1. Sch.Prol.A, 11–14; Servius 2, 14; cf. Anec. Est. (Joannes Tzetzes) 3, 6–7; and Dover lx-lxi. The following works will be referred to in abbreviated form: Di Benedetto, V. ‘Omerismi e struttura metrica negli idilli dorici di Teocrito’, ASNP 25 (1956) 48–60.Google ScholarDover, K. J.Theocritus (London 1971).Google ScholarFabiano, G. ‘Fluctuation in Theocritus’ Style’, GRBS 12 (1971) 517–537.Google ScholarGallavotti, C.Theocritus (Roma 1955 ²).Google ScholarGow, A. S. F.Theocritus I, II (Cambridge 1952 ²).Google ScholarGriffiths, F. T.Theocritus’ Hymn to the Dioscuri (Diss. 1974 Unpubl. Cambridge, Mass.).Google ScholarLawall, G.Theocritus’ Coan Pastorals: A Poetry Book (Washington 1967).Google ScholarNagy, G.Comparative Studies in Greek and Indie Meter (Cambridge, Mass. 1974).CrossRefGoogle ScholarOtt, U. ‘Theokrits Thalysien und ihre literarischen Vorbilder’, RhM 115 (1972) 134–149.Google ScholarPfeiffer, R.History of Classical Scholarship (Oxford 1968).Google ScholarRossi, L. E. ‘I generi letterari e le loro leggi scritte e non scritte nelle letterature classiche’, BICS 18 (1971) 69–94.Google ScholarSchmidt, E. A. ‘Die Leiden des verliebten Daphnis’, Hermes 96 (1968) 539–552.Google ScholarSchmidt, E. A., ‘Der göttliche Ziegenhirt: Analyse des fünften Idylls als Beitrag zu Theokrits bukolischer Technik’, Hermes 102 (1974) 207–243.Google Scholar Sch.: see Wendel, Scholia. Segal, C. P. ‘Simichidas’ Modesty: Theocritus, Idyll 7.44’, AJP 95 (1975) 128–136.Google ScholarVan Sickle, J. ‘The Bucolics of Virgil’, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt. II Prinzipat. Sprache und Literatur (forthcoming, Berlin 1975).Google ScholarVan Sickle, J., ‘Epic and Bucolic (Theocritus, Id. viii / Virgil, E.1)’, QUCC 19 (1975) 3–30.Google ScholarVan Sickle, J., ‘Is Theocritus a Version of Pastoral?’, MLN 84 (1969) 942–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarVan Sickle, J., ‘Studies of Dialectical Methodology in Virgil’, MLN 85 (1970) 884–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarVan Sickle, J., ‘Poetica Teocritea’, QUCC 9 (1970) 67–83.Google ScholarVan Sickle, J., ‘The Unity of the Eclogues: Arcadian Forest, Theocritean Trees’, TAPA 98 (1967) 491–508.Google ScholarWendel, C.Scholia in Theocritum Vetera (Leipzig 1914).Google ScholarWendel, C., Überlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit-Scholien (Abh. Kön Ges. Wiss. Gött. 17, 2, Berlin 1920).Google Scholar

2. Useful theoretical considerations on genre appear in Calame, C., ‘Réflexions sur les genres littéraires en Grèce archaïque’, QUCC 17 (1974) 113–128Google Scholar; a more general exploration of the doubleness of critical language in de Man, P., Blindness and Insight. Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism (Oxford 1971Google Scholar), especially the chapter on Jacques Derrida; and on Derrida’s ‘deconstruction of criticism’ see also Bas, A., ‘“Literature”/Literature’, Velocities of Change. Critical Essays from MLN, Macksey, R., ed. (Baltimore 1974) 341–353Google Scholar, especially 350: part of a deconstruction of all discourse.

