

Hunt


Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 49 (2009) 391–412 
© 2009 GRBS 

 
Bucolic Experimentation in  
Theocritus’ Idyll 10 

Jeffrey M. Hunt 

HEOCRITUS’ TENTH IDYLL occupies a labile position in 
the Theocritean corpus, variously included among and 
excluded from the bucolic poems. Its problematic re-

lationship to Theocritus’ bucolic Idylls has relegated the poem 
to a subordinate position, as scholars have understandably 
focused their analyses on those Idylls that are indisputably 
bucolic. I would like to propose that Idyll 10 has much to offer 
discussions of bucolic because its unique mix of bucolic and 
non-bucolic elements affords a novel perspective on the subject. 
Theocritus enacts a literary experiment in Idyll 10 that brings a 
bucolic shepherd-poet, Bucaeus, into the world of the “reaper-
poet” Milo, whose work song challenges and to some degree 
deconstructs Bucaeus’ attempt at bucolic song. We must first 
consider what it means for a poem to be bucolic and what 
makes Idyll 10’s bucolic claim so tenuous.  

Perhaps Idyll 10 deviates most notably in its depiction of 
reapers at work instead of the leisurely herdsmen common to 
bucolic. The poem thus lacks the familiar trappings of Theoc-
ritus’ traditionally bucolic Idylls, but it can be included among 
them on the basis of the similarity of their fictional worlds. 
Payne has observed that Theocritus’ fictional approach does 
not reflect real-world possibilities. That is, unlike characters in 
tragedy, for instance, Theocritus’ shepherd-poets do not repre-
sent behavioral models—either positive or negative—because 
their behavior does not accord with that of real persons.1 
Beginning from Payne’s observation, one may further consider 

 
1 Mark Payne, Theocritus and the Invention of Fiction (Cambridge 2007) 2. 

T 


392 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

the Idylls as operating in a way similar to Conte’s view of 
Roman elegy: a single theme—or, in the case of the bucolic 
Idylls, two themes—becomes the center of the poems’ fictional 
world, to which all else stands in relation.2  

The bucolic Idylls all revolve around the two themes of love 
and song, which are often integrated when the former becomes 
the subject of the latter. The resulting fictional world—in which 
shepherds become shepherd-poets, concerning themselves with 
song, especially erotic song, to the exclusion of other aspects of 
reality—is a consistent feature of Theocritean bucolic, and 
when one uses this criterion in consideration of Idyll 10, the 
poem proves to share in the fictional world found in the 
traditional bucolic Idylls. Even by the measure of its fictional 
world, however, Idyll 10 does not seem completely bucolic, 
standing on the periphery of bucolic poetry. 

Scholars have addressed the problem in a variety of ways. 
Ott pointedly expresses his uncertainty about how to approach 
the poem: “Id. X ist weder ein Hirtengedicht, noch enthält es 
einen Wettstreit, ja überhaupt keine musisch ausgefüllte länd-
liche Feierstunde, nicht einmal rudimentär wie Id. IV. Und 
doch ist das Gedicht den hier behandelten bukolischen Eidyllia 
verwandt und reizt durchaus zum Vergleich mit ihnen.”3 Not 
all scholars would agree that Idyll 10 is not a “Hirtengedicht,” 
though Ott’s observation on its nature, casting the poem as one 
that simultaneously lacks the trappings of a bucolic poem yet 
maintains certain formal elements familiar to the genre, at least 
raises issues that problematize accepting the Idyll as a fully bu-
colic poem. As Stanzel notes,4 Idyll 10 is almost unmentioned 
in Gutzwiller’s important work on Theocritus’ bucolic Idylls5 
and is absent from Lawall’s work on Theocritus’ Coan pastoral 

 
2 Gian Biagio Conte, Generi e lettori (Milan 1991) 54–55. See also Lowell 

Edmunds, Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry (Baltimore 2001) 95–
107. 

3 Ulrich Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensatzes in Theokrits Hirtengedichten (Hildesheim 
1969) 57. 

4 Karl-Heinz Stanzel, Liebende Hirten: Theokrits Bukolik und die alexandrinische 
Poesie (Stuttgart 1995) 22 n.21. 

5 Kathryn Gutzwiller, Theocritus’ Pastoral Analogies (Madison 1991). 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 393 
 

poetry6 despite evidence that suggests Cos as a possible locale.7 
Stanzel himself, however, argues that Theocritus includes Idyll 
10 among his bucolic poems. In support he cites Idyll 7.27–29, 
in which Simichidas remarks that Lycidas is an outstanding 
piper among both herdsmen and reapers.8 Though Stanzel 
correctly connects Idyll 10 with Theocritus’ bucolic poetry, 
such programmatic authority is difficult to ascribe to Simichi-
das’ words in Idyll 7. The profession of Idyll 10’s characters 
and the setting in which their interaction takes place are unique 
in the entire corpus and so not easily explained away. If the 
poem has a place among the bucolic Idylls, how can one justify 
its obvious deviation from the familiar depiction of the herds-
man who sings about love in his locus amoenus? 

On this question, Payne once again offers valuable insight. 
He describes a bucolic character as one that “is shaped by its 
relationship to an imagined world, the fictional world of 
bucolic poetry itself, which is projected in bucolic song and 
encountered in the fictional experience of listening to it,” citing 
the goatherd of Idyll 3 and Polyphemus as examples: “These 
characters are able to achieve a temporary distraction from 
their present suffering by invoking a more perfect version of 
their own bucolic existence.”9 This view of bucolic has signfi-
cant bearing on Idyll 10: it ignores references to herdsmen and 
their landscape, focusing on the character, rather than the 
poem as a whole, as recipient of the “bucolic” designation. By 
Payne’s definition, Bucaeus qualifies as a bucolic character, 
that is, one whose song offers a fictional, idealized alternative to 
his lovesickness. Idyll 10, then, challenges the reader not be-
cause it lacks essential bucolic features but because non-bucolic 
features are equally present. Unlike his fellow reaper, Milo does 
not conform to the criteria for a bucolic character and thereby 

 
6 Gilbert Lawall, Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals (Cambridge 1967). 
7 See Ph. E. Legrand, Bucoliques grecs (Paris 1967) 62. For an argument 

against Coan origin see Michele Strano, “Considerazioni sull’idillio X di 
Teocrito,” Helikon 15/16 (1975–1976) 454–460; see her n.2 for sources 
favorable to Cos as the setting.  

8 Stanzel, Liebende Hirten 22–23. 
9 Payne, Theocritus 92–93. 


394 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

exacerbates the initially perceived problem of the Idyll’s 
bucolic status. Aside from the issue of generic classification, 
however, the interaction between Bucaeus, a bucolic character, 
and Milo, an unbucolic character, is unique among the Idylls 
and central to an understanding of Idyll 10. It is worth noting 
some textual indications that support this. 

