Luschkov; Watching Daphnis Frustration of Viewing in Idylls 1 and 6

Watching Daphnis: Frustration of Viewing in Idylls 1 and 6

Ayelet H. Lushkov

Theocritus' first Idyll, The Song of Thyrsis, narrates, with much ambiguity, the story of
the death of that mythical cowherd, the alleged creator of the bucolic song--Daphnis. If
the manuscript tradition of the Theocritean corpus is to be believed, and the pride of place
assigned to Idyll 1 recognized, we may wonder why the poet, or rather, his subsequent
editors, chose to open the bucolic oeuvre with a poem relating not the life of Daphnis, or
his first moment of bucolic song, but rather his silencing in death. Two answers might
readily be given: one, the moment of bucolic revelation is the subject of the famous
seventh Idyll--rather than including a poem describing Daphnis' epiphany, Theocritus
chooses to sing his own. The other answer lies in the sixth Idyll, in which Daphnis
himself lives and sings. In this paper I propose that a combined reading of Idylls 1 and 6
may serve to shed some more light on the nature of bucolic poetry, and so, perhaps, on
the way Theocritus perceived his own work.

Idyll 1 has long been recognized as a 'programmatic poem', in the sense of serving as a
representative poem, even if it does not state an actual poetic program. Thus, it embodies
and encapsulates many of the themes we have come to know and associate with the
pastoral genre: the countryside setting, the oaks and pines, the rustic deities (Pan, Priapus
and the Nymphs), the midday hour, the springs, and, of course, the herdsmen, their herds,
their piping and songs. It has also been shown that the scenes on the ivy-cup serve to
define the boundaries of the bucolic world, as well as the subjects of the bucolic song.

These bucolic emblems serve as more than mere generic markers, and symbolize
Theocritus' own artistic goals:

"By putting forward in Idyll 1 as acceptable literary goals novelty, laborious
artisanship, originality, sweetness and so forth, Theocritus is issuing a manifesto as
clear in its direction as any other piece of Hellenistic literary criticism."

Idyll 6, though not traditionally considered programmatic in any sense, still seems to me
to encapsulate the bucolic world in a more concise way than any of the other pastoral
Idylls. In its 46 lines we not only meet the mythical Daphnis, but we witness again the

Cf. Hunter, R. 1999. Theocritus : A Selection. Cambridge. pp. 76-7: "The three scenes all have analogues

on the Shield of Achilles, and it is clear that the cup is to be seen as a 'bucolicisation' of the Shield, where
the first 'bucolic poets' of literature appear. Just as Homer's shield was interpreted as a comprehensive
picture of the world, so the cup offers a view of the wider world against which the limited concerns of
'bucolic' poetry are played out." For a more detailed discussion, see Halperin, D. 1983. Before Pastoral:
Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry. New Haven. esp. chapter 9, "Three Scenes on an
Ivy-Cup" pp. 161-189.

Cairns, F. 1984. "Theocritus' First Idyll: the Literary Programme." WS 18: 105.

quintessential bucolic motifs: the herdsmen and their herds, the meeting at noontime, the
springs, the songs and piping. If one considers Polyphemus the Cyclops and Galatea the
sea nymph as semi-divine figures, then even rustic divinities are present, and one should
not forget the semi-divine status of Daphnis himself.

In addition to all of these, the

amoebean contest, the only bucolic element missing in Idyll 1, is highly prominent in 6:
Daphnis and Damoetas indulge in a contest, which is specifically designated as

¶ (5),

and this constitutes the only ripple in the otherwise perfect world of the two, and will be
happily resolved in the closing lines. To incorporate Idyll 6 into this 'programmatic
nexus', then, one may say that while Idyll 1 determines the subjects and boundaries of
pastoral, and Idyll 7 describes the moment of poetic inspiration, Idyll 6 is the application
of the bucolic principles: it is, perhaps, the pastoral poem par excellence.

At first sight Idylls 1 and 6, though each is representative, seem to have no more in
common than the figure of Daphnis. Still, the similarities, both in theme and in content,
are readily apparent. Primarily, as Richard Hunter shows, Idyll 6 can quite easily be taken
as a comic reading of Idyll 1: both Idylls portray a girl frantically searching for a man
who takes no notice, and therefore is called talan, duseros and aipolos.

