonly in Homer in the clausula κόρη κομόωντες/-ας ’Αχαιοί /-ούς. Here, however, the participle is perhaps suggestive of Amycus’ non-Greek status: T., who seems to have thought that long hair was characteristic of Thracians (cf. Gow on Id. 14.46 and CR 56 (1942) 12 n.2), may be making learned reference to the Bebrycians’ supposed Thracian origin (cf. 29n.). 78-82 The sequence ως δ ’ αυτως ... 80 οί δ ’ έπεί ουν ... 82 ές μέσσον occurs also at Γ 339-41 (at the opening of the duel between Paris and Menelaus): eòe δ ’ αϋτωο Μενέλαος άρήιος έντε’ έδυνεν. / ο! δ' έπεί οδν έκάτερθεν ομίλου θωρήχθησαν, / èc μέσσον Τρώων καί ’Αχαιών έστιχόωντο / δεινόν δερκόμενοι. Note that expressions beginning three successive lines in Homer appear in alternate lines here. Moreover, the contents of 80-1 and of 82 parallel έκάτερθεν ομίλου θωρήχθησαν and ές μέσσον ... έστιχόωντο respectively, just as the participial construction φόνον άλλήλοισι πνέοντες mirrors the participial δεινόν δερκόμενοι in Homer. There is a similar sequence in an “athletic” context at V 813-5 ; note too the opening of the boxing match at V 685 (~ 710); cf. E. Ph. 1359-61. 78 The structural similarity to 75 reinforces the parallelism (ως δ ’ αυτως): qpcoac ιών έκαλέσσατο πάντα^ and - 5^ ) · Adjectival δς is restricted in the corpus to the heroic poems: only here and in Idd. 24.121, 25.45, 58, 118, 138,223. έκ πόντοιο Ποσειδάωνα: a reminiscence of ε 446 φεύγων έκ πόντοιο Ποσειδάωνοο ένιπάς. The phrase may thus serve as a reminder o f the potential danger that invocations of Poseidon can bring to those who humiliate his sons; Amycus’ appeal to his father, however, poses no threat to Polydeuces. For έκ πόντοιο, cf. also Π 408, T 375*, i 486*, hAp. 459*. κικλήσκων: forms of this epic/poetic verb, found here alone in T., occur regularly at line end in early epic, but in Homer, Hesiod, and the hymns, as in Call, and A.R., the first syllable is always heavy. 134 The wording of Amycus’ oath recalls the disguised Odysseus’ abuse of the beggar Irus at σ 106-7 μηδέ σύ γε δεινών καί πτωχών κοίρανος είναι / λυγράς έών. The reminiscence of the end of the boxing match between Odysseus and Irus is reinforced by the adjective άνιηρός, which in the positive


degree is used by Homer only of beggars (otherwise only the comparative in the impersonal construction άνιηρε'στερον έ'σται at β 190): ρ 220 πτω χόν άνιηρόν, 377 πτωχοί άνιηροί (cf. Tyri IE G 10.4 π τω χ ε ύ ε ι πάντω ν έστ' άνιηρότατον). Amycus’ oath, like other earlier references to the boxing match between Odysseus and Irus (cf. 82, 98, 13 Inn.), links the humbled Amycus to the beggar defeated by the disguised Odysseus. The adjective άνιηρός here serves as a gloss on πτωχός, present in T.’s model but absent from his own version: Odysseus tells Irus to stop being δεινών καί π τ ω χ ώ ν κοίρανος; Amycus swears no longer to be δείνοισιν ... ά ν ι η ρ ό ς . The point is clear: Amycus is to give up behaving like the Homeric beggar on whom he is modeled. μήποτ’ ετι: μήποτε is common in oaths (e.g. T 127-9 ώμοσε καρτεράν δρκον / μή π ο τ’ ές Ουλυμπον ... / αυτις έλεύσεσθαι ’Άτην, I 133, 275, 455, Τ176, Υ 315, Φ 374, all *). For μή (οϋ) ποτέ ετι “no longer,” cf. Ε. H el. 227, PI.L g . 8 6 8 d, X. A n . 1.1.4. ξείνοισιν: cf. A.R. 2.5-7 (Amycus) δς τ ' επί καί ξείνοισιν* άεικεα θεσμόν εθηκε, / μή τιν ’ άποστείχειν πριν πειρήσασθαι έοΐο / πυγμαχίης; elsewhere * at e. 14.1; ι 271, ρ 485; Hes. Op. 225; A.R. 1. 676, 696, 3.689, 4.462. έκών: a necessary qualification in such contexts; c f, e.g., Y 585 δμνυθι μή μέν έκών τό έμόν δόλω άρμα πεδήσαι. Cf. in general G. Rickert, ΕΚΩ Ν a n d Α Κ Ω Ν in E a rly G reek T hought (Atlanta 1989), esp. 8 6 - 8 . The word is most commonly * in Homer. άνιηρός: in Homer the ! is always long; short at Hes. fr. 75.24*, Tyrt. 1EG 10.4, often in Thgn. The word is scanned as here at I d . 2.55, but has the Homeric quantity at Id. 7.124; A.R. has only the form with long i (3.1066,4.63), while in Call, the noun has both short ( e . 43.1) and long i (e . 12.3). εσεσθαι : in the most common Homeric sedes. 135-6 Transition, serving both to conclude the preceding narrative and to introduce the next one. For the poem’s interlocking structure, cf. intro., pp. 134. 135 και σύ μέν ϋμνησαί μοι, άναξ· σέ δέ: Τ. again adapts a transitional formula typical at the conclusion of individual Homeric hymns in order to make the transition to a new narrative within the same poem (cf. 25-6n.); the line is a reworking of such hymnic “farewells” as hA p. 545-6 καί συ μέν οϋτω χαίρε Διός καί Λητούς υιέ- / αύτάρ εγώ καί σεΐο καί άλλης μνήσομ’ άοιδής, hh. 18.10-1 καί σύ μέν οϋτω χαΐρε Διός καί Μαιάδος υίέ· / σεΰ δ ’ εγώ άρξάμενος μεταβήσομαι άλλον ές ύμνον (cf. hh. 16.5 καί σύ μέν οϋτω χαΐρε άναξ, hH erm . 579-80, hh. 19.48-9, 26.11,28.17-8), but with the second “you” here referring to a new honorand. The line echoes 26, introducing the Polydeuces narrative (ΰμνέων ~ ϋμνησαι, άείσω ~ άείσω).



