Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:49:37.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Landscape into Myth: Theocritus' Bucolic Poetry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Charles Segal
Charles Segal*
Affiliation:
École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris andBrown University, Providence
Get access

Extract

‘I no longer look upon Theocritus as a romantic writer,’ wrote Lady Montagu to Alexander Pope; ‘he has only given a plain image of the way of life amongst the peasants of his country … I don't doubt, had he been born a Briton, but his Idylliums had been filled with descriptions of thrashing and churning.’ Thanks to greater sophistication about the nature of pastoral and a better knowledge of Hellenistic poetry we have probably left behind forever the notion of Theocritus as the conveyor of a ‘plain image’ of rustic life. The alternative is not, of course, the ‘romantic’ Theocritus, but a poet of consummate literary artistry, wit, and irony.

Besides the critical commonplace of rustic realism the other stumbling block to a satisfactory appreciation of Theocritus has been the inevitable comparison with Virgil. Critics who have viewed Theocritus through lenses adjusted to Virgil have tended to emphasize the emotional complexity, inwardness, and seriousness of the Latin poet over against the outward-facing playfulness and lightness of the Greek. Theocritus certainly lacks the tension between historical reality and poetry which gives the Eclogues their special depth and poignancy; but he has a seriousness of a different sort. The simplicity and trivial realism which are sometimes attributed to the bucolic Idylls are in fact themselves part of the poetic fiction and often stand in deliberate self-contradiction with mythical elements in the form and structure of the work.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 1975 , pp. 115 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Quoted in Brower, Reuben, Alexander Pope, The Poetry of Allusion (Oxford 1959) 15Google Scholar.

2. For the ‘realistic’ Theocritus see especially Snell, Bruno, ‘Arcadia: The Discovery of a Spiritual Landscape’, in The Discovery of the Mind, tr. T. G. Rosenmeyer (Oxford 1953) 282–4Google Scholar, with some qualifications at 287f. For the complexities of the issue see Körte, Alfred and Händel, Paul, Die hellenistische Dichtung 2 (Stuttgart 1960) 218–9Google Scholar; Poggioli, Renato, ‘The Oaten Flute’, Harv. Lib. Bull. 11 (1967) 167–8Google Scholar; Adolf, Kohnken, Gnomon 44 (1972) 751–2Google Scholar; Schmidt, Ernst A., Poetische Reflexion: Vergils Bukolik (Munich 1972) 23–4Google Scholar.

3. E.g., Snell (preceding note) 282–4; Putnam, M. C. J., Virgil’s Pastoral Art (Princeton 1970) 14Google Scholar.

4. See Rosenmeyer, Thomas, The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1969) 278ffGoogle Scholar. On the differences between Virgilian and Theocritean symbolism which this feature of the Idylls implies, see Snell (above, note 2) 306–9 and Segal, C., ‘Theocritean Criticism and the Interpretation of the Fourth Idyll’, Ramus 1 (1972) 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 20–2.

5. See Lawall, Gilbert, Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals: A Poetry Book (Cambridge, Mass. 1967) 5ffGoogle Scholar. and passim. Vischer, R., Das einfache Leben (Göttingen 1965) 135Google Scholar: Theocritus’ poetry is ‘im Grunde eine Poesie unwirklicher Liebe’. Cairns, Francis, ‘Theocritus Idyll 10’, Hermes 98 (1970) 38–44Google Scholar, has recently shown how Theocritus has fused the sophisticated conventions of Hellenistic amatory poetry with the pastoral/Hesiodic frame.

6. See Van Sickle, J. B., ‘The Fourth Pastoral Poems of Virgil and Theocritus’, Atti e Memorie dell’ Arcadia, Ser. 3, vol. 5, fasc. 1 (1969) 7ffGoogle Scholar.; Segal, ‘Fourth Idyll’ (above, note 4) 7–11. Lattimore, S., ‘Battus in Theocritus’ Fourth Idyll’, GRBS 14 (1973) 31.9–24Google Scholar, stresses the literary side of Battus that would bring him even closer to concerns with poetics. Barigazzi, A., ‘Per l’interpretazione e la datazione del carme IV di Teocrito’, RFIC 102 (1974) 301–11Google Scholar, criticizes some symbolic interpretations without seeming to have grasped their implications (or indeed having read the authors he cites: cf. pp. 302–3, note 1). His own psychological interpretations of Battus and Corydon (p. 303) are as ill-founded as his disproportionate emphasis on line 32 and the historical interpretation he seeks to extract from it (p. 310). For other aspects of Id. 4 see Giangrande, G., ‘Theocritus’ Twelfth and Fourth Idylls’, QUCC 12 (1971) 104ffGoogle Scholar.