Even though bucolic poetry is divested of the herdsman as a 
defining characteristic, he remains an iconic figure. It is signifi-
cant, then, that Theocritus associates Bucaeus with herdsmen 
through careful manipulation of imagery, which serves as a 
subtle signal of Bucaeus’ bucolic affiliation from the outset of 
the poem, beginning with his name. Interestingly, scholars 
have been quick to assert an absence of herdsmen in Idyll 10 
despite the scholiast’s identification of the vocative Βουκαῖε as 
a substantive rather than a name.10 Though the scholiast in this 
case was in error, his interpretation was not unfounded. Nican-
der confirms the possibility of a substantive use of Βουκαῖος: σὲ 
δ’ ἂν πολύεργος ἀροτρεύς / βουκαῖός τ’ ἀλέγοι καὶ ὀροιτύπος 
(Ther. 4–5) and βουκαῖοι ζεύγεσσιν ἀμορβεύουσιν ὀρήων (fr. 
90). A Theocritean precedent also exists for identifying charac-
ters by their profession alone. In Idyll 1, Thyrsis refers to his 
fellow herdsman simply as “goatherd.”11 The scholiast’s lapse 
demonstrates the easy association between Bucaeus’ name and 
the occupation it suggests. The bucolic significance of Βουκαῖε 
increases when one considers its context. 

Idyll 10 opens with Milo addressing Bucaeus as ἐργατίνα 
Βουκαῖε. The intrinsic connection of “Bucaeus” with herding is 
immediately heightened by its juxtaposition with Bucaeus’ oc-
cupation as a reaper. Subsequent lines quickly dispel any 
confusion about the characters’ roles in the poem, but at the 
end of the first line the situation is by no means clear. Since the 
scholiast was able to confuse Bucaeus’ name with his occu-

 
10 Cf. A. S. F. Gow, Theocritus (Cambridge 1950) II 193, on schol. arg. 10: 

the scholiast, failing to recognize Bucaeus as a name, supplied the name 
Battus because he and a character named Milo both appear in Idyll 4. 

11 Theoc. 1.1, ἁδύ τι τὸ ψιθύρισμα καὶ ἁ πίτυς, αἰπόλε, τήνα. Richard 
Hunter, Theocritus: A Selection (Cambridge 1999) ad loc., notes that Idyll 1 is 
unique in not including a proper name within the first two lines. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 395 
 

pation, the initial uncertainty of the first line should not be 
underestimated. This striking juxtaposition also anticipates the 
subsequent tension between Milo and Bucaeus. Bucaeus’ 
name, able to signify simply “cowherd,” hints that the charac-
ter being addressed is somehow simultaneously both reaper 
and cowherd (ἐργατίνα Βουκαῖε, τί νῦν, ᾠζυρέ, πεπόνθεις; 
10.1). The reader soon learns that Bucaeus has fallen behind in 
his reaping duties, but even Milo’s comment on his compan-
ion’s lack of progress compares him to a sheep with an injured 
foot (2–4).12 Bucaeus’ strong association with images of herding 
is significant because it brings to the reader’s mind an impor-
tant bucolic image, the herdsman, without admitting an actual 
herdsman into the poem. Thus Theocritus is able to conduct 
his bucolic experiment in an agricultural setting with reapers 
and yet create an expectation of bucolic influence. 

Milo’s name is also significant as an indicator of contrasting 
characterization. If Bucaeus exhibits patently bucolic charac-
teristics, Milo proves to be a completely unbucolic figure. The 
name, though not uncommon, is most famously associated with 
the athletic feats of Milo of Croton.13 It is an apt name for one 
who so rigorously espouses the virtues of physical labor over 
the love and leisure preferred by Bucaeus. As Ott notes, the 
two characters not only advocate opposing views of love and 
work but even personify them,14 and their names reflect this 
personification.   

Theocritus thus establishes Bucaeus as a bucolic shepherd-
poet who reluctantly attempts to work, a characterization set 
against Milo’s ardent enthusiasm for his task. From its first line, 
Idyll 10 sets the stage for a conflict between the fictional worlds 
of herding and agriculture. The setting is that of the reaper, but 
the Theocritean shepherd-poet lurks behind the figure of 
Bucaeus, generating a collision between his bucolic interest in 

 
12 John Whitehorne, “The Reapers: Theocritus’ ‘Idyll’ 10,” AUMLA 41 

(1974) 30–49, at 34, notes of the sheep simile at 10.4 that “though the 
immediate surroundings may be different, we have not entirely escaped 
from the landscape of the pastoral.” 

13 Gow, Theocritus II 78. 
14 Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensatzes 64. 


396 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

soothing his lovesickness and the staunch advocacy of work 
espoused by a proper reaper, Milo. In light of these con-
siderations, the novel milieu in Idyll 10 should not obscure the 
bucolic characterization of Bucaeus but should prompt the 
reader to examine him all the more carefully.  

What role does bucolic’s fictional world play in the poem and 
what effect does Theocritus create in relocating his lovesick 
rustic from the flock to the field? By changing the location and 
vocation of his shepherd-poet, Theocritus has removed him 
from the ἀεργία of a shady grove and placed him in a different 
world, one characterized instead by ἐργασία. Just as the 
shepherd-poet is the natural inhabitant of the locus amoenus, 
Milo the reaper is the natural inhabitant of this different world 
of ἐργασία. Though Milo’s work song reflects a real-world 
practice, in the context of the poem it offers a point of 
comparison with the fictional world of the shepherd-poet. As 
Edmunds notes, “for any counterfactual, possible world, only a 
few properties of the actual world are ʻblown up’, and the rest 
are ʻnarcotized’.”15 In the possible world of the shepherd-poet 
(i.e. the bucolic world), love is the characteristic that is “blown 
up.” Milo’s world, also a possible world though one in greater 
accord with the reader’s own, “blows up” work instead of love. 
By transferring Bucaeus from the pastoral setting in which he 
naturally belongs to an agricultural environment, Theocritus 
playfully experiments with his bucolic character, setting him in 
a new, unexpected world that “narcotizes” love.16 

Theocritus’ setting for his bucolic experiment polarizes the 
two themes expressed in the songs of Bucaeus and Milo. The 
field retains the “otherness” inherent in the bucolic setting, a 
critical element for distancing the characters from the reader’s 

