Theocritus

275 Pages·1996·7.436 MB·English

by  Annette Harder, Remco F. Regtuit, G. C. Wakker

HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA
II
HELLENISTICA GRONINGANA
PROCEEDINGS OF THE
GRONINGEN WORKSHOPS ON HELLENISTIC POETRY
THEOCRITUS
EDITORS
M.A. HARDER
R.F. REGTUIT
G.C. WAKKER
THEOCRITUS
EDITED BY
M.A.
HARDER
R.F. REGTUIT
G.C.
WAKKER
Egbert Forsten Groningen 1996
OMSLAG0NTWERP
Studio Bert Gort, Zevenhuizen (Gn)
© 1996 Copyright Egbert Forsten 1996
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the holder of the copyright.
ISBN 90 6980 064 5
CONTENTS
ntE DORICOFTHEOCRITUS, A LITERARY LANGUAGE
J.GJ. Abbcnc., 1-19
NARRATIVEA ND ALLUSION IN THEOCRITUS,I DYLL 2
N.E. Andrew!! 21-53
THE PREOCCUPATIONSO F THEOCRITIJS:
STRUCTURE, ILLUSIVE REALISM, ALLUSIVE LEARNING
W.G. Amott 55-70
PARATAKTISCHEG LEICHNISSEB EJ THEOKRIT
Ham Ba1lSdorfT 71-90
FRAME AND FRAMED IN THEOCRITUS POEMS 6 AND 7
Ewen Bowie 91-100
CUSTOMISING THEOCRITIJS: POEMS 13 AND 24
Alan Orimlhs 101-118
ntE EVIDENCE FOR THEOCRITEAN POETRY BOOKS
KathrynG ul7.willcr 119-148
MIME AND MIMESIS: THEOCRITIJS, IDYLL 15
Richard Hunter 149-169
ntEOKRITS POLY PHEMGEDICHTE
A. KOhnkcn 171-186
A MAN OF MANY WORDS: L YNCEUS AS SPEAKER IN THEOC. 22
AlexandeSr ens 187-204
SELBSTZITATEI N DEN MIMISCHENG EDICHTENn tEOKRITS
K.-H. Stanzcl 205-225
GENRETHROUGHINTERTEXTIJALITY:
THEOCRITUS TO VIRGIL AND PROPERTIUS
Richard F. Thomas 227-246
THE DISCOURSE FUNCTION OF PARTICLES
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF µav/µ~v IN ntEOCRITUS
GenyWakkcr 247-263
INDEXES
I. lndt!xe fP a.r."",:cd.ri. mmed 265
2. lndcxo f Greek.w ords 265
3. lndt!x of Names and Suh1cr.ts 266
Preface
In 1992 the Department of Classics at the University of Groningen (Netherlands) began
a series of workshops on Hellenistic Poetry to be held every two years. The fonnat of
these workshops is that the papers offered by the speakers are sent to the participants of
the workshops in advance of the actual meeting, so that during the workshops there is
ample opponunity for detailed discussion. The workshops focus on individual
Hellenistic authors as well as on more general aspects of Hellenistic poetry, such as the
implications of developments in modem literary criticism for research on, for example,
genre or narrative technique and the implications of linguistic studies for the
interpretation of the texts. Attention is also given to the social and cultural background
of Hellenistic poetry and the ways in which this can be related to f onn and content. The
workshops also intend to offer room for the presentation of research by young scholars
and graduate students. The proceedings of the workshops are published in the series
He/lenisticaG roningana( published by Egben Forsten Publishers [Groningen])
Following this format the first of the 'Groningen Workshops on Hellenistic Poetry', on
Callimachus, was held at Groningen in 1992; the second, on Theocritus, took place in
1994. Both proved to be very profitable. The papers presented were discussed and
commented on by an international group of specialists in the field of Hellenistic poetry
and then revised. for publication in the proceedings of the workshop. Funhermore, the
workshop offered ample opportunity for the development of ideas and the
establishment of many fruitful contacts between scholars working on the Hellenistic
period.
