Proceedings of the Cambridge

Philological Society
http://journals.cambridge.org/CCJ

Additional services for Proceedings

of the
Cambridge Philological Society:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

IDYLL 7 AND THE HYMN TO HERMES

Elia R. Rudoni

Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society / Volume 61 / December 2015, pp 99

- 110
DOI: 10.1017/S1750270515000032, Published online: 29 June 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/

abstract_S1750270515000032

How to cite this article:

Elia R. Rudoni (2015). IDYLL 7 AND THE HYMN TO HERMES. Proceedings of
the Cambridge Philological Society, 61, pp 99-110 doi:10.1017/
S1750270515000032

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CCJ, IP address: 194.95.59.195 on 23 Feb 2016

The Cambridge Classical Journal (2015) 61, 99–110 doi:10.1017/S1750270515000032
© The Author(s) 2015. Published by Cambridge University Press

IDYLL 7 AND THE HYMN TO HERMES

Elia R. Rudoni*
Columbia University, USA

Simichidas’ self-presentation as a poet at Theocritus 7.37 is modelled on Apollo’s

self-presentation as a musician at Homeric Hymn to Hermes 450. Through this
allusion, in his own Dichterweihe as a bucolic poet Simichidas hints at the
invention of the bucolic genre by Hermes. The reference is crafted so as to point
self-reflexively to its status as reference; in particular, the expression καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ
(‘I too’) of line 37 functions as an intertextual signpost. If Simichidas is a literary
projection of Theocritus, the allusion has important implications for our
understanding of his self-positioning within the poetical tradition.

Tradition also has another meaning for the poet; it is both a witness to ‘history’ in
general and a guarantor of the ‘new history’ that the poet is making; his reworking
of the poetic word needs the authoritative seal of poetry. The classical poet
therefore respects the tradition that confers respect on him and through which he
can claim, ‘I too am a poet!’
G. B. Conte (1986) 42

1
Theocritus’ Idyll 7 describes the encounter on a country road between the first-person
narrator Simichidas and a mysterious goatherd called Lycidas.1 The former induces the
latter to go part of the way together and exchange pastoral songs. Immediately before
going off at a turn in the road, Lycidas bestows a stick on Simichidas as ‘a gift of
hospitality from the Muses’ (129 ἐκ Μοισᾶν ξεινήιον).2 Scholars agree that this conferral
is modelled on the famous poetic investiture of Hesiod (Theog. 22–34). In Idyll 7,

* Email: er2598@columbia.edu
1 The much-debated question of Lycidas’ identity is of little relevance for the purposes of the present paper; see
most recently: Hubbard (1998) 24–6; Clauss (2003); Livrea (2004); Moscadi (2007); Payne (2007) 114–45; Ruggi
(2011). For Simichidas’ identity see below.
2 Quotations of Theocritus are from Gow (1952). Quotations of the Hymn are from Allen, Halliday and Sikes (1936).
All translations are my own.
100 E L I A R . R U D O N I

therefore, we attend a bucolic re-enactment of Hesiod’s Dichterweihe,3 in which a goatherd

replaces the Muses as the donor of the stick, a pastoral λαγωβόλον replaces the laurel branch,
and a ‘Spring of the cow’ (6 Βούρινα) replaces the Hesiodic ‘Spring of the horse’ (Theog. 6).4
To convince the goatherd to share rural songs with him, Simichidas says (35–43):

“ἀλλ’ ἄγε δή, ξυνὰ γὰρ ὁδὸς ξυνὰ δὲ καὶ ἀώς, 35

βουκολιασδώμεσθα· τάχ’ ὥτερος ἄλλον ὀνασεῖ.
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Μοισᾶν καπυρὸν στόμα, κἠμὲ λέγοντι
πάντες ἀοιδὸν ἄριστον· ἐγὼ δέ τις οὐ ταχυπειθής,
οὐ Δᾶν· οὐ γάρ πω κατ’ ἐμὸν νόον οὔτε τὸν ἐσθλόν
Σικελίδαν νίκημι τὸν ἐκ Σάμω οὔτε Φιλίταν 40
ἀείδων, βάτραχος δὲ ποτ’ ἀκρίδας ὥς τις ἐρίσδω.”
ὣς ἐφάμαν ἐπίταδες· ὁ δ’ αἰπόλος ἁδὺ γελάσσας,
“τάν τοι”, ἔφα, “κορύναν δωρύττομαι.”
‘But come; common is the way and common is the day; let us make bucolic songs.
Maybe each of us will benefit the other. For I too am a clear voice of the Muses,
and all call me best singer; but I am no gullible person – no, by Earth. For, in my
opinion, as yet I am not better in singing than either the great Sicelidas from
Samos5 or Philetas, but compete with them like a frog against grasshoppers.’ So,
designedly, did I say. The goatherd smiled sweetly and answered: ‘I present you
with this staff ’.