ϋμνησαι : in contrast with traditional appeals for the honorand’s favor at the conclusion of hymnal narratives, the perf. pass. ind. (“you have been hymned”) may suggest an almost humorous nonchalance. Hymnal χαΐρε, which might be expected here, is reserved until after the conclusion of both narratives, αυαξ : cf. 21 Sn. σείσω: for the form cf. 26n. 136 Strings of epicletic epithets in asyndeton are a typical feature of hymnic style; the four-word hexameter is similar to that at 18, where see n. The epithets used here (with the obvious exception of “patronymic” Τυνδαρίδη) suggest Castor’s interest in martial matters (in the case of δορυσσόος and χαλκεοθώρηξ the connection is clear; ταχύπωλος is common in the Ilia d as an epithet o f the forces at Troy) and thus anticipate his aggressive behavior in the ensuing narrative; cf. 79n. For the shape of the line, divided by epithets at median caesura and bucolic diaeresis, e.g. A.R. 1.570-1 Ο ίάγροιο πάις Νηοσσόον εύπατέρειαν / ’Άρτεμιν, Leon. H E 1968 καί σύ, τετραγλώχιν, μηλοσσόε Μαιάδος Έρμα. Τυνδαρίδη: * A.R. 2.798. On the Dioscuri as Τυνδαρίδαι, cf. 89n. Castor’s presumed descent from Tyndareus is of crucial importance in Lynceus’ upcoming speech, but as the next line makes clear, he, like Polydeuces, is a son of Zeus. τσχυπω λε: cf. 34 αίολόττωλος, with n. a d loc. The placement of the epithet here conforms exactly to Homeric practice: the word is * only at V 6 Μυρμιδόνες ταχύπωλοι, which is also the only Homeric example of it used as a vocative, as it is here; in other cases the adjective occurs at line end, commonly, of the Danai. The final element -πωλ- may have special resonance here. E. A n t. fr. 48.98 Kambitsis shows that the Theban Dioscuri Amphion and Zethus were known by the cult title λευκώ πώλω Διός (cf. Wilamowitz on E. Here. 30), and the designation was equally appropriate to Castor and Polydeuces in a Laconian or Panhellenic context (cf. Pi. P . 1.66 λευκοπώλων, Mastronarde on E. Ph. 606). At Sparta a guild of priestesses called the Leucippides seems to have been referred to as πώλοι, and the goddesses they served, who in Spartan ritual were closely associated with their husbands the Dioscuri (cf. C. Calame, L es C h o eu rs de je u n e s f ìlle s en G rece archai'que (Rome 1977) 1.323-33), may themselves have been known as πώλοι or λευκά ϊππω; cf. Hsch. π 4496 πωλία· χαλκοΟν πήγμα τι. φερει δε επί των ώμων τα ς τω ν Λευκιππίδων πώλους, δύο δέ είναι παρθε'νους φασίν; Wilamowitz, TG B 188 n.l; A.F. Garvie C Q n.s. 15 (1965) 185 with nn. 4 and 5; Kannicht on E. H el. 1465-7. δορυσσόε: the adj. appears first at Hes. S c. 54* (δορυσσόω Άμφιτρύωνι), Thgn. 987; tragedy; Euph. S H 418.41; [Orph.j A rg . 824; it appears in a list of compound adjectives at S H 991 col. 5.111. The vocative δορυσσόε is * at


Nonn. D . 17.130, Prod. h. 7.4 δορυσσόε, χρυσεοπήληξ / (?< Call. h. 5.43), Cougny 2.114.1 (= Arisi, fr. 61, p. 406 Rose). Hellenistic poets were fond of adjectives in -σόος, which they coined with some frequency, both as if from σεύω and as if from σοάω (cf. White on Id . 24.8, E. Livrea, D ionysii B assaricon e t G igantiadis F ragm enta (Rome 1973) 6 6 ); in the voc., cf. Leon. HE 1968 (quoted above), Call. A e t. ff. 186.31PL Διός κεμαδοσσόε [κοίύρη. χαλκεοθώρηξ: twice in Homer (Δ 447-8 = Θ 61-2 σύν p' εβαλον ρινούς, συν δ ’ εγχεα καί μένε’ άνδρών / χαλκεοθωρήκων), and later or. s ib . 1.395, 14.118,14.256; the by-form χαλκοθώραξ occurs at Pi. P a. 2.1 (cf. fr. 169a.l2, fr. dub. 349), Bacch. 11.123,17.15, S. Ài. 179, Luc. Zeux. 8 . 137-213 The Castor narrative. The Dioscuri have carried off the daughters of Leucippus and are pursued by Idas and Lynceus, the sons of Aphareus; at the tomb of Aphareus all four dismount and Lynceus makes a long speech in which he condemns the twins’ behavior and urges them to find other wives; if they will not, he proposes that he and Castor fight a duel to settle the matter with minimal loss of life on either side; in the course of the duel Castor incapacitates Lynceus, and after a brief pursuit, kills him; in quest of revenge Idas tears up his father’s tombstone and is about to hurl it at Castor, but is thwarted by Zeus, who knocks the stone from Idas’ hands and incinerates him with a thunderbolt. The narrative forms a close counterpart to the preceding one, with which it is linked through a series of verbal and thematic points of contact (cf. 185, 191, 195, 196-8, 213nn.). Whereas in 27-134 the Dioscuri, and Polydeuces in particular, are presented as models of cultivated and refined behavior, the emphasis here is on their might (cf. 213n.): the Dioscuri are the aggressors in the dispute with the sons of Aphareus, and, unlike Poly deuces, Castor shows no mercy to his defeated rival. For the relationship between the two narratives, see intro., pp. 13-21. The dispute between the Dioscuri and the sons of Aphareus was related in the C y p r ia and by Pindar in N e m e a n 10, but even while acknowledging his debt to these versions (cf. 194, 207-9, 210-1, 213nn.), T. departs significantly from them in making the twins’ abduction of the Leucippides, which itself seems to have been related in the C y p ria and by Aleman (P M G ff. 5) and which was a popular subject in the visual arts from an early period, the cause of the dispute. T.’s is the first extant literary account to do so (later, cf. Ov. F. 5.699-20, who was clearly familiar with T.’s version (cf. 137-40n.), though he diverges from it in important respects (cf. 210n.); Hygin. F a b . 80; Lact. D iv. Inst. 1.10.5); in both Pindar and the C yp ria the conflict arises over cattle (cf. Proclus’ summary o f the C y p ria , E G F p. 31 Κάστωρ μετά ΓΊολυδεύκους τσ ς Ίδ α καί Λυγκε'ως βοΰς ύφαιρούμενοι έφωράθησαν; Pi. Ν. 10.60 τον γάρ ’Ίδας άμφ! βουσίν πω ς χολωθείς ετρωσε ν), as it does in versions reported by pseudo-Apollodorus (3.11.2 ) and Σ Lyc. 547 (cf. Frazer on [Apollod.] 3.11.2; 147-51n.). This version of the origin of the dispute is probably not T.’s own invention, however, since an Apulian