Daphnis of Idyll

6, inquiring and gloating, seems to play the part of Priapus from Idyll 1, while
Polyphemus in Idyll 6 finds himself in the same role of the chided lover, as Daphnis does
in Idyll 1.

In addition to these corresponding readings, we may cite the consecutive

placing of the two Idylls in P.Oxy 2064+3548, which might have been caused by the
desire to take both 'Daphnis Poems' together.

This placing also serves to corroborate the

identification of the Daphnis in Idyll 6 with the mythical Daphnis of Idyll 1,

identification which is further strengthened by Theocritus assigning Daphnis in Idyll 6 the
epithets

ı Ò (1) and ı Ê (44).

While it is the epithet

ı Ò which

seems the more representative of the bucolic singer, especially in light of the refrain

Parthenius, Narr. Amat. 29 (following Timaeus' Sikelika) and Aelian, VH, 10.18, report that Daphnis was

a son of Hermes, and Diodorus Siculus, 4.84, reports that he was born of Hermes and a nymph.

Daphnis: I. 82

' , $ Á ; I. 85-86: " Ê# ! ‹ µÆ §$. /

Ê µ¢ §°, Ë %ƒ ‹ ¶.
Polyphemus: VI 7-9: …° ‹ %Ò ! Ë: / ‹ Ê È Ò,
, / ° $...

Hunter 1999: 247-8.

Gutzwiller, K. 1996. "The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Books" in M.A Harder edd. Theocritus.

Groningen. pp. 125-6: "It seems likely that the author of this hypothesis, who immediately goes on to
justify the position of Idyll 1 first in the collection…saw the connection between the dying Daphnis in 1
and the living Daphnis in 6 as the reason for the juxtaposition of the two poems." For a preliminary,
though more concise treatment of the order of the poems, see: Gutzwiller, K. 1991. Theocritus' Pastoral
Analogies: the formation of a genre. Madison, Wis. pp. 105-7.

Pace Fantuzzi, M. 1998. "The Textual Misadventures of Daphnis. The Pseudo-Theocritean Id. 8 and the

Origins of the Bucolic 'Manner." in: M.A Harder edd. Genre in Hellenistic Poetry. Groningen. pp. 61-79.

! , › $, ! , it is rather the epithet ı Ê
which is assigned to Daphnis in both Idylls 1 and 7.

The structural similarities between

the two poems are less apparent, but still recognizable-- a frame, mimetic in 1 and
narrative in 6, surrounds two embedded songs in the familiar bucolic exchange, which is
made explicit in Idyll 6, and implicit in 1.

Having established that the two poems bear some relation and similarities, let us

explore a further connection between them, that of viewing and its obstruction. I propose
that both Idylls invite the reader to interpret the poem through visualization, in much the
same way as one would interpret a statue or a picture. At the same time, I argue that
having invited the reader to visualize, and bringing visual description and vocabulary to
the fore, the viewing of the text is frustrated and obstructed by the very means by which it
was invoked. This, I believe, creates an effect of elusiveness and vagueness, which,
combined with the carefully crafted typicality of these poems, might be taken as an
implicit comment by Theocritus on the substantiality and reality of his own creation.

Indeed, despite the fact that the first Idyll is mostly concerned with the story of the

death of Daphnis, Theocritus takes 63 lines, almost half the poem, to "begin the bucolic
song." What the reader is treated to in this first half is the short exchange between Thyrsis
and the nameless goatherd, and the elaborate ekphrasis of the ivy-cup. The suggestion
that the cup ekphrasis is meant as the equivalent of a song is borne out by the poem--the
ekphrasis and the song are roughly of the same length, and the cup is meant as payment
for the song, and so its equal; but even when we accept this equivalence, we must still
acknowledge that the early placement of the ekphrasis is somewhat unusual.

An ekphrasis, by its very nature, is descriptive, and as such represents a pause in

the narrative or the progress of the poem. As D. P. Fowler points out, this pause creates
an interpretative problem:

"Much modern critical reading of ekphrasis in classical literature takes the form of an
attempt to show that what earlier critics had seen as 'merely' decorative description
can in fact be integrated with narrative, indeed demands to be so integrated. Precisely

Cf. I. 86:

Ê µ¢ §°, Ë %ƒ ‹ ¶; I. 120: §# ˜ " ı

Ò œ µÊ, and VII. 73: À ° ± ı Ê.

