The principal characters of Eclogue 3 (Menalcas, Damoetas, and Palaemon) share not only an interesting relationship with each other but also with parallel figures in the Idylls of Theocritus. At least, this seems to be Schultz’s message in her 2003 American Journal of Philology article “Latet Anguis in Herba: A Reading of Vergil’s Third Eclogue”, from which I draw the majority of the following thoughts. Admittedly, my understanding of Eclogue 3 was poor prior to reading Schultz’s article, so it is no surprise that her views would come to dominate my understanding of the poem and the characters within it.
To begin, we can tell that Menalcas and Damoetas are herdsmen keen to compete with each other. The poem begins with an exchange between the two as they try to outdo the other in insult. The competition is formalized as they turn from negotiating the winner’s prize and look to Palaemon as judge. Palaemon chooses Damoetas to start the competition proper, leaving Menalcas with the role of responder. The oneupmanship show continues, as the two sing about their love affairs and the difficulties of pastoral life. After the two leave each other riddles that remain unanswered, Palaemon declares the two worthy of a cow and abruptly ends the poem.
Schultz’s reading is informative. She sees that in spite of the obvious competition between Menalcas and Damoetas, they are actually quite united in their suspicion of the pastoral world. For example, they speak of spoiled vines, broken gifts, untrusting parents, and hidden dangers (including snakes and river banks). In contrast stands Palaemon, who comments only optimistically on the pastoral setting, noting the beauty and the abundance of the landscape.
Schultz also compares these characters to characters in the Idylls of Theocritus. In particular, she sees a correspondence between Menalcas, who initiates the insults, and Battus of Idyll 4, who similarly initiates the insults; with this line of thinking, she sees a connection between Damoetas, who must respond to the insult, and Corydon, the insult responder of Idyll 4. She reads the insults of Idyll 4 to be cheerful bantering but the insults of Eclogue 3 to be malicious spite. Schultz also sees the discussion in Idyll 5 where the speakers accuse each other of stealing and destroying property as related to the discussion of Eclogue 3 where similar accusations are hurled. She once again reads the Theocritan version to be less sinister, since it involves items which herdsmen typically would not have, whereas the property brought up in Eclogue 3 are key to country livelihood.
Schultz has less to say on comparing Palaemon to any particular character in the Idylls, but she finds his rose-colored vision of country life to correspond with the tone of the pastoral genre of poetry. It is therefore fitting that he be the judge in the contest, since he has a sense for the ideal pastoral poem. Perhaps this is why he decides to name both contestants winners of the cow: neither could demonstrate the ideal of pastoral poetry, so both deserve the same refinement-lacking prize. If either could demonstrate any appreciation for pastoral poetry, then the deserved prize would be the allusive and artful cups of Alcimedon.
In response to Schultz’s observations and claims, I can say only that I am no expert in pastoral poetry. While I found some of her points unconvincing, I imagine it was due to my lack of familiarity with the material rather than an oversight on her part. In any case, I find her reading of a competition between the un-ideal view of the pastoral world, as represented by Menalcas and Damoetas, with the ideal view, as championed by Palaemon, a helpful idea in appreciating Vergil’s use of the genre.