red-figure lekythos of ca. 400-350 B.C. (L IM C s.v. Dioskouroi 203, 217) juxtaposes the twins’ abduction of the girls and their battle with the sons of Aphareus, and it seems likely that the two events are there to be understood as causally related. The same cannot be said for other features of the narrative: no other account features an arranged duel between Castor and Lynceus or allows Castor to survive the conflict alive. Critics sometimes assert that this narrative does not manipulate specific Homeric scenes in the manner that the previous one does (e.g. Laursen 90). In fact, however, the Castor narrative, and Lynceus’ speech in particular, recalls several significant Homeric contexts. The unusual and probably original introduction into the narrative of a duel fought to resolve a dispute over abducted women is reminiscent of the duel fought between Paris and Menelaus in I lia d Γ, and the narrative alludes to this Homeric scene in several places (cf. 153, 171nn.). Lynceus’ monologue also contains a series of allusions to the dispute between the suitors and the house of Odysseus, and especially to the debate between them and Telemachus in O dyssey ß (cf. 147, 153, 154-5nn.): like Telemachus, Lynceus accuses his opponents of violating the rules o f proper courtship. In addition, the monologue in several places unambiguously echoes the dispute between Achilles and Agamemnon over the latter’s appropriation of Briseis (156-8,170nn.). Finally, a series of allusions in the concluding section of Lynceus’ speech and in the account of the actual fighting link Castor to the bloodthirsty Homeric Achilles (cf. 171, 184,186nn.). 137-40 The narrative, like the preceding one, opens abruptly in m edias re s : the Dioscuri had abducted the Leucippides and were carrying them off, pursued aggressively by the sons of Aphareus. The proliferation of duals, which occur in far greater density here than elsewhere in the poem, and the triple variation (with assonance) δύω ... υίώ /δοιάς ... κόρας, δισσώ ...τώγε produce a nice jingle, which, however, is not necessarily parodie or absurd (p a c e Griffiths 359); for similar but less striking variations cf. e.g. Λ 634-5, Pi. N. 1.44, Nie. Th. 711-2. The lines seem to have been the model for the opening of Ovid’s account of the same episode at F . 5.699-702: a b stu le ra n t ra p ta s P h o eb en P h oebesque so ro rem / Tyndaridae fra tre s, h ic eques, ille p u g il. / bella p a ra n t repetuntque su a s e t fr a te r e t Idas, /L e u c ip p o fie r i p a c tu s uterque gener.

137 τώ μέν άναρπάξαντε: the closest Homeric models derive from descriptions of lions attacking cattle: E 556* τώ μέν dp’ άρπάζοντε βόας καί ι'φια μήλα, Σ 582* τώ μέν αναρρήξαντε βοός μεγάλοιο βοείην (in other contexts cf. A 331* τώ μέν ταρβήσαντε, Φ 298* τώ μέν d p ’ ώς είπόντε). The expression may thus create the initial expectation that the narrative is relating the better-attested version in which the dispute arises over the Dioscuri’s abduction of cattle. Plu. Lyc. 15.3-6 reports that Spartan marriage took the form of ritualized abduction, but even if this is not a romantic late invention (cf. Oakley-Sinos 137 n.53), it is not likely to be what T. has in mind here.


άναρπάξαντε δύω φερε'την: the phraseology here compresses Θ 332-4 = N 421-3 ύποδύντε δύω* ... / ... / ... φερε'την; cf. N 201 εχοντε δύω*, Ν 345 φρονεοντε δύω*. άναρττάξαντε ... φερε'την: the participle of (άν)αρπά(ω is commonly conjoined with φέρω: e.g. M 445 (άρπάξας λάαν φέρεν), N 199 (άρπάξαντε φερητον), δ 515-6, ε 419-20, θ 409, κ 48, μ 99-100, y 316-7, h D em . 414-5, Ar. V. 17-8, Men. D ys. 59, A.R. 3.1 Π 3-4; c f West on Hes. Op. 38. δύω: the form is epic (commonly *), elegiac; not found in tragedy, Attic prose or inscriptions. Elsewhere in T. only at Id. 24.13*, 55 (both acc.). Διάς υίώ the same expression concludes the first line of the poem. At the opening of the narrative featuring Castor, the phrase signals a rejection o f the tradition, followed by Pindar and the C y p r ia in their versions of the same episode (Pi. N . 10.80-2; E G F F 6 ), that Castor was in fact the son of a mortal father Tyndareus. To his great misfortune, Lynceus will later be mistaken about the matter (cf 164,170,173nn.). 138 δοιας ... κόρας: ancient sources give their names as Hilaeira and Phoebe (cf [Apollod.] 3.10.3, Steph. in Ar. R het. ii.23 (p. 306 Rabe)); in the C y p ria {E G F F 9), however, Apollo and not Leucippus was the father of the girls with these names. Phoebe and (presumably) Hilaeira are mentioned already by Alcm. P M G 8 , and probably played a part in the Hesiodic C atalogue o f W om en (cf. fr. 52). Leucippus is also alleged to have had a third daughter, Arsinoe, whom some made the mother of Asclepius (cf. Hes. fr. 50, Frazer on [Apollod.] loc.cit.) by Apollo. For the Leucippides’ connection to the Dioscuri in cult, cf. 136n. δοιάς: forms of the adjective * at Δ 7, T 310, τ 562, hHerm. i l l , al. κόρας: the Attic/Aeolic form of the noun occurs again in this poem at 159, and otherwise in the corpus at Idd. 8.72, 10.22, 11.25, 30, 77, 18.24, 38. In early epic it is attested only at hD em . 439 (cf [Archil.] IEG 322; Thgn. 1002), of Persephone, for whom Κόρη is a cult title. For other Attic forms in the poem, c f 10, 63nn. 138-43 The sons of Aphareus pursue the Dioscuri until they reach their father’s tomb, where both sets of brothers dismount ready for a fight. For the relationship between the Dioscuri and Apharetiadae, cf. 164, 170nn. The latter were participants in the voyage of the Argo, like the Dioscuri, and are juxtaposed with the twins in Apollonius’ catalogue of Argonauts (1.146-55), as also perhaps in Callimachus’ (fr. 17 Pf). The conflict between the two pairs of brothers here thus stands in contrast to the harmony among the Argonauts in the previous narrative; c f 30n. δισσώ: first in lyric (Anacr. PM G 8 6 (spelled διξός), adesp. P M G 937.6 (suppl.)). LaM have the Homeric form δοιώ here (defended as d ifficilio r by S. Hatzikosta, M P h L 4 (1981) 75 n.14), but the triple variation δύω ... δοίάς ...