7. On hasychia see the good remarks of Serrao, G., Problemi di poesia alessandrina, I, Studi su Teocrito (Rome 1971) 67fGoogle Scholar.

8. Helmut, Kuhn, ‘The True Tragedy’, II, HSCP 53 (1942) 83Google Scholar. See also Ruskin’s Modern Painters, vol. 3, part 4, chap. 14, sect. 7: ‘… Exactly in proportion as the idea of definite spiritual presence in material nature was lost, the mysterious sense of unaccountable life in the things themselves would be increased.’

9. For the metaphor see LSJ s.v. têkô, II.2; Pearson ad Sophocles, frag. 941.7.

10. See Ph. Legrand, E., Etude sur Théocrite, Bibl. des Ecoles frangaises d’Athènes et de Rome 79 (Paris 1898) 197ffGoogle Scholar.; Soutar, G., Nature in Greek Poetry (London 1939) 223Google Scholar; Rosenmeyer (above, note 4) 186ff., esp. 204–5. Representative texts, though not very helpful discussion, will be found in Hartwell, K., ‘Nature in Theocritus’, CJ 17 (1921-22) 181–90Google Scholar.

11. See Parry, Adam, ‘Landscape in Greek Poetry’, YCS 15 (1957) 14Google Scholar.

12. On the discordant loci of Id. 5 see Rosenmeyer (above, note 4) 188; Schmidt, E. A., ‘Der göttliche Ziegenhirt, ’, Hermes 102 (1974) 216–8Google Scholar.

13. Legrand (above, note 10) 201. For ponos see infra.

14. See U. v.|Wilamowitz, Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker, Philol. Untersuch. 18 (Berlin 1906) 180Google Scholar, who calls attention to the parallel with 4.39. The best discussion of the persona of Id. 12 is Giangrande (above, note 6) 101–5, 110–12; see also Cairns, Francis, Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh 1972) 17–31Google Scholar, esp. 25f.

15. Compare also Id. 1.121 where Daphnis gives his cows drink, and Virgil, E.7.11. The search for drinking water occurs in the mythological Idylls as an epic motif, fraught with danger: see 13.36 and 22.62 and on the latter passage Roux, G., RPh 37 (1963) 80–1Google Scholar.

16. Leach, Eleanor Winsor, Vergil’s Eclogues: Landscapes of Experience (Ithaca and London 1974) 83Google Scholar and cf. also 182ff. As I hope to show in another essay, however, the elements in this landscape are less static than Mrs Leach, following Rosenmeyer and E. R. Curtius, allows (pp. 81ff.).

17. On the sea mythology here see my remarks in ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll and Lycidas’, WS N.F. 8 (1974) 53ff. Cf. also the halcyon in ps.-Moschus, Epitaph. Bionis 40–2 and Moschus, Europa 115–24, with its imitation in Catull. 64.14–18. In the literary background may lie also Alcman frag. 26P= 94D.

18. I cannot agree, then, with Schmidt (above, note 2) 77, ‘In Theocritus’ Idylls landscape as space has not yet been discovered’. The passage in Id. 8 seems actually closer to the secure limits of Tibull. 1.5.45–8. On Id. 11.17f. and E.2.4f. see Desport, Marie, L’incantation virgiliemie (Bordeaux 1952) 42Google Scholar. On the Hellenistic predilection for the vast spaces of sea, sky, stars see Schneider, Carl, Kulturgeschichte des Hellenismus I (Munich 1967) 155Google Scholar, citing Menander 416K = 481E.

19. Gow, With, Theocritus (Cambridge 1950Google Scholar) ad loc. I take the nin of 6.11 to refer to the dog and not Ott, Galatea. U., Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten, Spudasmata 22 (Heidelberg 1969) 77Google Scholar nicely points out the contrast between the calm sea and the agitated dog, the tangible presence of the animal and the ‘kapriziöse Unfassbarkeit und Unsichtbarkeit Galateias’.

