Theocritus' Silent Dioscuri Griffiths, F T Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1976; 17, 4; ProQuest pg. 353 Theocritus' Silent Dioscuri F. T. Griffiths THE MOST DRASTIC modern intervention in the received text of the Idylls is Wilamowitz's diagnosis of the scribal omission of a page or so after v.I70 of the Hymn to the Dioscuri and his reattribu­ tion of the following lines (to v.180) to Castor.1 Lynceus has just fol­ lowed the Dioscuri's abduction of his and Idas' fiancees with charges of bribery, rape and the wanton abuse of blood bonds. Now Castor has only these missing verses to save face, as editors2 are now univer­ sally inclined to let him do in keeping with Wilamowitz's pronounce­ ment that in such a hymn" die Menschlichkeit auf seiten der Dioskuren sein muss." But must it? To this point in the poem the twins have taken their duties as CWTfjpEC lightly, to say the least, and here Theocritus' sympathies unmistakably lie with Lynceus. The lacuna itself imports grave incoherences into an otherwise untroubled text, while the apologiae suggested for Castor would indict him more effec­ tively than has his cousin. It would seem, then, that editors are dis­ membering a perfectly sound text to impose on the poet exactly the kind of piety toward gods and heroes that here and elsewhere he delights in scoffing. The textual grounds for the emendation are exceedingly slight: no one has claimed inconcinnity between vv. 170 and 171, which mark the transition between two alrernatives to all-out combat, both offered on the strength of family ties: "Either yield to us as your cousins, or at least limit the combat to a duel, that we may bereave our families as little as possible." These sentiments could flow naturally from the lips of one speaker, and El 8' UJLLv Kpa8t'rJ 1TOf..EJLOV 1To(hL ... (v.17I) strongly recalls Lynceus' salutation: OaLJLOvwL, Tt JLaX1]c iJLE{pETE; (v.145).3 It is only the manuscripts' uncertainty about the indicated opponent in v.175 (KacTwp D, AVyKEvc V Tr M, using Cow's sigla) that has aroused suspicions. But AVYKeVC, which would imply that the lines 1 Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker (Berlin 1906) 191-93. Z The last dissenters were R. Cholmeley, The Idylls of Theocritus Z (London 1919), without explanation, and O. Konnecke, Bucolici Graeci (Brunswig 1914), who replied to Wilamowitz earlier in "Zu Theokrir," Philologus 72 (1913) 379-84. 3 Ibid. 380f. 353 354 THEOCRITUS' SILENT DIOSCURI are Castor's, could easily enough have been drawn into the text from a gloss on the speaker of the lines (over EYw ?), and V Tr M will again misplace KacTwp in v.I85, suppressing aKpae for a repetition of Kap'TEpoe from v.I84; a clear error. Wilamowitz further objects to 0}LaLlLoe ElLoe (v.I73) from Lynceus in reference to Polydeuces on the grounds that it must mean 'brother', not 'kinsman'. But as an adjective 0lLaLlLoe is often not so restricted' and would precisely fit Lynceus' rhetorical need here for an encom­ passing and ambiguous term to make the ties of family seem as close as possible. Gow5 argues instead that Lynceus would not describe Polydeuces as 'my' (ElLoe codd.) or 'his' (ioe Vossius;6 i.e. Idas') 'kins­ man' when his relationship to both of the Apharidae is the same. This is a fine point at best, and there is no reason to doubt the manuscripts' ElLbe from Lynceus, self-conscious as he is (athoe EyW v.I53; VWL 8'. Eyw Kacrwp T€ v.I75), who would quite naturally discriminate himself from his brother in excluding him from the combat. Can we not tolerate a touch of solipsism at a grand moment of fraternal self­ sacrifice? Certainly the rhetoric of the line, "Idas and my cousin, the mighty Polydeuces," is appropriate more to the courteous and in­ gratiating Lynceus than to Castor, who would weaken his appeal by slighting Idas so and from whom 0lLaLlLoe would be otiose. The duel itself proceeds, by Homeric conventions, as if Lynceus had been the challenger: like Paris (ll. 3.328ff), he is the first to brandish his weapon, while Castor follows just as did Menelaus (c.:Je 8' aihwe MEvD..aoe ll. 3.339; c.:Je 8' aVTwe ... KaeTwp vv.I85f).7 Lynceus, like Paris and Hector (ll. 7.244ff). makes the first thrust and comes off the worse against the man whom he has challenged. Similarly, the poet comments on the proposal for the duel as if it had come from Lynceus: El7TE, Tel 8' OUK ap' EJLEAAE (JEoe ILETaJLwvLa (J~eE'v (v.18I) has piquancy only in reference to his frustration at the failure of the earlier negotiations (vv.I67ff). This time, the narrator notes with grim irony, 4 Hdt. 1.151 and 8.144; Cratin. 