Theocritus’ acquaintance with the hymnic tradition was profound.6 I believe that in the
passage just quoted we have an intertextual reference to the crucial scene in the Homeric
Hymn to Hermes when the newborn god appeases wrathful Apollo through music. This
episode must have been particularly memorable to ancient readers in general, and to a
Hellenistic poet like Theocritus in particular, for at least three reasons. First, it coincides
with the narrative climax of the Hymn, when the tension accumulated in the course of
about 400 lines is suddenly snapped (see below). Second, it contains self-referential
considerations by a poet qua poet; and it is well known that in ancient literature
metapoetical utterances were particularly prone to generating allusive metapoetical
utterances by later poets.7 Third, the lines in question must have seemed especially

3 Vara (1975), Palumbo Stracca (1979), Zagagi (1984) 436–8 and Hutchinson (1988) 203–5 disagree. Cameron limits
the reference to Hesiod’s staff to a ‘hint’ ((1995) 416).
4 On the relation between the two springs see e.g. Krevans (1983) 209–12; Hunter (1996) 24 and (1999) ad loc.
5 ‘Sicelidas’ is a pseudonym by which Asclepiades was known in antiquity: see the commentators ad loc.
6 Think only of Idylls 16, 17 and 22 with e.g. Fantuzzi (2001) 232–3 n. 1. On the Hymn to Demeter as a model of Idyll 24
see Hunter (1996) 12 n. 45. In general on the Hellenistic poets’ reception of the Homeric Hymns see Faulkner (2011)
181–96. Cf. also n. 14 below.
7 In our Idyll one finds a clear case only eight lines later (47–8), when Lycidas fashions his remarks on the imitators
of Homer out of a passage of Pindar concerning a poetical dispute (Ol. 2.86–8; see most recently Cozzoli (1996)
17–19; Hunter (2003) 214–15; Bonanno (2008)). A few contemporary examples: Nic. Miles. SH 566 < Eur. fr. 663
 I D Y L L 7 A N D T H E H Y M N T O H E R M E S 101

significant to any ancient poet because in them the god of poetry himself comments on his
status as a poet and on his relation to the Muses.
In the Hymn, Apollo describes his reaction at hearing young Hermes’ performance on the
lyre as follows (447–55):

τίς τέχνη, τίς μοῦσα ἀμηχανέων μελεδώνων,

τίς τρίβος; ἀτρεκέως γὰρ ἅμα τρία πάντα πάρεστιν
εὐφροσύνην καὶ ἔρωτα καὶ ἥδυμον ὕπνον ἑλέσθαι.
καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Μούσῃσιν ’Ολυμπιάδεσσιν ὀπηδός, 450
τῇσι χοροί τε μέλουσι καὶ ἀγλαὸς οἷμος ἀοιδῆς
καὶ μολπὴ τεθαλυῖα καὶ ἱμερόεις βρόμος αὐλῶν·
ἀλλ’ οὔ πώ τί μοι ὧδε μετὰ φρεσὶν ἄλλο μέλησεν
οἷα νέων θαλίῃς ἐνδέξια ἔργα πέλονται·
θαυμάζω Διὸς υἱὲ τάδ’ ὡς ἐρατὸν κιθαρίζεις. 455

What skill is this, what art for incurable sorrows, what track? For surely it is possible
to obtain joy, love and sweet sleep, all three together. For I too am a follower of the
Olympian Muses who care for dances and the splendid path of song and luxuriant
music and the charming sound of auloi. But never yet did I care so much in my
mind for anything else, of all the deeds of young men which move to the right at
feasts. I marvel, son of Zeus, how charmingly you play these things on the lyre.8

The resemblance between line 37 of the Idyll and line 450 of the Hymn is apparent:

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Μοισᾶν καπυρὸν στόμα

καὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ Μούσῃσιν ’Ολυμπιάδεσσιν ὀπηδός.

Both Simichidas’ and Apollo’s are poetical self-proclamations: ‘For I too am a clear voice
of the Muses’, Simichidas asserts; his assertion echoes Apollo’s in the Hymn: ‘For I too
am a follower of the Muses’.9 These two passages are to my knowledge the only ones in

Kannicht; Callim. fr. 222 Pf. < Pind. Isthm. 2.6–7 (with Pfeiffer (1949) 214); Callim. fr. 398 Pf. < Asclep. 9.63.1 (with
Bing (1988) 30 and Cameron (1995) 304–7). Part of the metapoetic terminology in the Aitia prologue was influenced
by metapoetic imagery of the agon between Aeschylus and Euripides in Aristophanes’ Frogs: Snell (1953) 117;
Pfeiffer (1968) 137–8; Cairns (1979) 8–9.
8 The interpretation of μοῦσα (447) and ἐνδέξια (454) is debated; particularly useful are the notes ad locc. by
Càssola (1975) and Vergados (2013). Neither issue is relevant to this paper.
9 Since an intertextual allusion requires formal recognisability, not perfect coincidence in meaning, it is not
fundamental to establish whether in the two passages καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ has the same meaning or not. In the Hymn
both ‘for I too’ and ‘for indeed I’ are possible: cf. Hunter (1996) 22. In Theocritus the standard translation ‘for
I too’ is clearly preferable based on the context: Simichidas remarks that he ‘too’ is a singer in order to
convince the singer Lycidas (cf. 28) to join him in a poetical exchange. This translation is confirmed by both
Simichidas’ own words at 92 (Νύμφαι κἠμὲ δίδαξαν, on which see below) and Virgil’s rendition at Ecl. 9.32–4
et me fecere poetam | Pierides, sunt et mihi carmina, me quoque dicunt | uatem pastores.
102 E L I A R . R U D O N I