Cf. Virgil, Eclogue 5, which seems to conflate the two- a mimetic frame surrounds an amoebaean

exchange. The fact that the songs are about the death and deification of Daphnis are perhaps a further clue
to this conflation.

because ekphrasis represents a pause at the level of narrative and cannot be read
functionally, the reader is possessed by a strong need to interpret."

Usually, one would expect, this "need to interpret" would be satisfied by pausing to

ponder the ekphrasis' connection to the narrative surrounding it. Theocritus, however,
hardly offers us any narrative against which to read the ekphrasis: it begins early in the
poem, and placed before the bulk of it. On the connection between song and ekphrasis C.
Segal has previously commented:

"In one sense the scenes on the cup and the story of Daphnis stand on the same level:
both are enclosed within an artificial frame and both are incorporated into the larger
rustic world within which Thyrsis and the Goatherd pasture their flock, meet and
sing. Through this frame Theocritus self-consciously juxtaposes echphrastic art and
narrative art."

While this distinction is certainly true, it should be pushed further. One cannot deny that
the cup ekphrasis has a narrative element, and the song of Thyrsis an ekphrastic one. It
seems, therefore, that we are perhaps meant to understand the ekphrasis not only as an
invitation to interpret, but also as an indication of what sort of interpretation we should
engage in. It invites us to think through a more visual mode, an invitation made more
explicit by the skillfully crafted scenes on the cup, which stand out for their artistic detail
and sophistication.

The song of Thyrsis, as mentioned above, has a descriptive, rather than narrative

quality, framed as it is by the refrains, and especially in describing one static scene, in
which the main progression of the simple plot happens in the dialogue. This descriptive
quality also plays a part in drawing the reader into the mindset of the poem--we, the
readers, are not the only observers of the tragic scene unfolding before us. Daphnis is an
object of viewing for the occupants of the song; the various animals, the gods Hermes
and Priapus, the neatherds, shepherds and goatherds, and finally the goddess Aphrodite
(75-98), all watch Daphnis struggle with his torment. This vigil is not explicitly stated in
the poem, but the description of the viewers' arrival takes up nearly a third of the song,
and nothing is mentioned about their leaving the scene. It is not hard to imagine their
presence on the outskirts, silently watching the death of Daphnis.

Fowler, D.P. 1991. "Narrate and Describe: the Problem of Ekphrasis." JRS 81: p. 27, with further

bibliography on the structural and narrative function of ekphrasis.

Segal, C. 1974. "Since Daphnis Dies: the Meaning of Theocritus' First Idyll." MH 31, p. 31.

Furthermore, this circle of viewers should serve to remind the reader of a more dramatic
setting,

a sense which is stressed by the confined, static nature of the scene, as well as

its progression through the dialogue between the characters, rather than through any
actions they take. Indeed, this seems particularly striking in the case of Daphnis himself,
whose only physical movement mentioned in the poem is

¶ Ò. ¶ & (140).

Even with regard to this there is some uncertainty whether the motion is physical or
metaphorical.

When one remembers that the song of Thyrsis is a performance, even if

for an audience of one, this aspect becomes even more prominent. Though the
arrangement described above recalls more the theater and the seating of the viewers of
drama, the song itself is more rhapsodic in nature. The tension between the rhapsodic
performance of Thyrsis, and the dramatic, even tragic, content of his song, emphasizes
that the death of Daphnis is an act which is performed, and has an audience. It is not done
in private or in anonymity, but is rather viewed, and immortalized.

On a lexical level also, the vocabulary of sight is used in key moments. Daphnis is twice
said to be

Ùµ%-- "wasting away in the eyes," a rather unusual way to

denote crying, (one might more prosaically expect

or ). The use of

Ùµ% certainly emphasizes the visual. Further, when Priapus comes to ask Daphnis
about the source of his woes, he taunts him by saying:

# ' , & Á ; ° $

, ' ! ‹ ›

...

': (Idylls, I. 82-85).

[Priapus came,] and said, 'Poor Daphnis, why art thou wasting? While for thee the
maiden wanders by every fount and glade-…searching (trans. Gow).