433; Pl.Com.192; Aesch. Eum. 212. Though the substantive regularly refers only to siblings. Sophocles' further definition of it in the phrase c';;c op.alp.oll Kat KaCt)'V1/'"1c (El. 12) indicates that this restriction is not necessary or binding. See also E. Bignone. Teocrito (Bari 1934) 321 n.1. 5 Theocritus 2 II (Cambridge 1952; repro 1965) 402. 8 Joc may also be used in the second person (here. after vp.'iJl), as often in this period: [d. 17.50; Ap.Rhod. Arg. 2.634 and 3.140; Callim. H. 3.103 and fr.472 pf. Though this emenda­ tion facilitates the attribution of the lines to Castor. the appropriateness of 'p.oc makes it unnecessary. 7 Noted by Konnecke. op.cit. (supra n.2) 380. F. T. GRIFFITHS 355 his suggestions will be heeded-to his cost. Later, when the poet views Idas' death from the standpoint of his mother, who will never see her. son wed (vv.205f), he recalls with similar irony the desire of the initiator of the duel that for the sake of parents such a double slaughter be averted. The lines gain their full pathos only in reference to the proposal as coming from Lynceus, whose self-sacrificing gesture has fatally endangered the brother he sought to protect. The rest of the episode, then, clearly develops from the unbroken monologue which the manuscripts offer. For the omission itself we lack any explanation more compelling than spastic scribal eye. The copyist, though given to skipping whole pages, would have to be attentive enough to pick up from a point that flawlessly advanced the argument at hand. But in such a densely constructed passage surgery so clean would surely require a bit of effort, which we would be hard-pressed to explain, and could be expected to leave at least some slight mark on the passage thus eviscerated. In fact, the text becomes troublesome only when we try to imagine it with Castor's phantom lines. The verbal preliminaries already go on nearly twice as long as the duel itself; the missing page or any adequate defense by Castor would entail a disproportion of at least three to one, leaving the second episode of the hymn's diptych twice as long as the first and mostly devoted to pointless quibbling. How are we to turn verses, which are touching and coherent as a monologue, into a debate, when both speakers would appeal equally to family ties, assume the same pose of injured innocence, and sound as conciliatory as possible? One wonders how they would ever come to blows or why the poet would bore his audience with a debate of unusual length and no real verbal clash. Theocritus did not, surely, here or elsewhere create two disputants with the same personality.s We must insist on the strong contrasts in characterization which en­ liven all such confrontations in the Idylls, and in this passage we find them only in the opposition between the 7ToAJ,wOoc and pacific Lynceus and his belligerent but silent cousins. The match needs an aggressor, and it is clearly not Lynceus, who seems for all the world a bit startled by the violent turn that events have taken: "Why these naked blades in your hands?" The answer is 8 On Theocritus' contrasting characterizations see U. Ott, Die Kunst des Gegensat~es in Theokrits Hirtengedichten (Hildesheim and New York 1969), and J. Kuhn, "Die Thalysien Theokrits," Hermes 86 (1968) 5acyavov o~v cfo€p0V'TOC {J1T€~avaf3ac 1To~H Kac'Twp cKaLCtJ" To this point, the poet has given us only summary description of the fighting; now abruptly, in the first four words, the contest is over: Lynceus is incapacitated. The preliminaries to this decisive exchange take another two lines to unravel, taking us back first to L ynceus' preceding move, then forward to Castor's intermediate dodge and which foot he made it with. The anticlimax could not have been hard to avoid, and the convoluted word order is most uncharacteristic of Theocritus. The failure of the lines seems willful. The whole passage, then, is out of kilter. Disquisitions like Lynceus' are never heard on the plains of Ilium amidst brandished swords. He does clearly echo Achilles and Agamemnon,16 but mostly he is 14 B. Fenik, Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad (Wiesbaden 1968) 6. 15 II. 7.273ff. At II. 3.361ff Menelaus makes one futile thrust at Paris. 