20. Alpers, Paul, ‘The Eclogue Tradition and the Nature of Pastoral’, College English 34 (1972) 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21. See Cook, Albert, The Classic Line (Bloomington, Ind. 1966) 173Google Scholar; Segal, ‘Fourth Idyll’ (above, note 4) 2–3, 20–2.

22. Marvell, ‘The Garden’, 9–10. His ‘Mower against Gardens’ also plays on a contrast between a lost ‘Nature most plain and pure’ and a ‘willing Nature’ which ‘does to all dispense / A wild and fragrant innocence’.

23. See Marvell, ‘The Garden’, 61–4 and Poggioli, R., ‘The Pastoral of the Self’, Daedalus 88 (1959) 694–8Google Scholar.

24. See Rosenmeyer (above, note 4) 119.

25. See my ‘Simaetha and the lynx’, QUCC 15 (1973) 42–3.

26. Cited from W. S. Merwin’s edition and translation, Neruda, Pablo, Twenty Love Poems and a Song of Despair (London 1969) 24 and 22 respectivelyGoogle Scholar.

27. Panofsky, E., ‘Et in Arcadia Ego: Poussin and the Elegiac Tradition’, in Meaning in the Visual Arts (New York 1955) 300Google Scholar.

28. Alpers (above, note 20) 355–6.

29. For the noon hour see Plato, Phaedrus 242A, 259A; CMim.,Hymn 5.72–4; Virg., G. 4.401–2; Sen., Phaedra 778ff. See in general Rosenmeyer (above, note 4) 76 and 88f.; Roscher, W. H., Ausführliches Lexicon der griechischen u. römischen Mythologie III.l (1897-1909) 1395–1401Google Scholar, s.v. ‘Pan’.

30. Id. 7.8 and 136 ∼ Od. 5.64; Id. 7.8 ∼ h.Ven. 20 and cf. Bion, frag. XIII Gow; Id. 7.135ff. ∼ Od. 7.114–31; Id. 7.116–7 ∼ Od. 13.103–12; Id. 7.149 ∼ 11. 9.404, Od. 8.80, h.Merc. 401.

31. See Snell (above, note 2) 282, 286–7; Williams, Gordon, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968) 274ff., 303ff., 316ffGoogle Scholar.

32. See Alpers (above, note 20) 368–70.

33. See Hathorn, R. Y., ‘The Ritual Origin of Pastoral’, TAPA 92 (1961) 228–38Google Scholar, esp. 233ff.; Trenscényi-Waldapfel, I., ‘Werden und Wesen der bukolischen Poesie’, Acta Antiqua 14 (1966) 1–31Google Scholar, esp. 21–31; Berg, William, Early Virgil (London 1974) 15–22Google Scholar. For Stesichorus see Aelian, Var. Hist. 10.18 = frag. 279P.

34. See my ‘“Since Daphnis Dies”: The Meaning of Theocritus’ First Idyll’, MH 31 (1974) 1–22Google Scholar, esp. 13ff.

35. See my remarks in ‘Seventh Idyll’ (above, note 17) 3Iff. with the references in notes 41–42 there, to which add Schmidt (above, note 2) 227–38; Berg (above, note 33) 22–5; Schwinge, E. R., ‘Theokrits “Dichterweihe” (Id. 7)’, Philologus 118 (1974) 40–58Google Scholar, esp. 43ff.

36. Sea, of course, can also appear in the ‘Hesiodic’ vein as a place of the hard work of the fisherman in contrast to the secure and leisurely life of the herdsman: Id. 1.40–4, 3.26, frag. 3; Moschus, frag. 1; ps.-Theocr. Id. 21, although even in this realistic poem the sea can, for a moment, reflect a beckoning dream-world of mythical deities: 21.52–5.

37. For the relation between the frame and the songs of Id. 6 see Lawall (above, note 5) 70–3; Ott (above, note 19) 67–71; Cairns (above, note 14) 195.

38. ‘Appear’: 11, 19, 37, 38; ‘see’: 8, 9, 11, 22, 25, 28, 31, 35. Note also the emphasis on the eye in 22 and 36 and see Ott (above, note 19) 81–2.

39. See Brooke, Anne, ‘Theocritus 11: A Study in Pastoral’, Arethusa 4 (1971) 73–81Google Scholar, esp. 74. See also Holtsmark, E., ‘Poetry as Self-Enlightenment: Theocritus 11’, TAPA 97 (1966) 256–7Google Scholar; Ott (above, note 19) 199ff. Cairns (above, note 14) 145 shows how the sea replaces the threshold of the house where the comast sings to his mistress.