When organizing the workshop we aimed at including a variety of approaches to
Theocritus' poetry, which may be thought to be representative of recent developments
in modern literary criticism and linguistics. At the same time attention has been given to
matters of textual criticism and transmission. Thus the anicles of Andrews, Bemsdorff,
Stanzcl and Thomas focus on aspects of Theocritus' literary technique. They draw
attention to the possibilities of using the narratological concept of 'focalisation'
(Andrews), to Thcocritus' treatment of the old epic device of the Homeric simile
(Bemsdorff), to the ways in which Theocritus occasionally quotes his own poems
(Stanzcl) and to matters of genre and intertextuality (Thomas). The articles of Abbenes
and Wakkerg ive an indication of the impact that modem linguistics can have on the
study ofTheocritus: Abbenes discusses the Doric of Theocritus, while Wakkcr shows
how attention for the discourse function of particles can help us with the interpretation
of individual passages. A vigorous attempt to 'customise' Theocritus 13 and 24 is made
by Griffiths and represents textual criticism in this volume. Finally, matters of
transmission arc discussed by Gutzwiller in her anicle on the earliest editions of
Theocritus.
In addition to methodological variety we have also included articles which focussed on
the interpretation of individual poems and aimed at a representative selection in which
bucolic, urban and mythological poems were all represented by at least one example.
Thus bucolic poems arc discussed by Bowie (on framework and embedded songs in 6
and 7) and Kohnken (on the Polyphemus-poems 6 and 11); urban mimes by Andrews
(a narratological analysis of Simaetha's story in 2) and Hunter (about 15 as a self
conscious poem in a Ptolemaic context); and mythological poems by Griffith (textual
criticism of 13 and 24) and Sens (on Lynceus as a post-Homeric hero in an epic setting
in 22).
The closing lecture of the workshop was given by Amott, who "as a confirmed
idolater" (55) discussed three important aspects ofTheocritus' poetry: structure, illusive
realism and allusive learning, thus providing a picture of Theocritus as a typically
Hellenistic poeL
In spite of these attempts to provide a broad spectrum and to include as many aspects of
Thcocritean studies as possible, we feel that this volume contains only a fraction of all
that can be said and investigateda bout Thcocritus. This was also the feeling with which
the participants of the workshop went home: a sense that there was much more to
Thcocritus than they had been aware of before they came and an urge to go on working
on this fascinating poet We hope that this collection of papers may transmit some of
this inspiration to its readers.
Groningen, May 1996 Annette Harder

TIIE DORIC OF THEOCRITUS,A LITERARY LANGUAGE
J.G.J. Abbenes
In the study of the dialect of Theocritus,1 Magnien's study of 1920 has had a profound
influence. In this article, Magnien tries to show that Theocritus used a literary dialect which
had its origins in fifth-cenrury Syracuse (or even earlier), an idea which ultimately goes
back to Meillet (1955). He accepts virtually all Doric2 poetry and prose, ranging from
Epicharmus to Theocritus and Callimachus and from Archytas of Tarentum to Archimedes,
as having been written in this literary Syracusan; in fact, according to Magnien, only the
poets of the Doric 'choral lyric' (as understood by Magnien; a better term would now be
'poets of the western school') 3 use an independentd ialect.
In manuals of Greek dialects Magnien' s hypothesis is virtually ignored: in Thumlr
Kieckers (1932: § 175) Theocritus' language is assigned to 'Sicilian' Doric, although they
have to concede that sometimes Theocritus simply ignores the Sicilian standard in order to
give his language a more general Doric (or even non-koine) appearance.4 Callimachus'
language is apparently considered as belonging to the dialect of Cyrene. It is admitted,
though, that his language sometimes shows the same dialectal features as Theocritus (1932:
§ 176). Whether this is to be regarded as the result of the admixture of artificial forms (or
forms of a more general Doric appearance) with on the one hand a Cyrenaean-, and on the
other hand a Sicilian-based dialect, or whether they are to be seen as using the same dialect
mixed with artificial forms after all, remains unclear. In the light of their assigning
Theocritus to the Sicilian Doric group and Callimachus to that of Cyrene, the former
explanation is probably intended. The possibly genuine works of Archytas and Philolaus,
as well as the works of the so-ailed pseudo-Pythagorean authors are considered to belong
to the Laconian-Tarentinian group (1932: § 107). To the same group Thumlr-Kieckers
(1932: § 108) assign POxy. 410.