3. Van Sickle, ‘EB’ 16–17, n. 61; Pfeiffer 91.

4. Pfeiffer 105–118.

5. Idem. 125–26, 128–130; cf. Rossi 83.

6. Idem. 141–47.

7. E.g. Pfeiffer 125.

8. Homer as his own first interpreter, Pfeiffer 3–5; pre-Homeric self-interpretation and generic consciousness in poetic tradition, Nagy 228–261; self-reflection in Virgil, Van Sickle, ‘Methodology’, 884–85, ‘Bucolics’, IIII. ‘A Few Elements of Poetics’; and self-interpretation in Theocritus, Van Sickle, ‘Poetica’, 78 ff., ‘Is Theocritus?’, 945, n. 13.

9. Definition of genre by meter, authority of Hesiod and Homer: Koster, S., Antike Epostheorien (Wiesbaden 1970) 22–24Google Scholar; Steinmetz, P., ‘Gattungen und Epochen der griechischen Literatur’, Hermes 92 (1964) 454–466Google Scholar. Quintilian mentions Theocritus third after Apollonius and Aratus, all among the epici, though Aristophanes and Aristarchus had not included them in the lists because they were contemporaries (Inst. 10.1.55); cf. Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 8–10.

10. A convincing argument that Theocritus, Id. 22, deliberately demonstrates a wrong and right use of epos, criticizing Apollonius, was presented by F. T. Griffiths at the meeting of the American Philological Association, Chicago, December 1975. In his unpublished thesis, Griffiths justifies his reading of Theocritus’ poetic practice as a signal of poetics.

11. ‘Kreuzung der Gattungen’, the phrase of Kroll, W., Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1924) 202Google Scholar, cited by Rossi 84, n. 80. Also on stylistic mingling and the tension of a poet working in and against genre, see Fabiano 524–26, and 529: ‘In Theocritus’ poetry it is usual to meet with extravagant elements which apparently derive from other fields and clash with the fundamental character of the poem where they appear …’; and cf. 537.

12. Id. 15 80–89.

13. Di Benedetto 53, 56.

14. Idem. 53. Di Benedetto reasoned that the actual frequency of Doric forms could not be measured directly, since many were metrically equivalent to forms in koinê. So he measured Homerisms, on the assumption that the more of these — metrically guaranteed — the less Doric there could have been.

15. Idem. 56. Idd. 8, 9 combine frequent Homerisms (like the bucolic idylls) with metrical violations (unlike them), p. 58; cf. n. 48 below for confirmation by an independent stylistic sampling.

16. Idem. 59–60; Fabiano 517–524 explores the concept of stylistic analysis, also rejecting style as indicator of chronology, but noting correlation with theme.

17. Dover 141, 174; Rossi 84–85.

18. Rossi 85; for the temporal adverb, cf. Id. 24.1; Call. Hec. fr. 239 Pf; Mosch. 2.1; Catull. 64.1; also Nonn. D.1.46: citations in Bühler, W., Die Europa des Moschus (Wiesbaden 1960) 47.Google Scholar

19. Rossi 85; Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 19.

20. Dover Ixii, ‘Theokritos must have been deliberately drawing (as any reader of his own day would have observed) upon subliterate poetry as a source of new and attractive forms which could be imposed in moderation upon a sophisticated matter’. But critical error arises when Th’s selectivity and sophistication are forgotten: Dover justly underlines the ‘artistic gulf between the elegant poetry of Theokritos and the authentic productions of Greek herdsmen …’ (lxii-lxiii). Gow II, 76, among many, forgets the gulf: cf. nn. 36, 38 below.

21. Schmidt, ‘Id. 5’, 208.

22. Gow I, lxviii. The fact that papyri, too, exclude Id. 2 from the bucolic group suggests that the simple mimetic conception of the genre held sway in later antiquity as well as in the middle ages (cf. n. 81 below).

23. Cf. Theogn. 953, which proposed a singing contest with a boy as prize.

24. Gow on Id. 1.61, cf. his remarks on chairete, 144.

25. Gow II, 6–13, is so preoccupied in imagining the layout of a putatative real bowl that he largely misses (grudgingly touches, on 34) the play with Homer which is Theocritus’ point. Better Dover 78–82.

