Vergils Eclogues 1527540944, 9781527540941

Citation preview

Vergil’s Eclogues

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources By

George C. Paraskeviotis

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources By George C. Paraskeviotis This book first published 2020 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2020 by George C. Paraskeviotis All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-4094-4 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-4094-1

For Evi and Zoe, the loves of my life

«…ȞĮ ȝȘ ijȠȕȐıĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȚĮıIJİȓȢ Įʌ’ IJĮ ȩȞİȚȡȐ ıȠȣ, ȞĮ ȝȘ ijȠȕȐıĮȚ, Ș ȗȦȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ ıȠȣ…» ȂȓIJȜȠȢ ȆĮıȤĮȜȓįȘȢ «ǺȣșȚıȝȑȞİȢ DZȖțȣȡİȢ»

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues ................... 1 Chapter 2: Eclogue 1 ................................................................................. 25 Chapter 3: Eclogue 2 ................................................................................. 81 Chapter 4: Eclogue 3 ............................................................................... 138 Chapter 5: Eclogue 4 ............................................................................... 193 Chapter 6: Eclogue 5 ............................................................................... 232 Chapter 7: Eclogue 6 ............................................................................... 277 Chapter 8: Eclogue 7 ............................................................................... 328 Chapter 9: Eclogue 8 ............................................................................... 367 Chapter 10: Eclogue 9 ............................................................................. 416 Chapter 11: Eclogue 10 ........................................................................... 444 Chapter 12: General Conclusions ............................................................ 479 Abbreviations and Bibliography .............................................................. 483

PREFACE This monograph is a revised version of my PhD dissertation written at the University of Leeds in 2006-2009, but unexpected circumstances and serious family matters forced me to delay its revision and publication. It is my great pleasure to acknowledge my debts to many friends and colleagues for their help and support given to me during the preparation of this book. I am especially indebted to the supervisor of my work, Prof. Robert Maltby, whose incisive criticism, prodigious knowledge and untiring academic guidance saved me from many errors throughout my efforts and lightened the burden of my hard research. Words fail me as I express my warmest gratitude to him for his moral encouragement which, along with his kind character, made our collaboration really enjoyable. My deepest gratitude also goes to (†) Dr. Kenneth Belcher, who read certain parts of this work at an early stage and contributed several helpful comments and suggestions. I am obliged to both for being so helpful throughout my stay at Leeds and for believing in me and my work from the early days of my studies at the university. Special thanks go to my examiners Prof. Bruce Gibson and Assoc. Prof. Regine May, who provided me with various comments, criticisms and valuable suggestions that significantly strengthened the main arguments of this book. Finally, particular thanks go to the members of staff of the School of Classics at the University of Leeds for making Leeds such a pleasant and enjoyable place to work in. Particular thanks are owed to Prof. Andreas N. Michalopoulos and Asst. Prof. Charilaos N. Michalopoulos, who stood by me through the

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

ix

years and never failed to offer me academic guidance, encouragement and above all their friendship. I also owe a special debt to Prof. Andreas N. Michalopoulos, Asst. Prof. Charilaos N. Michalopoulos, Dr. Gabriel Evangelou and especially Prof. M.C.J. Putnam and Prof. Stephen Harrison (who kindly accepted to read certain parts of this work, although I have not had the pleasure of meeting them yet), who all found time among their numerous occupations to read through and comment upon parts of this book. Nonetheless, despite the generous assistance received from the aforementioned people, this book contains deficiencies and errors for which I take complete and sole responsibility; hence kindness and forbearance is all I ask of the gentle reader. I cannot begin to express my gratitude to my parents, whose unfailing love, faith and support, both emotional and financial, made all this possible for me. Finally, it is with great love and gratitude that I dedicate this book to my wife, Evi Gontosidou, and to our daughter, Zoe. Evi’s true love, care and emotional support helped me to surpass several hardships in times of troubled anxiety, standing by my side with understanding even when she really needed to take care of herself and of our daughter. I will always be grateful to her for her belief in my work as well as for her valuable comments and observations, since she is always the first, and the most critical, reader of my writings. The dedication of this book to her and to our daughter for everything they have done and do every day for me is an entirely insufficient way of acknowledging their deep understanding, their patience and their warmest support throughout these years. George C. Paraskeviotis Nicosia, 01/04/2019

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: INTERTEXTUALITY AND VERGIL’S ECLOGUES Between 42 and 39 BC1 Vergil composed the first Roman pastoral collection entitled Eclogues,2 consisting of ten literary pieces, in the form it has come down to us.3 Vergil’s Eclogues continue to receive a great deal of scholarly and critical attention4 that has peaked during the late 20th and early 21st century.5 These years have seen the publication of 1