Hunter 1999: 62: "At another level, the 'sufferings of Daphnis' clearly resemble a tragic pathos, and the

" or lament offers another vision of pre-tragedy, the kind of song which, taken in another direction,
led to 'drama'."

Cf. Gow, ad loc: "various meanings have been attached to these words, but considering how common in

Greek is the acc. after verbs of motion, I cannot believe them to mean anything except went to the (or a)
stream. Those who have taken this view have generally supposed the stream to be Acheron, and that still
seems the most probable interpretation..." More recently, Hunter 1999: 67: "The emphasis on the watery
nature of his end- whether it is understood literally or metaphorically- seems to point to a specific narrative
and not simply to an elaborate way of saying 'went to the underworld', though the words must also evoke
such an idea."

Indeed, the word

* is often used in Greek poetry to denote 'eye,' just as the Cyclops

does in Idyll 6. 36:

" ° µ % µ, *.

Again, Theocritus' careful choice of

words seems to emphasize the visual, by this very simple technique. We may therefore
safely suggest that Idyll one invites its reader to use visual imagination as an
interpretative medium.

Idyll 6 makes viewing and seeing a much more explicit component of its fabric: it
abounds with the vocabulary of seeing, seeming, and appearance, which occur no less
than nine times,

and Damoetas' song ends with the Cyclops watching and describing his

own reflection in the water. Even the themes which the Idyll develops contribute to the
focus on the act of seeing, and expand its meaning to knowing, interpreting, and
understanding. Daphnis chides Polyphemus for not seeing Galatea, (VI. 8:

‹ Ê È

Ò) and thus not understanding her intentions, while Damoetas has the Cyclops
reply that he had indeed seen her, (VI. 21-2:

‰, ‹ Ú #... Î µ

...

) and

implies that he not only saw, but interpreted her intentions and understood them. The act
of seeing the other side in this odd relationship seems almost to imply a position of
power, since the one who sees acquires also the ability to manipulate:

$" ‹ ÈÚ §+ , ! È Òµ,

$' & " µ‹ ›' ¶: ' ' $,

› µ', Œ !, ‹ !, § ¢ !

-› , ' & ‹ ‹ ,µ.

, ' Í› ‹ ( ,: ‹ " ˜' ),

È# §› ' -, Ê ¶.

Ë ' ‡ §Ë Ë! µ ! µ›...

(Idylls, VI. 25-32)

Nay, but I too myself, to tease her back, have no eye for her, but tell her I have
another to wife. And she hears and is jealous of me, and pines, and from the sea spies
in frenzy on my caves and flocks…And may be, when she sees me do this often, she
will send a messenger… (trans. Gow.)

Zimmerman, C. 1994. The Pastoral Narcissus: A study of the First Idyll of Theocritus. Maryland. p. 49-

50.

Ò (8); ‡ (9); µ°..., (11); ° (19); ‰ (21); "µ (22);

Òµ (25); , (28); §Ë (31).

This power structure, wherein sight equals knowledge, and so leads to a superior position
is evident not only in the relationship between Polyphemus and Galatea as depicted in
Idyll 6, but also in the conversation between Thyrsis and the nameless Goatherd in the
frame of Idyll 1. There, despite the fact that Thyrsis is a shepherd (

Œ µÆ, 7), while

the goatherd (

0Ò, 1) is of a lower bucolic rank,

the power dynamic between them

can be seen to be quite the opposite. While seemingly it is the goatherd who must coax
Thyrsis into singing, the exchange seems rather more like a patron's commission of a
musical piece he would like to hear:

&$ Á $ Æ, Ê, $ # (' &/

‹ % % §‹ Ú ° 1 µ/,

Ë' ÍÚ $ ° •.µ « Æ

‹ % / /, + ı «

, ı µÚ ‹ ‹ Ê. 0 ° ' &/˙

… ˜ Ú Ê ‹ Òµ * §/,

‰# ° « µÒ § ‹ &µ°,

) Ê' ¶' §/ µ° § Ê °,

‹ Á Ê µ° '° ",

&µ«, °, ¶ # Ò.