δισσώ seems more likely to be original. The word does not, however, occur elsewhere in T., A.R., or Call. For δισσώ = “two,” A. Th. 816, E. H eld. 854, Ion 23, P h. 1362 (interp.), al. S’ αρα τώγε: a Homeric run: P 441, V 710, ε 226, χ 379; cf. Hes. Sc. 235. 139 έσσυμένως : the epic adverb from σευω, here in its most common Homeric sedes (* Γ 85, ξ 347, a l . \ occurs elsewhere in the corpus only at Id. 25.84; it is not in Callimachus, but occurs a dozen times in Apollonius; it is esp. popular with Q.S. (65x). έδίωκον: in contrast with Pi. N . 10.64-6, where the sons of Aphareus are not the pursuers but the pursued: καί μέγα εργον έμήσαντ' ώκεώς I καί πόθον δεινόν παλάμαις Άφαρητίδαι Διός- αύτίκα γάρ / ήλθε Λήδας παίς διώκων. Early epic has the verb * at hH erm . 350; C y p ria E G F F 7.7 (both -ε). άδελφεώ: cf. 5 δύ' αδελφούς, of the Dioscuri. υΐ’ Άφαρήος: contrast 137 Διός υιώ/. The juxtaposition of these two line­ ending expressions, with contrasting word order and lexical forms (cf. next note), calls attention to the fundamental difference between the Dioscuri, sons o f immortal Zeus, and their rivals, sons of the mortai Aphareus. For the expression, cf. E 27* υίε Δ ά ρ η τος/; Y 460* υΐε Β ίαντος/; N 185 u t ’ Άκτοριωνος/ (acc. sg.), 792 υΓ ‘Ιπποτίω νος/ (acc. sg.); cf. A.R. 2.653, 4.117* υΓ Άθάμαντος (acc. sg.). υΓ: υΐε is the ordinary form of the dual in archaic hexameter (e.g. E 27, Y 460, quoted above; cf. In.). The close collocation of different forms of heteroclite nouns is a favorite Hellenistic mannerism (cf. 75n.), though in the case of υιός the juxtaposition of thematic and athematic forms is already pervasive in Homer: e.g. Δ 114-15 υΐες ... υιόν, Ε 152-4, 612-4. 140 γαμβρώ: in early epic the word means “relation by marriage,” of brothersin-law (E 474, N 464, a l.) or sons-in-law (Z 177, 249, a l.) . In the sense “bridegroom” it is a feature of Aeolic and Doric, attested first in Sappho (PLF 111.5,112.1,113,115.1,117, al.); Pi. 0.7.4, P . 9.116, N . 5.37 (?). Otherwise in the corpus at Idd. 15.129, 18.49, and elsewhere in Hellenistic poetry at Arat. 248. μελλογάμω: first secure here; at S. A n t . 628 the adjective seems to have intruded into the text as a gloss on τάλιδος (Ll.-J./W. 131; cf. Hdn. de prosod. c a t k . G ram m atici G raeci voi. 3.1, p. 90, Hsch. τ 85a). Σ A.R. 1.1063 suggests that the word was used by Euphorion (C A 7; cf. A.S. Hollis, Z P E 93 (1992) 9 n.41). In later poetry it recurs at Nonn. D. 47.268,48.96, 110. Λυγκεύς καί ό καρτερός ’Ίδας: the expression varies Apollonius’ introduction of the brothers in his catalogue of heroes at 1.151*: oY τ ' Άφαρητιάδαι, Λυγκευς και ύπέρβιος ’Ίδας. For the article with only the second of two names, cf. 34n. Here T. has specific archaic antecedents in mind: K 536 Όδυσευς τε καί ό κρατερός Διομήδης, Hes. fr. 197.3 Κάστωρ τε καί ό


κρατερός Πολυδεύκης (cf. κρατερός Πολυδεύκης at 92, 173 ). For ό καρτεράς/κρατερός, cf. also Idd. 7.152, 17.26; adesp. AP 1.97.2; Campbell, QS on Q.S. 12.315. The expression καρτεράς Ίδας (again at 199, where see n.) is of good Homeric pedigree: I 558-9 Ίδεώ θ', ος κάρτιστος έπιχθονίων γένετ' άνδρών / τώ ν τότε (> Antim. fr. 8 8 Matthews (ff. 77 Wyss)). καρτεράς is regularly * in early epic. 141 In the Iliad the tomb of Hus is a conspicuous landmark on the Trojan battlefield (K 415, Λ 371-2), and the tomb of Idas’ and Lynceus’ (more immediate) ancestor is here thus an especially appropriate site for the ensuing “Iliadic” battle (cf. 199n.). Aphareus’ tomb already plays a part in Pindar’s version of the fight: at N. 10.65-6 it is Polydeuces who, after Castor’s death, chases Idas and Lynceus to Aphareus’ tomb, where they engage in their final battle. According to Pausanias both the tomb of Aphareus and that of his sons were thought to be in Sparta (3.11.11, 3.13.1), and the Cypria may have located the fight in Lacedaemon, since there Lynceus runs to the top of Mt. Taygetus in order to look for the Dioscuri ( EGF F 13); cf. Lyc. 559 άγαλμα ... τώ ν ‘Αμυκλαίων τάφων. Τ. says nothing explicit about the site of the conflict, though at 208 the emphasis on Idas’ Messenian nationality in the context of a reference to his father’s tomb may serve the purpose of obliquely suggesting that the location is Messenian rather than Laconian. άλλ’ οτε ... ικανόν: a Homeric run in a Homeric sedes: A 210, E 780, H 186, o 101, ω 172. τύμβον ... αποφθιμε'νου Άφαρήος: the clausula is perhaps reminiscent of ω 87-9 ηδη μέν πόλεων τάφω άνδρών άντεβόλησας / ηρώων, οτε κέν π οτ’ άποφθιμε'νου* Βασιληοο / ζώννυνταί τε νέοι καί έπεντύνονται άεθλα (cf. Nonn. D. 23.106* άποφθιμένου δέ φορήοίπτω) έρριψαν (βίς) βινός 104



σάκος 193, 1 95,-έεσσι(ν) 143, 190 σαρκί 47, -ες 112 σε ίων 184 σήμα 199 σημαίνουσα 2 2 σιδηρείη 47 Σισυφίς 158 σκαιώ 198, -όν (m . a c c .s g .) 124, -ήν 119, -ή 119, -όν (η. acc. sg .) 196 σκέλος 6 6 σκιερός 76 σκληρήσι 45 σός 71, σής 59 Σ π ά ρτη 156 σ πείραισιν 80 σ τειν φ 94 σ τερ εοίς 108, -οίσι 48 σ τή θ ο ς 109, -εα 46 σ τή λη ν 207 σ τιβ α ρ ή 123 σ τόμ α 28, 100, 126, 203 (στορέννυμι) έσ τό ρ ν υ ν το 33 σύ 61,7 1 , 116, 117, 135, σεύ 57,σ ε ν 63, τοι 317, 132, σέ 135, σε 64, σφώ 169, σ φ φ ν 166, ύμε?ς 17, 149, 163,ύμΐν 171, 218, 221, υμμιν 152, 161 σ ύγε 62 (συμφ λέγω ) συνέφλεξε 2 1 1 (συμφύρω ) συνέφυρε 1 1 1 σύν 13 (συναλοάω ) συνηλοίησε 128 σ υνά γερ θ εν 76 σ ύ ν α γο ν 82 συνερείσω 6 8 συνίζανον 1 1 2 (σ υντα ράσ σ ω ) συν ... έτά ραξε 90 (σφαιρόω) έσ φ α ίρ ω το 46 (σφεΐς) σφεω ν 10, σφισι 83 σ φ ετέρ οιο 2 0 9 ,-η ς 67, -οισι 159 σ φ υ ρ ή λ α το ς 47 σ χεδόν 130 σ ω τή ρ α ς 6 ταρασ σ ομένω ν 7, έτά ρ α σ σ εν 102 τα χέω ς 208 τα χύ π ω λ ε 136