 
15 Edmunds, Intertextuality 102. 
16 Similar experimentation, placing a character in a setting to which he 

does not properly belong, has been proposed for other bucolic Idylls. 
Stephen Lattimore, “Battus in Theocritus’ Fourth Idyll,” GRBS 14 (1973) 
319–324, has proposed that Battus represents a city poet who has made a 
visit to the country. Simichidas, too, in Idyll 7 is a poet who makes both a 
physical and poetic journey from the city into the bucolic countryside. 
Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 31, also notes the experimental nature of 
Idyll 10. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 397 
 

actual experience, but instead of featuring characters at leisure, 
the action of the poem centers on Milo’s attempt to spur 
Bucaeus to work. Song is a vital part of this polarization, as its 
function shifts in the new setting. Milo urges Bucaeus to strike 
up a song, telling him that ἅδιον οὕτως ἐργαξῇ (22–23). In 
most bucolic poetry, song represents a fictional idealization that 
attempts to soothe the singer’s emotional turmoil. In the fic-
tional world of Idyll 10, it is not a remedy but rather a tool 
used to increase productivity.17  

Idyll 10, indeed, presents many antitheses as a result of the 
juxtaposition of Bucaeus’ bucolic characterization and the 
work-centered world in which he finds himself. Some of these 
antitheses are explored by Ott,18 though his discussion of the 
poem is by no means exhaustive and reaches few conclusions as 
to the significance of the antitheses he identifies. The remain-
der of this essay will consider the antitheses presented by the 
love- and work-centered characterizations of Bucaeus and Milo 
as well as the significance of moving a shepherd-poet from his 
own fictional world into that of the reaper-poet. 

Some similar polarizations serve as background for the pair-
ing of Bucaeus and Milo.19 Idyll 10’s specific opposition of love 
and work echoes the more general polarity of labor and idle-

 
17 The adverb ἅδιον is also significant in that “sweetness” is a program-

matic term typically associated with song, though in Milo’s world work is 
“sweet.” For the contrast, cf. especially 1.1–8 and 5.31–32 (ἅδιον ᾀσῇ / 
τεῖδ’ ὑπὸ τὰν κότινον καὶ τἄλσεα ταῦτα καθίξας). 

18 Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensatzes 57–66. 
19 Some scholars consider the issue of polarization to have been settled by 

Francis Cairns, “Theocritus Idyll 10,” Hermes 98 (1970) 38–44, who argues 
that Idyll 10 is derived from a type of symposiastic poetry featuring an 
amator and an irrisor amoris. Cairns’ observations are valuable, especially for 
any discussion of the poem’s generic qualities, but even if Theocritus had 
such a poetic type in mind, it would provide only a framework for the 
poem. Little about the poem, in fact, would be determined by Theocritus’ 
adherence to the form of symposiastic poetry proposed by Cairns, which 
required only some, not all, of three characteristics: display of symptoms by a 
lover, interrogation or surmise by another about the lover’s distress or the 
identity of his beloved, and comment on the beloved by another person (38). 
Even following an amator-irrisor amoris scheme for his poem, Theocritus had 
considerable room for creativity.  


398 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

ness expressed elsewhere in Greek literature. Already in Homer 
one finds Paris, often depicted in the literary tradition as a 
herdsman, indulging his sexual desire, the corollary of which is 
his neglect of the war.20 Paris takes part in battle, of course, 
though his sound defeat at Menelaus’ hands and his affinity for 
the bow suggest that he engages in even this manly pursuit in 
an unmanly way. Hesiod opposes agricultural labor and idle-
ness in advising Perses ἔργον δ’ οὐδὲν ὄνειδος, ἀεργίη δέ τ’ 
ὄνειδος.21 Euripides’ Antiope stages a debate on the merits of 
work and pleasure. The extant fragments depict Zethus’ and 
Amphion’s views on what is best for the polis; the former con-
demns the idleness resulting from pleasure while the latter pro-
poses that the polis benefits from citizens who are ἀπράγμων.22 
The general polarization of idleness (pleasure) and work that is 
found outside Theocritus strengthens the notion of incongruity 
between Bucaeus and Milo, both rustic characters whose pair-
ing might otherwise call little attention to itself.  

While these examples correspond approximately to the 
themes opposed in Idyll 10, a final, more direct correlation 
occurs in Menander’s Dyscolus. As Gorgias warns of Cnemon’s 
misanthropy and advises Sostratus to abandon his desire for 
the old farmer’s daughter, Sostratus in turn questions Gorgias: 
Σω. πρὸς τῶν θεῶν οὐπώποτ’ ἠράσθης τινός, μειράκιον; Γο. 
οὐδ’ ἔξεστί μοι, βέλτιστε. Σω. πῶς; τίς ἔσθ’ ὁ κωλύων; Γο. ὁ 
τῶν ὄντων κακῶν λογισμός, ἀνάπαυσιν διδοὺς οὐδ’ ἡντινοῦν. 
Σω. οὔ μοι δοκεῖς· ἀπειρότερον γοῦν διαλέγει περὶ ταῦτ’· ἀπο-
 

20 Cf. Hom. Il. 3.441–447, 6.326–331. See Gutzwiller, Analogies 27–28, 
for a discussion of Paris as both devoted to love and an ineffectual hero. W. 
T. MacCary, Childlike Achilles: Ontogeny and Phylogeny in the Iliad (New York 
1982) 152–162, also argues for an opposition between sex and martial skill.  

21 Op. 311; cf. 298–304, 397–400. A similar sentiment is in Eur. Elec. 80–
81, ἀργὸς γὰρ οὐδεὶς θεοὺς ἔχων ἀνὰ στόμα / βίον δύναιτ’ ἂν ξυλλέγειν ἄνευ 
πόνου). Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 31, notes of rustics and their setting 
“What tradition there was, is exemplified by down-to-earth fellows like 
Hesiod or the peasant farmer in Euripides’ Electra or Menander’s Dyscolus.” 

22 Zethus’ claim: ἀνὴρ γὰρ ὅστις εὖ βίον κεκτημένος / τὰ μὲν κατ’ οἴκους 
ἀμελίᾳ παρεὶς ἐᾷ, / μολπαῖσι δ’ ἡσθεὶς τοῦτ’ ἀεὶ θηρεύεται, / ἀργὸς μὲν 
οἴκοις καὶ πόλει γενήσεται, / φίλοισι δ’ οὐδείς. Amphion’s response: ὅστις δὲ 
πράσσει πολλὰ μὴ πράσσειν παρόν, / μῶρος, παρὸν ζῆν ἡδέως ἀπράγμονα 
(frs. 187, 193 TrGF). 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 399 
 

στῆναι κελεύεις μ’. οὐκέτι τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ἐπ’ ἐμοί, τῷ θεῷ δέ (341–
347). This passage and that found at Idyll 10.8–1123 both 
demonstrate the distance between lover and worker, especially 
in regard to the priority of love. The polarization that appears 
briefly in Menander’s play is featured prominently throughout 
Theocritus’ Idyll, resulting in the two interlocutors’ complete 
failure to relate to or even understand each other’s point of 
view and marking them as artificial advocates of their re-
spective themes rather than as the plausible mimetic represen-
tations of Menander’s play.    

