Theocritus and the Dioscuri Moulton, Carroll Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1973; 14, 1; ProQuest pg. 41

Theocritus and the Dioscuri 
Carroll Moulton 

THE TWENTY-SECOND IDYLL of Theocritus has never received 
much comment, possibly because its subject is anything but 
bucolic. "To fight with the Tyndaridae is no light matter," 

declares the poet near the end (212); after the account of Pollux's 
boxing victory over the savage Amykos and the exploit of the Dioscuri 
with the Apharidae, the reader is likely to agree. But what is not so 
clear is Theocritus' intention in writing this poem in the first place. 
It is styled a hymn (the reminiscences in 1-26 of Hymn. Hom. 33 have 
long been recognized), and the story of Pollux drumming manners 
into the savage Amykos is praiseworthy enough. But when we come 
to Castor, who is given the leading role in the second half of the poem, 
we have a most peculiar story. For here the Dioscuri seem to be 
behaving quite as despicably as Amykos. They are on a <road trip', 
arbitrarily decide to abduct the fiancees of the Apharidae, ignore 
Lynceus' conciliatory speech, and fight for the girls.1 Castor kills 
Lynceus; as the slain man's brother-in-law Idas is about to hurl a 
stone, Zeus intervenes and strikes him dead with a thunderbolt. 

That this is not a very satisfactory encomium was the opinion of 
Gow, who twice discussed what he took to be the poem's short­
comings.2 It is convenient to adopt here his division of the poem into 
four sections: part 1 (lines 1-26, the prologue), part 2 (lines 27-134, the 
episode of Pollux and Amykos), part 3 (lines 135-211, the story of the 
Apharidae), and part 4 (lines 212-23, the epilogue). Gow objected to 
parts 3 and 4. In the first place, the story of the Apharidae was un­
suitable as it stood for an encomium; besides, in every other version 
but one of the story Castor was killed.s Stylistically, Gow found this 
part much inferior to the earlier lines; the particularly large number 

1 Unfortunately. the lacuna at 170 prevents us from knowing what Castor said in full in 
his reply to Lynceus. But since the latter tries to avoid the fight at 154ff, it is safe to assume 
that the speech was aggressive. It would be interesting to know if Castor attempted to 

justify the acts of the Dioscuri and what arguments he used. 
I See A. F. S. Gow, "The Twenty-second Idyll of Theocritus," CR 56 (1942) 11-18; Theoc­

ritus. ed.1 with transl. and commentary, II (Cambridge 1952) 382-407, esp. 384-85 [here­
after Gow, Commentary]. 

8 Hyginus 80 for Castor's survival; see also Pind. Nem. IO.60ff, Apollod. 3.11.2. and Ov. 

41 



42 THEOCRITUS AND THE DIOSCURI 

of Homeric words and phrases suggested a pastiche hastily thrown 
together.' The epilogue was equally censured, in that Theocritus' 
reference to the Trojan war (215fT) and to Homer (218) seemed "un_ 
timely"; the Dioscuri are mentioned only once in the Iliad, and in no 
very prominent connection.6 Gow concluded that parts 1 and 2 were 
written first and were meant to stand as separate poems. For whatever 
reason, Theocritus later joined them, hastily composed parts 3 and 4, 
appending them with two perfunctory transitional lines (135-36) and 
thereby spoiling the artistry of the whole.6 

This view has gone unchallenged, although I think it open to some 
objection.? Gow was right to draw attention to the disparity of style 
and contrast in subject matter in part 3, but we may perhaps find an 
explanation of the peculiarities he noted without assuming that 
Theocritus did not know what he was doing. The key, I think, lies in 
the mysterious reference to Homer at the end of the poem. Here are 
the last ten lines (214-23): 

, A ,~, ,., \ , ., 
XaLP€T€. 'Y]oac T€Kva. KaL 'Y]P,€T€POLC KI\€OC Vp,VOLC 

• B\ , " I .J..!\ ~ , I , ~ , 
€C I\OV a€L 7T€P,7TOLT€. 'f'/,/\OL o€ T€ 7TaVT€C aOLOOL 

", ~ ,~ <E'\ , , "'\ \ • I 
.L vvoapLoaLc 1\€vr1 T€ KaL al\l\OtC 'Y]PW€CCLV 
"1·\ .. ~ , , , lI6 \' 

I\tOV OL ot€7T€pCaV ap'Y]yovTEC lr.l€v€l\acr. 