26. Stesichorus (Aelian, VH 10.18): most interesting because Theocritus refers to the story as ephimeron hymnon — a version appearing also in Timaios, Th’s older contemporary (Parthenius 29: the book dedicated to Gallus, see n. 94 below). For other references and discussion of Daphnis, see Wendel 64–66, 95; Gow II, 1–2; Dover lxiii-lxiv; and Knack, RE IV (1901) 2141 ff.Google Scholar

27. Segal 153 cites the ‘bucolic’ mouth of the Nile in Hdt. 2.17, with no poetic import. But we must also consider Diodorus, 4.84: Daphnis drew his name from daphnai, ‘laurel’, was called boukolos from herding plenteous cattle, because of exceptional capacity invented to boukolikon poiêma kai melos, ‘the bucolic poem and song’, that continues as a tradition in Sicily to this day; the myth-tellers add that he goes hunting with Artemis … and entertains her with the syrinx and bucolic melodia. Next Diodorus tells the story of Daphnis’ blinding, which Parthenius had attributed to Timaios (n. 26 above). Thus Diodorus’ whole account might be attributed to Timaios (so Meister, K., Die Sizilische Geschichte bei Diodor, München 1967, 27–28, n. 20, p. 172Google Scholar); but F. Jacoby, FrQrHist Ill.b, Komm. Text (1955) 566. Timaios, fr. 83, pp. 575–76, suggests that Diodorus may have used a mythographer, not Timaios, for the part which interests us: not, then, prior to Theocritus? In Diod., the initial ecphrasis of an upland paradise and the explanation by etymology of bucolic terms are remarkable: the emphasis on boukolos / boukolikon seems almost designed to bring out a force not customarily felt in common usage. But why? who? when?

28. See n. 54 below, n. 9 above; Pfeiffer 204.

29. Segal 153 underlines ironical, even pejorative, implications of boukolikon, associated with countrified rudeness, not romanticized. Cf. the romanticized version in Diodorus, n. 27 above; and for the terms in Theocritus, Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 14–15.

30. Ott 142, n. 23; cf. n. 3 above for Philitas.

31. Ott 144–45.

32. Van Sickle, ‘Poetica’, 81, ‘EB’, 18–19; now also Segal, C. P., ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll and Lycidas’, WS 87 (1974) 20–76Google Scholar, with bibliography, p. 20, n. 1.

33. Serrao, G., Problemi di Poesia Alessandrina. I. Studi su Teocrito (Roma 1971) 52.Google Scholar

34. We must remember that Alexandrian poetics distinguishes two styles, slight/ great (Hesiodic/Homeric). The distinction of three stylistic levels arises in rhetoric, passes into poetics apparently only with the Romans Varro, Virgil: e.g. Dion Halic. de Dem. 1. 3 and 5. 3 — great style, slight style, and that which is between or compounded of the two. Cf. Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 29–30, and n. 88 below.

35. Van Sickle, ‘Poetica’, 79; Fabiano 534; Rossi 85, n. 85.

36. Gow sees in Id. 4 one of the most simply mimetic poems; yet it has generated quite considerable discussion, persistent suspicion that the work is artfully contrived and signals a position in poetics: e.g. Hartung, J. A., Theokrit, Bion, und Moschus (Leipzig 1858) x–xiGoogle Scholar (Battus, Callimachus), also Rcitzenstein, R., Berl. Philol. Woch. 27 (1907) 1545Google Scholar. Id. 4 was the bone of contention in a recent critical certamen (see n. 89 below); for the complexity of its structure in relation to poetics, Van Sickle, ‘Poetica’, 68–76, esp. 74; but a different view of the structure, Segal, C. P., ‘Theociitean Criticism and the Interpretation of the Fourth Idyll’, Ramus 1 (1972) 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37. Van Sickle, ‘Poetical’, 81; Rossi 84; stylistic mingling in Id. 6, Fabiano 532.