18 See Cow ad vv. 156 and 160. F. T. GRIFFITHS 359 wasting his breath. That such a long speech should pass without a reply is disconcerting, but hardly more so than the fact that Zeus should volunteer his assistance at a point when two Dioscuri remain against the unarmed Idas. Altogether a «slovenly performance" says GowP and we can hardly argue with him. But Theocritus has warned us from the first that his intentions as an epic poet may not be strictly serious: twins are a natural subject of comedy, and, lest we overlook the oddity of this assemblage of three sets of them, the poet loads the first four lines of the episode with eleven dual forms, setting up a charming little jingle on three ways to say 'two': ovw ... v;'w I OOL(Xc • .• Kopac· Otccc:., ••• TWY€, which he seems inclined to continue: yafL{Jpc:., fL€l\l\oy&.fLW. The poet is clearly amusing himself with the pit­ falls of the Homericizing style, as hardly surprises us from a consummate parodist who nowhere takes the traditional heroism seriously. The weapons fumbled here recall the sword with which Heracles madly assaults the shrubbery in the Hylas and the one for which Amphitryon gropes at midnight in the Heracliscus. 18 As a colleague of Callimachus and, it seems, equally a critic of the tijl\oc 'OfL1JptKOC (Id. 7.45-48),19 Theocritus could hardly succumb to it un­ thinkingly here or, as we shall see, in the hymn's epilogue. To cele­ brate the Dioscuri, he need hardly involve himself so extensively in battle poetry and clearly is doing so to mock the pretensions of the latter-day Homeridae, even as he often does those of love poets (e.g. Idd. 3, 11 and 12). Theocritus does on occasion oblige his patrons with patches of heroic verse (e.g. Idd. 16.73-81 and 17 passim), but in these passages he handles himself so adroitly with shields and epithets that we cannot, pace Gow, attribute the clumsy heroics of Id. 22 to simple poetic incapacity. These verses fail so well only because they were written by a poet who knows so well how to make them succeed. Given all of his lines, Lynceus emerges as a typical and very success­ ful Theocritean character. The calculated naivete of the bucolic poems characterizes the poet's view of kings and heroes as well: Praxinoa in Ptolemy'S palace (ld. 15), Alcmena confronting godhead incarnate (Id. 24), Simaetha ruined by a brief interlude with the jeunesse doree (ld. 2), and Lynceus facing the brutality of the old heroism are all 11 Op.at. (supra n.ll) 16. 18 On Theocritus' treatment of heroism see D. Mastronarde, "Theocritus' Idyll 13: Love and the Hero," TAPA 99 (1968) 273-91, and A. Horstmann, Ironie und Humor bei Theokrit (Meisenheim am Clan 1976) 57-79. 18 For a survey of interpretations of these lines see Ott, op.at. (supra n.8) 161 n.444. 360 THEOCRITUS' SILENT DIOSCURI limited and well-meaning people out of their depth in confronting the great world. The religious emotion of the Adonis festival registers only superficially on Praxinoa, distracted as she is by the annoying crowd and the workmanship on the tapestry. Where Pindar in Nemean 1 presented the heroic Amphitryon as a worthy witness of Heracles' infant arete, Theocritus focuses instead on Alcmena, who quite over­ looks her surprising son in her anxiety about Iphicles and the ominous portent of the snakes. Simaetha trusts sorcery to return her to polite society. And the hapless Lynceus persists in the belief that he can talk his way out of this confrontation, get the girls and leave everyone happy. They all seem to have wandered into a world rather grander than they can handle, and on this score they have our sympathy absolutely. The great palace by itself is no longer a fit subject for a poetry of wit and AnTT6T7Jc. nor is the heroic battle. Now it is the faces in the crowd that come alive. In an earlier age, Lynceus would be one of those anonymous souls who enhance some greater man's aristeia, falling to the dust after five or six pathetic lines about his father or wife. Likewise no one had before asked what a housewife might think of Olympian struggles in the nursery or how suburban maidens, reared on tales of Medea and Ariadne, might glamorize their own indiscretions. Theocritus' preferred perspective on the great world of heroic myth, as of the Alexandrian elite, is that of the outsiders whose revealing incomprehension has become a precious commodity in a