The goatherd’s ecphrasis in Idyll 1 also reveals something 
about the relationship between love and work. The first scene 
on the cup depicts a rivalry among young men for the attention 
of a beautiful woman. The men quarreling with each other are 
left hollow-eyed (κυλοιδιόωντες, 37) by love as they struggle in 
vain (ἐτώσια μοχθίζοντι, 38) to satisfy their passion. An ad-
jacent scene features a fisherman in the process of making a 
catch. Both representations accurately reflect love and work as 
themes in the bucolic Idylls, the former depicting the 
frustrating and unattainable nature of love and the latter pre-
senting a fisherman as a laborer focused entirely on his work.24 
Indeed, the fisherman’s youthful strength suggests his devotion 
to his task in contrast to the weakness of the hollow-eyed lovers, 
and recalls Milo’s dedication in contrast to Bucaeus’ weakness 
and inability to work. With its juxtaposition of the enervating 
effects of love with the strength of the laborer, the represen-
tations on the cup directly relate to Bucaeus’ lovesickness and 
Milo’s endurance.  

Love and work stand in natural opposition to each other and 
form a critical contrast between Milo and Bucaeus. The nature 
of bucolic fiction, however, creates a problem in fostering inter-

 
23 Another possible parallel occurs at Id. 14.7 (Αἰ. ἤρατο μὰν καὶ τῆνος; 

Θυ. ἐμὶν δοκεῖ, ὀπτῶ ἀλεύρω). 
24 See also Id. 3.25–26 (τὰν βαίταν ἀποδὺς ἐς κύματα τηνῶ ἁλεῦμαι, / 

ὧπερ τὼς θύννως σκοπιάζεται Ὄλπις ὁ γριπεύς), in which the goatherd and 
fisherman are implicitly compared. The same location has considerably 
different meanings for Olpis and the goatherd. For the lover it serves as a 
means to escape love; for the fisherman it presents an opportunity to per-
form his task. 


400 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

action between fictional worlds that employ differing thematic 
foci. Without an element common to both interlocutors, the 
characters’ views would simply be incomprehensible to each 
other, and the plethora of antitheses created by their pairing 
would be meaningless because the two fictional worlds would 
exist as self-contained units without any points of contact. In 
the absence of a bridge between fictional worlds, neither char-
acter’s view on love or work could inform the other’s, resulting 
in a loss of significance for the poem’s many antitheses. Theoc-
ritus, however, has created just such a bridge between Bucaeus 
and Milo.       

Song serves a thematic purpose in the Idyll by connecting the 
love- and work-centered fictional worlds of Bucaeus and Milo. 
Indeed, just as the love song of the shepherd-poet is a literary 
piece beneath its mimetic façade, Milo’s work song is unlike 
any that an actual reaper would have sung.25 Milo, in the con-
text of his song- and work-centered fiction, may therefore be 
termed a “reaper-poet” by analogy to the shepherd-poets who 
inhabit the other bucolic poems. Song’s role as a central theme 
of the shepherd-poet’s and reaper-poet’s respective fictional 
worlds creates a thematic overlap or, in spatial terms, a loca-
tion where the two worlds meet, joined by a shared focus on 
song yet kept distinct by antithetical approaches to love and 
work. It is in this space, within the shared approach to song, 
that Milo and Bucaeus find a basis for interaction. Milo, in fact, 
has relatively little to say about Bucaeus’ lovesickness, relying 

 
25 Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 31. Milo’s song, like the songs of herds-

men in the bucolic Idylls, is rendered in hexameters. Actual popular songs 
were in lyric meters. On this see Roberto Pretagostini, “Tracce di poesia 
orale nei carmi di Teocrito,” Aevum(ant) 5 (1992) 67–87, at 82–83. As to the 
content of actual work songs, what clues exist must be culled from rather 
scanty remains. PMG 849 represents the closest analogue to Milo’s song, 
and, brief though the fragment is, the line πλεῖστον οὗλον ἵει, ἴουλον ἵει 
bears some resemblance to Milo’s invocation (10.42–43). The occasion for 
the song is not specified, and its classification (τούς τε καρποὺς καὶ τοὺς 
ὕμνους τοὺς εἰς τὴν θεὸν οὔλους καλοῦσι καὶ ἰούλους) raises questions about 
how it stands in relation to Milo’s τὰ τῶ θείω Λιτυέρσα. Milo’s song is 
undoubtedly a literary piece, and though it has the potential to contain 
mimetic elements, the dearth of information about such songs demands ex-
treme caution in asserting the mimetic quality of Idyll 10. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 401 
 

on proverbs and thus eliminating the necessity of addressing 
the topic directly. He becomes considerably more responsive in 
his comments about song, sarcastically complimenting Bucae-
us’ skill and countering it with his own agricultural song. The 
Idyll’s larger goal of contrasting work- and love-centered ver-
sions of bucolic fiction is realized primarily by couching the 
discussion in musical terms applicable to both fictions. Song 
establishes common ground for the interaction of the two 
reapers, as both are singers despite their differing views on how 
one ought to sing.  

Theocritus has thus set the stage for a comparison of 
disparate fictional worlds, but what are the results of his exper-
iment? Bucaeus and Milo’s conversation attempts to reconcile 
two themes incapable of coexisting as focal points within the 
same fictional world. Because there is a general balance in 
structure, a love song and a work song of equal length, it is 
tempting to equate this with a parity between the Idyll’s pre-
sentation of thematic antitheses. The opposition, however, is 
actually one-sided. The dialogue between Milo and Bucaeus 
depicts Milo challenging Bucaeus’ bucolic notion of love, but 
Bucaeus does not challenge Milo in turn. Rather than structure 
the Idyll as a debate in which each character challenges the 
other’s view,26 Bucaeus is at the mercy of Milo’s mockery 
throughout the Idyll, offering only apologies for his love. The 
one-sidedness of their conversation results because Bucaeus has 
entered Milo’s work-centered fiction and finds himself subject 
to its rules. Furthermore, as Milo with his extreme pragmatism 
constantly confronts Bucaeus, he exposes the failure of Bu-
caeus’ bucolic song and in so doing exposes the seams that bind 
the bucolic world. This becomes most apparent when one 
compares the two songs. Despite the differences caused by the 
singers’ polarized characterizations, their songs form a diptych 
pattern similar to those frequently found in the bucolic Idylls. 
The juxtaposition encourages comparison that reveals a num-
ber of correlations between the two songs despite their dis-
similarity in theme. Milo’s introduction offers a useful starting 

 
26 But see Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 32, who considers the two 

views of love in the poem “as well balanced as a Platonic dialogue.” 