38. Tables of verbal correspondence, Lawall 134–37. On the poetics of Idd. 5 and 7, Schmidt, ‘Id. 5’, 207; and for a more purely structural interpretation of the contest, Serrao, G., ‘L’idillio V di Teocrito: Realtà campestre e stilizzazione letteraria’, QUCC 19 (1975).Google Scholar

39. My own response to Lawall’s work appeared in ‘Poetica’ and ‘Is Theocritus?’; see also the careful evaluation of his critical language and suppositions by Bornemann, F., A and R 13 (1968) 32–36Google Scholar and by Giangrande, G., JHS 88 (1968) 170–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. No doubt Lawall overdid his psychological, personalizing rhetoric. It served as the tool to rough out important thematic and structural correspondences that remain valid when the tool is discarded. But Theocritus himself speaks of poetry as pharmakon (Id. 11.1). Schmidt, ‘Leiden’, 550–52, gathers material on love as disease, wound, poetry as medicine. Cf. the similar metaphors in Plato, Phaedrus: Lebeck, A., ‘The Central Myth of Plato’s Phaedrus’, GRBS 13 (1972) 279Google Scholar, and note Phaedrus 230, 274e, 275a; Euripides fr. 578.1; and Gorgias, Helen 14 — discourse as medicine of the soul. Of course a drug may be harmful as well as helpful: escape from passion through art may amount to fatal loss of vitality (thus the theoretical implication of Id. 1 versus Id. 7; cf. ‘Poetica’, 67–68). As pharmakon Theocritus’ own poetry must share in the double nature of language, both natural yet arbitrary, vital yet artificial (Orphic yet Aristean, in the terms of the fourth georgic), identical with the object yet irreconcilably different from it, evoking-invoking yet estranging-abstracting: cf. the theoretical considerations raised in n. 2 above.

40. Van Sickle, J., ‘The Structure of (Theocr.) VIII’, Museum Criticum 8/9 (1973/1974) 200–01Google Scholar; ‘EB’ 21–23; Rossi, L. E., ‘Mondo pastorale e poesia bucolica di maniera: l’idillio ottavo del Corpus teocriteo’, SIFC 43 (1971) 5–6.Google Scholar

41. Sch. viii 53d, iv arg.

42. ‘Sweetness’ as a generic motif in bucolic poetry is documented by Schmidt, E. A., Poetische Reflexion. Vergils Bukolik (München 1972) 29–32.Google Scholar

43. Cf. n. 11 above. Later critics assigned epikêdeia to Th.: Suidas, s.v. Theocritus. For the generic tradition, see Pfeiffer, R., ‘A Fragment of Parthenius’ Arete’, CQ 37 (1943) 31–32Google Scholar. Note also the Adonis song, Id. 15.

44. Epitaph. Bion. 11; on Daphnis as type generic figure, Schmidt, ‘Leiden’, 539; also nn. 26, 27 above.

45. Cf. n. 34.

46. Sch. Prol.B, D; Anec. Est.; Diomedes 483 Keil.

47. (Epigr. xxvi) Gow = A.P. 9.205.

48. Theocritus’ treatment of bucolic diaeresis distinguishes the bucolic idylls from Idd. 8, 9, 10, 11, and from Homer, Hesiod, Callimachus, with especial frequency in Id. 1: Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 12–13, n. 50, roughly corresponding to Ahren’s findings (n. 79 below). For the ancient discussion of bucolic diaeresis, Wendel 55.

49. Wentzel, G., RE II (1894) 1331–32Google Scholar; and on Aristophanes’ lexicography, Pfeiffer 197.

50. Wendel 89, 157.

51. Pfeiffer 264–65.

52. Ibid.

53. Pfeiffer 191–92; cf. Crates of Mallos, interested in Aratus already in II century B.C., Pfeiffer 241.

54. Et.Gen.A, s.v. ariskydês, cited by R. Pfeiffer on Callim fr. 55; RE II (1894) 1332.15.

55. See Gow I, lix-lxii, discussing Wilamowitz (cf. nn. 75, 76 below); Gallavotti xiv (cf. n. 78 below); the exception, Ahrens (n. 79 below) 392, who denies that Artemidorus made a collection at all.

