UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNeebbrraasskkaa -- LLiinnccoollnn DDiiggiittaallCCoommmmoonnss@@UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNeebbrraasskkaa -- LLiinnccoollnn Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Classics and Religious Studies Studies Department 2001 SSppeellllbbiinnddiinngg PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee:: PPooeett aass WWiittcchh iinn TThheeooccrriittuuss'' SSeeccoonndd IIddyyllll aanndd AAppoolllloonniiuuss'' AArrggoonnaauuttiiccaa Anne Duncan University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub Part of the Classics Commons Duncan, Anne, "Spellbinding Performance: Poet as Witch in Theocritus' Second Idyll and Apollonius' Argonautica" (2001). Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department. 84. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/classicsfacpub/84 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Classics and Religious Studies at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications, Classics and Religious Studies Department by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. HELIOS,v ol. 28, no. 1, 2001 SPELLBINDING PERFORMANCE: POET AS WITCH IN THEOCRITUS' SECOND IDYLL AND APOLLONIUS' ARGONAUTICA Anne Duncan The connection between poetry and enchantment in Greek literature is by now a familiar subject.' The poet enchants (Bilyet)h is audience as a magician chants a spell or administers a drug, causing pleasure and the forgetfulness of pain in the listener. As with most other poetic topoi, this one goes back to Homer, to figures like Circe, the Sirens, and even Helen. In this paper, I will argue that two witches from Hellenistic poems should be regarded as poet-figures: Simaetha in Theocritus' Idyll 2, and Medea in Apollonius' Argonautica. Theocritus and Apollonius use the performing female voice of the witch to suggest a kind of performance context and an authenticity for their work. By simultaneously focalizing and objectifying the young, nubile witch as she performs her spells, the Hellenistic poets enchant and seduce the reader. Both Simaetha and Medea use magic to achieve their ends, and both seem to have enchanted their readers, yet neither one is typically read as a poet-figure. The reason for this is bound up with the way in which both poets portray these witches: as young, inexperienced, nubile girls, potentially powerful but also vulnerable. Their gender, youth, and inexperience tend to lead critics to view them as the objects of men's charming language (Delphis, Jason) rather than as the agents of magical, poetic charms themselves. Critics also seem led, over and over, to psychological interpretations of the witches' characters rather than to structural or symbolic analyses of the way the witches stand in for the poet in their respective poems. The character usually taken to represent Theocritus within his poems is Simi- chidas in Idyll 7. Simichidas is often seen as a mask of Theocritus partly because of the connection both have to Cos (which is inferred for Theocritus based in part on this poem2), but mostly because he is a singer in an explicitly programmatic ~etting.B~u t Simaetha is a kind of singer as well (a point I will return to later). Furthermore, Idyll 2 also contains subtle references to Cos; and it has been suggested that these references could be as significant as those in Idyll 7, that '~alsh;o n poetry as enchantment in Hellenistic poetry, see Albis, chap. 4, and Parry. I would like to thank Eva Stehle for her thoughtful and patient editorial work. Any remaining infelicities of thought or expression are. my own. =See Cunningham's introduction to his Teubner edition of Herodas' Mimiambi. 'Bowie; Damon 114-15; Zanker 119. 'Gow ad Idyll 2.21 notes that the name Delphis is 'not common but occurs in Coan inscriptions" and that Simaetha's oath at 160, vul Moipuc, is rare and "may therefore be supposed to be particularly Coan." See also Dover xix-xx. 96; Fabiano 523. 