(Idylls, I. 19-28)

But thou, Thyrsis, art wont to sing the woes of Daphnis and art come to mastery in
pastoral song. Come hither then, and let us sit beneath the elm, facing Priapus and the
springs, where is yon shepherds' seat and the oaks. And if thou sing as once thou
sangest in thy match with Chromis from Libya, then will I let thee milk three times a
goat that has borne twins, one that, for all it has two kids, yet yields two pails besides.
And I will give thee a deep cup, washed over with sweet wax, two-handled, and
newly fashioned, still fragrant from the knife. (trans. Gow)

Not only does the goatherd refuse Thyrsis' request to sit and play, but he also counteracts
with his own proposal. It must also be noted that Thyrsis's request (12-4) is accompanied
by the promise that he will tend the flocks while the goatherd sings--an act which might

Cf. line 80 for the listing of the bucolic hierarchy:

- ‹ Ë, ‹ µ°, ' -, and

line 86 for a more blunt expression of the same order:

Ê µ¢ §°, Ë 0ƒ &‹ ¶.

be interpreted as both practical and obsequious.

Further, the goatherd knows what he

wishes to hear--the woes of Daphnis--and the artistic level at which he wishes it to be
performed--the same as in Thyrsis' match with Cromis. In exchange, he will give some of
his 'wealth', rustic though it may be. Further, he goes into minute detail in describing his
gifts, and this close description develops into the intricate ekphrasis.

While one may argue that this interpretation of the frame lends itself more to irony than
to an actual power dynamic, it is precisely that which allows the frame of Idyll 1 to be
mapped onto the relationship between Polyphemus and Galatea in 6. As K. Gutzwiller
states, "degradation of a character better than ourselves, and elevation of a character
worse than ourselves both have comic potential."

While the situation here is more ironic

than comic, it is certainly one of elevating a "character worse than ourselves:" the
goatherd, of the lowest rank in the bucolic world, here lords it over his alleged betters.
Perhaps the key to this odd inversion is that Thyrsis is named, and goes on to declare
himself and his profession:

Ê ˜ … ‡, ‹ Ê ° (65).

The goatherd, on the other hand, by virtue of being nameless, is generic, and may be any
one of many herding figures. Thus, just as his 'superior' position stems also from being in
a position of superior knowledge, Thyrsis' 'inferior' position stems from his lack of
knowledge. Though his name and history are known to the goatherd, Thyrsis himself
does not have similar knowledge, and thus cannot assume the position which he should
occupy by virtue of his place in the bucolic hierarchy. Rather then being able to get the
aipolos to sing, Thyrsis has been manipulated by him into singing himself.

It must be admitted that namelessness ties together more readily with lack of power.
However, a somewhat similar situation is that of deception, where the namelessness of
the deceiver confers potential power on him. The locus classicus is of course Odyssey ix,
where Odysseus introduces himself to the Cyclops as 'no-man.'

While it should be

obvious that the goatherd does not set out to deceive Thyrsis, it is also apparent that the
power inversion is made possible through the aipolos' ability to manipulate Thyrsis into
singing. The tension between the power inherent in precise recognition, such as the

Compare Idyll III. 1-2:

µ ‹ µ , ‹ ° µ ‰/ Ò ˆ,

‹ È §Ê. Here, Tityrus is obviously inferior to the singer.

Gutzwiller 199: 108.

Odyssey ix. 366:

Ô §µ ˆµ: Ô ° µ Æ... The importance of this should not

be ignored: Odysseus's story is directly alluded to in both Idylls 6 and 11, and is thus an important backdrop
to Theocritus' treatment of the myth.

goatherd posseses, and the poetic knowledge which Thyrsis wields lends complexity to
the tension between sight, knowledge, and their obstruction.

Even the structure of the poems seems to enforce this invitation to view. As stated earlier,
the two Idylls bear a structural similarity, and it extends beyond the simple scheme of
frame and embedded songs. Once again, Idyll 6 is the more obvious case: the rigid
construction of the poem itself draws attention to the sectioning effect it creates. The two
parts of the frame are of the same length (5 lines), and the poem specifically denotes
when each song begins and ends,

thus achieving an almost self-sufficient status for each

of the poem's parts. We see a similar effect in Idyll 1. Though the ekphrasis grows out of
the dialogue, without indication of its more important status, the song of Thyrsis is well
defined by its opening and closing refrains: "Begin, dear Muses, begin the pastoral song,"
and "Cease, Muses, cease the pastoral song." Further, within both song and ekphrasis, we
see the partitioning of the separate elements of each song, again creating the tesserae
effect. This is achieved in the cup ekphrasis by the careful, physical separation of the
three scenes. The first frame is emblematic:

¶ ¢ !, « *µ, °,

$" °ƒ ‹ %µ: " ° , %

Ú §! $µ‹ % %

*' §°: " ' È Ú & È#:

$' ˜ µ¢ ' ° % °,

% ' Ô ‹ Ú › Ò: „ ' Í' ¶

" Ò §( µ*.