56. Cf. n. 5 above.

57. Pfeiffer 117, 204–207.

58. Tzetzes picked up the view of the ancient scholiast that Id. 1 was placed first because best (Anec. Est. 5, Sch.i arg.b). If the Sch. goes back to an hypothesis introduced by Artemidorus, he would here be attributing a motive — esthetic criterion — to Theocritus. Cf. also nn. 75, 78 below.

59. Asclepiades of Myrlea, Sch.i 7d, Doric lengthening; Sch.i 118c, alternate reading dybris for Thybris; Sch.v 94/95b, oromalides/homomalides: see Wendel 78–79, and n. 93 below.

60. Pfeiffer 198.

61. Wendel 89; Pfeiffer 193

62. Wendel 90.

63. Idem. 167.

64. RE II (1894) 1331.49Google Scholar; Pfeiffer 197.

65. Pfeiffer 190, 210, 212.

66. Sch. xv arg.8; cf. Sch.ii arg.a, b.

67. Sch. Prol.F, Wendel 89, 157.

68. Wendel 90–102.

69. Wendel 157, ‘Es liegt nahe, die dorischen Scholien, so weit sie Theons Eigentum sind, aus seines Vaters Schrift peri Dôridos herzuleiten’.

70. If Artemidorus collected all three bucolic poets, presumably Theon selected only Theocritus for comment: cf. Gow I, lx.

71. Wendel 88–89.

72. Gow I, lxviii.

73. Sch. Ap. Rh. 1.1234, cited by Gow I, lxi, n. 2; cf. Virgil’s Liber Bucolicon with its three non merae rusticae.

74. Should this generalization be compared to the extension of Doric forms into ‘epic’ poems, which also appears dictated by a general conception of Theocritus? For the problems of editors, who seem to prefer their and their predecessors’ opinions to letting us see at least what the mss carry, see Gow I, lxxvii, also Fabiano 529.

75. Wilamowitz-Möllendorf, U., Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker (Berlin 1906) 129.Google Scholar

76. Idem. 127–28.

77. Gow I, lxi.

78. Gallavotti xiv.

79. Ahrens, L., ‘Ueber einige alte Sammlungen der theokritischen Gedichte’, Philologus 33 (1874) 385–413, 577–609, especially 386–93.Google Scholar

80. His error in attribution may be a useful example for scholars worried over the Archilochean authenticity of Pap. Colon. 7511, 1–35. Sane words by Dover lxvii-lxviii on the problems of dating by style.