extant Greek literature in which the phrase καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ(ν) is collocated with the
term Μοῦσα.10 (There are other minor similarities. The two passages are structurally
comparable in that in both the clause introduced by καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ is immediately followed
by an adversative: ‘For I too am . . . but I am not credulous, etc.’; ‘For I too am . . . but
never yet did I care so much, etc.’ In both passages the clause introduced by καὶ γὰρ
ἐγώ is closely followed by οὔπω – at 39 and 453 respectively; this happens in none of the
passages listed in note 10.)
The formal correspondence between these two micro-contexts is emphasised by the
striking thematic similarity of their respective larger contexts. Both Idyll 7 and the Hymn
to Hermes narrate the conferral of a poetically symbolic object; both are metaliterary pieces
dealing with bucolics; both can be defined as ‘foundational’ poems, since the former
describes the consecration of a bucolic poet, the latter (as I shall discuss next) the divine
creation of the bucolic genre.

2
The Homeric Hymn to Hermes relates the first two days of Hermes’ life. Immediately after his
birth he invents the lyre (20–64), then he rushes to Pieria, where the sacred herd of the gods
is kept, and steals some of the cattle (64–181). The day after, Apollo discovers the theft and
eventually manages to identify the culprit; the case is brought to the arbitration of Zeus (182–
396). When Hermes’ responsibility is definitively demonstrated the furious Apollo is about
to attack him (409). At this climactic point, Hermes presents his half-brother with a
performance on the lyre, the instrument he had invented the day before (416–28). Apollo
is so taken by the new kind of music that he forgets all about his anger (436–62).
Hermes takes advantage of the situation by proposing a swap, which Apollo eagerly
accepts: Hermes gives the lyre to Apollo; in exchange, he will henceforward serve as the
herdsman of the cattle he had stolen (490–502).
Hermes’ decision to devote himself to tending cows is also a choice in terms of poetics,
as becomes clear few lines later. Now that he no longer possesses the lyre, Hermes invents
the syrinx, the instrument proper to herdsmen and symbolising their own kind of poetry
(507–12):

καὶ τὰ μὲν ‘Ερμῆς

Λητοΐδην ἐφίλησε διαμπερὲς ὡς ἔτι καὶ νῦν,
σήματ’ ἐπεὶ κίθαριν μὲν ‘Εκηβόλῳ ἐγγυάλιξεν
ἱμερτήν, δεδαὼς ὁ δ’ ἐπωλένιον κιθάριζεν. 510

10 The phrase καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ(ν) occurs only once in the Homeric Hymns (here) and thrice in Theocritus (5.114, Epigr. 9.3
and here). In previous or contemporary hexameter poetry: 6x in the Iliad, 4x in the Odyssey; also Epimenides 2 D–K,
Callim. Aet. 43.12 Pf., Choeril. Ias. SH 335 (≈ Chrysipp. Sol. SH 338), always at the beginning of a hexameter; in a
different position at Ar. Eq. 1092 and Callim. Hymn 3.83; at the beginning of a pentameter at Thgn. 968. The only
epigraphical attestation BCE is IG 14.641 (from fourth-century Sybaris-Thourioi).
 I D Y L L 7 A N D T H E H Y M N T O H E R M E S 103

αὐτὸς δ’ αὖθ’ ἑτέρης σοφίης ἐκμάσσατο τέχνην·

συρίγγων ἐνοπὴν ποιήσατο τηλόθ’ ἀκουστήν.

And Hermes loved Leto’s son continuously, as he does even to this day; with
a token,11 since he handed the delightful lyre to the Far-shooter, and the latter
played it expertly on his arm. But Hermes himself in turn devised the art of
a second skill: he made for himself the sound of the syrinx, which can be heard
from afar.

The invention of the syrinx, albeit only briefly mentioned, casts a completely new light on the
preceding narration of the cattle-rustling: if Hermes’ first accomplishment, the construction
of the lyre, has an intrinsically poetical character, his second deed, stealing the cattle, takes
on no less poetical implications as it ultimately leads to the construction of the syrinx. The
Hymn as a whole can thus be read as a foundational poem about two radically different
poetic genres, both invented by the ingenious Hermes. He relinquishes ‘lyric’12 to Apollo,
who ever since has been considered as its legitimate patron, and reserves the bucolic
genre (the syrinx and cows) for himself.13