402 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

point for considering the inset songs.  
At 10.41, Milo announces that he will sing τὰ τῶ θείω 

Λιτυέρσα. It is unfortunate that our knowledge of Lityerses is 
as limited as our picture of Daphnis, though some conjectures 
can be made from the available evidence.27 In the sources, 
Lityerses is described as the name of a type of song, as the 
discoverer of farming, and as a student of the Muses. The most 
detailed account, however, portrays him as the son of Midas, 
who challenged passersby to a reaping contest and, when they 
lost, killed them and bound their bodies in the sheaves. His 
misdeeds earned him death at Heracles’ hands. Whitehorne 
suggests that Milo has this tradition in mind when referring to 
Lityerses and that for this reason he jokingly reminds Bucaeus 
of the harsh penalty that awaits laggard reapers.28 This is an 
amusing possibility, but Lityerses may convey considerably 
more significance. As a mythical character associated with 
reaping songs, Lityerses is a perfect counterpart to bucolic 
poetry’s Daphnis. Like Daphnis, Lityerses is directly connected 
with a particular type of song—a work song—that is a defining 
aspect of the fictional world with which it is associated. Song is 
an important part of the fictional worlds of both herdsmen and 
reapers, but while herdsmen look to the sufferings of the cow-
herd Daphnis as the model of bucolic song, Milo’s song finds 
inspiration in the reaper Lityerses. The love-work polarization 
found throughout the poem is maintained in fruitful tension 
within the common ground of song.29  

Another possible source that connects Daphnis and Lityerses 
is a play by Theocritus’ contemporary Sositheus.30 The play, 
entitled Δάφνις ἢ Λιτυέρσης, joined Daphnis and Lityerses in 
the same narrative, raising questions about Lityerses’ role in 
the Daphnis tradition. Regardless of when Daphnis and 

 
27 See Gow, Theocritus II 204, for evidence on Lityerses. 
28 Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 40. 
29 Daphnis, of course, is not specifically mentioned in the poem, though 

his role as archegete of bucolic poetry is so well known that he is easily 
recalled in Milo’s mention of the mythical Lityerses. 

30 TrGF I 99. Whitehorne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 41, also proposes this refer-
ence. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 403 
 

Lityerses were first placed in the same narrative, Sositheus’ 
play demonstrates that such an account was current in Theoc-
ritus’ time. The tradition suggested by the play complements 
Milo’s introductory remarks, in which he casts Lityerses in the 
role of an archetype for his work song and thereby calls atten-
tion to a notable absence of an archetype for Bucaeus’ bucolic 
song. The archetype is important because, though not required 
by his definition of a bucolic character, the “imaginative 
escape” of bucolic singers often involves the singer impersonat-
ing another bucolic character; thus the goatherd of Idyll 3 
invokes mythical models and Thyrsis impersonates Daphnis.31 
The ability of a shepherd-poet to alleviate his suffering depends 
on the success of his impersonation, a point Bucaeus fails to 
grasp: Bucaeus’ idealized song ends abruptly with his inability 
to describe his beloved (36–37).32 If this notion is correct, then 
Milo’s closing remarks (ταῦτα χρὴ μόχθεντας ἐν ἁλίῳ ἄνδρας 
ἀείδειν, 56) have added significance. The demonstrative ταῦτα 
encompasses more than just the poem’s content; it refers to the 
poem as in some sense the work of Lityerses himself, perhaps 
even recalling the ταῦτα of line 41 (θᾶσαι δὴ καὶ ταῦτα τὰ τῶ 
θείω Λιτυέρσα). The type of song that a man working in the 
sun ought to sing is specifically the song of Lityerses, whom 
Milo insists Bucaeus take as his archetype as well.   

Lityerses’ appearance as an imaginative archetype reinforces 
the notion that the agricultural world is structured similarly to 
the bucolic world. Both worlds center themselves on their own 
particular themes, and both even trace the origin of their songs 
to a mythic archetype (even though Bucaeus’ archetype is not 
invoked). The agricultural world thus amounts to a mirror 
image of the bucolic world, which has precisely the same form 
but is centered on a theme diametrically opposed to love as 
found in the bucolic world. The two songs in Idyll 10 do more 
than show characterization; they act as representative samples 
of the fictions of the two different worlds.  

Similarity of phrasing and imagery suggests that Milo’s song 
may reply to specific points in Bucaeus’ song, in a manner akin 

 
31 Payne, Theocritus 93. 
32 Cf. Payne, Theocritus 103. 


404 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

to other Idylls containing similar diptych structures.33 The 
parallels between the songs of love and work are not so stark as 
those in other diptychs, but they are nevertheless present. The 
first is in the invocations that begin each song. Bucaeus and 
Milo both invoke deities appropriate to their respective songs, 
the former calling upon the Pierian Muses (Μοῖσαι Πιερίδες, 
24) and the latter upon bountiful Demeter (Δάματερ πολύ-
καρπε, 42). Such invocations are not uncommon in the bucolic 
world but are not required, making their structural similarity 
stand out all the more, especially in the context of Idyll 10 
where Bucaeus and Milo so often differ, as shown by their 
musical styles.34 These dual invocations create a clear initial 
parallel for the reader and, despite the temptation to dismiss 
them as conventional features, should not be disregarded.  

The effect that the two invocations create is perhaps obvious 
but still worth some consideration. Bucaeus calls upon the 
Muses to inspire his bucolic love song. They, along with the 
Nymphs, often appear in the bucolic world and typically are 
mentioned in a shepherd-poet’s appeal for inspiration or as 
deities favorable to those with exceptional poetic skill.35 The 
Muses, invoked in a variety of generic contexts, are appropriate 
to Bucaeus’ bucolic love song and further suggest his alignment 
with the bucolic world’s love-centered fiction. Milo, by con-
trast, calls upon Demeter, a goddess befitting his song about 
harvesting. The Muses and Demeter are both apt sources for 
inspiration given the themes of their respective songs, and so 
further underscore the thematic difference between Bucaeus’ 
and Milo’s worldviews. The similarity in structure provided by 
the invocations may also suggest that Milo intends his song to 
correct Bucaeus’ song.  

Each singer makes specific requests of the deities. Milo, in 

 
33 Idyll 10’s juxtaposed songs are exceptional for their identical line 

counts. 
34 Bucaeus’ song, brief though it is, shows a greater complexity than 

Milo’s song in its use of ring composition and priamel. See Whitehorne, 
AUMLA 41 (1974) 38–39; Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensatzes 62. 