44 HELIOS Theocritus may be identifying himself with Simaetha as much (or as little) as he is presumed to identify himself with Simichidas.' Simaetha's gender makes her a slightly different kind of poet-figure than Simichidas, as we will see, but it does not prevent her from being one altogether. Orpheus is often seen as the poet-figure in the Argonautica, although Medea takes over this role completely in Book 3.6 Albis is one critic who sees Medea, at least partially, as a figure for the poet, noting four different aspects of her presentation that mark her out as a poet-figure: her connection with eros (citing Hesiod's Pandora as a precedent); Medea's use ofpharmaka; the power her incan- tations give her over others; and the way her words sometimes echo the narra- tor's.' Ultimately, however, he argues that "Medea is sometimes assimilated to audience, sometimes to poet," that her power is disturbing to the audience, and that Jason is also a poet-figure.' In other words, Medea is more a model for the audience affected by poetry, or a negative model of a poet, or no poet at all. All three of these readings seem based on the fact of her femaleness: she is the object of Jason's seduction, and so a figure for the audience; she is a witch, and so a negative poet-figure; she is a girl, and so not a poet. But the markers are all there, as Albis himself points out, and thus we need to look at them as part of a poetic strategy that uses a female persona to accomplish a kind of enchantment of the audience that a male persona cannot. The mere fact that they are female does not automatically exclude Simaetha and Medea from consideration~aspersonaeofth eir respective poets; there are too many other hints that this is exactly how they function. Goldhill notes the emergence of a new kind of poet-figure in Idyll 2: "The first-person narrative in the voice of a young woman of uncertain status and background immediately indicates a shift in the alignment of possibilities of poetic self-expression." But then Goldhill goes on to assert that what is "crucial" in this poem is "the distance inscribed between the author as the one who speaks out and the voice he impersonates" (262; original italics); the acknowledgement of the witch as a possible poet-figure is undercut by his emphasis on the poet. Goldhill's tacit acknowledgment of performance ("speaks out," "voice," "impersonates") is equally "crucial," however; both Idyll 2 and Medea's sections of the Argonautica are presented as magical, spellbinding.per- formances. In fact, Theocritus and Apollonius draw in the (presumed male) audi- ence by partially focalizing narratives of erotic suffering and enchanting magic through the performing female voices of young, nubile witches. It is the delicate combination of distancing and identification, objectification and focalization, which produces these poems' enchanting effects. The dominant critical approach to interpreting Simaetha and Medea has been psychological, an approach prompted in part by the assumptions that a male author '~riffiths1 981: 266-67 suggests that Simaetha sounds more like a man (i.e., Theocritus) than any other woman in Greek literature. and in a footnote (273 n. 29) that 'Simichidas" and "Simaetha" are both pseudonyms of Theocritus (and, in fact, sound like each other). 'Pavlock 32. Goldhill 297 discusses Orpheus as the figure through whom 'the performance of song is highlighted"; see 298-99 for his reading of the encounter with the Sirens as the episode that 'captures the complexity of the representation of the performance of songlspeech in this work." In neither context does he discuss Medea. 'Albis 71, 81, 84-89. 'Ibid. 84, 89. DUNCAN-SPELLBINDING PERFORMANCE uses only male personae. While a psychological lens has provided some valuable and finely nuanced studies of these two female characters, it does not take into account how the presentation of these characters encourages this sort of reading. A strictly psychological interpretation, in other words, provides evidence that the reader has been seduced. Many commentators and critics have described Simaetha as a naive, confused, lower-class woman who turns to magic to soothe her own troubled psyche-but who is charming for these very reasons. Her spell, they conclude, failsg; it works as "ritual therapy," not as a piece of magic.'' This kind of psychological reading of Simaetha's monologue, coupled with an amused condescension, is assumed by many critics to be the attitude of Theocritus' ideal "sophisticated reader."" Critics do not see Simaetha as a persona of Theocritus, because, they say, Theocritus is inviting us to smile patronizingly at Simaetha from an ironic distance.12 "Naive" is the adjective most often applied to the character, sometimes repeated insistent- ly." Because she is poor, because she has been dumped by someone of higher class, and because she speaks in a mixture of Homeric and Sapphic allusions which she is seen as not fully ~ontrolling,'c~r itics like Parry conclude that "Simaitha is no persona of Theocritus" (204).15 But such readings do not take into account the evidence provided by the poem that Simaetha is in control of her language,I6 that 9Griffiths 1979: 88: "Out of the deflated hopes for the magic ritual, a pharmakon has in fact worked-not to bind Delphis, but to release Simaetha." Segal 1985: 116-17: "The shift of perspective at the end at least suggests that she has an inkling of where- her real hope of salvation and 'calm' lies: not in sorcery but in herself." On the other hand, several critics and commentators have to admit that she seems actually to have summoned Hecate by line 35 of the poem; see Gow 43 and White 26. 