40. See Plato, Sympos. 200A-201C.

41. See Gow ad 11.26 and Ott (above, note 19) 206 on the mother as a ‘Katalysator zwischen Land und Meer’. For a possible psychological view see Holtsmark (above, note 39) p. 257, note 6.

42. For the correspondences see Ott (above, note 19) 204–5; Hartmut Erbse, ‘Dichtkunst und Medizin in Theokrits 11. Idyll’, MH 22 (1965) 233–4.

43. Other interpreters have taken a more positive view of Polyphemus’ ‘cureō: see Erbse (preceding note) 233–4; Brooke (above, note 39) 79; Stark, R., ‘Theocritea’, Maia 15 (1963) 368Google Scholar. This ambiguity of the ‘cure’ is reflected in the ambiguous function of ‘singing’ as both part of the disease and the problem: cf. 11.13 and 18; Legrand (above, note 10) 408–10; Gow ad 11.13; Erbse, pp. 233–4 with note 1; Spofford, E. W., ‘Theocritus and Polyphemus’, AJP 90 (1969) p. 22Google Scholar with note 1 and pp. 34–5; Barigazzi, A., ‘Una presunta aporia nel c. 11 di Teocrito’, Hermes 103 (1975) 179–88Google Scholar.

44. See Spofford (preceding note) 31–2; Lembach, Kurt, Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit (Heidelberg 1970) 174–9Google Scholar.

45. The motif of ‘on the mountains’ is trivialized in the imitation in ps.-Theocr. 20.30, ‘All the women on the mountains say I am handsome’.

46. Compare also the mountainous setting of Pindar, Pyth. 3.89–90 and Nem. 6.45–6; Soph. Trach. 436–7; Eur. Bacch. 714–27. See in general Soutar (above, note 10) chap. 3.

47. See Hesiod, Theog. 22–3, exploited, ironically, also by Philetas, frag. 10 Powell.

48. See my ‘Death by Water: A Narrative Pattern in Theocritus’, Hermes 102 (1974) 32–3Google Scholar, 37–8; ‘First Idyll’ (above, note 34) 13–15, 18–19.

49. Van Sickle, J. B., ‘The Unity of the Eclogues: Arcadian Forest, Theocritean Trees’, TAPA 98 (1967) 491–508Google Scholar, esp. 493f., 501ff. and in greater detail, ‘The Bucolics of Virgil’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Festschrift J. Vogt), II, Prinzipat, Sprache und Literatur (Berlin 1975) section III B 4 and IV D 10.

50. See Schmidt (above, note 12) 216, 225, 235ff.

51. Schmidt, Poetische Reflexion (above, note 2) 3If. suggests a connection between this ‘sweetness’ and Callimachean leptotês or ‘thinness’, ‘fine elegance’.

52. Note that in Id. 7.89 the same words, hadu melisdomenos, describe the ‘sweet singing’ not of the landscape, but of the inspired herdsman-poet, the ‘divine Comatas’.

53. See Lawall (above, note 5) 104–5; my ‘Seventh Idyll’ (above, note 17) 62.

54. For the songful locus in the Eclogues see E.2.13, 5.62–4, 6.83–6. Virgil, however, adds a new element, the power of the singer over his bucolic world: see E.6.27–30 and 9.19–20. See in general Desport (above, note 18) 108–19; Damon, Phillip, ‘Modes of Analogy in Ancient and Medieval Verse’, UCPCP 15 (1961) 281Google Scholar; Fantazzi, Charles, ‘Virgilian Pastoral and Roman Love Poetry’, AJP 87 (1966) 185–6Google Scholar.

55. See my ‘Ovid’s Metamorphoses: Greek Myth in Augustan Rome’, Studies in Philology 68 (1971) 371–6Google Scholar; Dörrie, H., ‘Der Mythos im Verständnis der Antike, II, Von Euripides bis Seneca’, Gymnasium 73 (1966) 44–62Google Scholar, esp. 47–56. As Schneider (above, note 18) 155 points out, Hellenistic man, too long in city pent, seems to have felt a special need for the ‘echte Religiöse des griechischen Naturgefühls’ and ‘die Nähe des Gottlichen in der Natur’.