35 Cf. the refrain of Idyll 1, Comatas’ boast at 7.80, and Simichidas’ 
description of Lycidas at 7.95. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 405 
 

pragmatic and perhaps realistic fashion, seeks a bountiful crop 
(42–43), while Bucaeus requests aid in singing about his 
beloved (24–25). These requests demonstrate different ap-
proaches to song that are conditioned by the thematic foci of 
the two fictional worlds. In calling upon the Muses to aid him 
in singing of the object of his desire, Bucaeus indicates that his 
song will be dedicated in bucolic fashion to the idealization of 
his beloved. By contrast, Milo, consistent with literary de-
pictions of laborers that establish the foundation for his fiction, 
sets work as the thematic focus of his song, which amounts to 
an amalgam of Hesiodic motifs.36 The invocations, then, con-
tain the same polarization found throughout the poem but also 
set the songs in different fictional worlds, with Bucaeus singing 
a love song in bucolic fashion and Milo, perhaps lacking an 
established form for songs set in the agricultural world, crafting 
a song in Hesiodic style.37 The songs are more than opposites 
in theme: they, like their composers, operate on the basis of the 
conventions of different fictional worlds. 

After calling upon the Muses, Bucaeus explains that every-
thing they touch becomes beautiful (ὧν γάρ χ’ ἅψησθε, θεαί, 
καλὰ πάντα ποεῖτε, 25). This line is significant for what it 
implies about the relationship between song and beauty. One 
could perhaps interpret it to mean that the Muses bestow 
beauty upon the songs they touch, since poetry and song tra-

 
36 Giuseppe Lentini, “Amore ‘fuori luogo’. Presenze saffiche ed esiodee 

nell’Idillio 10 di Teocrito,” SCO 46 (1998) 903–907, at 905–906; White-
horne, AUMLA 41 (1974) 42. 

37 Did Theocritus intend for Idyll 10 to be in some way read against Idyll 
7? Both poems share strong Hesiodic features, such as the style and content 
of Milo’s song and Lycidas’ apparent likeness to the Muses who bestow a 
staff upon Hesiod in the Theogony. Both poems also feature harvesting, which 
is found throughout Idyll 10 and is implied in Idyll 7 by the cause of 
Simichidas’ journey, the Thalysia. Finally, Demeter in her role as an agri-
cultural goddess is present in both poems, and the lark, mentioned nowhere 
else in Theocritus’ corpus, appears in both poems in a similar context. 
Benjamin Acosta-Hughes, “Bucolic Singers of the Short Song,” in M. 
Fantuzzi and T. Papanghelis (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral 
Poetry (Leiden 2006) 25–52, at 34, also finds a parallel between the private 
songs of Bucaeus and Lycidas in contrast to the public performances of Milo 
and Simichidas.  


406 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

ditionally fall under their auspices. But the relative pronoun 
could as easily refer to the subject of the songs they inspire, so 
that the Muses (that is, song) grant an artificial beauty to 
Bucaeus’ Bombyca, whom Milo has already described in less 
than flattering terms. The notion that song lends beauty to its 
subject might not by itself attract attention, but the question of 
Bombyca’s beauty appears with noticeable frequency and is 
treated in a remarkable way.  

Bombyca provides perhaps the clearest example of the break-
down of the bucolic world’s conventions caused by pressure 
from Milo’s different worldview. In the difficult lines 17–18,38 
Milo seems to suggest that Bombyca is both unattractive and 
available. This sort of direct, external challenge to the idealiza-
tion of the beloved is unprecedented in Theocritus’ poetry. 
One might think of the Cyclops of Idyll 11 or Simaetha of Idyll 
2, but those situations are not quite the same. The Cyclops 
attempts to break love’s hold through song, but his assertion 
that all the girls laugh when he listens to them and that he is 
somebody important on land (11.78–79) are full of irony and 
call into question the effectiveness of his cure. Simaetha sim-
ilarly has recognized Delphis’ cruelty and so seems torn be-
tween wanting him back and letting him go. Polyphemus and 
Simaetha both wrestle with the realization that their desire will 
not find satisfaction from their beloveds, yet they continue to 
idealize them. Milo’s claim that Bucaeus will find himself in 
that “mantis-like girl’s embrace” undermines Bucaeus even 
before he begins his song, as Bombyca’s idealized nature and 
unattainability, two defining aspects of the bucolic beloved, are 
immediately called into question. 

Once Bucaeus does begin his song, the praise he lavishes on 
his beloved reinforces Milo’s observations about Bombyca and 
exposes the ridiculousness of Bucaeus’ desire. Bucaeus asserts 
that, while others see Bombyca’s imperfections, he sees her 
beauty: Βομβύκα χαρίεσσα, Σύραν καλέοντί τυ πάντες, / 
ἰσχνάν, ἁλιόκαυστον, ἐγὼ δὲ μόνος μελίχλωρον (24–25). The 
lover’s idealization of his beloved is frequent in literature, but 
the motif of the lover recasting his beloved’s faults occurs most 

 
38 See Gow, Theocritus II 197–198. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 407 
 

famously in Plato.39 At Resp. 474D–E, Socrates explains that an 
object of love is loved in its entirety, and as an example 
describes how lovers overlook imperfections in their beloveds 
by casting them in positive terms: σιμός, ἐπίχαρις κληθεὶς 
ἐπαινεθήσεται ὑφ’ ὑμῶν, τοῦ δὲ τὸ γρυπὸν βασιλικόν φατε 
εἶναι, τὸν δὲ δὴ διὰ μέσου τούτων ἐμμετρώτατα ἔχειν, μέλανας 
δὲ ἀνδρικοὺς ἰδεῖν, λευκοὺς δὲ θεῶν παῖδας εἶναι· 
μελιχλώρους δὲ καὶ τοὔνομα οἴει τινὸς ἄλλου ποίημα εἶναι ἢ 
ἐραστοῦ ὑποκοριζομένου τε καὶ εὐχερῶς φέροντος τὴν 
ὠχρότητα, ἐὰν ἐπὶ ὥρᾳ ᾖ; Through this intertext, Theocritus 
connects Bucaeus’ idealization of his beloved with Socrates’ 
assertion that such idealization is a common and ridiculous 
practice of lovers in general, and so imparts a degree of ri-
diculousness to love generally and to Bucaeus in particular. 
The Platonic intertext is particularly striking in contrast to 
6.18–19, ἦ γὰρ ἔρωτι / πολλάκις, ὦ Πολύφαμε, τὰ μὴ καλὰ 
καλὰ πέφανται. This passage, like 10.24–25, acknowledges that 
love causes one to idealize the object of one’s affection but con-
tains none of the ridicule found in Idyll 10. On the contrary, 
Daphnis’ words repackage the same notion of idealization as a 
bit of gnomic wisdom. In Idyll 6, at least, Polyphemus may ap-
pear ridiculous, but love is taken quite seriously. 