3
The Homeric Hymn which hints at the divine invention of bucolics must have been central in
the formation of Theocritus, the human founder of bucolics as a literary genre.14 From a
text-external perspective, therefore, the allusion established in section 1 can be seen as an
authorial gesture pointing out to the reader the thematic affinity between Idyll 7 and the
Hymn to Hermes: the Idyll presupposes the Hymn. But in order to appreciate fully the
meaning and import of the allusion it is necessary also to examine it from the text-
internal perspective of the communication between the characters. Both Simichidas
and Lycidas are refined poets, who repeatedly make recourse to Alexandrian concepts and

11 The interpretation of this phrase is debated: cf. Allen, Halliday and Sikes (1936) and Vergados (2013) ad loc. The
issue is irrelevant to this paper.
12 Within the Hymn, the lyre is associated with both sympotic (55–6, 454) and hymnic/theogonic poetry (57–61,
427–33).
13 The divine herd was kept in Pieria (70, 85, 91), an obvious place to pasture one’s cattle if one lived on Mount
Olympus, but at the same time a region notoriously associated with the Pierides Musae. A sophisticated
Alexandrian reader could interpret the fact that Hermes steals the cows precisely from the homeland of poetic
inspiration as an element contributing to the symbolic metapoetical significance of the image. Whether this
idea was already in the hymnist’s mind is immaterial.
14 The Hymn was widely known to, and imitated by, Hellenistic authors. There are parallels between the Hymn to
Hermes and Idyll 25 (cf. Vergados (2013) 119–23); the Theocritean authorship is disputed. There might also
be a link between the Hymn and Idyll 24 (cf. Gow (1952) ad 24.141; Gutzwiller (1981) 12), with the same
problem of attribution. There is strong evidence that Nicander, Aratus, Callimachus, Apollonius of
Rhodes and Antigonus of Carystus knew the Hymn: see Vergados (2013) 86–8 and 113–19 with references
and bibliography.
104 E L I A R . R U D O N I

themes: they may well be expected to be capable of producing, recognising and appreciating
a high degree of literary sophistication. For instance, lines 118–19, uttered by Simichidas in
his song, unmistakably allude to an epigram by Asclepiades; that this intertextual operation
must be intentional not simply on the part of the text-external author, but also on the part of
the character, is certain, because Simichidas, at 40, has indicated Asclepiades as one of his
models.15
Simichidas tells us explicitly that his short speech at 35–41 should not be taken literally,
but requires a complex, ‘between the lines’ reading. Immediately after reporting it, he, as
narrator, makes this important clarification: ὣς ἐφάμαν ἐπίταδες (42), ‘so, designedly,
did I say’. Scholars have long wondered about what exactly, in Simichidas’ speech, has
been ‘designedly’ uttered, and to what purpose.16 There can be little doubt that Lycidas
does understand the implied meaning of his interlocutor, as his reaction reveals: he
encouragingly smiles and promises he will present Simichidas with his stick, thereby
announcing the imminent Dichterweihe (42–3).
I submit that the allusion of line 37 is meant by Simichidas as one element of his coded
message: designedly, he speaks to ‘the most eminent syrinx-player’ (28 συρικτὴς μέγ’
ὑπείροχος), Lycidas, with the same words by which the inventor and first performer of
the syrinx had been spoken to by Apollo. By intertextually suggesting that he has read the
‘bibliography’ on the subject, Simichidas is soliciting the bucolic consecration that Lycidas,
in response, will very soon grant him.17

4
Simichidas’ allusion (I believe) is ingeniously crafted so as to draw attention, through its very
wording, to its status as allusion. The expression καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ of line 37, in particular,
functions as a marker of intertextuality. On the literal level (the analogy operating text-
internally), it refers to the fact that Simichidas is a poet like his interlocutor Lycidas; on a
deeper level of signification (the analogy operating intertextually), it hints at the fact that
Simichidas is a poet like Apollo, whose words ‘he too’ employs.

15 17 Gow-Page = 17 Sens with Lasserre (1959) 319; Giangrande (1968) 495–7; Krevans (1983) 216; Seiler (1997) 134–5.
On Simichidas’ subtle recourse to intertextuality in his song cf. also Henrichs (1980) esp. 26–7.
16 See for instance Kühn (1958) 70–1; Van Groningen (1959) 26–7; Gershenson (1961) 91; Weingarth (1967) 115–19;
Dover (1971) ad loc.; Serrao (1971) 35–6; Horstmann (1976) 152–3; Gutzwiller (1991) 163–5; Goldhill (1991) 229;
Stanzel (1995) 288; and the contributions mentioned at n. 24. All other explanations are compatible with mine
because more than one element may have been uttered ‘designedly’ by Simichidas.
17 For the interpretation of the other half of the correspondence (Simichidas ∼ Apollo) see section 5 below. There
might be some irony in Lycidas’ rejection of Homer’s imitators (45–8) only few lines after Simichidas’
quotation of a Homeric Hymn, but not necessarily. Lycidas’ criticism appears to concern scale and genre rather
than minute allusivity (45–6: he hates those who attempt to build a house higher than a mountain). Besides, it
is far from certain that Theocritus and his contemporaries identified the hymnist with Homer: cf. Allen,
Halliday and Sikes (1936) lxxix–lxxxi; Faulkner (2011) 177.
 I D Y L L 7 A N D T H E H Y M N T O H E R M E S 105