'OBurton 69 uses the phrase "ritual therapy" to describe Simaetha's spell-although, to be fair, she also seems to consider the possibility that the spell is efficacious as aspell (68). See Parry 182-83 for the consensus on psychological interpretations of Simaetha; see 265 for his inferences about real women turning to aphrodisiacs in the absence of other, poetic forms of consolation. Segal 1985: 117-18 uses a great deal of psychological language in his analysis: "In working through her tale and in passing from magic to narration, Simaetha has set.forth all the material necessary for such a resolution, but we cannot be sure that she actually has it within her grasp" (italics mine). I1Thep hrase recurs over and over in criticism of Idyll 2; Goldhill makes it part of his argu- ment (266). "Segal 1984: 201: "The poem wins our sympathy for its protagonist by having her present details whose import she does not herself grasp. The device belongs to what Northrop Frye calls the 'ironic mode,' wherein the reader is superior to the character." See also 206-07 and 1985: 112, 117-19; also Griffiths 1979 as well as White, chap. 2. "White calls her "the nafve Simaetha" five times in 18 pages: 21 (twice), 28 (twice), 29. I4See esp. Segal 1984; Griffiths 1979; Pavlock 22. 'See also Segal 1973: 43 n. 32. '"urton 61 argues that the mixture of everyday Doric and Homerisms in Idyll 15 is 'pro- grammatic," not in the sense of imparting a supercilious attitude towards the women in that poem, but in the sense of elevating their everyday experiences sympathetically into the epic realm. We could argue the same for Idyll 2. Goldhill 271 argues against Segal's view that Simaetha's use of Homeric language is unwitting on her part and meant for the reader's amusement, noting that her use of the Homeric phrase "the loveless man" 'already cues the recognition of fickleness." Fabiano 521, 524, 526, 529, 533, and 535-36 argues that Theo- critus' style is a "mosaic" of dialect and diction. 46 HELIOS she has a greater awareness of the world outside her house than she is usually given credit for having," and that not reading her as the object of amused con- descension reveals other sorts of poetic strategies. Damon (1 11) notes this critical tendency to patronize Simaetha, asking, "Does the author who endows some exter- nal ego with speech always want us to laugh at his creation from a vantage point of comfortable superiority?" Some critics have found a psychological reading most compelling for Medea as well.I8 Apollonius' descriptions of Medea's passion and torment as she is seduced by Jason's handsome appearance and persuasive words have led other critics to view her as a figure for the audience seduced by poetry.Ig In the process of reading Medea as the object of Jason's "charms," however, and reading Jason, not Medea, as the poet-figure, critics often have to downplay her effectiveness as an active wielder of magical "charms."20 Sometimes Medea is described as simply an incon- sistent character, depicted primarily as a girl in love, but sometimes, when necessary for the plot of the epic, as a powerful witch.2' Once again, this is only half of the story: as a witch, she performs spells that charm monsters and over- power even the epic narrator, and is a poet-figure in her own right; both aspects of her character-the nubile girl and the witch-work towards this identification. In a recent book, Joan Burton has demonstrated a different approach for reading Theocritus' Idylls 2, 14, and 15, an approach that uses modes of analysis other than just irony to achieve a more productive reading of these poems.* She analyzes all these "urban" 1dylls' in terms of their interest in female subjectivity, without assuming that that interest is ironic or condescending. It is this approach that I wish to use as a model to reexamine Simaetha and Medea. Both Theocritus and Apollo- nius create a partial focalization of their witch characters, presenting at least parts of their narratives in a performing female voice. Simaetha and Medea are thus focalized enough to make the audience sympathetic to them." But there is also a 17G oldhill 265 points out that Simaetha must be aware of sympotic conventions: she knows that Delphis is preparing to court someone else based on reports of his behavior at symposia. Goldhill does not fully incorporate this point into his reading of Simaetha, however. '8Fowler 79, 82; Zanker 198. 