< - -~" ., X-' ~, Vp'LV KVOOC. aVaKT€C. €p,'Y]caTO LOC aotDoc, 

· , n I 1\ ,- 'A -vp,V'Y]cac pLap,OtD 7TOI\LV KaL V'Y]ac xaLWV 

'1·\ I~ "A \ - , , '-I\LaOac T€ p,axac XLI\'Y]a T€ 7TVpyOV aVT'Y]C' 
< - .,. ,., \ - \ , lI6' 

Vp,tV av Kat €yw I\LY€WV P,€tl\typ,aTa lr.LOVC€WV, 
t"", \", l <I 

Oc. aVTat 7Tap€XOVCt Kat we Ep,oe 0 Koe V7TapX€l, 

Toia cplpw. y€paWV 8€ B€oic Ka~LCTOV am8at. 

Fasti 5.693ff. For the account in the Cypria, see Proclus' summary in T. W. Allen, ed. 
Homer V (OCT 1946) 103. 

'See Gow, Commentary 383, and nn. on vv.153, 175ff, 184, 188, 189, 195, etc. Ph.-E. Le­
grand's word lists may also be consulted for some rough indications; while he finds 
Homeric borrowings spread fairly equally throughout the poem, he identifies far more 
words and phrases not used in Homer in parts 1 and 2. See Etude sur ThiOCTite (paris 1898) 
357 n.l and 263-64. A few of Legrand's examples were criticized and invalidated by G. 
Perrotta, "Studi di poesia ellenistica," Stltal N.S. 4 (1925) 202ff. 

611. 3.236ff; cf. Gow, Commentary 406-07. 
8 Gow, Commentary 385. 
7 Legrand comments on "Ie defaut d'unite"; see his edition, Bucoliques grecs I (Paris 1925) 

179, and cf. Etude (s1lpra n.4) 91. E. Bignone also remarks on the contrast between the 
poem's two main sections, TeOCTito, Studio CTitico (Bari 1934) 320-22. The most recent edition, 
that of K. J. Dover (London 1971), does not comment on the problem (though for the 
reference to Homer, see the note at 250); similarly silent is H. Fritzsche/E. Hiller, 'Theolerits 
Gedichte (Leipzig 1881) 231. For the problem of up.tv in 218 and 22.1 see infra n.13. 



CARROLL MOULTON 43 

First, a salutation to the Dioscuri, and a prayer that KMoc may attach 
to the poet's hymns. Second, a recommendation of the special re­
lationship of ao,Sol to the pair's famous relatives and to the heroes 
who helped regain Helen from Troy. This is made more precise in 
218-20 with the mention of Homer, the subject of the Iliad, and 
Achilles. Then the poet mentions his personal inspiration from the 
Muses and his own resources (221-22). Finally, a gnomic statement (at 
least since Pindar): songs are the best prizes for the gods. 

Now this is a strikingly personal conclusion. The hymn could per­
fectly well end (and many of the hymns we have do endS) with a 
brief version of 212-15. Instead, Theocritus goes out of his way to 
mention Homer, who is seldom mentioned elsewhere in the Idylls,S 
and to compose an elaborate allusion to the Iliad. Why? Surely, 
Theocritus knew that the Dioscuri occupied a very minor place in that 
poem; yet, just as surely, he can hardly be undercutting them, or his 
poem, by asking his readers to think about insignificance. That the 
story of Castor and the Apharidae figured in some way in the Cypria 
is irrelevant; Theocritus' reference is plainly to the Iliad, and, as Gow 
notes, Theocritus elsewhere shows that he does not think of Homer as 
the author of the Cypria.10 We may explain the passage, I think, by 
regarding it as a coda to the poem as a whole and as a comment on 
poetry, which it plainly is, rather than by continuing the attempt 
forcibly to link it with Castor and Pollux. The passage essentially 
remarks on literature, not on heroic cult. 

In fact, the poem as a whole is a very consciously 'literary' piece. 
There is the relation between the prologue and Hymn. Hom. 33; for 
part 3, Theocritus knew of the version in the Cypria, and doubtless of 
Pindar, Nem. 10.60ff. But most importantly, part 2 is related to the 
account of Apollonius, Argon. 2.1-97, which also tells the story of 
Pollux and Amykos. Gow thought the resemblances too close to be 
fortuitous and advanced the theory that Theocritus' version was the 

8 Compare Hymn.Hom. 33.18-19 (xalp£7"£, TlJv8apl8aL) , though the hymn itself is very 
brief. The last line is a formulaic close which concludes many of the hymns; few have an 
epilogue of more than two lines (cf Hymn.Hom. 3,4,5.7,19,27,28). Callimachus' conclu­
sions can be equally brief (cf Hymn. 2, 4. 5). 

'References to Homer in Theocritus are otherwise limited to 7.47 and 16.20, both in 
unflattering or controversial contexts. Homeric echoes are, of course, far more common; 
see Legrand and Perrotta, opp.citt. (supra n.4). Amykos himself generally recalls the Cyclops 
in Od. 9; he is, for example, the son of Poseidon (22.97) and swears his oath by him (133). 
For a comparison of 22.44fI with Od. 9.182fI, see Bignone, op.cit. (supra n.7) 308 n.3. 