Such intertextual signposts have been much studied.18 A case that is especially relevant
for our purposes, in that it involves another self-reflexive and metapoetical ‘I too’, is found in
the ‘proemio al mezzo’ of Virgil’s Georgics. Here we read (3.3–9):

cetera, quae uacuas tenuissent carmine mentes,

omnia iam uulgata: quis aut Eurysthea durum
aut inlaudati nescit Busiridis aras? 5
cui non dictus Hylas puer et Latonia Delos
Hippodameque umeroque Pelops insignis eburno,
acer equis? temptanda uia est, qua me quoque possim
tollere humo uictorque uirum uolitare per ora.

Other topics, which might have captured void minds, are now all trite: who knows not
cruel Eurystheus or the altars of unpraised Busiris? Who has not narrated of young
Hylas, Latona’s Delos, Hippodame, and Pelops, famous for his ivory shoulder and
fierce with his steeds? I have to try a path, through which I too might raise myself
from the ground and fly victorious through men’s lips.

Virgil claims a place in the poetic tradition by conjuring up several unnamed literary
antecedents (3–8). A text-internal interpretation of me quoque (8) consists in connecting it
to this group of antecedents: Virgil aspires to produce a new and original work, through
which he, ‘like’ his predecessors, might ‘raise himself from the ground’.19 But things
change if a reader identifies the phrase uictor uirum uolitare per ora as an allusion to Ennius’
epitaph upon himself (var. 17–18 Vahlen = min. 46 Courtney):

nemo me lacrimis decoret nec funera fletu

faxit. Cur? uolito uiuos per ora uirum!

Let no one honour me with tears or celebrate my funeral by crying. Why? I am alive,
flying through men’s lips!

The allusion activates the referential ambiguity of the expression me quoque: it may have its
‘antecedent’ either in the poetical predecessors (explicitly mentioned), or in Ennius (only
implicitly evoked through the intertextual reference).20

18 For instance, an intertextual marker may point to the derivative character of the textual segment it belongs to (e.g.
Ov. Am. 2.6.1 imitatrix ales with Hinds (1987) 7; Heliod. Aeth. 1.1.4 λείψανα with Telò (2011) 599–605) or to the
reader’s (expected) mental reaction, most often through terms of memory or recognition (e.g. Ov. Fast. 3.473,
Met. 14.813 and 15.160 with Conte (1986) 57–9 and Barchiesi (2001) 19 and 70). In general on this technique:
Hinds (1998) 1–16 with further examples.
19 Servius ad loc. comments: tollere humo: sicut se alii sustulerunt carminis merito.
20 Mynors (1990) ad loc., for one, seems to have understood the ambiguity: ‘me quoque: probably “as well as other
poets” (possibly including Ennius)’. Similarly Hardie (1993) 100. Analogous considerations may be applied to
Ecl. 9.32–6 (quoted at n. 9).
106 E L I A R . R U D O N I

Simichidas himself employs a similar technique when, after Lycidas ends his song, he
introduces his own performance as follows (91–5):

Λυκίδα φίλε, πολλὰ μὲν ἄλλα

Νύμφαι κἠμὲ δίδαξαν ἀν’ ὤρεα βουκολέοντα
ἐσθλά, τά που καὶ Ζηνὸς ἐπὶ θρόνον ἄγαγε φάμα.
ἀλλὰ τόγ’ ἐκ πάντων μέγ’ ὑπείροχον, ᾧ τυ γεραίρειν
ἀρξεῦμ’· ἀλλ’ ὑπάκουσον, ἐπεὶ φίλος ἔπλεο Μοίσαις. 95

Dear Lycidas, many other songs the Nymphs have taught me too as I was tending my
herd on the hills: excellent songs, which fame, maybe, has brought even to the throne
of Zeus; but this is by far the most prominent of all, with which I will begin to honour
you. Listen, since you are dear to the Muses.

Simichidas affirms that ‘he too’ (κἠμέ) has been taught by the Muses on the hills. Only
two lines before, in the closure of his song, Lycidas had expressed his unattainable wish
that he might pasture Comatas’ goats ‘on the hills’ while listening to Comatas’ own
singing (87 ὥς τοι ἐγὼν ἐνόμευον ἀν’ ὤρεα τὰς καλὰς αἶγας); moreover, in introducing
the same song, Lycidas had remarked that he had composed it ‘on the hill’ (50–1 ὅρη,
φίλος, εἴ τοι ἀρέσκει | τοῦθ’ ὅτι πρᾶν ἐν ὄρει τὸ μελύδριον ἐξεπόνασα). There can be
no doubt that one antecedent of the κἠμέ of line 92 is Lycidas. However, Simichidas is
alluding, at the same time, to one of his literary forebears. Line 92 alludes to Hesiod,
Theog. 22–3:

αἵ [= Μοῦσαι] νύ ποθ’ ‘Ησίοδον καλὴν ἐδίδαξαν ἀοιδήν,

ἄρνας ποιμαίνονθ’ ‘Ελικῶνος ὕπο ζαθέοιο.