› ¢ µ" Ê ° ° °

(Idylls, I. 32-9)

And within is wrought a woman, such a thing as the gods might fashion, decked with
cloak and circlet. And by her two men with long fair locks contend from either side in
alternate speech. Yet these things touch not her heart, but now she looks on one and

In a broader sociological reading, this might be interpreted as a comment on the relationship between

poet and patron, and on the power inherent in the poetic art to memorialize and immortalize the patron. For
all the power and influence the patron (in this case, the goatherd) wields, it is rather the singer (here,
Thyrsis), whose name will live on, in the medium of his own poetry. The situation is made slightly more
complicated, as Thyrsis does not name himself until he begins to sing; it is only through the patron's
commission, therefore, that the poet can produce the poems that will immortalize him.

Cf. VI. 5:

# % !, §‹ ‹ # ¶, 20: " ¶ µ*

$! ‹ ! %, and 42: Ò +) Ú ! ı µ* §*.

smiles, and now to the other she shifts her thought, while they, long hollow-eyed
from love, labor to no purpose. By these is carved an old fisherman…(trans. Gow)

None of the scenes on the cup, or the particular images within each scene, flow into the
other, but rather each stands on its own, slightly removed from the other two (

(32)

, ° (33), › ¢ µ (39)). Even within each scene, there is no contact, but

rather the characters are all watching something--the suitors are gazing at the woman,
who gazes at both (

°, 36), the angler watches the sea, and the foxes are

intent on the child, who is immersed in his work.

In the song of Thyrsis, on the other hand, this effect is achieved through the changing
refrain, when each change also brings with it a shift in focus: when using the first refrain,
, the focus is on the various visitors (64-93), the second refrain,

(96-126), is used when narrating the first part of Daphnis' speech and his interaction with
Aphrodite, and the last refrain,

Æ (127-142), thematically covers the death of

Daphnis and the end of his song. Perhaps the best analogy for the effect created would be
to see the song of Thyrsis not as a smooth narrative, but rather a more stilted production;
to use a modern analogy, the song is not so much a movie, as it were, but rather a slide
show, showing a more abrupt and fragmentary progression. The constant slowing down
of the narrative that this effect generates seems to strengthen the invitation to stop,
ponder and interpret, a task made easier by the stillness of the images Theocritus
produces.

However, despite the constant invitation to view that the Idylls extend, they nevertheless
seem to obstruct and frustrate our viewing repeatedly. In Idyll 1, perhaps the most blatant
obstruction is the very fact that the goatherd only produces the cup at the end of the
song

, , … Ú ˆ: (I. 149). For the rest of the time, the cup,

described in such lavish detail, is invisible.

Even within this half-line we can find a

deflection of viewing. The goatherd presents the cup with

--behold, but proceeds to

qualify the act with

… Ú ˆ, "how sweetly it smells." As one cannot behold

smell, sweet though it is, this change is a further obstruction. It is strengthened by the
manner in which it is done: the change from one sense to the other is swift, and seems to
be almost unconscious. Though invited to see the cup, the object of the invitation is not
something visible, but rather something which cannot be seen.

Payne, M. 2001. "Echphrasis and Song in Theocritus Idyll 1." GRBS 42: 264-5.

One would have to admit that descriptive detail is as close as the cup gets to visibility. It is crucial to

note that it is both invisible in terms of action and narrative (no one drinks from it or holds it), and in
physical appearance. The goatherd does not describe an object that both he and Thyrsis can see, but rather
an object which, for now, exists only through his description.

My thanks are due to Prof. A. Henrichs for bringing this point to my attention.