τ(ε) 1, 7, 8 , 16, 21 (b is), 33 (bis), 34, 41 (bis), 42, 55, 61, 100 ( to ) , 109, 114*, 157 ( t o ) , 158 ( to ) , 1 7 5 ,202,213,215, 216, 2 2 0 ( t o ) τέκνα 4 ,2 9 , 214 τέλ ος 165 τέρσει 63 (τεύχος) τεύ χε' 182 (τεύχω ) τεΰ χο ν 192, έτύ χθη 83 τέχνη ς 67 (τίθημι) θήσειν 181,έθεντο 182 (τινάσσω ) έ τιν ά ξ α τ ο 185 (τις) τινα 189, τι 118, 188 τις 64, 6 8 , τ ί 145, τίνες 54 (Τιτυός) Τ ιτυω 94 τιτυσ κόμενος 8 8 , -όμενοι 187 τόθι 199 τοι 147, 156, 180 το?α 223 τοιόσδ(ε) 59, -οίδε 72, -άδε 167 τοίχω ν 31, -ο υ ς 12 τοκέεσσιν 159 τρ έφ ο ντα ι 159 τ ρ ίτ ο ν 4 τρυφ ά λειαν 193 (τυ γ χά ν ω ) τυ χώ ν 60, 1 2 2 τυ κ τή ν 2 1 0 τύμβου 2 0 8 ,-ον 141 Τ υνδαρίδης 89, 202, Τυνδαρίδη 136, Τ υνδαρίδαις 212,216 τύψε 8 8 υγρόν 167 ύ δ α το ς 62, ϋδατι 38 υιός 95, 115, υίώ 1, 137,υί(ε) 139 (ίλην 36 ύμεναιώσουσι 179 ύμνέομεν 1, 4, ύμνέωυ 26, ύμνήσας 219, ύμνησαι 135 ϋμνοις 214 υπάρχει 2 2 2 ύπείροχος 79 ύπέκ 144 υπένερθε 38 ύπ εξα να βά ς 197 ύπεξανέδυ 123 υπ έρ 51 ϋπερθε 104 ΰ π έρ ο π λ ο ς 44 υ π ε ρ ό π τη ς 58

INDEX VERBORUM υπερφίαλου 97 υπήνεμου 32 ϋπ νο ς 204 ΰπό 37,4 8 , 76, 124, 159, 184 ύ π ο φ ή τη ς 116 ύ π τιο ς 106 ύσμίνης 174 ύψηλαί 40 (φαίνω) έφάνησαν 2 1 φ ά ο ς 84 φ άσ γα νον 197, 201 Φ άτνη 22 φείδεο 67 φε'ρω 223, -ε'την 137, -ο ντο ς 197, -ουσα 29, ηνεγκεν 121 φεύγειν 189 (φημί) φ άθι 56 φ θέγξομαι 117 φ ίλον 206 (m . a c c .), 117 (η. nom .), -οι 23, 154, 165, 2 1 5 ,-α 29, 42 φ λ ο γ εω 2 1 1 φ οβ ερ όν 2 φοιυικολόφων 72 (φοΐνιξ) φοίνικα 195 φοίνιον 99 φονήα 209 φόνον 82, 192 φορέεσκε 114 φυής 160 φύλλοισι 106 φυσηθε'ντος 77 (φύω) έφυσαν 213, πεφύκεσαν 40 χαίρω 55, χαίρετε 214, χαίρε 54 χαλάζαις 16 χαλεποί 146, -ο?ς 9 χαλκεοθώ ρηξ 136 χαλκός 203 χαυόντος 125 χάρις 168 χείλεα 63 χείμαρρους 50 (χειρ) χειρί 123, -α 119, 196,-α ς 3, 65, 6 8 , 81, 109, 130, 174, χερώ ν 210, χερσίίυ) 33, 8 8 , 102, 146 Χίος 218 (χολόω ) κεχολω μένος 87 χρή 171 χροιή 114

χροός 188 χώ ρος 54, -ω 94 ώ 23 (bis), 85, 132 (ώθεω) ώσε 2 0 1 ώ ς 1 0 0 , 162, 2 2 2 ώ ς 78, 185 ώμω 124, -ον 48, -ω ν 182


IL INDEX OF PASSAGES DISCUSSED References are to page numbers in this edition. AESCHYLUS S upp. 794 A g . 961-2


1.759-62 2.38-40 2.82-4 2.105-9 2.162 2.382 2.586 2.902 3.581 3.902 4.62 4.1337 CALLIMACHUS h. 1 .6 - 1 1 1.32 1.75 3.1 3.186 5.109 H ec. fr. 34 Hollis (246 Pf.) 4 e 110.53 Pf. e. 5.5

GREGORIUS N AZIANZENUS 156 143 143 161 147-8 103 106 85 160 212

178 192 141

164 160 215 76 155 178 160 84 90





DEI(L)OCHUS F G rH 471 F 1


EUPHORION 5/7 ff. 415.ii.25 CA fr. 7 ff. 1 1 2

141 171 212

EURIPIDES H ere. 1148




EUSTATHIUS 386.29-30


P G 37.565.3


HELIODORUS A eth . 9.15.5








HOMER B1 Δ 363 Θ 139 K1 M428 N 137 N 610 0 664

P 213-4 Y 150 X 395 Y 24 Y 688 ß 53 γ 246 662 6 229 i 275 κ 329 τ 203 X 31

197 199-200 187 197 128 117 175 128 108 88

151 151 161 176 108 187 208 77 189 187 187

HORACE c. 1.12.27-32









VH1.32 LUCILLIUS AP 11.107.2-3 NICANDER Th. 96 434 693 NONNUS D. 1.62 1.459 Ì3.87-8 14.129-30 16.251 17.93 21.206 37.534-6 37.566 43.20 43.72 43.299-300 46.19 Paraphr. 12.114 OPPIAN and [OPPIAN] Hal. 1.586 1.617-9 2.580-1 3.441 4.188 5.101 Cyn. 1.20-35 3.314-6 4.205



124 172-3 124 131 92 102

135 124 131 197 139 141 201

131 131 214 144


99 118 185 175 142 119 112




OVID F. 5.699-720 5.699-702 5.713-4

168 169 214

PAUSANIAS 3.16.2-3


QUINTUS SMYRNAEUS 1.236-7 4.366-8 5.284 8.163 8.301-2 9.15 9.190 10.4 11.280 11.365-6

160-1 160 134 141 209 204 209 142 204 135

SIMIAS CA fr. 10







STATIUS Theb. 6.753


THEOCRITUS Id. 4.9 5.58 7.45-9 15.62 17.5-8 18.1 18.15 18.18 18.49-50 24.132-3 13.32,33,38 13.46 24.23, 44, 54 25.145-6 25.148-9 25.189 25.23 e 4.5

119 182 220

182 3 4 -5 ,2 1 7 , 223 97 46 185 182 134 101

144 144 158 112,116 182 144 109


PHILIP GP 3027-8


PLUTARCH Lye. 15.3-6


Arg. 4.104-9


VERGIL Aen. 5.457 6.5-8

161 102

244 XENOPHON Cyr. 1.6.25



III. INDEX OF SUBJECTS References are to page numbers in this edition. accentuation: o f όλ ο ίτρ ο χο ς, 117 Achaea: area o f Peloponnese, 182 Achilles: as model for Castor, 192,196-7,