They [= the Muses] once taught Hesiod beautiful song, as he was tending lambs
under holy Helicon.

Simichidas compares himself, not simply (text-internally) to Lycidas, but also

(intertextually) to Hesiod, who had been initiated to poetry by the Muses on Mount
Helicon.21 Recognising this allusion is crucial for understanding the erudite exchange of
Simichidas and Lycidas: as mentioned above, Lycidas’ gift of a staff is characterised as a
‘pastoral’ replica of Hesiod’s poetic consecration. Line 92 demonstrates that Simichidas
is fully aware of the literary implications inherent in Lycidas’ offer: his allusion is an
act of intertextual approval, through which he elegantly accepts the role of a second
Hesiod.

21 The double function of κἠμέ at line 92 was already clear to Gow (1952) ad loc.; Giangrande (1968) 519 n. 67;
Schwinge (1974) 44–5; Segal (1974a) 42; Plazenet (1994) 88; Hunter (1999) ad loc. For the Nymphs as a
substitute of the Muses in the pastoral world cf. 148 Νύμφαι Κασταλίδες Παρνάσιον αἶπος ἔχοισαι with
Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 153–6.
 I D Y L L 7 A N D T H E H Y M N T O H E R M E S 107

Both the κἠμέ of line 92 and the καὶ γὰρ ἐγώ of line 37 serve a fundamental function in
Simichidas’ self-representation as a poet: in both cases the expression ‘I too’ establishes a
connection between him and an illustrious literary ancestor, whose evocation is highly
significant in the context of a bucolic Dichterweihe.

5
With a certain humility, Simichidas rejects the title of ‘best poet’ (38) in favour of
Asclepiades and Philitas (40–1). That he admires the two famous poets is indeed
plausible: in his song he pays homage to Asclepiades through an allusion (see above); his
mention of Coan Philitas in a poem set in Cos is surely meant to be complimentary;22
both Asclepiades and Philitas represent the kind of non-Homerising poet of whom
Lycidas too would approve (cf. 45–8). However, many scholars have doubted the sincerity
of Simichidas’ modesty, for a range of good reasons. The playful banter characterising
the initial phases of the encounter is full of innuendos (21–51).23 οὔπω (39) implies that,
although he is not Asclepiades’ and Philitas’ equal ‘yet’, some day he may be (Simichidas
the character is younger than Simichidas the narrator, probably considerably so: cf.
line 1). The ensuing ἐπίταδες (42), as we have seen, instils the sense that Simichidas’
words conceal some deeper layer of meaning. The speech as a whole fits the pattern of
excusatio–recusatio; as is well known, in a recusatio the poet pretends to be humble simply as
a way of positioning himself in the literary tradition, not because he really sees himself as
a poet of low quality.24
How does the allusion I have identified contribute to the interpretation of Simichidas’
irony? The allusive gesture of line 37, which self-reflexively signals its presence,
demonstrates that Simichidas is in fact a poeta doctus able to rework materials from an
illustrious predecessor in a personal, refined and meaningful fashion. He has created a
synergy between the content and form of his claim: in the very act of stating ‘I am a
poet’ he presents us with a concrete, self-legitimising demonstration of his poetic skills.
Possibly most significant of all, he has carefully chosen whose words to quote at
this decisive moment. In this respect, he could not have been more ambitious. While
ostensibly professing his inferiority to two contemporary poets, he allusively impersonates
none other than the god of poetry. The insecure novice of lines 38–41 reveals himself, to
those who can understand him, as a consummate, and supremely self-confident, master.

22 Some scholars, also in consideration of other factors, suggest that the whole Idyll should be viewed as a γέρας to
Philitas: Boucher (1965) 217–18; Bowie (1985) 79–80; Spanoudakis (2002) 244–73. Cf. Hunter (1999) 149 ‘the
poem . . . on any interpretation is likely to be full of echoes of Philitas’.
23 Cf. e.g. 24 with Hunter (1999) ad loc.
24 On Simichidas’ irony: Gow (1952) ad loc.; Dover (1971) 147; Segal (1974b) 129–30; Effe (1988) 90; Fantuzzi (1993)
155 n. 27; Tarditi (1994) 604–5; Cameron (1995) 412; Hunter (1996) 20; Kossaifi (2008) 57–8; Kloosters (2011) 167–8.
On Simichidas’ speech as a case of excusatio–recusatio: Serrao (1995). Perhaps also the image of the competition frog
vs grasshoppers (41) is not as humble as it might seem: Piacenza (2010).
108 E L I A R . R U D O N I