10 See rd. 16.49 and Gow, Commentary 316. 



44 THEOCRITUS AND THE DIOSCURI 

later and was intended as a critical rewriting of Apollonius.ll Since 
this may well be the case with Idyll 13, the story of Hylas (cf. Argon. 
1.1207fI), and since the episode of Pollux immediately follows that of 
Hylas in Apollonius, Gow is likely to be right.12 But even if he is not, 
the correspondences suggest that Idyll 22 may correctly be placed in 
the context of Alexandrian literary debate. 

May we not see the references to Homer also in this context? The 
differences in style and subject matter which part 3 displays may be 
quite deliberate, in other words, and summed up under a Homeric 
rubric at the end of the piece. Theocritus, I suggest, is showing that 
he can write not only in the elegant new style associated with Callim­
achus and his adherents but also in the more conventional Homeric 
fashion which Apollonius retained. This thesis is supported by the 
emphasis of the last three lines of the epilogue: "But I also offer to 
you sweet strains of the clear-voiced Muses such as they themselves 
provide and as my own ability affords."13 We may, most simply, 
take the mention of the Muses and the poet as supplementary; we 
may also take it as a subtle implication of contrast, especially if we 
notice the playing off of Achilles' war cry in 220 (avTfjs) with the 
sweet songs in 221 (p,Et'AtYILa:ra). One of the clearest echoes in the 

11 See Gow, Commentary 382-83. 
11 On Id. 13 see Gow, Commentary Z31-3Z. H. Traenkle argued the reverse in "Das Gras­

lager der Argonauten bei Theokrit nnd Apollonios," Hermes 91 (1963) 503-05; so too A. 
Koehnken, Apollonios Rhodios und Theokrit (Goettingen 1965), who bases his judgement on 
what he takes to be Theocritus' more 'traditional' representations in Id. 13 and 2Z (118ft). 
But that Amykos, as far as we know, was traditionally portrayed in humorous contexts 
(Epicharmus, Sophocles satyr-play), and that Theocricus lends him a grimly humorous 
side (e.g. 22.55) is not a decisive argument for Apollonius' relatively more serious version 
being the later. Similarly, that Apollonius presents the traditionally immortal Pollux 
as an ordinary human being whose victory over Amykos is unexpected is no conclusive 
argument for the deparcure from tradition post-dating Theocritus' poem. It is the opinion 
ofD. Hagopian, Pollux' Faustkamp!mit Amykos (Wien/Stuttgart 1955), that Apollonius' is the 
more traditional of the two versions (65), since he regards Theocritus' account as an inno­
vative attempt to incorporate the motivational structure of a five-act drama into an epyllion 
(37. 57-{)(). Priority of the Apollonius passage is not necessary for my argument; all I wish 
to point out here is that Id. ZZ, as well as 13, may reflect an Alexandrian literary disagree­
ment. If it was Apollonius who rewrote the Hylas story, it is easy enough to imagine 
Theocricus replying by choosing the next episode of the Argonautica as the theme for a 
riposte. But that is mere speculation. 

11 The word tJp.iv at 218 and ZZI posed a problem for Gow; he thought the context de­
manded that it refer to the Dioscuri but complained of the untimeliness of the Homer 
reference (Commentary 407). Dover suggests that the heroes and gods in general are meant 
here (250-51), a view close to that of Fritzsche and Hiller (Z31). 



CARROLL MOULTON 45 

poem of traditional epic style has been the invocation to the Muse in 
lI5ff: 

7Twe yap ~~ A uk vLae &~7Jcpayov av~pa Ka()£o..£v; 
• , ()' \ \ ., () • \ ~, ., '.1. ' n7TE. Ea. ev yap 0" a· EyW Q E'TEPWV V7T0'f'7J'T7]e 

¢fJiy~oJ1,(X' OCC' ifJi/\€tc CV Kat 01T1TWC 'TO, ¢{).OV avrfj. 

That Theocritus should regard himself as a mere v7Tocp~'T7]e of the epic 
Muse is scarcely credible; this is imitation, but imitation for a definite 
purpose.l4 He is not a mere interpreter, as the penultimate line of the 
poem makes clear; he has his own otKoe, his own stock of poetic 
ability. 

That ability is exhibited to impressive advantage in the first two 
parts of the poem. The description of the storm in part 1 is ornate but 
effective. In part 2 Theocritus takes a rare step, so far as we know, in 
employing stichomythia in epic hexameters (54-73); 34-53 are par­
ticularly carefully wrought verses, displaying elaborate effects of 
word order, sound and rhythm.15 The boxing match itself is dramatic 
and filled with veristic detail. In contrast to all this, part 3 is compara­
tively plain. But, if I am right in my interpretation of the final lines, 
the plainness is intentional; having produced his own version of an 
Apollonian subject, Theocritus appends a second episode in a style 
much like that Apollonius might have used. From this point of view 
one might conclude that the choice of the Dioscuri as a theme, afford­
ing the opportunity for a diptych, was ideal. 