In the song, where Daphnis is the object viewed by all the participants in the scene, the
readers are made aware of their function as viewers, but are then denied the opportunity
to see Daphnis. Even though we are allowed to hear him, there are no physical
descriptions of the dying cowherd. We are denied not only physical sight, but we are
deprived even of the opportunity to know Daphnis; for Theocritus, it seems, goes out of
his way in an effort to make the identification of the Daphnis myth as difficult as
possible. We do not know the cause of Daphnis' wasting away, nor are we given
sufficient clues to identify the source or version of the myth--all such hints are given by
Priapus, and not by Daphnis himself. All we know is that he is wasting away into
nothingness. More specifically, wasting away in the eyes--

Ùµ. He is

weeping, perhaps going blind, and almost certainly becoming invisible. Finally, Daphnis'
death is left mysterious; all we are told is

¶ Ò. ¶ (140). The long

lasting, unresolved scholarly debate stands as testament to the vagueness of Theocritus'
description.

In accordance with its content and themes, Idyll 6 creates analogies between the singers
and the personae they assume--Daphnis and Galatea, Damoetas and Polyphemus.
Damoetas sings in the persona of Polyphemus, and so becomes analogous with the
Cyclops. Galatea, as opposed to the brutish, physical Cyclops, is shifting and ethereal,
and so cannot be clearly perceived, either by the Cyclops--whose inability to see Galatea
is the subject of Daphnis' song, or by Daphnis himself, who must therefore sing of
Galatea, rather than assuming her persona.

Because the structure of the poem demands

that the assimilation and analogy be maintained, these shifting, insubstantial qualities of
Galatea reflect and attach to Daphnis himself, who thus becomes elusive, in direct
contrast with the brute physicality of Polyphemus and his analogue, Damoetas. Even this
physicality, enforced by Polyphemus's observing himself in the water, wavers at the end,
when he spits into his reflection's lap, so as to dissolve his own image.

Finally, both Idylls play on the theme of blindness. Both Daphnis and the Cyclops share a
similar fate. In some of the myth versions Daphnis is blinded because of his infidelity to

Cf. n.13 above for Gow, ad loc, and Hunter 1999: 67, both of whom supply further bibliography. Also:

Ogilvie, R. M. 1962. "The Song of Thyrsis." JHS 82: 106-110; Segal, C. 1974. "Death by water. A
narrative pattern in Theocritus (Idylls 1, 13, 22, 23)." Hermes 102: 20-38; Idem. 1974. "Since Daphnis
Dies: the Meaning of Theocritus' First Idyll." MH 31: 1-22.

Hunter 1999: 244: "Galatea's motives and behavior both demand and defy interpretation, and for this

reason Daphnis cannot impersonate her, but must remain as a third-party observer and interpreter. His song
makes clear, however, that Galatea's very existence is…ephemeral."

This is, of course, done

… µØ « (39), that is, so as to "avoid the potentially evil consequences

of his pride in his own appearance." (Hunter 1999: 259.) For the meaning of averting baskania in Idyll 6,
see: Gow, ad 6.39, and Gershenson, D. (1969), "Averting

in Theocritus: A Compliment,"

California Studies in Classical Antiquity 2, pp. 145-55. For the existence and importance of baskania in
Idyll 1, see: Zimmerman 1994, especially pp. 39-73.

the nymph, though this does not explicitly appear in the story of Daphnis as Theocritus
tells it.

The Odyssean story of the blinding of Polyphemus (Odyssey ix. 371-99) is

perhaps the archetypal blinding story of Greek mythology.

Despite the obvious allusion,

incurred by the choice of Polyphemus as a leading character in the myth, the story of his
blinding is not openly treated. The clearest reference to the Odyssey comes at the very
beginning of Polyphemus' song:

Î µ' ¶', È Ú §µÚ Ú ß Ê, / "µ

§ ° (È' ı µ& ı Æµ ¶' )Ê

§' ° ‹ ‰, ˜ ° &):

(Idylls, VI, 22-4)

And she did not escape unseen- nay, by my one sweet eye, she did not, wherewith
may I see to the end- let Telemus, the seer, carry home the bale he prophesies for me
and keep it for his children (trans. Gow).