6
The great majority of both ancient and modern scholars, myself included, agree that
Simichidas (whether as a pseudonym or as a merely partial projection) is a literary alter
ego of Theocritus.25 If so, the early part of Idyll 7 is Theocritus’ most elaborate piece of
poetical self-presentation: he emulates Asclepiades and Philitas, reincarnates Hesiod for
the bucolic genre, suggests a line of filiation between his poetry and the creation of the
syrinx by Hermes, and appropriates the poetic prestige of Apollo’s self-representation in
the Hymn. This pedigree fully entitled Theocritus to proclaim: ‘I too am a poet!’26

Works Cited
Allen, T. W., Halliday, W. R and Sikes, E. E. (1936) The Homeric Hymns, 2nd edn, Oxford.
Barchiesi, A. (2001) Speaking volumes: narrative and intertext in Ovid and other Latin poets, London.
Bing, P. (1988) The well-read Muse: present and past in Callimachus and the Hellenistic poets, Göttingen.
Bonanno, M. G. (2008) ‘Theocr. 7.47’, SemRom 11, 217–21.
Boucher, J.-P. (1965) Études sur Properce: problèmes d’inspiration et d’art, Paris.
Bowie, E. L. (1985) ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus’, CQ 35, 67–91.
Cairns, F. (1979) Tibullus: a Hellenistic poet at Rome, Cambridge.
Cameron, A. (1995) Callimachus and his critics, Princeton.
Càssola, F. (1975), Inni Omerici, Milano.
Clauss, J. J. (2003) ‘Once upon a time on Cos: a banquet with Pan on the side in Theocritus’ Idyll 7’,
HSCPh 101, 289–302.
Conte, G. B. (1986) The rhetoric of imitation: genre and poetic memory in Virgil and other Latin poets, Ithaca and
London.
Cozzoli, A.-T. (1996) ‘Aspetti intertestuali nelle polemiche letterarie degli antichi: da Pindaro a Persio’,
QUCC 54, 7–36.
Dover, K. J. (1971) Theocritus: select poems, London.
Effe, B. (1988) ‘Das poetologische Programm des Simichidas: Theokrit, Id. 7, 37–41’, WJA 14, 87–91.
Fantuzzi, M. (1993) ‘Teocrito e la poesia bucolica’, in G. Cambiano, L. Canfora, D. Lanza (edd.), Lo spazio
letterario della Grecia antica. Volume I.2, Rome, 145–95.
(2001) ‘Heroes, descendants of hemitheoi: the proemium of Theocritus 17 and Simonides 11 W2’, in
D. Boedeker and D. Sider (eds.), The new Simonides: contexts of praise and desire, Oxford, 232–42.
Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. (2004) Tradition and innovation in Hellenistic poetry, Cambridge.
Faulkner, A. (2011) ‘The collection of the Homeric Hymns: from the seventh to the third Centuries BC’, in
A. Faulkner (ed.), The Homeric Hymns: interpretative essays, Oxford, 175–205.
Gershenson, D. E. (1961) ‘Studies in Theocritus’ pastoral Idylls’, PhD thesis, Columbia University,
New York.

25 The identification is already advocated in the scholia (Σ Theoc. 7 hyp. and 21) and at Syrinx 12. See the discussions
by Meillier (1993), Hunter (1999) 146 and Nickau (2002). Against the identification are Giangrande (1968),
Williams (1971), Segal (1974a) 27, Vara (1975), Hatzikosta (1982), Effe (1988) 90–1, Hutchinson (1988) 203–5 and
Cameron (1995) 410–22.
26 I wrote this paper for a Greek Survey I took at Columbia University in the spring term of 2012. I owe my warmest
thanks to Marco Fantuzzi, who taught that course and provided me with insightful suggestions. I am also grateful
to Rebecca Pawel, Luca Ruggeri, Gareth Williams, the anonymous readers and especially Oliver Thomas for their
comments.
 I D Y L L 7 A N D T H E H Y M N T O H E R M E S 109