81. On the arrangements transmitted, Gow I, lxviii-lxix, Van Sickle, ‘Poetica’, 77, n. 12. The ordering of the bucolic idylls, too, shows greater uniformity than has been supposed: Vatican Family (Vulg.): 1, 2, 3–6, 7, 8–13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 Ambrosian ms (K): 1, 7, 3–6, 8–13, 2, 14, 15, 17, 16, 29 Laurentian Family: 1, 5, 6, 4, 7, 3, 8–13, 15, 14, 2. It is recognized that all our mss descend by a single line (Gow I, li). The sequence 8–13 appears in all three branches, hence in the archetype. The sequences 3–6 and 14–15 appear in the predominant recension (Vat., cf. Wendel 168–69) and best ms (K), hence also in the archetype. The question remains, where in the archetype were ldd. 2, 7; and why did an editor-scribe, either of K or of the Vatican prototype, transpose them? Motives, if possible, should be adduced from the idea of genre and arrangement carried in the scholia themselves and thus likely to influence the generic conception of the editor-scribes. In either case, motives for two operations must be found: (A) if the archetype was as K, we must suppose that the scribe of Vat. both (a) shifted Id. 2 to stand between ldd. 1, 3, removing it from between ldd. 13, 14, and (b) shifted Id. 7 to stand between ldd. 6, 8, removing it from between ldd. 1, 3; (B) but if the archetype was as Vat., we must suppose that the scribe of K both (a) shifted Id. 2 to stand between ldd. 13, 14, removing it from between ldd. 1, 3, and (b) shifted Id. 7 to stand between ldd. 1, 3, taking it from between ldd. 6, 8. Our question now is, whether operation ‘A’ or ‘B’ would be the most probable course for an editor-scribe who shared the conception of the genre which was current when the recensions were made. Wendel 168 assigns them to XII century Byzantine scholarship. Our evidence for the conception of bucolic genre then current comes from Joannes Tzetzes, who recast the material of the prolegomena into a somewhat fuller and more coherent form (Anec. Est. Ill Sch.). Tzetzes opens with a general summary of his conception of the genre (an approach he uses also in treating other genres, Wendel 10–11): he says bucolic uses Doric dialect and imitates as far as possible the social intercourse of rustics. Expanding on the hint of Prol. D (Anec. Est.I, 6, cf. n. 87 below), he adds that bucolic reproduces details of action, dress, etc. of country folk, and he makes imitation the dominant characteristic of the genre. As for principles of arrangement, he elaborates on the idea (Sch.i. arg.b, cf. n. 58 above) that ld.l was put first because of its superior charm and art. By these generic criteria, an editor would have no reason to alter the order of K, since Id. 2 clearly does not imitate rustics, hence would have no place among bucolic poems, and Id. 7 would stand in a position worthy of its artful charm, also an amoebaean poem next to a poem that the scholia call ‘amoebaean’ (Sch.i arg.b). But these criteria of genre would give the editor every reason to remove the obvious exception to the generic norm, transposing Id. 2 to a place next to the urban mimes (ldd. 14, 15); and once emboldened by this obvious scandal, the critic might also apply the criterion of quality and promote Id. 7. In short, the XII century conception of genre positively excludes ‘A’, but strongly justifies ‘B.a’. The motive usually alleged for ‘A.a’, that both ldd. 1 and 2 have refrains, is anachronistic in the light of XII century generic criteria, which merely amplify the simple mimetic idea (in quite another century and context, the comparison of refrains is valid: see n. 103 below). Wendel 168–69 argues that Id. 7 must have stood early in order because it has copious scholia (on the principle that scholiasts tend to copy less as they go along); but in fact Id. 7 has fewer scholia in proportion to its length than ldd. 1, 3, 4 ,6, and 10. We conclude that the archetype must have been arranged in the Vatican order, which thus must have accompanied the main line of the ancient commentary. Since none of the papyri testify to this line of commentary, their various arrangements cannot be used to show that some other order different from the Vatican ever did accompany the commentaries stemming from Theon and from Artemidorus’ edition (cf. n. 22 above). Ultimately, then, we are left to take note of the correspondences between the Vatican order and what we can reconstruct about Artemidorus (see nn. 72, 73, 74, 79, 102, 103, 105, and discussion of E.10/Id. 1), even using internal evidence for the coherence and articulated differentiation of Idd. 1–7 (this brings us back to Lawall’s thesis, cf. n. 39 above).

82. See n. 74 above, and Gow II, 385, 416 s.v. ‘Dialect’.

83. Gallavotti xiv.

84. E.g. Suidas, s.v. Theocritus, isteon hoti treis… .

85. Theocritean structural calculation, Van Sickle, ‘Unity’, 495, n. 7, ‘Poetica’, 74.

86. ‘The epic poet is audible in the bucolic poems, the bucolic poet in the epic’ Gow I, xxix.