201,202 adjectives: ίη - ά ς , 106; in -ίς a n d -ιά ς, 80, 183; in -σ όος, 168; in τρισ -, 79; in -ύς, feminine forms of, 103,222. See contraction, ages, relative: o f Castor and Polydeuces, 195; o f Idas and Lynceus, 195 Aldine editions: 50-1, 53-4 alliteration and assonance: 107, 110, 117, 121,131, 144, 150,169 ambiguity: o f θεός, 199. See narrative Amyclae: 159. S ee Dioscuri analogy: 8 8 , 160 anaphora: 93, 181,182,205,221 anastrophe: 142, 184 Apollonius Rhodius: 2 4 -3 3 ,3 5 , 82, 85, 8 8 , 96, 97, 100-1, 102, 103, 104, 105-6, 113, 134-5, 143, 145, 147-8, 154, 156, 157, 158, 164, 171, 197, 209,213 apostrophe: 8 8 , 137-8, 164, 165 appetite: o f athletes, 154-5 Aratus: 31-2, 35, 82, 8 3 ,9 1 -2 Argo: built in Thessalian Magnesia, 134; personified, 97 Argonauts: divine parentage of, 100, 197; harm ony among, 101, 170 Aristarchus: 108, 179, 187, 189, 192 Artemidorus: 56 Asclepiades o f Myrlea: 57-8 aspiration: o f ό λ ο ίτρ ο χ ο ς, 117; o f ώλλοι, 197-8 assonance: see alliteration asymmetry: see symmetry asyndeton: between adjectives, 167; in apostrophe, 138 augment: after word ending with a vowel, 179 Bebrycians: 99 boxing: concession in, signalled by raised fmger, 163; hand gear in, 78, 135;

holding illegal in, 158; importance o f sun in, 137; on-guard position in, 158; practiced poorly by barbarians, 140 bribery: accusations of, 176 bucolic diaeresis: 45; follow ing contracted fourth biceps, 139-40, 1.84,206; before monosyllabic final word, 46, 102 caesura: 45; elision at main, 90; hepthemimeral, 130 Callierges, Z.: 51, 52-3 Callimachus: 3 2 -3 ,3 5 ,7 6 , 90, 155 Capodivacca, P.: see codex Patavinus Castor: m ilitary prowess of, 134; younger than Polydeuces, 195 cauliflower ears: 112, 114 chiasmus: 78,9 3 , 110 codex Patavinus: 51-3 commonplaces: premature death o f bride or bridegroom, 1 9 8 ,2 11; words carried o ff by winds, 187 conch: used as trumpet, 133 constellations: see stars contraction: o f third-declension suffixes in -εα, 1 1 0 correption: 47; o f η , 85. S ee prosody, corruption: assimilation, 115, 153; deliberate scribal “correction,” 187, 194; diplography, 128; intrusive καί 154; intrusive glosses, 128, 194; trivialization, 8 6 ,1 7 3 ,1 8 7 crasis: 1 2 1 cypress trees: 109-10 dative: forms o f personal pronouns, 178-9, 187, 191-2; forms o f plural endings, 8 8 , 113, 135, 177, 181; instrumental, 160; with π λή θ ω , 107 definite article: as relative pronoun, 1 2 0 ; n. pi. with π ρ ό ς , 92; with predicate, after verbs o f naming, 104; only with final item in series, 104, 171 deflation: o f heroic tradition, 206

246 dialect: epic/Ionic coloring predominant, 36-8; Attic forms, 80, 85, 122, 124, 133, 170, 183; Doric first word unlikely, 76-7 digamma: se e prosody Dioscuri: as horsem en, 7 7 ,9 3 ; poets, 94; protectors o f ships and sailors, 83; St. Elm o’s fire, 92; σ ω τήρ ες, 80,90; associated with Leucippides in cult, 167; with military victory, 215; with Ptolemies, 23, 80,215; with Spartan kings, 159-60; with ξένοι, 122,165; brutality of, 19-20. See Amyclae, Lacedaemon direct speech: within a direct speech, 180; introduced by τ ό 5 ε /τά δ ε , 179; followed by είπε, 199 divine epithets: 77 Dover, K.J.: 90, 195-6,215 dowry: paid by bride’s father, 176-7 elision: 4 6 -7 ; at main caesura, 90; o f m edio-passive endings in -σι 129; of-i in 3rd person plural -ο ν τι/ο υ σ ι 90 ellipsis: o f copula with αλις; o f γ ή , χώρα, etc., 1 2 2 enjambment: changes meaning o f sentence, 196; absence o f necessary, 76 eye gouging: illegal except in Spartan pancratium, 127. See pancratium fire sticks: 103 Gallavotti, C.: 47, 52-3, 54 genitive: partitive, 123,203; absolute, without expressed subject, 149; with Ο ποφήτης, 156; ο ίε α ρ , l ll j o f S ó p u ,

202 Giunta, P.: se e Juntine edition Gow, A.S.F.: 32, 35, 37, 41, 4 6 ,4 7 , 55, 78, 8 6 , 87, 8 8 , 90, 97, 104, 107, 121, 123, 125, 140, 148, 151, 153,155, 161, 186, 191, 193, 198; 200,206, 215,219, et p assim

Gutzwiller, K.: 56 hair: w orn long by Thracians, 133 hearth: importance of, in m arriage rites,

211 Helen: divine paternity stressed, 185; link betw een Dioscuri and Trojan War, 218


hendiadys: 128 Heracles: as model for Amycus, 112, 118, 155; for Dioscuri, 101 hexameter: dactyls and spondees in, 43-4; flexibility o f Theocritean, 42; four-word, see tetracolos; restrictions on Theocritean, 4 6 ,1 0 2 , 129, 139-40, 184, 206,218. S ee bucolic diaeresis, caesura, correption, elision, hiatus, m onosyllables, prosody, spondees, σ π ονδειά ζοντες hiatus: 47; at feminine caesura, 155; at m asculine caesura, 108 Hicks, P.: 53-4 Homer: specific allusions to o r variations of, 38-9, 8 6 , 89, 100,102,103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 116-7, 118, 120,121, 123-4, 126, 132, 133, 136, 137, 140, 145, 146, 147-8, 149, 151, 1 5 2 ,1 5 3 -4 ,1 5 5 ,1 5 6 , 161, 162,163, 164, 165-6, 172, 176, 179-80, 181-2, 185, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196-7, 199-200, 201,202, 203, 204, 206, 208,209, 210-1, 215, 218, 221; hem istichs from, combined without alteration, 177; h a p a x and d is legom ena in, 92, 9 3 ,9 4 ,9 8 ,1 0 4 , 113, 114, 117, 1 2 6 ,1 2 8 ,1 3 3 ,1 3 8 ,1 4 6 ,1 5 4 ,1 5 8 ,1 6 3 , 176-7,180, 182, 185,202, 221; w otds o f disputed forms or meanings in, 106, 108,117, 159, 187, 197,208 Hom eric hymns: manipulated and reworked, 13-4, 7 5 -6 ,7 8 , 80, 81-2, 84, 87, 8 8 , 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 145, 166 horses: connected with Dioscuri, 77, 80, 93, 167; yoking of, evoked allusively, 78 hospitality: Am ycus’ lack of, 119,123; and Dioscuri, 18-9,122, 165 hyperbaton: 4 0 ,4 1 ,2 0 6 Idas: haughtiness of, 212; marriage of, 211; relative age of, 195 incongruity: 1 7 5 ,1 7 6 ,2 1 8 -9 infinitive: aorist, after μέλλω, 213; epexegeticàl, 78, 95; forms o f present active suffix, 184-5 interpreters: poets as, 156 irony: 128-9, 174-5, 178, 185, 186, 188, 193,199,211