sophisticated age. If Lynceus' loquaciousness and stolid innocence are disruptive of the hymn's wayward turn to Homericizing, so much is clearly intended, for he diverts sympathy from Castor as a very traditional sort of hero, while the poet's inversion of epic conventions demonstrates the heroic style as now insupportable. In respecting the Dioscuri's original silence we do admittedly make the episode as a whole harder to reconcile with the rest of the poem as a hymn in their honor. But the divine twins have been disappoint­ ing pious expectations from the first. The proem presents the Dioscuri as guardians of sailors on the model of the thirty-third Homeric Hymn. In Theocritus, the storm is rougher and the crew expects to die. But these sailors, unlike Homer's, do not pray to the twins, who for their part never show up. The storm blows over, and the poet goes on with undiminished enthusiasm to the next episode. Whatever their credentials as a "zivilisatorische Macht,"20 the twins debark from the 10 Wilamowitz. op.cit. (supra n.1) 186. F. T. GRIFFITHS 361 Argo with no intention beyond tourism, find the ogre Amycus more quaint than menacing, and with unconcealed amusement take on the match purely for sport-in fact, would not mind a pancratium. Polydeuces finds the boxing itself mere child's play, no more than an afternoon's diversion. He has ostensibly pounded manners into Amy­ cus, but the latter would, in fact, have been content to sit sunning himself had his inquisitive visitors not badgered him into a fight. And the spring which the Argonauts have won interests the poet at the end even less than it does Polydeuces earlier (v.62).21 Now in Apollonius' contemporary account22 this episode is very serious heroic business and, indeed, the only time his Argonauts triumph in the traditional way. Elsewhere their valor proves self-defeating (as in Cyzicus) and their triumphs most unheroic (e.g. in Lemnos and Colchis). But rid­ ding the Propontis of Amycus and the Bebryces, as King Lycus explains at length (Arg. 2.774-810), is the sort of thing heroes most usefully do. It symbolizes the triumph of ·dxv7J over {3ta, Greek over barbarian and even the order of Zeus over chaos,23 as would hardly interest the urbane Polydeuces of ld. 22, who is above all curious, witty, acquisitive and sportive. Theocritus' Amycus we will despise not for being the scourge of the Propontis (has he the wit?) but for fouling his opponent (v.119). As in Idd. 18 and 24, this heroic world seems to revolve less around war than sport. Theocritus does not intend to undercut the twins here, as is sometimes suspected,24 but to make of them Hellenistic gentlemen with a clear appeal to a courtly 11 Sanchez-Wildberger, Theokrit-Interpretationen (Diss. ZUrich 1955) 15f, speaks of a "parodistischen Schimmer" in the passage, while A. Kohnken, Apollonios Rhodios und Theokrit (Cottingen 1965) 90-93, sees its "komodienhafte ZUge" as an inheritance from Sophocles' satyric and Epicharmus' comic dramatizations of the story. Horstmann, op.cit. (supra n.18) 72-79, is more inclined to see beneath the humor the poet's "ganz personlichen Ideal des Friedens." 2Z The question of who is imitating whom in these parallel passages (ld. 22.27-134 and Arg. 2.1-97) remains controversial. Cow, "The Thirteenth Idyll of Theocritus," CQ 32 (1938) 10-17, and op.cit. (supra n.lI) lIf and 17 (recapitulated in op.cit. [supra n.5] II 231f and 382f), has argued most strongly for Apollonius' priority here and in the more closely similar Hylas narratives (ld. 13 and Arg. 1.1172-272), as Kohnken, op.cit. (supra n.21), has for the reverse. A majority of scholars side with Cow, but most recently H. Herter, s.v. "Apollonios," RE Supp. 13 (1973) 20-22, has declared himself unconvinced by the argu­ ments of both camps. For a survey of the literature on the question see K6hnken (pp.26-31) and Herter, to which add M. Campbell, "Three Notes on Alexandrine Poetry," Hermes 102 (1974) 38-41. 13 In vv.38-42 Amycus is likened to a monstrous son of Typhoeus or one born of Earth in her wrath against Zeus, while Polydeuces is like the evening star. It Konnecke, op.cit. (supra n.2) 383. 