It is evident’that references to eyes and vision in Homer are mainly formulaic. However, in a stimulating article J.P. Holoka discussed the Homeric formula ύπόδρα ίδών showing that ‘In all instances, the facial gesture ύπόδρα ίδών charges the speech it introduces with a decidedly minatory fervency and excitement: a threshold has been reached and such inflammable materials as wounded pride, righteous indignation, frustration, shame, and shock are nearing the combustion point.’ Homeric facial gestures may thus reflect aspects of character and reveal psychological situations; they may, in a way, substitute for acts and above all for words. This study, therefore, will attempt to concentrate, or rather to focus attention, on the eyes of Homeric heroes—and in some cases on those of gods—and where it is possible on their reflections of characters. In certain cases the way the Homeric heroes see and the subsequent details add one more dimension to the depiction of their characters; that is, the supplement to their acts and sayings3 makes for a better understanding of them.

In recent years philosophers working within the field of Platonic studies have begun to stress the relationship between form and content in Plato’s works. This ‘revelation’ in its turn has led to a richer understanding of Platonic texts; no longer (or at least not so often) do we find a Socratic argument excised from its dramatic context and syllogistically and analytically examined. Analysis, of course, can never be divorced from philosophy but with respect to the corpus Platonicum philosophical analysis has been supplemented by a sensitivity to the denouement of an argument, in other words, the dramatic context.

In this article I use ‘Minor Bucolic’ to mean ‘poems transmitted in bucolic manuscripts but not written by Theocritus’; thus the term includes, strictly speaking, pseudo-Theocritean poems, poems ascribed (correctly or otherwise) to Moschus and Bion, the Pattern Poems, and the poem called Εἰς νεκρὸν Ἄδωνιν. I use the Greek text of A.S.F. Gow in Bucolici Graeci (Oxford 1952/1958) unless otherwise stated, and follow Gow’s numbering of the so-called ‘fragments’ of Moschus and Bion in that edition; other scholars’ numerations are given on p. 186 of it. It is necessary to remember that Gow himself used a previous numeration, namely that of Wilamowitz {Bucolici Graeci, Oxford 1905/1910), when referring to Bion’s fragments in his magnum opus on (and entitled) Theocritus (Cambridge 1950/1952). The numbering of Moschus’ fragments is however the same. As poems traditionally ascribed to Moschus or Bion are mostly falsely or dubiously so ascribed, they are referred to by title or abbreviated title. Similar treatment is given to certain of the pseudo-Theocritean poems, namely Idd. 19, 20, 21, 23, as they are central to this study.

It is well known that Carmina 1.5 and 3.26 resemble each other; both are in fifth position from either end of the collection, each ends by mentioning Venus and both include a dedication of items on a temple wall, with the word paries only appearing in these two instances in Horace’s Odes (1.5.14, 3.26.4):

C.J. Simpson “has suggested recently that far from displaying Agrippa’s modesty and moderation, as Dio has it, his refusal of a triumph in 19 B.C. was motivated by pride and annoyance: firstly, because the offer of a triumph had not been made freely by the Senate, but on Augustus’ order, it was not a sincere recognition of his merits; and secondly, the most recent triumphator, Cornelius Balbus, had been a mere Spaniard; and Augustus’ refusal of a triumph in 19 provided a useful precedent. Agrippa’s refusal needs more of an explanation than personalities and hurt feelings. It may be that there were more substantial issues of imperial prerogatives and the image of the regime at stake, at a difficult stage in the constitutional evolution of the Augustan principate.

Gaius had a deep interest in matters theatrical. There is much evidence of his passion for the personalities of the stage and arena, and sources document his actual participation in theatrical and sporting entertainments, including, for the purposes of our discussion, his foray into terpsichorean activities. Most, if not all, of the pantomime ‘appearances’ of Gaius were private, restricted probably to his residence on the Palatine, but one of the reasons which allegedly urged on his assassination in early A.D. 41 was the fear that Gaius was going to dance publicly. Whether or not this motive for the assassination was genuine, for it to have been plausible, Gaius’ dancing must have been the subject of much gossip and perhaps of disapproval.