Irus: as mode! for Am ycus, 96, 136, 145, 146 jingles: see word play Juntine edition: 51, 52-3 Lacedaemon: cult o f Dioscuri in, 80. See Dioscuri lacuna, after verse 170: 190-1, 194 ladder, ship’s: 1 0 1 Laocoosa: 211 Leucippides: 167, 170 lions: in similes, 130 lion skins: 118 Lynceus: diminished heroic stature of, 18; naiveté of, se e irony; relative age of, 195 marriage: Spartan, 169; importance o f hearth in rite, 2 1 1 m edical language: 3 9 ,1 1 4 ,1 4 8 , 152 M essenia: hom eland o f Idas and Lynceus, 213 m etaphorical language: intermingled with literal language, 114; αίματόεις, “m urderous,” 81; σ ιδήρειος, o f people, 115; οΐκος, o f natural resources or capacities, 222; μεθύων, “groggy,” 145-

6 monosyllables: see bucolic diaeresis m ountains: wild and dangerous places, 105 Muses: invoked as authorities, 154, 157,

222 Musurus, M.: 5 2 -3 ,7 5 narrative: ambiguous, 155, 176; compression of, 200,205; developing event passed over in Homer, 204; H om eric similes reworked in, 111, 1167; intentionally misleading, 169, 196. See similes Nicander: 3 3 -4 ,1 7 2 -3 optative: in polite requests, 122-3 orthography: gemination o f λ unnecessary, 90; ά δ ελ φ ό ς/ά δ ελ φ εό ς, 80; γιν- /γιγ ν-, 205; ε ίς /έ ς , before consonants, 8 6 ; o f όλ ο ίτρ ο χο ς, 117. S e e aspiration, augment pancratium: 126, 127

parallelism: false, 80. S ee word play periphrasis: 123, 177,215 personification: o f ships, 81,97; o f winds

86 Pfeiffer, R.: 35 Pindar: recalled and varied, 212,2 1 3 -4 , 215 pine trees: feature o f idyllic landscapes, 109 plane trees: 132-3 Polyphemus: as model for Am ycus, 95, 105, 110, 111-2, 137,-165 postponement: o f interrogative, 1 2 0 ; o f proper name, 131; o f relative pronoun, 218 prosody: original digamma observed, 43, 111,203; short vowels heavy before initial lambda, 43, 159; treatm ent o f short vowels before m ute plus liquid, 4 2 -3 ,8 5 ,9 9 , 136, 165, 198,207; o f σ παν, 139; ο ίά ν ιη ρ ό ς , 166; o f ευδιος, 92; ο ίν εκ υ ς, 197; o f πριν, 120. S e e variation proverbial expressions: δίς καί τρ ις, 79; επί ξυροΰ, 81 Ptolemies: se e Dioscuri quantity: se e variation rationalism, scientific: 83 reciprocality: between poets and honorands,216,217 repetition: as feature o f hym nic poetry, 78, 79,93; in direct speech, expressing agitation, 177; in narrative, 1 5 1 ;o fò ri6 /ά ο ιδ-, 94 rhetorical questions: in hymns, expressing abundance o f material, 94 ring composition: 94 roosters: 130 scientific precision: 110. S e e medical language sigmatism: 114. S ee alliteration silence: as m ark o f inhospitality, 119; o f natural world, as result o f divine epiphany, 89-90 similes: absence of, 40; Apollonian, corresponding to Theocritean narrative, 138, 150. S ee narrative


Sisyphus: associated with Corinth, 183 speech introductions: 118-9 spondees: expressing size, 182; suggesting sound o f a stream, 107. See hexameter σ π ο νδ ειά ζο ντες: 44; ending in trisyllabic words, 146; in lines with contracted fourth biceps, 218. S ee hexameter springs: freshness emphasized, 106; regular feature o f Am ycus episode, 106, 123; sound and clarity suggested indirectly, 107-8; typical feature o f lo cu s a m o en u s , 106 stars: associated with Dioscuri, 82; useful in navigation, 8 1 -2 ,9 1 statues: as model for description o f Am ycus, 112, 114-5, 115-6; hammerforged, 115 stichomythia: 119,121. See speech introductions suddenness: as m ark o f divine, 90 sweat: 151-2 swordfighting: not extended in Homer, 204 symmetry: 16, 103, 104,205; absence of, 77 Symplegades: name of, 98; in Argonautic saga, 96-7 synecdoche: 183 synizesis: 9 5,222 teeth: rattling or clashing of, 161 tense: careful arrangement of, in proem, 84; conative imperfect, 150,204; imperfect in -σκ-, 2 0 0 - 1 ; minatory future, 124 tetracolos: 89, 104,130,167. See hexameter Theon: 56, 57-8 Tityus: 143 tmesis: 141, 160 tomb, o f Aphareus: 172 tricolon crescendo: 80,181 Tyndareus: 140,189-90 variation: o f dual and plural, 93, 189; o f singular and plural, 115; o f gender, 132; o f present and future stems, 94; o f prosody, 99, 106, 116,208; o f m ultiplicative and ordinal, 79; meaning o f ά να ρ ρ ή γνυ μ ι, 2 1 2 ; meaning of εκβάλλω , 207; meaning o f επιβαίνω,

122; ά εί/α ίεί, 133; δ ύ ω /δ ο ιό ς/δ ισ σ ό ς, 169; θείνω /θε'νω , 126; ξ εν-/ξειν-, 123; π α τ ρ ώ ιο ς /π α τ ρ ώ ο ς , 126, 2 1 1 ; υΤε/υίώ, 171 Virgil: edition o f Theocritus known by, 57 W ilamowitz-M oellendorff, U. von: 32, 5 1 2, 5 5 -6 ,1 9 0 -1 ,1 9 4 ,2 1 5 winds: carrying o ff words, 187; personified, 8 6 word play: contradictory words juxtaposed at line end, 178; etymological, 214; jingles, 41, 169,201; phonetic echoes o f adjacent lines or units, 83, 133, 150; puns 131,139 Zenodotus: 175, 179, 187,197

IV. INDEX OF GREEK WORDS DISCUSSED References are to page num bers in this edition. α γ ρ ιο ς = “uncultivated,” 105 ά γχό θ ι, 109 άεί, 133 άεικής = “disfiguring,” 151 ά ή τη (ς), gender of, 84 αίεί, 133 α ίμ α τόεις, figurative use of, 81 α ίω ρέω , o f clothes, 118 ά κ ή λ η τ ο ς ,189 α κριβής, 206 άκρόκομος, 109-10 α κρος, prosody of, 116 άκωκή, o f swords, 206 αλις, predicative use of, 196 άλλοφρονε'ω, 163 α λ λ υ δ ις α λ λ ο ς/ο ι, 91 ά μ α , 163 α μα υρ ός, o f celestial bodies, 92 άμοιβαδίς, 145 αν, 124 άνά μέσσον, 92 άναξ. o f Dioscuri, 147,220 άναιρε'ω, 199 ά να ρ ρ ή γνυ μ ι, variation in meaning of,