87. Wendel 89: on which Tzetzes enlarged (see n. 81 above).

88. Prol. D mentions three ‘characters of poesy’, i.e. modes of representation (narrative, dramatic, mixed), and alludes to avoidance of to hadron, ‘grand style’. Tzetzes (Artec. Est. 6) takes this up, but goes on to mention ‘three characters of discourse’, hadron, meson, ischnon, ‘grand, middle, slight’, associated with respectively Thucydides, Demosthenes, and Lysias. Tzetzes says that bucolic welcomes the slight, as appropriate to its rustics; otherwise the discourse would be inconsistent with itself (non sibi conueniens). Latin commentators on Virgil exemplified the hierarchy of three styles with Virgil’s three works (cited in Wendel 55). Wendel 13–14, 55–56 argues that the three styles were not mentioned in the first Theocritean commentary, and that the Latin commentaries and Tzetzes independently introduced them from respectively Varro and Proclus (cf. n. 34 above). Distinguishing levels of style stems from rhetoric (n. 34); the representational modes stem from Plato and dramatic criticism (see Haslam, M. W., ‘Plato, Sophron, and the Dramatic Dialogue’, B1CS 19 [1972] 17–38Google Scholar), hence would fit the critical interest-bias reconstructed in Artemidorus-Theon. Wendel 58 says bucolic criticism takes them from Didymus.

89. A survey of modern commentaries on Theocritus will show how convenient and influential the mere formula of the hypotheses has been, to say nothing of the simple mimetic conception, how insidious and pervasive. One example may be cited in uswn criticorum. Lawall 42 (and in a previously published article) attacked the simple mimetic conception: ‘(Id. 4) has long been admired for its rustic surface… . The Idyll’s mimic charm may be deceptive …, and it need not preclude an encompassing artistic plan, form, and unity.’ (Cf. n. 36 above.) Th. Rosenmeyer, in reply, in The Green Cabinet. Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric (Berkeley 1969Google Scholar) strongly reaffirmed the simple mimetic conception, elevating it to the status of an immutable, given generic norm without a history of development (‘Theocritus … a fellow worker, not a source’ viii), and seeking to justify it in the culminating argument of his book by the example of Id. 4: ‘Theocritus resists decoding. … It will not do to examine individual words or phrases for figurative secrets, or to look at the action, or subactions, as condensations of larger meaning’ (279). When Daphnis and Menalcas differ so, do we take the approach of the eighth or of the ninth idyll? For evaluation of Lawall, see nn. 36, 39; and for Rosenmeyer, Fabiano 536, Köhnken, A., Gnomon 44 (1972) 750–57Google Scholar, and Van Sickle, J., AJP 93 (1972) 348–354.Google Scholar

90. Pfeiffer 208, ‘The egkrithentes became the prattomenoi’.

91. Kaibel, G., ‘Sententiarum Liber Primus’, Hermes 15 (1880) 456.Google Scholar

92. Wendel 84–158.

93. Cf. nn. 50, 54, 56–58, 61–74, 81, 83.

94. Pfeiffer 252–279 gives a full account. Asclepiades, born in Bithynia, perhaps a period in Alexandria, reported also from Spain and Rome: 273, and Wentzel, G., RE II (1896) 1628Google Scholar. Tyrannion, also from Asia Minor, friend of Cicero, Caesar, Atticus: Pfeiffer 272–73. Philoxenus of Alexandria, friend of Varro: ibid. Parthenius, from Bithynia, friend of Gallus, Calvus: ibid, and art. cit. (n. 43 above). From Bithynia, too, Catullus’ friend, Cinna, brought not only eight litter-bearers but Aratus, praised in Callimachean distichs: Van Sickle, J., ‘About Feeling and Form in Catullus 65’, TAPA 99 (1968) 498Google Scholar, n. 24. Catullus probably translated Callimachus before Theon commented on him, if Theon wrote under Augustus.

95. Lucr. iv 565–594: Pan, nymphs, satyrs, siluestris musa, ‘wild’ or ‘woodland music’, invented by man, falsifying nature (cf. E.i 2). For echo in the bucolic manner, see Mosch. Apos. ii and the Theocritean ‘Syrinx’: Dupont-Roc, R., Lallot, J., ‘La Syrinx’, Poétique 18 (1974) 176–193.Google Scholar

96. Lucr. v 1374–1411: agrestis enim turn musa uigebat, ‘rude’ or ‘country music’ — an art which nature taught to man, unlike the forced contrivance of ‘woodland music’, yet like it also a solace. Cf. Lucretius’ conception of poetry as effective psychological force, i 921–950, iv 1–25: benefit and deception both play their part (note the double nature of the pharmakon, discussed n. 39 above).

