Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T20:21:16.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Methods of Theocritus and Some Problems in his Poems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. S. F. Gow
A. S. F. Gow
Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some years ago, when discussing Theocr. 22. 177 sqq. (C.Q. XIII. p. 22), I suggested that Theocritus had been a little careless in envisaging the circumstances which he is describing, and had written as though a duel normally resulted in the deaths of both combatants. That still seems to me the probable explanation of the difficulty with which I was dealing, and, as I then said, the oversight with which I charged Theocritus is venial enough, for in fact two deaths result from the particular duel which he is about to describe. He is concerned with the drama, not with the setting, and if the setting proves to be of cardboard, the play is after all the thing.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 24 , Issue 3-4 , July 1930 , pp. 146 - 153
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1930

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

Page 147 note 1 Wilamowitz's further points–that Heracles is, surprisingly, still unknown to Phyleus, and that his reference to Eurystheus (205) must therefore be unintelligible are not, I think, conclusive. Phyleus's enquiry whether it was his companion who killed the lion is not incom-patible with his knowing Heracles's name and errand. These have not, indeed, been disclosed to him in the poem, but the poet might reasonably invite us to assume disclosure as a necessary incident of Heracles's first encounter with Augeas which he does not narrate.

Page 147 note 2 It is not only rough but useless to read νδεκμηνος (Blätt. bay. Gymn. 25, p. 242), for the interval between seed-time and harvest is much less. Other proposals are no more persuasive. Wilamowitz, Reden u. Vorträge, 1, p. 288)Google Scholar treats 14 as a reply to 13, and translates Nein, ich habe, sett's Arbeit gibt, in dem eigenen Gärtchen keinen Tag noch jäten gekonnt; but that is in defiance of τοιγρ

Page 148 note 1 At 7. 35 ώς means day, not morning, and is therefore compatible with τ μεσᾳυριον in 21: cf. 16. 5, and perhaps 12. 1, 17. 59; and see C.Q. IX. p. 135.

Page 149 note 1 Cf. Philemon fr. 168 K, A.P. 6. 227, Ov. Her. 17. 71, Am. 2. 15. 2, Mart. 9. 99.8. Odyssean δ' λγη τε Φλς τε (ζ 208=ξ 58) usually cited seems different in colour.

Page 150 note 1 Legrand is aware of the difficulty, τᾴ γ αλατειᾳ does not help.

Page 150 note 2 The second reference to singing (1. 39), not inconsistent with the present purpose of the poem, might yet be thought more consistent with another.

Page 151 note 1 I will not add to the list 24. 49, though Amphitryon's domestic arrangements puzzle me, and I have sometimes wondered whether theo-critus envisaged them very plainly himself. Nor 15. 137–142, where the inelegances may be calculated.

Page 151 note 2 Ath. XIV. 652E; but see Paton, and Hicks, , Inscr. of Cos, p. 358Google Scholar; Hermes 34, p. 616.

Page 152 note 1 Wilamowitz, who writes Στρατιώτας in I3, would add an Acarnanian; but that overlooks the symmetry of the sentence. Of the three men, A's nationality is given; B's nationality and professin; C should have profession only — ςτρατιώταΛτυμνον, and two by Philipp on Latymnum and Latymnus, do it something more than ade-quate honour. Contrariwise, of Himera of Haleis in these parts not a word.

Page 151 note 2 Nor would I read in 23 τ Φςκοι is an ancient name for Locrians (Philologus 67, p. 466), though the name ´ςKκος may be connected with that fact. Has anyone calculated the distance between τ Φςκων and the Neathus?