Despite the fact that Theocritus purposefully chooses not to evoke the gruesome future of
the Cyclops, the very existence of the Odyssean story would surely give chilling nuances
to the Cyclops' repeated mentions of seeing, and to his references to his own one eye.

The imminent blinding of the two principal mythological figures, only hinted at, but not
openly stated, serves as the most physical and fundamental obstruction of viewing, and
plays well into the themes of sight and its frustration at work in the Idylls.

Having noted these themes, it is now time to ask what we are meant to take from

the apparently doomed invitation to interpret these poems visually. We have seen that for
Theocritus, sight is the equivalent of knowledge and interpretation. Further, we have seen

Parthenios 29 (<Timaios Sikelika)

µØ µ° ' ÈË µÆ ' ˆ

)›... Aelian VH 10.18= PMG 279 Æ ¢ §0 µµ+ *˙ & ÈÒ,
‹ §0 ˜ µ° § ÈÚ , , ˆ, §' ª... For the
absence of Daphnis' blindness in Theocritus, cf. Idyll 7. 73-7:

À ( ° ±& &

ı Ê,/ » ˆ )µ› ‹ … Ê ÈÚ §Æ/#µ° ‡ Ê "
ˆ µ›,/Ô . À & µÚ Í" Âµ/ - $ - #Ò -
Ê §Ò. For a useful survey of all of the sources, see Hunter 1999: 64-6.

One might compare this to the other famous blinding story—that of Oedipus, where the mutilation

comes after the acquisition of self-knowledge.

Note also Gow's translation of

È Òµ in line 25- "I too myself…have no eye for her."

A much more explicit reference to Odyssey ix is given in Idyll 11. 60-1:

Ë µ&, « Ò, Ë

È0 › µËµ/ ‡ & Á ˛ ° ° œ" )0... On this manipulation of the
Homeric myths, cf. Hunter 1999: 247: "The existence of a famous literary tradition need not determine the
poetry of the present: Theocritus' Cyclops can show bravado in the face of the Homeric pattern, no less than
Theocritus himself can demand a place for his bucolic poems in a world which already has Odyssey 9."

that the Idylls straddle the gap between the visual and the invisible, as well as between
description and narration. The constant tension between the rustic narrative and the
sophisticated ekphrasis which imbues the Idylls lends further nuances, in which the
reader is not only invited to use ekphrasis and the visual and interpretative aids, but is at
the same time denied the opportunity to do just that. I would like to suggest that the
obstruction of viewing is used by Theocritus as a marker of the impossibility of clear
sight, of the perfect interpretation of bucolic poetry. Having created this well wrought yet
highly artificial world, Theocritus shows us, through these most representative poems,
how easily this world might dissolve into its separate components, and just how
charmingly artificial is the bucolic whole. This artificiality, in turn, forces the reader to
become conscious of the act of interpretation. It is my conclusion, then, that by playing
on these themes of sight and its obstruction, especially by placing them in these particular
poems and their interpretative contexts we may find a comment on the illusory nature of
the bucolic world. In the contrived reality of the Sicilian countryside, the Idylls reflect not
only the poet's awareness of the contrivance, but also the reader's own.

Bibliography

Cairns, F. 1984. "Theocritus' First Idyll: the Literary Programme." WS 18: 89-113.

Fowler, D.P. 1991. "Narrate and Describe: the Problem of Ekphrasis." JRS 81: 25-35.

Gutzwiller, K. 1991. Theocritus' Pastoral Analogies: the formation of a genre. Madison,
Wis.

Gutzwiller, K. 1996. "The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Books." in M.A. Harder
(edd.) Theocritus. Groningen: 119-148.

Gow, A.S.F. 1950. Theocritus. Cambridge.

Halperin, D. 1983. Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic
Poetry. New Haven.

Hunter, R. 1999. Theocritus: A Selection. Cambridge.

Ogilvie, R.M. 1962. "The Song of Thyrsis." JHS 82: 106-110

Payne, M. 2001. "Echprasis and Song in Theocritus Idyll 1." GRBS 42: 263-288.

Segal, C. 1974. "Since Daphnis Dies: the Meaning of Theocritus' First Idyll." MH 31: 1-
22.

Zimmerman, C. 1994. The Pastoral Narcissus: A study of the First Idyll of Theocritus.
Maryland.

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:

więcej podobnych podstron