After their invocations the two songs diverge in both theme 
and overall structure. Nevertheless, some elements common to 
both songs remain that encourage the reader to look beyond 
the veneer of thematic polarization and consider what greater 
significance may lie in the songs. Bucaeus quickly transitions 
from addressing the Muses to addressing his beloved. His first 
words to her are a surprising concession that he alone finds her 
beautiful—he even lists the unflattering descriptions of her 
given by everyone else (26–27). Bucaeus sets himself un-
ashamedly against the collective opinion of all the other reapers 
by proclaiming the beauty of his beloved Bombyca. Milo too 
follows his invocation to Demeter by introducing an external 
judgment into his song, but his method is opposite to Bucaeus’ 
approach. Instead of addressing a single person, Milo speaks to 

 
39 Robert Brown, Lucretius on Love and Sex (Leiden 1987) 128; for discussion 

of this motif with extensive citations of its use in ancient literature, 280–283.  


408 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

the binders and warns them to bind the sheaves lest someone 
criticize their idleness: σφίγγετ’, ἀμαλλοδέται, τὰ δράγματα, μὴ 
παριών τις / εἴπῃ, “σύκινοι ἄνδρες· ἀπώλετο χοὖτος ὁ μισθός” 
(44–45). Whereas Bucaeus disregards popular opinion in assert-
ing his beloved’s beauty, Milo stirs the binders to work through 
fear of an anonymous rebuke. The preface to Milo’s song sug-
gests that he is responding to Bucaeus (40–41), so it is not 
unlikely that Milo deliberately adopts and inverts Bucaeus’ 
construction for use in his own song. This inversion does more 
than highlight the opposed thematic nature of the songs: it 
makes Bucaeus’ construction stand out by comparison. By ad-
mitting the widely held view of his beloved’s unattractiveness, 
Bucaeus exposes his song as an idealization of Bombyca. In 
comparison with Milo’s lines at 44–45, a different significance 
for Bucaeus’ idealization emerges. Unlike Milo, who directs the 
workers in his song, Bucaeus appears as an isolated figure by 
setting himself against the majority opinion. Shepherd-poets, 
appropriately associated with Bucaeus, are solitary characters, 
particularly in their distance from the reader’s reality but also 
in their physical isolation from other characters. The shepherd-
poet’s love isolates him both physically and emotionally.40 Here 
again Theocritus does not allow what may be considered 
bucolic convention—the isolated nature of the bucolic lover—
to pass by without comment, but rather calls attention to it 
through Bucaeus’ insistence that he alone finds Bombyca at-
tractive.  

Bucaeus’ own phrasing at 26–27 suggests his isolation as a 
lover (ἐγὼ δὲ μόνος) and his distance from the mindset of 
everyone else (πάντες). Yet Milo’s address to the binders and 
his warning that someone might think them lazy completely 
overturns Bucaeus’ isolation by emphasizing the collective 
nature of work.41 Because Bucaeus is a reaper instead of a 
 

40 For the lover’s isolation see D. Konstan, Sexual Symmetry (Princeton 
1994) 169; Charles Isenburg and D. Konstan, “Pastoral Desire: The Third 
Idyll of Theocritus,” Dalhousie Review 64 (1984) 302–315; G. Giangrande, 
“Aphrodite and the Oak-Trees,” MPhL 2 (1977) 177–186, at 179.  

41 Acosta-Hughes, in Brill’s Companion 32, also notes the contrast between 
Bucaeus’ song meant for a private audience (Bombyca) and Milo’s meant 
for a public one. 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 409 
 

herdsman, his idleness and isolation, unremarkable in a bucolic 
setting, stand in sharp relief against the collective toil that Milo 
demands. More than just showing a polarization between love 
and work, in the agricultural world the lover stricken with 
desire becomes one of the σύκινοι ἄνδρες whose wages are 
wasted. The fiction of the bucolic lover’s idle solitude comes to 
the fore through his transplantation into the agricultural 
world’s fiction and fully emerges only when the songs of the 
two reapers are directly compared. 

After the initial two couplets, it becomes difficult to discern 
structural patterns such as those that characterize the songs’ 
beginnings. The central couplets show more contrast than 
similarity, as Bucaeus defends his beloved’s beauty and Milo 
continues in didactic fashion; yet beneath the differences that 
set the songs apart are subtle thematic connections, the first of 
which emerges in Bucaeus’ priamel. 

After comparing his beloved’s beauty to the violet and 
hyacinth—famously imitated by Vergil in Eclogue 10, a poem 
that also concerns itself with interactions between separate 
fictional worlds—Bucaeus turns to a sort of bucolic priamel: ἁ 
αἲξ τὰν κύτισον, ὁ λύκος τὰν αἶγα διώκει, / ἁ γέρανος 
τὤροτρον· ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπὶ τὶν μεμάνημαι (30–31). He has been 
playing the part of a bucolic character throughout the poem, 
and just as Milo’s previous comparison of Bucaeus to a 
wounded sheep reinforced that characterization, here again 
imagery proper to a bucolic landscape underscores the implicit 
connection between Bucaeus and the bucolic world. Into the 
parade of bucolic images intrude the crane and the plow—a 
pair associated with work and agriculture—and an odd climax 
to the crescendoing description of the bucolic chain. The inter-
ruption of the bucolic imagery that constitutes the entirety of 
line 30 is all the more jarring given the sudden appearance of 
agricultural imagery at the beginning of the following line.  

Theocritus here seems to be calling attention to his juxtaposi-
tion of bucolic and agricultural imagery. Such juxtapositions of 
course occur throughout the poem, but with an important 
difference: unlike most comparisons in the poem between the 
bucolic and agricultural world, this one does not appear to pre-
sent an antithesis between the two. On the contrary, it attempts 
to integrate them. Bucaeus compares his desire for Bombyca to 


410 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

the natural desire that drives goats, wolves, and cranes in their 
pursuits. Though both bucolic and agricultural images are 
present, the three points of comparison—the goat’s pursuit of 
clover, the wolf’s pursuit of the goat, and the crane’s pursuit of 
the plow—all complement one another in indicating the 
natural and instinctual qualities of Bucaeus’ love. Bucaeus im-
plies that his desire for Bombyca mimics relationships natural 
to the bucolic world (the goat’s desire for clover and the wolf’s 
for the goat)42 as well as the agricultural world (the crane’s for 
the plow) and so suggests that the desire he feels is common to 
(or may at least be intelligible to) characters in both worlds. 
The image of the crane pursuing the plow is of interest because 
it combines natural and agricultural associations in an attempt 
to create a second bridge between Bucaeus’ and Milo’s fictions 
through their mutual associations with nature. Bucaeus at-
tributes to the crane the same natural desire that drives the 
goat and wolf, focusing on the crane’s desire and de-empha-
sizing the plowman’s interest in the crane.43  