212 άνίημι = “ flay,” 124 ά νιηρ ός, prosody of, 166 α νίκη τος, 151 ciop, 204 ά πα υδά ω , 163 α π ο λ ή γ ω , orthography of, 90 α π η νή ς, 189 α ρα , m arking existence o f unreported antecedent events, 97; with imperfect, indicating retrospective realization, 199 ά ρ α β εω , 161 άρμενά = “tackle,” 87 ά ρ ρ η κ το ς = “dense,” 8 8 άρσ η ν, 79 ά τα ρ τ η ρ ό ς , 98-9 α τά σ θ α λ ο ς, 164 aö, 173 α υ τό ς, comitative use of, with dative, 89 Ά φ α ρ ή ιος, 212

βαθύς, gender of, 102-3 βυθός, 89,108 βαρύνω, 173 βιάζομαι, 83 βρα χίω ν, etymology of, 116 γα μ β ρ ό ς = “bridegroom,” 171 γ ά μ ο ν κ λεπ τω , 178 γ ά ρ , resumptive, in questions, 128 γενειον, 139 γέρ α ς, 223 γιγν ώ σ κ ω , minatory use of, 124 γνα θμός, 146 γυ μ νός, o f weapons, 175 δάις, 134 δαιμόνιος, 174-5 διά κριτος, 185-6 δ ια πρό, 209 δ ια τρ έχω , 91 διαχε'ω, 2 1 0 δίψος, 124 εαρ, genitive of, 1 1 1 έδνόω , 176-7 έθε'λω vs. θε’λω, 185 είκή, 87 εις vs. ές, before consonants, 8 6 είς εν, 125 -ε'μεν, 184 εμ π η ς, 8 8 ενάντιος, 125-6 ένδιάω , 113 ενώ πιον vs. ένώ πιος, 179 εοικα, 1 2 1 έξανεχω , 2 1 2 εξω , 109 έπα υ τέω , 141 έπ εμ π ίπ τω , 160 επιβαίνω , meaning varied, 1 2 2 έπιβρύω , 1 1 1 έπιζεύγνυμι, 78 επινεύω , 2 0 2


έρ γ α = “cultivated lands,” 1 1 0 , έρω έω , 193 έρω ή, 204 έτώ σ ιο ς - “misleading,” 147 εϋδιος, prosody of, 92 εύρύς, o f the sea, 87


ή μην, 178 ήλυθ-, 138, 201 ή τοι, 144 θεά vs. θεή, 155 θεάομαι, 105, 208 θένω , 126 θίς, gender of, 102-3 θυμός, o f winds, 8 6 ίδρώ ς, dative of, 151 Ίησ όνιος, 1 0 2 ϊνδάλλομαι, 108 ί'σκον —“said,” 187 ίστίον, 86-7 καθίστημι, 126 κατά πρύμναν = “from the direction o f the stem,” 84-5 κ λ έο ς,216 κλΐμαξ, 1 0 1 κοίλη = “hold o f a ship,” 8 6 κολούω, 207 κ ό χ λ ο ς,gender of, 132 κρεμάννυμι, o f ship’s tackle, 8 6 κ ρ ύ σ τ α λ λ ο ς ,107-8 κ τ έ α ρ ,177-8 κυδοιμός = “battle,” 130 κ ΰδος , 2 2 0 κυλίνδω νδ. κυλινδέω , 117

μή, in relative clause with definite antecedent, 1 2 0 μήδομαι = “produce,” 2 2 0 μυκάομαι, aoristof, 131 νέκυς, prosody of, 197 νιφόεις, 98 νύσσω , 205 ξ υ ν -,9 8 δ δ ε, in speech introductions, 179 οίδα, minatory use of, 124 οΤκος, figurative use of, 2 2 2 οίνω π ός, 104 όλ ο ίτρ ο χο ς, 117 δμαιμος = “kinsman,” 193 όμοίιος, 192 οξύς, indicating speed, 162 δς, adjectival, 165 ο τ ις , 1 2 0 π α λ ίγ κ ο το ς, 1 2 2 π α ρ α τρ έ π ω , 178 π ό ρ ο ς, 203 πιθεΐν, transitive use of, 125 περιξέω , 117-8 π ίτυ λ ο ς, 162 πλή θω , with dative, 107 πολύμυθος, 180 π ό ν το ς = “Black Sea,” 99 πριν, prosody of, 1 2 0 π ρ ο β ο λ ή , in boxing, 158 προδείκνυμι, o f m isleading movements, 147 π ρ ώ τ ισ τα , as both epicism and Doricism,

202 π λ α τύ ς, o f athletes, 159

λ α γ ώ ν , 209 λ ά λ λ η ,107 λάσ ιος, .1 1 0 λισσάς, 106 μάχαιρα, 175 μάν , 2 1 1 μάρμαρος, 214 μ είλιγμ α, 2 2 1 - 2 μεταμ ώ νιος, 199-200 μέχρι, 162

σιδήρειος, metaphorical use of, 115 -σ όος, adjectives in, 168 σφεΐς, o f ships, 84 σ φ έτερ ος, o f 2nd singular, 127; o f 3rd singular, 213 σ ω τή ρ , 80 τ ε , “epic” use of, 120,217-8 τέ λ ο ς, o f m arriage, 186 τέρ σ ω , transitive, 124


τινά σ σ ω , in m iddle, o f brandishing weapons, 2 0 1 τόθι, relative, 208 τοιόσ δε, in speech conclusions, 187 το ίχ ο ς , 8 6 τρ έχ ω , o f physical conditions, 2 1 1 τρισ -, adjectives in, 79 Τ υνδα ρίδης, not implying biological paternity, 140 ϋδω ρ, prosody of, 106

υιός, 77, 171 ύμεναιόω, 198 ύμνέω, 76, 78-9, 220-1

υπάρχω, 223 ύπεξαναβαίνω , 207 ύπεξαναδύω , 160 υπέρ + genitive, o f clothes, 118 ύπε'ροπλος, indicating size, 113 ύπεροπτή ς, 122 υπ ερ φ ία λ ος, indicating size or strength, 145 υπήνεμ ος, 103 ύ π ό + accusative, indicating extension under, w ithout implication o f motion, 116 + dative, with passive o f τρέφω , 184 υψηλός, 109 φ θ έγ γο μ α ι, 156 φ λό γεο ς. 214 φοίνιξ, adjectival use of, 206 φυή - “physical beauty,” 184 φ ύλλα = “petals, flowers,” 149 χαίρω , play with literal and polite uses of, 119 χ α λ ε π ό ς ,84, 175 χάρις, 188 χάσκω, o f wounds, 160 χροιή, 154 ώ + vocative, 93, 138