362 THEOCRITUS' SILENT DIOSCURI audience. The other Ptolemaic favorites25 receive much the same treatment: Helen (Id. 18) emerges as the well-bred Spartan princess, devotee of Artemis and Athena; and Heracles (Id. 24), his monumen­ tal benefactions and sufferings all but forgotten, is the model school­ boy, athlete and complaisant husband of Hebe. The Dioscuri's silence in the second episode admittedly makes them an even sharper contrast to the well-mannered sportsmen of the first. The erstwhile saviors of mankind, promoting the cause of g€vta in foreign parts, now abuse the hospitality of their own family. The grisly slaughter of Lynceus is as unexpected and perhaps as un­ deserved as the reprieve of Amycus. These antitheses, as often in the Idylls,26 are the heart of the poem and clearly labeled: where the twins could introduce themselves to Amycus as f-L~T' &8IKOVC f-L~T' 19 &8IKWV (v.56), by the end they are just strong (v.213): " I , , , "'/'" aVTO' T€ KpaT€OVn Ka, €K KpaT€OVTOC 6f'VCav. The style of the poem shows similar reversals between the gracefully variegated narrative of the Poly deuces episode and the oppressive Iliadic style of what follows. The first adventure takes place against a lavishly described background; in the second there is none. Lynceus' prolix monologue itself balances the lively stichomythia of the first episode. Moulton27 has related this contrasting of styles and charac­ terizations to the Alexandrian controversies over the writing of epic, Homeric and not. Over against a graceful and witty treatment of Polydeuces' match with Amycus, Theocritus applies a Homericizing style in the second episode to a tale that had been very elegantly told by Pindar, and thereby demonstrates the better and the worse way of dealing with heroic subjects. The twins' degeneration from agreeable to repugnant characters reinforces the message. And can the reference be to anyone but Apollonius? For the style of the Castor episode could derive from the Argonautica no less directly than the matter of the first episode. Apollonius had inflated the comic tale of Epicharmus' Aymcus and Sophocles' satyr play of the same name into a formal Homeric duel: challenge, arming scene, combat, perfidy from the losing side, full-scale battle; Theocritus in the Castor episode simply 15 The connections of Id. 18 with the court are discussed by Sanchez-Wild berger, op.cit. (supra n.21) 37-40; for Heracles see Gow, op.cit. (supra n.5) 415-19. 1& See Ott, op.cit. (supra n.8). n "Theocritus and the Dioscuri," GRBS 14 (1973) 41-47. F. T. GRIFFITHS 363 imposes an equally cumbersome epic format on the very fluid narrative of Nemean 10. The Dioscuri's silence and the pattern of irony that it confirms in the poem should warn us off a second and equally unnecessary bit of surgery on the poem. this time interpretative. The hymnal epilogue. an extensive and surprisingly personal statement much like the ccppaylc of the Callimachean and Homeric hymns to Apollo. seems finally to turn from the Dioscuri altogether (vv.2I5ff): "Bards are dear to the Dioscuri and the heroes of Troy. Homer brought glory to you, Princes, as do I": vfL'iv KVSOC, aVaK'T€C, ifL~Ca'To X'ioc ao,S6c (v.2I8) -1lfL'iv aQ Ka~ iyc1 (v.22I). Since the Dioscuri in the Iliad are already in the grave (3.236ff). they do not belong in this company, and therefore the majority of commentators since Hiller have taken eXvaK'TEC to refer to Homer's subjects rather than to Theocritus'28 or have read the epi­ logue as a statement on epic poetry in general more than on the poem which it concludes.29 But nowhere in the Homeric or Callimachean hymns does the singer abandon his subjects in this way, especially not for other and mortal subjects. In any case, the twins must at least be included in the VfLLV of v.2I8, which surely addresses the same group as the anaphoric viL'iv of v.221. The latter must refer to the subjects of the hymn, that is, the twins, who are also the only (hoL in this com­ pany of heroes. There is, therefore, no way to isolate these lines from the rest of the hymn so as to avoid Gow's judgement of "extra­ ordinary carelessness" here. But since that has been the hallmark of the preceding battle description, need we be surprised if it continues here? As a poetic testament, this envoi is almost the opposite of what might be expected from Theocritus. To celebrate heroes for brute force (v.213) hardly sounds like him, and the following lines in in­ voking Homer proclaim the very aemulatio that Theocritus and Callimachus elsewhere regard as pure folly. This is not the Homer of the Cypria or the hymns,30 but of the Iliad itself and its grandest, most inimitable heroes. Yet the singer does no more here than openly invite a comparison with the bard that the Castor episode has already 18 So most recently Dover, op.cit. (supra n.9) 250f. Gow, op.cit. (supra n.ll) 16, is a notable exception. 