97. Lucr. ii 29–33.

98. Virgil, E.1.6, deus nobis haec otia fecit, ‘god made this ease for us’, a definite creation in time, aition, cf. causa, 1.25, primus, 1.44, ut ante, 1.45. But contrast the timelessness implied in quae semper, ‘as ever’, 1.53. Cf. the projection of a bucolic ideal to the last stage in an imagined progressive transformation of the future (E.4.37–45: art in nature, cf. Lucr. v 1374–1411, for similarity and difference).

99. See n. 91 above.

100. Gow I, lx, n. 4; Van Sickle, ‘Bucolics’, Appendix, s.v. ‘Formal Precedents’.

101. Virgil, unlike the mannerists, in echoing Id.7 alludes also to the Hesiodic authority behind it: see Hanslik, R., ‘Nachlese zu Vergils Eclogen 1 und 9’, WS 68 (1955) 16–17Google Scholar; and generally on the programmatic transformation of Id. 8 by E.1 Van Sickle, ‘EB’, 26–28, and ‘Bucolics’, IIIIA.l: ‘E.1 ‘The Outline of New Order versus Old (Rome)’.

102. In E.6.1–8, the well-known Callimachean aition which justifies poetic limitation after an expansive phase in a poetic career responds to the aition which justified poetic expansion in E.1.6, 44–45 (cf. n. 98 above). The myth in E.1 introduces the amplification of bucolic in the first half book; then the myth in E.6 introduces the restriction and transformation in the second half book. On the necessity of reading Virgil’s eclogues, and inferring their import for poetics, in the order in which he placed them in the book, see n. 105 below.

103. ‘In (E.) VIII a variation of the theme of Idyll I is balanced against a pastoral adaptation of Idyll II to form a praeceptwn amoris: in love, as in the land crises, success attends the bold’. Coleman, R. G., ‘Vergil and the Pastoral’, PCA 69 (1972) 32.Google Scholar

104. Virgil’s poetic practice confirms what is suggested by style (nn. 13, 14, 15) and text tradition (n. 81).

105. Virgil conceived of his book as a whole, and wrote eclogues for their respective places and roles in the ensemble (cf. Otis, B., Virgil, Oxford 1964, 131Google Scholar) no doubt rewriting as the several elements took form and suggested reciprocal adjustments (cf. Clausen, W., ‘Callimachus and Latin Poetry’, GRBS 5 [1964] 193Google Scholar). This means that the eclogues must be interpreted in the place and sequence Virgil gave them in his design (cf. nn. 98, 102). It is a basic conceptual error to try to interpret separate eclogues in some putative chronological order or formal grouping; and from the general flaw, inexorably, particular interpretative defects flow: cf. Van Sickle, ‘Unity’, 492–93; ‘Methodology’, 886, 904–926; ‘Bucolics’, II. ‘A Chronological Order of Separate Poems?’, III. ‘The Given Order of Eclogues in the Book’.

106. Wendel 71–72 clarifies the role of the myth of Pan as first maker in the first idyll; see also Van Sickle, ‘Unity’, 492.

107. The static-idealist conception of tradition (Eliot) is contrasted with more dynamic conceptions, which allow for reversal and discontinuity, by Perutelli, A., ‘T. S. Eliot e il concetto di “Tradition” nella critica anglo-sassone su Virgilio’, Maia 25 (1973) 118–136Google Scholar; cf. more generally on the play of similarity/difference, continuity/ reaction, which is the life of literature (and the mind), nn. 2, 89.

108. For the ‘Eclogue Tradition’, see Alpers, P., ‘The Eclogue Tradition and the Nature of Pastoral’, College English 34 (1972) 352–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar: somewhat under the spell of the simple mimetic conception where Theocritus is concerned.