Bucaeus’ merging of bucolic and agricultural imagery into a 
single analogical concept is quite remarkable. The poem 
patently demonstrates the incompatibility of the fictional 
worlds of shepherds and reapers, yet Bucaeus’ priamel attempts 
to bridge that gap by appropriating for his bucolic song an 
image proper to the agricultural realm. Of course, despite its 
presence in both worlds, nature, like song, yields different sig-
nificance depending on its fictional context. Bucaeus’ appropri-
ation of agricultural imagery remains merely that, with no 
actual integration of the fictional elements of the bucolic and 
agricultural worlds. The lovesick reaper’s attempt to connect 
love analogically with Milo’s fictional world, though note-

 
42 The image of the wolf desiring the goat has the additional effect of con-

tinuing to deconstruct bucolic love by removing it from its idealized position 
through an intertext with Plato’s Phaedrus. As Socrates concludes his false 
speech against love, he compares the lover to a hungry wolf: ταῦτά τε οὖν 
χρή, ὦ παῖ, συννοεῖν, καὶ εἰδέναι τὴν ἐραστοῦ φιλίαν ὅτι οὐ μετ’ εὐνοίας 
γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ σιτίου τρόπον, χάριν πλησμονῆς, ὡς λύκοι ἄρνας ἀγαπῶσιν, 
ὣς παῖδα φιλοῦσιν ἐρασταί (241C–D).  

43 For which see esp. Hes. Op. 448–451 and Arat. 1.1075–1076 (χαίρει 
καὶ γεράνων ἀγέλαις ὡραῖος ἀροτρεὺς / ὥριον ἐρχομέναις). 


 JEFFREY M. HUNT 411 
 

worthy, does little to overturn the antitheses present through-
out the poem and succeeds even less in garnering sympathy 
from Milo.  

A final point of comparison between the songs of Bucaeus 
and Milo: each singer addresses the topic of wealth in the 
second half of his song. Though they portray their desires as 
unattainable, the mere presence of the theme is striking. 
Wealth does appear in the Idylls as lovers occasionally attempt 
to purchase their beloved’s affection, but it is always depicted 
according to rustic notions of wealth. Lacon and Comatas, for 
instance, both claim to have gifts for their beloveds befitting 
their status as herdsmen (5.96–99). The Cyclops likewise at-
tempts to entice Galatea by listing his rustic possessions (11.34–
42). Bucaeus, however, does not desire wealth on a rustic scale 
and does not treat it as a means of attaining an unattainable 
beloved. Instead, he wants to dedicate statues of himself and 
Bombyca to Aphrodite: αἴθε μοι ἦς ὅσσα Κροῖσόν ποκα φαντὶ 
πεπᾶσθαι· / χρύσεοι ἀμφότεροί κ’ ἀνεκείμεθα τᾷ Ἀφροδίτᾳ 
(32–33). Though his sentiment is appropriate to the bucolic 
context, his expression is not. To wish for the wealth of Croesus 
is to wish for something not only impossible to obtain but also 
uncharacteristic of a shepherd-poet. Bucaeus’ expression, then, 
requires some explanation.  

The unbucolic nature of Bucaeus’ remarks at 32–35 and the 
position those remarks hold in the song—immediately before 
his aporia—are indicative of Bucaeus’ overall failure to sing a 
successful bucolic song. The idealized bucolic existence initially 
present in the song shifts perspective as Bucaeus imagines him-
self a wealthy man. Lines 34–37 reveal not only his breakdown 
in thought but, more importantly, his jumbling of bucolic and 
unbucolic imagery. Bombyca will be represented by a golden 
statue bearing auloi and either a rose or an apple. This image 
already incongruously combines images of rustic wealth, 
flowers and fruit, with the gold of the imagined statue. The 
accoutrements featured in Bucaeus’ statue further alienate the 
more rustic imagery in Bombyca’s statue, as his imagination 
carries him further away from a bucolic idealization. His final 
description of his beloved thus becomes nearly incoherent as he 
uses knuckle-bones and nightshade to describe Bombyca’s toes 
and voice, respectively, revealing the insufficiency of his 


412 BUCOLIC EXPERIMENTATION IN IDYLL 10 
 

imaginative faculty. His previous use of rustic imagery to de-
scribe his love for Bombyca (30–31) makes the failure of the 
song’s final lines even more pointed. 

Milo’s song, too, broaches the topic of wealth, as he expresses 
his envy of the abundance enjoyed by frogs: εὐκτὸς ὁ τῶ 
βατράχω, παῖδες, βίος· οὐ μελεδαίνει / τὸν τὸ πιεῖν ἐγχεῦντα, 
πάρεστι γὰρ ἄφθονον αὐτῷ (52–53). Traditional notions of 
wealth do not intrude into Milo’s song; instead, his consistent 
rustic approach offers a corrective for Bucaeus’ divergence 
from bucolic song. Milo’s song, of course, is not bucolic, but it 
does offer an idealization of work analogous to Bucaeus’ at-
tempt to idealize his love and, like bucolic song, maintains a 
rustic focus for its imagery. Milo’s successful rustic idealization 
underscores Bucaeus’ failure, further deconstructing the con-
ventions of bucolic song.  

The bucolic experiment of Idyll 10 provides a unique 
perspective on Theocritus’ bucolic poetry and his fictional 
approach. Bucaeus’ attempt to perform bucolic song meets 
with failure at every turn: he sings only at Milo’s prompting, 
diminishes his idealization of Bombyca by repeating the de-
rogatory claims of others, neglects his bucolic archetypes, strays 
from bucolic imagery, and, finally, proves himself incapable of 
maintaining his imaginative escape. The points at which his 
song breaks down are juxtaposed with Milo’s successful song, 
which properly adheres to the form of a bucolic song despite its 
agricultural focus. Bucolic song, removed from its particular 
fictional world and failing in its instantiation, reveals its inner 
workings, as elements that are usually integrated smoothly 
serve as a jarring contrast to Milo’s model of agricultural song. 
The confrontation of bucolic and unbucolic characters that 
affords the opportunity for this bucolic experiment also pre-
vents the poem from being easily classified. Idyll 10’s position 
in the Theocritean corpus must perhaps remain ambiguous, 
but its significance to studies of bucolic poetry should not be ig-
nored.   
 
February, 2009 Department of Classics 
 Baylor University 
 Waco, Texas  76798 
 Jeff_Hunt@baylor.edu