28 Schlatter, Theokrit und Kallimachos (Diss. Zurich 1941) 73; Sanchez-Wild berger, op.cit. (supra n.21) 17; Moulton, op.cit. (supra n.25') 43. 8°Id. 16.49f suggests that Theocritus did not attribute the Cypria to Homer in any case. See Gow ad loco 364 THEOCRITUS' SILENT DIOSCURI made unavoidable and highly unfavorable. Having just parodied such aspirations so successfully, can Theocritus himself now step forth solemnly and seriously into the shadow of Homer? Like Callimachus in his Hymns,31 Theocritus does not normally invoke the Muses as he does here. Indeed, elsewhere his attitude to them seems notably play­ ful and evasive.32 Finally, Theocritus' offers to explain his poetry to us, as this epilogue purports to do, mostly lead us on a merry chase, as the number and diversity of decipherments of the poetics of the Charites33 and the Thalysia amply attest. When Theocritus comes around to similarly personal reflections in the hymnal envoi of the Bacchantes (Id. 26), we simply cannot believe him.34 But of course we need not in rd. 22 either. The interpretative problem with the epilogue, as often in Hellenis­ tic poetry, stems from confusing the poetic EYciJ with the personal voice of a poet capable of candor. The persona of Callimachus' Hymns 81 The Muses figure only in the Hymn to Delos and there only as colleagues of Apollo. On Callimachus' use of the sisterhood in the Aetia, see E. Eichgrun, Kallimachos und Apo/lonios Rhodics (Diss. Berlin 1961) 102-04. By transposing the Hesiodic visitation of the Muses into a dream, Callimachus announces the ironic distance he will maintain toward these tradi­ tional symbols throughout. 81 His rustics invoke them regularly enough (Idd. 1.64 al., 5.80, 10.24), but he himself does so in his own voice only to oblige royal patrons (Id. 17.1) and even then can do so with considerable humor. For example, in Id. 16 for Hiero II, he begins by dismissing the Muses, unexpectedly strikes a worshipful attitude to them midway through (vv. 29 and 58f), but ends by reducing them to symbols of his own poems (v.l07), now quite overshadowed by the Charites, who themselves began as humorous symbols of his poems canvassing for patronage but have in the interval been translated to a higher realm, where they enjoy the adoration once directed to the Muses. All of this shifting about seems to reflect more wit than reverence on the part of the poet. Similarly, the young and striving poet Simichidas cannot mention the Muses and Nymphs often enough in addressing Lycidas (Id. 7.37, 92 and 95) and in interpreting the experiences afterwards, doubtless with some amplification (vv. 12,129, 148 and 154). But where the city-dweller senses their presence everywhere in the country, Lycidas, who might like Hesiod be expected to enjoy a. neighborly relationship with the sisters, seems in fact like Theocritus himself to get along quite well without them (v.51) and to relegate their influence to the fantastic poet-figures of his own songs (v.82). His disapproving reference to the MOLdiv 0PVLX€C (vA7) may pointedly refer to the ten­ dency of the latter-day Homeridae to affect devices like the invocation of the Muses in the traditional way. See below p.366. 83 For the spectrum of opinions on Id. 16 compare N. Austin, "Idyll 16: Theocritus and Simonides," TAPA 98 (1967) 1-21, with Horstmann, op.cit. (supra n.18) 119-37. at On the possibility of playful irony or courtly flattery behind Theocritus' startling renunciation of all sympathy for the slaughtered Pentheus see respectively G. Giangrande. "Hellenistic Poetry and Homer," AC 39 (1970) 65-74. and K. J. McKay, "Theocritus' Bacchantes Re-examined," Antichthon 1 (1967) 16-28. F. T. GRIFFITHS 365 is not automatically to be equated with the poet himself,as and even when Callimachus does seem to speak for himself, his statements may be more formulaic and less self-revelatory than is commonly assumed, as Bundy36 recently argued for the Hymn to Apollo. Elsewhere when Theocritus has parody to offer, he puts it in the mouth of a suitably uncouth speaker (e.g. Idd. 3, 11 and 12). In Id. 22 the persona becomes increasingly obvious as the hymn devolves into counterfeit heroics, so that