'Thus Albis, chap. 4; see also Goldhill 301-05; Holmberg 148, 150; Pavlock 63. 2"Goldhill 301 mentions that Jason asks Medea "not to deceive him with charming words (980-3)"; Holmberg 143 notes that Medea "will also be the source of eelrri pta ," as well as their object. 2'Goldhill 316. To be fair, he makes the point that Medea's character does not adhere to post-Romantic notionsof consistency as a way of warning others againstoverpsychoanalyzing Medea. Nazel43 argues that Medea is primarily a girl in love, rather than a witch, because if she were primarily a witch, she would make herself a love-charm as Simaetha does. "Burton, passim, esp. 15, 40, 58-62, 94, 102-14. 23SinceS imaetha speaks all of Idyll 2, we can say that the entire poem is focalized through her. Burton 40 observes: 'By presenting ZdyN 2 in monologue form rather than dialogue. Theocritus avoids subjecting Simaetha's actions to judgments of approval or disapproval within the poem and thus perhaps encourages the reader to suspend moral judgment for the poem's duration as well." On Medea's focalization, see Papadopoulou 654-64. Pavlock 55 reads the simile of the young widow at Argonautica 3.656-63 as reflecting Medea's per- spective, not the narrator's. Hutchinson 121, in discussing Argonautica Book 3, states: 'I do not at all imply that we are not interested in Medea from her own point of view. On the con- . . . trary, the two viewpoints interact, with pointed and poignant results " DUNCAN-SPELLBINDING PERFORMANCE 47 sort of antifocalization at work in these poems as well, where the witch objectifies herself, identifying her subjectivity with that of a male readerlviewer. The partial focalization draws the reader in and then the objectification seduces him. This ef- fect is something the poet can achieve only by means of a bewitching femaleperso- nu,a nd it is why, I believe, Simaetha and Medea are to be considered poet-figures. Simaetha should be read as a poet-figure for several convincing reasons. For one, she speaks the whole of Idyll zz4;i n this role as sole narrator she is com- parable to Simichidas in Idyll 7. And part of Idyll 2 is a spell that Simaetha ex- plicitly performs. Besides speaking the entire Idyll, Simaetha invokes both the Moon and Hecate (10-16): vfiv 66 vrv k~ 0uEov ~araGjoopar&. Ah&,X ~Ahva, 4aPva ~aA6v5.i v yhp xoraeioopar iiauxa, Gaipov, r@~ 0oviq0' 'E~hrar,h v Kai (IK~~UKErCp op60v~r kpxop6vvav vc~bovh vh r' ipia ~clpiE Aav aipa. ~aip',' E~hrab aoxljrr, ~ a&Ci r ihoc; irpprv bx&6~1, 4hppa~ara fir' E6poroa xapeiova pjra rr Kipra~ pjre rr MqGcia~p jra Eav€J&~I Iaprpij6~c.~~ But now I will bind him with offerings. Moon. shine clearly; I will sing softly to you, goddess, and to earthly Hecate, she whom dogs tremble at as she goes among the tombs of the dead and the black blood. Hail, frightful Hecate, and attend me to the end, making these drugs stronger than those of Circe or Medea or blonde Perimede. Simaetha's invocations of these goddesses suggest the poet's invocation of the Muse: "I will sing to you, goddess" marks the beginning of the poem's subject and the request for divine assistance as strongly and self-consciously as a poetic in- vocation. The objection may be raised that poetry and magic are not exactly the same sorts of activities. Traditionally, poetry is sung, while spells are chanted, 'muttered," or whispered. Poetry seeks to create pleasure in the listener, the forgetfulness of pain and the remembrance of true things; magic seeks to compel the intended reci- pientllistener. Most important, perhaps, is the fact that poetry is "high" discourse, while magic is "low."26 Yet the similarities between poetry and magic are strong. Both are highly structured forms (metrical, repetitive, or at least alliterative, and sometimes including a refrain, as in Idyll 2) which are uttered aloud; that is, both are dependent on the performance of a special kind of discourse for their effi- cacy." Both poetry and magic invoke gods for assistance and support, as Simaetha 14See Burton 40, 43; Goldhill 261. 151c ite Gow's 1952 OCT. All translations of Theocritus and other authors in this paper are my own. ZWagics eems often to be contrasted unfavorably with religion in discussions of ancient cultures. Winkler 72 observes: "'Magic' is a relative term: we only call something 'magic' if we do not (or no longer) accept the premises of its meaning or operation. The term thus reveals-or may be used to reveal-as much about,the speaker as it does about the subject." 