Ruijgh (1984) also rejects Magnien's view, arguing that the only basis for our
knowledge of the Syracusan dialect in the time of Theocritus consists in the works of
Archimedes, who uses a dialect which differs in a great many respects from the dialect used
Gow (1952) distinguishesb etween (i) genuine poems in Doric: Theoc. 1-7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 26;
(ii) dubious or spurious poems in Doric: Theoc. 8, 9, 19-21, 23, 27; (iii) poems prevailinglyi n epic
dialect wilh an admixlUJ'oCf Doric: Theoc. 13, 16, 17, 24; (iv) poems in epic and Ionic; (v) poems in
Aeolic. In lhis study I will concentrates olely on lhe poems belonging to Gow's group i.
2 In this anicle I use lhe r.enn'sD oric' and 'West-Greek' indiscriminately.
3 Cf. die elaborated iscussiono flhe distinctionb etween 'choral lyric' and 'monody' in Davies (1988).
4 Thus Thumb-Kieckers are well aware thal the genitive singular of lhe masculine 0-stems in
Thcocritus regularly ends in against the -ou of 'Sicilian' Doric.
•(I),
2 ABBENES
by Thcocritus, as was already seen by Thumb-Kieckcrs (1932). To take an example,
Archimedes consistently writes the accusative plural of the masculine ~stems as -ooc;,
whereas Theocritus writes -we;.
Ruijgh therefore looks for the basis of Theocritus' Doric in another dialect. that of
Cyrcnc. In doing this, Ruijgh follows the lead of Risch (1954), who tried to prove the
major importance of this dialect for the constitution of the text of Aleman. Ruijgh,
however, goes one step beyond Risch in stating that the Cyrcnaean elements found in the
language of Theocritus arc not to be attributed to subsequent editors, who used the dialect
of Cyrcnc as some son of standard Doric on the basis of which they made decisions about
textual problems (a hypothesis advanced by Risch to explain the Cyrcnaean elements in the
language of Alcman),5 but that these elements go back to the poet himself.
However, in order to explain those features of the dialect of Thcocritus which cannot
be attributed to the Cyrenacan dialect as it is known at present, notably the distinction
between two long E-vowcls, /c:/ and /e:/,6 as against only one long ~vowel, Ruijgh
makes the interesting suggestion that Theocritus did not use the actually attested Cyrcnacan
dialect, but rather a dialect reconstructed by him for the 'Cyrcnaean community' in
Alexandria. Ruijgh (1984: 75-6) also tries to explain a number of other characteristics of
the language of Thcocritus, which have traditionally been explained by assuming the
admixture of Acolic (or rather epic-Aeolic) fonns, as having arisen in this hypothetical
Cyrcnacan dialect of Alexandria. Thus, according to Ruijgh, the particle IC£ which is used
m m
by Thcocritus instead of (or parallel to) the usual West-Greek particle or should not
be explained as an Acolic clement in Thcocritus' language. Rather it arose in the Cyrcnacan
dialect of Alexandria. or it may have been introduced by Thcocritus himself, due to a false
supplementing of the elided fonn ic', which-according to Ruijg~amc from 1Cab, ut
was felt as coming from IC£ (as 6' from 6i and t' from te).
In short, according to Ruijgh's theory, Thcocritus wrote in a more or less unaltered
dialect, to wit Alexandrian Cyrcnaean. 7 One of the more important reasons for this choice,
be supposes, was the fact that Thcocritus' main public, resident in Alexandria, could be
expected to recognize this dialect from personal experience as 'Doric'.
More recently this view has been challenged by Molinos Tejada (1990), who argued
convincingly against some of Ruijgh 's arguments in favour of a Cyrcnaean Alexandrian
origin of the dialect ofThcocritus.
s
For some arguments against this theory, see Cassio (1993).
6 Magnien (1920: 63-5) accepted, on the strength of the manuscripts, di> and c:O>a s the correct
result or the isovocalic coniractions and the various compensatory lengthenings. Since then the
publication of the Antinoe Papyrus (POry. 2064) has radically alrercdt he picture emerging from the
manuscripts. For a detailed description of the readings of this and other papyri on this mauer, cf. •
Molinos Tejada (1990: 71-8).
7 Of course. this does nocm ean that Ruijgh denies the occmional use of epic forms.o nly that there
can be no questiono f a 'mixed' artificial dialect.