Theocritus: Dioscuri (Idyll 22): Introduction, Text, and Commentary 9783666252112, 3525252110, 9783525252116

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 114

VÔR

HYPOMNEMATA UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR ANTIKE UND ZU IHREM NACHLEBEN

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

HEFT 114

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

ALEXANDER SENS

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

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

Verantwortlicher Herausgeber: Hugh Lloyd-Jones

Die Deutsche Bibliothek -

CIP-Einheitsaufnähme

Sens, Alexander: Theocritus: Dioscuri. (Idyll 22) : introduction, text, and commentary / Alexander Sens. - Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997 (Hypomnemata ; H. 114) ISBN 3-525-25211-0

© 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

7

INTRODUCTION I. Structure and Unity II. Date of Composition and Relationship to Other Hellenistic Poetry III. Dialect, Language, and Style IV. Meter V. The Transmission of the Text Manuscripts Papyri Early Editions The Manuscript Tradition The Early History of the Text

И 13 24 36 42 47 47 49 50 51 55

TEXT Sigla Διόσκουροι

59 60 61

COMMENTARY

73

ABBREVIATIONS

225

INDICES

233

PREFACE

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 Georgetovm 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

FOR MY PARENTS AND FOR CHRISTIE

INTRODUCTION

I. STRUCTURE AND UNITY The opening line of Theocritus' twenty-second idyll' announces a hymn honoring the Dioscuri: ύμνεομεν Λήδας τε και αίγιόχου Διός υίώ. 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 (χαίρε/χαίρετε) with his song and to provide some benefit in exchange.^ 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 13 5-6 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 χαίρε -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 ' I retain the conventional but problematic and potentially misleading term "idyll" as a matter of convenience; for the issue, and for the order of the poems in modem editions, see now Gutzwiller, esp. 129-33. 2 For hymnal elements elsewhere in the софиз, see Hunter, TAGP 46-52. 3 On the form of the Homeric hymns see generally Race 102-6; R. Janko, Hermes 109 (1981)9-24; Clay.

14

INTRODUCTION

fiinction as an envoi both for the "Castor hymn" and for the poem as a whole. The combined effect is one of 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 of 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,'* 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 tvsdns 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 of sparing the loser he chases him down and kills him. Idas is killed by a thimderboh 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 shaφ differences between them, the two narratives are clearly companion pieces, closely bound to one another by a series of verbal and thematic correspondences.® The following verbal parallels are particularly noteworthy: (a) 183 εις μέσον ήλυθε ~ 82 ές μεσσον σύναγον. (b) 185-6 eòe δ' αϋτωο ακρας έτινάξατο δούρατος άκμάς / Κάστωρ (shortly following Lynceus' speech) ~ 78-9 eòe δ' айтыс ήρωας Ιών έκαλεσσατο πάντας / ... Κάστωρ (shortly following the stichomythia).

^ 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. ® These links, many of which have been noticed by recent scholars (Kurz 104; Hutchinson 145, 162-7; Laursen 82-3), disprove Gow's view that Theocritus incompetently dashed off the Castor narrative as a companion piece to a Polydeuces narrative previously composed for another occasion.

STRUCTURE AND UNITY

15

(c) 191-2 φόνον αυτις / τεΟχον έπ' άλλήλοισι ~ 82 φόνον άλλήλοισι πνέοντες. (d) 195 φοίνικα ... λόφον ~ 72 φοινικολόφων. (e) 196 τοΟ μεν ακρην ~ 88 τοΰ δ' άκρον. (f) The climax of the duel in 196-8 clearly evokes the climax of the boxing match in 118ff.: 196-8 σκαιόν ... σκαιω ~ 119 σκαιη μεν σκαιήν, 197 φ ά σ γ α ν ο ν οξύ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς ~ 121 ηνεγκεν ... π λ α τ ύ γυΤον, 197 ύπεξσναβάς ποδί ~ 123 ύπεξανέδυ κεφαλή. Castor's step back with his lefi foot in 197 perhaps varies Amy cus' step forward with his right at 120. (g) 198 ό δέ πληγείς ~ 105 αύτάρ ó πληγείς. (h) 203—4 ό δ' ές στόμα κείτο νενευκώς / Λυγκεύς ~ 90-1 πολύς δ' έπέκειτο νενευκώς / ές γαίαν (sc. "Αμυκος). (i) 213 αυτοί τε κρατέουσι και έκ κρατέοντος εφυσαν - 5 6 μήτ' άδικους μήτ' έξ άδικων φάθι λεύοσειν and 131 τόν μεν αρα κρατέων περ άτάσθαλον ούδέν ερεξας. 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 κρατέουσι ... 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 resuhs.'^

' Hunter, TAGP 58, who rightly points out that in this respect the narratives reverse the action of the Iliad, where boxing is a "'sporting' struggle between allies (cf. II. 23) and armed duels are fought out between enemies."

16

INTRODUCTION

The formal balance created by these connections and oppositions between the two narratives is characteristic of other Theocritean poems as well. ^ 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 simg 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 an 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 of Zeus, Castor of the mortal Tyndareus.^ 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 ftilly and to which Theocritus frequently alludes at the conclusion of his Castor episode,'" 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. · · The opponents whom the brothers face in the idyll do not share the reader's privileged perspective on the twins' ambiguous status. Their ignorance ® There are many acute observations about the form of Theocritus' poems in Hutchinson 143-213, and in K. Gutzwiller, Theocritus' Pastoral Analogies (Madison 1991); on Theocritean antithesis generally cf. U. Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten (Hildesheim 1969). 9 E.g. Pi. JV. 10.80-2. Cf Commentary on 2 0 7 - 9 , 2 1 0 - 1 , 2 1 2 . Similarity thus calls attention to the significant divergence between Theocritus and Pindar, as with the verbal echoes in the paired narratives themselves. ' ' For the ordinary connection between hymns and gods, cf. Pl. Lg. 700b; Hunter, TAGP 50.

STRUCTURE AND UNITY

17

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 mmiber of critics (cf Commentary on 171-80). An important consideration is that although Lynceus' speech is rhetorically powerful 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 backgroimd. 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:·^ to Lynceus' mind, the alleged affinity with the Dioscuri aggravates their abduction of the Leucippides, but in fact his beUef 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 Himter 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