17Luck 24. HELIOS does in this poem. Both kinds of discourse position themselves, and talk about themselves, as forms of power over an audience that is "enchanted." And the simi- larities can be analyzed in either direction: poetry uses the language of magic to describe its effect (OCAya), and magic uses the techniques of poetry to effect what it describes. Faraone borrows Calame's concept of the "performative future" in lyric poetry to analyze the use of strongly marked first-person "deictic speech" in Hellenistic magical inscriptions and in Theocritus' Idyll 2. He argues that the use of these "performative future" verbs "reveals a very old (but unfortunately lost) Greek tradition of metrical incantations, which probably had its origin in the same performance-oriented poetic milieu as the other, more literary genres in which they occ~r.''W~~in kler consistently uses the language of performance in his discussion of erotic binding spells.29T hus, while poetry and magic are not perfectly congruent activities, they are both highly wrought, special kinds of speech, per- formed with the help of a god in order to charm an audience. Simaetha's performance of the spell within Idyll 2 marks her as a poet, as does her role as sole narrator throughout the poem. Another mimetic, poetic, and per- formative feature of Simaetha's poem is her use of the iuv [, which is associated with eros and makes an enchanting sound when ~hirledT.h~e iym could even be read as an allusion to Pindar's Fourth Pythian, in which Medea uses an iym to bind Jason to her. This allusion would connect our two enchantresses explicitly, but Simaetha herself already makes this connection, praying that her spell may work as well as those of Medea or Circe (15-16). Simaetha thus uses the iym at several levels: at the literal, to cast her spell; on the literary, to allude to other poets and enchantresses; and on the figurative, to accompany her song with music, as a poet accompanies himself with a lyre. Medea also acts like a poet in her poem, although her role in the epic is more complex than Simaetha's in her solo performance. There are thematic and formal links that connect Medea to the poet. She invokes Hecate," just as Simaetha does, and just as the narrator famously invokes Erato at 3.1-5, "Medea's book."32 The narrator invokes Erato and says that she "charms" (OCA~EIC3, .4) unwedded maidens.33 Medea invokes Brimo when she cuts the herb (46p pcr~ov)th at she will give to Jason, and she invokes Hypnos to "charm" (OEh[al, 4.146) the dragon that guards the Golden Fleece. She usespharmaka, which have a long asso- ciation with poetry and eros (Circe, Helen),34 combined with spells (or songs: '"araone, passim. He notes (1 1) that Theocritus "has Simaetha employ the future tense four times (thrice with the adverb virv) to indicate the ongoing activity of the magic ritual"; the instances are at lines 10, 11, 33, and 159. Faraone also notes (ibid.) that the hexameter is used both in popular binding incantations and in Idyll 2. *we states that rituals are "staged" by those who are "experienced in self-dramatization" and "entertaining themselves" (73); see also 86 and 93. 'OJohnston 178, who also notes that the association is more precisely between the iym and short-term, failed eros; see also Segal 1973: 35, 41. 3'As Brimo (3.861-62). Medea also invokes Hypnos (4.146) and the Keres (4.1665-66). 32Goldhill2 87 discusses the invocation at the beginning of Book 1 of the Argonaurica as "hymnic," like Callimachus' Hymns, arguing that the "signs of hymnic language here trace a performative scenario"; he does not mention the invocation at the beginning of Book 3. "Holmberg 142: "The meta-narrative seduction of Erato mirrors the narrative, erotic, and pharmaceutical seductions contained within the book." '"alsh 14, 18-19; Parry 25, 56. DUNCAN-SPELLBINDING PERFORMANCE Et orGai~4,. 1668) to subdue the dragon (4.145-61) and the bronze giant Talos (4.1654-90).~' And she uses persuasive language to lure her brother Aspyrtos to his death (4.440-81); significantly, her words are described as being like drugs and Aspyrtus is implicitly likened to a wild, fierce animal? roia napal@apLvq 0cAKtfipla Qhppa~B' naooev ai0kpr ~ anviot qor, rC KEV ~ akni 0 0~vk 6vra iGyptov fihrPhroro ~ a ro'ir peoc $yay€ 0fi~a.