by the end we can be sure that he does not speak for Theocritus at all. The hymn-singer has from the first, as I have noted, stitched together passages doubtfully appropriate for a hymnic celebration, if often quite engaging in themselves. The boxing match, for instance, is a masterpiece of Hellenistic realism, sustained without similes, where Apollonius uses four, entirely by the manipulation of observa­ tional detail. It is stylishly modern reportage to be appreciated fully, as Wilamowitz37 notes, only by other observers of the sport. In no con­ text could the Muses as informants be less necessary or credible, but the rhapsode intrudes with a very Homeric invocation (vv.115ff): flwe yap 8~ L1ulc viae a8'T}tPayov av8pa Kaf}EL"\Ev; , , f}' \ \ l' f} ,\ t" • I '.1.. ' EL7TE, Ea, cv yap OLC a' EyW 0 ET€PWV V7T0o/'T}T1JC .l..f} 'i:" , 'f} I, \ \., .I.. '\ ,~ 0/ €y~ op.aL OCC € €I\€LC CV KaL 07T7TWC TOL o/LI\OV aVTf/. The Muses are not only anachronistic here but redundant, for Theocritus has from the first invoked the Dioscuri and will continue to do so (vv. 17, 23, 132, 135f and the epilogue), having made them KLf}apLC'TaL and aOL8ot (v.24) to serve as his inspiration. By the protocol of the Homeric Hymns, the singer may invoke either the god or the Muses but not both. These lines involve the poet, therefore, in a substantial inconsistency. The climax that they announce is not to be, for what follows essentially duplicates what has preceded, leading at last to timely concession and gracious reprieve. Theocritus' audience would doubtless find this intrusion on the narrative disconcerting, but, I suspect, also strangely familiar, for Apollonius has one of the 35 The singer of H. 6 is a woman, and the narrator-participants of the other dramatic hymns (2 and 5) may be equally distant from the poet. Giangrande, "Theocritus' Twelfth and Fourth Idylls: a Study in Hellenistic Irony," QUCC 12 (1971) 95-113, considers the fyW of rd. 12 to be a malapropian rustic, and Horstmann, op.cit. (supra n.18) 116-18, suggests similar irony in the speaking voices of Idd. 29 and 30. 38 "The 'Quarrel Between KaIlimachos and Apollonius', Part I: The Epilogue of Kalli­ machos's Hymn to Apollo," CSCA 5 (1972) 39-94. 37 Op.cit. (supra n.l) 186. 366 THEOCRITUS' SILENT DIOSCURI larger speaking parts in his own epic. In at least a score of passages he speaks up to call on the Muses, Apollo, other poets, Eros, Zeus, and finally the Argonauts themselves.3s Traditional professions of strict subservience to the Muses, like vv.115-18, are to be found in the Argonautica39 but not elsewhere in Theocritus or Callimachus. It has long been suspected that Theocritus' v7Toc/n'rT"'1c (v.116) recalls the Movcat 0' {J7TOCP~TOp£C £l£v aOLOTjc of the proem to the Argonautica (v.22); both words are sufficiently rare to make the parallel seem more than coincidental.4o Callimachus' close parallel to Theocritus' . . " 8' , ,,, " "-' t , "(H 3 186) InVOCation, £t7T£. £T/. CV IL£V alLlLLv. £yw 0 £T£POtCLV a£tcw .• , also following a question midway through the narrative, seems also to refer to Apollonius. Where Theocritus discomfits the Apollonian Muses by bringing them in at a most inopportune moment, Calli­ machus dispenses with them altogether, for £L7T€. 8£~ surprisingly refers to Artemis, not the Muse. Both poets may refer thereby to a feature of Apollonius' epic style that purists could find offensive, for, while invocation and apostrophe of this sort are found in Homer, the frequency and, as we shall see, inconsistency with which Apollonius uses them is distinctly un-Homeric. The simplest explanation for vv.115-18 is, then, that Theocritus has indicated the source of his story in the Polydeuces episode by imitating a conspicuous feature of Apollonian style. That style, as we have seen, dominates the Castor episode so com­ pletely that the rhapsode seems to forget that he is singing a hymn at all. After v.137 he ceases to call the twins Llu>c vlc.fJ and they become exclusively Tvvoaploat (vv. 202, 212 and 216), as befits their behavior. Now, mortals are not fit subjects for hymn,41 nor are Iliadic battles, and in the epilogue the singer faces the full consequences of his way- 38 See Wilamowitz, Hdlenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallinutchos II (Berlin 1924) 218 n.2. a. e.g. 3.1-5, 4.552-56 and esp. 4.1-5 and 1381f. " Urroq,~TT/C is found earlier only at II. 16.235; inro