Gow objected, however, not only to the style of part 3, but, more 
importantly, to its content. I am not convinced that this version of 
Castor's exploit is inappropriate because in every other version save 
that of Hyginus Castor is killed. After all, we allow Euripides to 
choose his mythological variants. More serious is the plain fact that 

U That the passage occurs in part 2, the Amykos section, is a reminder that Gow's con­
finement of Homericisms to part 3 is too rigid. It should be clear that the passage was 
intended to be read with the balancing reference to poetic inspiration at the end of the 
poem, where, as I argue, Theocritus unmistakably advances his own claim to originality. 
which goes far beyond that of the mere rhapsode. For conceptions of the rhapsode's 
'possession' while he is reciting poetry and for the idea of him as an interpreter. see PI. 
lem 533o-535A. Gow recognizes that the two passages in ld. 22 are linked and that the 
second limits the first (Commentary 407). but he does not draw the proper conclusion; cf. 
Legrand, Bucoliques (supra n.7) 1.182-83. 

15 For example. note word order of 35. sound in 39--41. word order in 42. chiasmus in 46 

and 52, alliteration in 47 and 53, rhythm of 51; on 30tI see Bignone. op.cit. (supra n.7) 
306n.3. 



THEOCRITUS AND THE DIOSCURI 

the story is most unflattering. The Dioscuri, though divine, are 
flagrantly in the wrong, and their injustice appears to receive support 
from Zeus himself. 

But the stylistic explanation I have offered for the poem may also 
be in point here, for the moral values at stake in the story of Pollux 
have a curious reverse echo in that of Castor. In part 2, Pollux is shown 
as merciful, sparing the defeated Amykos on condition that he swear 
a great oath "never again to be willingly a molester of strangers" 
(134). Pollux, it is implied, has done a great service, since it is the 
claims ofgEvta. that are threatened by the barbarous Amykos.16 In the 
Castor episode, it is not the rights of guests and strangers that are 
threatened; it is those of hosts and relatives (the Apharidae have a 
contract, made under oath--cf 148-to marry their cousins). On the 
contrary, it is the guests who abuse justice on their raiding expedition. 
Now raiding other regions for women may have been a praiseworthy 
heroic activity in Homer,17 but Theocritus, in the age of Queen 
Berenice, can hardly have thought it so. The new status of women in 
Alexandria must have made Castor's acts seem quite discreditable 
from a contemporary moral point of view, and the speech of Lynceus 
in the poem doubly insures that our sympathy is drawn to the 
Apharidae. I suggest, in short, that Theocritus has deliberately ac­
companied his stylistic contrast between the two major sections of the 
poem with a moral contrast: Pollux is the vehicle for civilizing values, 
Castor the representative of the old heroic mores, a code of force which 
Theocritus, no doubt, found quite as objectionable as the old-fashioned 
poetry which embodied it. 

If we regard the reference to Homer in this framework, Idyll 22 as a 
whole can be interpreted as commenting on both the style and sub­
ject matter of traditional epic; one need not, with Cow, concur that 
it is hopelessly broken-backed. Indeed, one should more probably 
speak here of Theocritean originality than carelessness. The Dioscuri 
appear to have been inseparable previously. Theocritus' boldness is 
his venture to split them, under the title of a hymn to both, and to 

11 See Pollux's greeting CXaiPf, gfiv') at 54, his promise of gifts CtfVlwv) should Amykos 
visit his country (60), Amykos' rejection of the guest-host relationship (p..qTf cv P.f gflv,'f) at 
61, and the language of the great oath that Amykos must swear at 134: P..q'7TOT' lTt g€lvomv 

fKc1v aV'"'lIxlc lc€c8at. 
11 Women, naturally, are part of the booty of a fallen city (II. 9.128-30); cf. M. I. Finley, 

The World of Odysseus (London 1956) 56, Od. 9.39-42. 



CARROLL MOULTON 47 

give each brother a story. The stories are markedly different in sub­

stance and tone, but each, I think, contributes to a unified, essentially 
literary point.Is 

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

September, 1971. 

18 My thanks are due to Professor H. Lloyd·Jones for helpful discussions and suggestions 
regarding this paper. 



CLAY PLATE 1 

OE:'I:O."-NDA, DIOGE:-IES INSCRIPTIO:-l, NEW FRAG\IENT 7 

(H. 0.585111., W. 0.685111., Depth lin known)