~'(4.442-44) . . . wheedling with these sorts of words she sprinkled enchanting drugs onto the air and the winds, which even from a distance would have drawn down the wild beast from the steep mountain. Her invocations to the gods to help her charm her victims, herpharmaka, and her bewitching language all mark Medea as a powerful, if dangerous, poet. Finally, her sacrifice to Hecate is too awesome and terrifying for the narrator to describe: 5R yhp 04' k~anoPhvruL~p koaaaeal euE~oolv fiyhyet 'E~hrqv,r ai 6 j r & p&v 6ooa euqhjv ~obpqno paav&ouoar rrbo~~(rpoj re r r i~or op ~ i pqrj r' kpE Bullb~E norpbverev aei6erv) kropar abSjoar.r6 YE pjv EGOS t<trr KE~VOU, 6ppa 0 ~ f@ip oe~tx i Cqypiotv Eberpav, ErvSphorv 6JrtyBvoror p&ver~ arjiho o' iiiEo0ar. (4.247-52) There shk commanded them, disembarking, to appease Hecate with sacrifices. And furthermore, the things which the girl prepared to make ready the sacrifice (may there be no one with knowledge of it, and may my soul not urge me to sing it) I shrink from telling; but truly, the temple, at least, even from that time which the heroes built to the goddess on the shoreline remains to be seen from a distance by later-born men. In a sense, Medea overpowers the narrator; her magical relationship to her patron goddess is more powerful than the narrator's power to tell the story, helped by his Muse. This moment distances Medea from the poem's narrator, whereas up to this point she has been identified with the narrator. The oscillation between identifi- cation and distancing thus recurs as part of a poetic strategy. Both Simaetha and Medea, then, can be seen as poet-figures. A Hellenistic poet would undertake this kind of identification between poet and witch for two major reasons: to make a statement about generic identity, and to enchant his audience. In terms of genre, the witch as poet provides at least a hint of a performative dimension, something supposedly lost from "high" Alexandrian poetry and possibly felt to be missing. The pretense (at least) of a performative context would be one "~olmberg notes that Medea "takes on Talos alone, with no help whatsoever from the other heroes: her insistence and her solitary power are unsettling" (155). Hutchinson, in his discussion (123-24) of the dragon episode, notes that "all depends on Medea," but the part of the episode he quotes and discusses is all about Jason. %ee Holmberg 154. "I have used Friinkel's 1961 OCT as my text of the Argonautica. HELIOS way in which Hellenistic poets negotiated their relationship with the literary past.'a It would provide a sense of continuity, however self-conscious and fictional, with the performance traditions of earlier Greek poetry. At the same time, the witch's performance is different from earlier Greek poetic performance: it is private and is done by a woman operating outside of male control and outside of socially sanc- tioned means to power. The performance that the witch's presence suggests is thus ambivalent, or hybrid, a seductive mixture of traditional and non-traditional ele- ments, of public speech and private spell. Idyll 2 and the Argonautica exhibit a number of performative aspects. Idyll 2 could conceivably be staged as a mime, having the same initial scolding of a slave (1-62) that we see in many of Herodas' Mimi~rnbi.'~T he repetition of the spell's refrain, combined with the emotional narrative of suffering, has a theatrical quali- ty." Medea's soliloquies in the Argonautica have the same theatrical quality and psychological intensity, inevitably bringing to the reader's mind Euripides' Medea. In addition, Medea's performance of her spells are given more detail than Orpheus' performances of his songs. Most of Orpheus' performances are reported briefly, in indirect speech:' the exception being 1.494-512, which is described in more detail, although still indirectly (the passage is a kind of counter-Theogony sung to soothe a quarrel)." In 2.928-29 Orpheus dedicates his lyre at Lyra, before the Argonauts reach Colchis (leaving his instrument behind, presumably). Orpheus drowns out the Sirens at 4.905-09, but it is reported in indirect speech; we hear 38 Cameron and Mastrornarco, passim, argue for the possibility of performance for Cal- limachus and Herodas, respectively. Hunter 32 argues that even if Herodas' poems were not actually performed (something we will never know), they were "composed for the most part in a mode which strongly suggests, and was intended to suggest, 'performance' by more than one actor, rather than solo recitation." 39Seee sp. Mimiambi 1, 5, 6, and 7. See also Dover xxxviii-xxxix, 97; Hunter 3940; Mastromarco 46, 51; Hutchinson 151, 155, 200, 240. %egal 1973: 32 envisions Simaetha turning the iynx once every time she speaks the refrain. 