Giangrande, G. (1968) ‘Théocrite, Simichidas et les Thalysies’, AC 37, 491–533 [= G. Giangrande, Scripta
minora Alexandrina I, Amsterdam 1980, 119–61].
Goldhill, S. (1991) The poet’s voice: essays on poetics and Greek literature, Cambridge.
Gow, A. S. F. (1952) Theocritus, 2nd edn, Cambridge.
Gutzwiller, K. J. (1981) Studies in the Hellenistic epyllion, Meisenheim am Glan.
(1991) Theocritus’ pastoral analogies: the formation of a genre, Madison, WI.
Hardie, P. (1993) The epic successors of Virgil: a study in the dynamics of a tradition, Cambridge.
Hatzikosta, S. (1982) A stylistic commentary on Teocritus’ Idyll VII, Amsterdam.
Henrichs, A. (1980) ‘Riper than a pear: Parian invective in Theokritos’, ZPE 39, 7–27.
Hinds, S. (1987) ‘Generalising about Ovid’, Ramus 16, 4–31.
(1998) Allusion and intertext: dynamics of appropriation in Roman poetry, Cambridge.
Horstmann, A. (1976) Ironie und Humor bei Theokrit, Meisenheim am Glan.
Hubbard, T. K. (1998) The pipes of Pan: intertextuality and literary filiation in the pastoral tradition from Theocritus
to Milton, Ann Arbor.
Hunter, R. (1996) Theocritus and the archaeology of Greek poetry, Cambridge.
(1999) Theocritus: a selection, Cambridge.
(2003) ‘Reflecting on writing and culture: Theocritus and the style of cultural change’, in H. Yunis
(ed.), Written texts and the rise of literate culture in ancient Greece, Cambridge, 213–34.
Hutchinson, G. O. (1988) Hellenistic poetry, Oxford.
Klooster, J. (2011) Poetry as window and mirror: Positioning the poet in Hellenistic poetry, Boston.
Kossaifi, C. (2008) ‘Érudition et humour dans les Idylles bucoliques de Théocrite’, AC 77, 41–59.
Krevans, N. (1983) ‘Geography and the literary tradition in Theocritus 7’, TAPhA 113, 201–20.
Kühn, J.-H. (1958) ‘Die Thalysien Theokrits (id. 7)’, Hermes 86, 40–79.
Lasserre, F. (1959) ‘Aux origines de l’Anthologie II: les Thalysies de Théocrite’, RhM 102, 307–30.
Livrea, E. (2004) ‘Lycidas and Apollo in Theocritus’ Thalysia’, Eikasmos 15, 161–7.
Meillier, C. (1993) ‘Théocrite, Idylle VII et autour de l’Idylle VII: ambiguïtés et contradictions de
l’autobiographique’, in G. Arrighetti, F. Montanari (eds.), La componente autobiografica nella poesia
greca e latina fra realtà e artificio Letterario, Pisa, 101–28.
Moscadi, A. (2007) ‘L’Idillio 7 di Teocrito: la doppia investitura’, Prometheus 33, 214–30.
Mynors, R. A. B. (1990) Virgil: Georgics, Oxford.
Nickau, K. (2002) ‘Der Name ‘Simichidas’ bei Theokrit’, Hermes 130, 389–403.
Palumbo Stracca, B. M. (1979) ‘L’ironia di Teocrito nella polemica letteraria delle Talisie’, BollClass 27,
69–78.
Payne, M. (2007) Theocritus and the invention of fiction, Cambridge.
Pfeiffer, R. (1949) Callimachus. Volume I: Fragmenta, Oxford.
(1968) History of classical scholarship from the beginnings to the end of the Hellenistic age, Oxford.
Piacenza, N. (2010) ‘Come una rana contro i grilli: note in margine ad una metafora teocritea (Id.
7.37–42)’, Lexis 28, 369–76.
Plazenet, L. (1994) ‘Théocrite: Idylle 7’, AC 63, 77–108.
Ruggi, F. (2011) ‘Sull’identità di Licida (Theocr. Id. VII)’, Maia 63, 240–4.
Schwinge, E.-R. (1974) ‘Theokrits ‘Dichterweihe’ (Id. 7)’, Philologus 118, 40–58.
Segal, C. (1974a) ‘Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll and Lykidas’, WS 8, 20–76.
(1974b) ‘Simichidas’ modesty: Theocritus, Idyll 7.44’, AJPh 95, 128–36.
Seiler, M. A. (1997) Ποίησις ποιήσεως. alexandrinische Dichtung κατὰ λεπτόν in strukturaler und
humanethologischer Deutung, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
Serrao, G. (1971) Problemi di poesia alessandrina I: studi su Teocrito, Roma.
(1995) ‘All’origine della recusatio-excusatio: Teocrito e Callimaco’, Eikasmos 6, 141–52.
Snell, B. (1953) The discovery of the mind: the Greek origins of European thought, Cambridge, MA.
Spanoudakis, K. (2002) Philitas of Cos, Leiden, Boston, Cologne.
Stanzel, K.-H. (1995) Liebende Hirten: Theokrits Bukolik und die alexandrinische Poesie, Stuttgart and Leipzig.
110 E L I A R . R U D O N I

Tarditi, G. (1994) ‘Questioni di poetica nell’incontro tra Simichida e Licida (Theocr. Id. VII)’, in Storia,
poesia e pensiero nel mondo antico: studi in onore di Marcello Gigante, Napoli, 601–5.
Telò, M. (2011) ‘The eagle’s gaze in the opening of Heliodorus’ Aethiopica’, AJPh 132, 581–613.
Van Groningen, B. A. (1959) ‘Quelques problèmes de la poésie bucolique grecque’, Mnemosyne 12, 24–53.
Vara, J. (1975) ‘Sobre la identidad de Simicidas y Licidas del Id. 7 de Teocrito’, Emerita 43, 133–8.
Vergados, A. (2013) The Homeric Hymn to Hermes, Berlin and Boston.
Weingarth, G. (1967) ‘Zu Theokrits 7. Idyll’, PhD thesis, Freiburg University.
Williams, F. (1971) ‘A theophany in Theocritus’, CQ 21, 137–45.
Zagagi, N. (1984) ‘Self-recognition in Theocritus’ Seventh Idyll’, Hermes 112, 427–38.