'Iuve, &Arer t ~rq vov kp6v xori 60pa rciv hv6pa ("Turn,m agic wheel, and draw the man to my house"), for a total of nine rotations. See also Gow 3940. "To be fair, the Argonautica has a much lower proportion of direct speech overall than the Homeric epics (29 percent as opposed to 55 percent; cited in Hunter 109 n. 37). Medea's spells and Orpheus' songs are both described in indirect speech. But Medea's laments and soliloquies, which are the other component of her "performance" (see below), appear in large blocks of direct speech, thereby making them even more striking. Papadopoulou 655 notes that 'Medea's dilemma is regarded as having been developed far beyond the needs of the plot, which further suggests a lack of symmetry in the structure of the epic." 42Pavlock,s ignificantly, compares Orpheus' song to a spell: "Apollonius shows that the . . . bard's effect is in fact spellbinding The language here is significant, as thelktron is commonly used for love charms as well as for music. Orpheus' song is seductive, not unlike the poet's in the Argonautica" (32). If Orpheus' songs are theUttron like a magic spell, then Medea's thelkteria can be charming like a song. Pavlock also notes (ibid.) that many of Or- pheus' songs are pointless or ephemeral in their effects. DUNCAN-SPELLBINDING PERFORMANCE neither his song nor theirs!' And significantly, Orpheus is entirely absent from Book 3, displaced from his role as performing poet by Medea." The evocation of performance in these two poems confronts us with generic is- sues of hybridization and mixture. A pastoral poem that contains elements of mime (Idyll 2), or an epic with a tragedy as its subtext (Argonautica), draws attention to the way that Hellenistic poetry mingles genres in its attempt to ingest and digest the literary past. These poems combine read and performed genres, or "high" and "low" genres (or "masculine" and "feminine" genres in the case of epic and trag- edy). Contamination, hybridization, and the mixture of "low" and "high" are strat- egies that appear in works of other Hellenistic poets, notably Callimachu~bu~t ~a lso Her~dasW.~h~ile mixing "high" and "low" may be a common generic agenda among Hellenistic poets, fhe use of the witch as a figure for the poet is not; Callimachus calls his poetic enemies "Telchines" (famous mythical wizards) who "mutter" against the poet's work (Aetia 1.1):' Thus the use of the witch as a figure for the poet or his poetic program entails certain risks, especially when the witch is also young, attractive, and vulnerable. The most obvious risk is the potential "feminization" of the genre, whether pastoral or epic, through the use of the performing female voice. Idyll 2 can be seen as triviai or slight, while the Argonautica can be found to lack proper Homeric vigor, its hero insufficiently heroic.@ Feminization entails a reduction of the poetry's prestige, but it seems conceivable that aiming to produce poetry in less esteemed (and more perfomative) genres is consistent with a Hellenistic recusatio of grandiose poetry. Burton analyzes the women's praise of a tapestry in Idyll 15 to show that their praise echoes many of the aesthetic criteria in use among Hel- lenistic poets. Rather than reading this congruence as Theocritus' mockery of pretentious housewives, she suggests that "Theocritus is showing how the aca- demy's values happen to coincide with female values" (104). In addition to femini- zation, the other kind of risk that the use of the witch as a poet-figure runs is the association of poetry with "low" genres, such as mime, and with "low" social practices, such as magic. Yet this, too, can be seen as part of a deliberate poetic program.49 "Low" topics and themes do not just add novelty: they require the reader to reexamine his or her assumptions about traditional poetry and, as we will 43Goldhill2 99 reads this episode as Apollonius' brilliant overcoming of his epic predecessor Homer, having Orpheus smother even a description of the Sirens' song in indirect speech. He does not discuss the fact that Orpheus' song is also not described. 44Goldhill2 97 sees Orpheus as highlighting performance in the poem, and even mentions the Sirens. but not Medea. "Hecale; the 'Mousetraps" episode of the Aetia with Heracles and Molorchus. 46M imiamb 6 can be read as programmatic, a competition between poets, expressed as a salespitch by a dildomaker to a group of eager women: see Stem; also Parker 106. "Gow notes that Lx I r pb C o la a, the verb Simaetha uses at line 62, is the same verb Cal- limachus uses in Frag. l. l. "Segal 1985: 107 refers to the subject of Idyll 2 as Simaetha's 'little drama." As for the . . . Argonoutica, "Jason clearly lacks the heroic stature of an Achilles or an Odysseus": Clauss 1. See Hunter 1 1 for a summary of scholarly condemnations of Jason's inadequacy. Hutchinson 85-86 takes issue with the usual diagnoses of Jason's weak leadership, and rightly notes that leadership is problematic even in the Iliad. '9Fabiano, passim; Hutchinson 5, 11, 148; Zanker 155-214.