This is the conventional temporal period during which Vergil’s pastoral collection is believed to have been composed, while the exact date of its composition is still a matter of discussion among scholars. On the dating of the Eclogues see Bowersock 1971, 73-80, Schmidt 1974, Coleman 1977, 14-21, Bowersock 1978, 201-202, Tarrant 1978, 197-199, Mankin 1988, 63-76, Farrell 1991b, 204-211, Perutelli 1995, 28-31, Hardie 1998, 24f., Korzeniowski 1999, 115-136, Seng 1999, 57-107 and Luther 2002. 2 On the title of the collection (i.e. Bucolica or Eclogues), see Horsfall 1981, 108109, Perutelli 1995, 27-28 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 27-28. 3 Unfortunately, we are unable to know the exact title that Vergil gave to his pastoral compositions, which according to the ancient sources were in all probability entitled Bucolica or Bucolicon Liber. Both titles occur in all the oldest manuscripts (MSS P, R, M and V), Quintilian, Probus, the Scholia Veronensia, the Scholia Bernensia, Donatus, Servius, Philargyrius, Vita Bernensia and Vita Phocae. The term Ecloga, which first described a selection or an excerpt, was actually adopted later, when it started denoting any short composition (cf. Plin. Epist. 4.14.9 Proinde, siue epigrammata siue idyllia siue eclogas siue, ut multi, poematia seu quod aliud uocare malueris, licebit uoces). See also Horsfall 1981, 108-109. 4 Coleiro 1979, 103-105 provides us with a brief summary of the scholarly approaches to the Vergilian collection that ranges from the period of its composition to the 19th century. 5 For a detailed and extensive bibliographical catalogue of Vergil’s Eclogues, see Donlan 1978, Briggs 1981, 1267-1357, Volk 2008, 1-15, Cucchiarelli 2012, 39-83 and the bibliography which is annually published in Vergilius. See also the more recent bibliography compiled by Niklas Holzberg, available online at

Chapter 1

2

numerous books that have significantly advanced and developed the literary studies concerning Vergilian pastoral poetry. Therefore a brief, but not comprehensive, summary of those books in the introduction of this book, whose subject deals with Vergilian pastoral, is necessary. Nonetheless, it is hard for such a summary to include any book or article on Vergilian pastoral; as a result, it only deals with notable 20th and 21st century monographs and articles in order to show not only the interpretative issues that have already been covered by modern scholarship, but also that Vergilian pastoral still constitutes a fertile ground for research. Leaving aside several books or articles that deal with allegorical, biographical, historical and political questions,6 the first important step forward was by Rose 1942, who presents a thorough discussion of the Eclogues. His book contains a useful summary of earlier scholarship that has enabled subsequent commentators and scholars to examine Vergilian pastoral poetry with a fresh eye, while also paying attention to various significant fields of interest. The first of these fields deals with the landscape of the Eclogues which, according to Snell 1945, 26-31, is a fictional landscape created and called Arcadia by Vergil. Snell’s suggestion is attacked by Schmidt 1975, 36-57, who argues that Snell retrojects Renaissance ideas of an idealised pastoral world in the Eclogues and that the Vergilian Arcadia is merely an anachronism (cf. also Jenkyns 1989, 26-39, a view also shared by Leach 1978a, 539-560; cf. also Leach

http://www.niklasholzberg.com/Homepage/Bibliographien_files/BiblVergBuc.docx 6 Donlan 1978 and Briggs 1981, 1267-1357 provide bibliographical lists that contain crucial records and criticisms upon the Vergilian scholarship of the last century, where the reader can find studies on such questions. See also Briggs 1981, 1280-1339, Volk 2008, 10-12 and the first footnote of each of the ten following chapters.

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

3

1974). Nonetheless, the landscape of the Eclogues is still an attractive subject for scholars, who examine it extensively and almost exhaustively.7 The Vergilian collection, its structure and the arrangement of the Eclogues is yet another central subject treated by several scholars who provide thorough structural and numerical analyses and investigations on the topic.8 What is more, the chronology of the Eclogues causes scholarly debate, although there is no consensus. Bowersock 1971, 73-809 challenges the traditional identification of the addressee of Eclogue 8 by suggesting that the unnamed honorand is Octavian and not Pollio.10 This suggestion is followed by Van Sickle 1981, 17-34, Köhnken 1984, 77-90, Schmidt 1987, 197-237, Mankin 1988, 63-76 and Clausen 1994, 233-237. Pollio’s candidacy is supported by Coleman 1977, 253, Nisbet-Hubbard 1978, 17f., Tarrant 1978, 197-199, Mayer 1983a, 17-30, Farrell 1991b, 204-211, Green 1996, 232-235, Seng 1999, 64-75 and Thibodeau 2006, 618-623. Finally, Schmidt 1974, Perutelli 1995, 28-31, Meulder 1996, 815-828 and Korzeniowski 1999, 115-136 are concerned with the chronology of the collection, while Luther 2002 argues that the Eclogues were published around 28-27 BC, thereby transferring the date of the publication of the Georgics to the mid-twenties. This subject is closely related to the historical background and the references to contemporaries 7

Barra 1952, 7-31, Jachmann 1952, 161-174, Pietzcker 1965, Flintoff 1974, 814-846, Kennedy 1987, 47-59, D’Anna 1998, 254-269, Connolly 2001, 89-106, Brandt 2005, Collin 2006, 92-122, Saunders 2008, Jones 2011 and Johnston/Papaioannou 2013, 133-144. 8 Brown 1963, Otis 1963, 128-143, Skutsch 1969, 153-169, Berg 1974, 107-113, Rudd 1976, 119-144, Saint-Denis 1976, 7-21, Leach 1978b, 79-105, Van Sickle 1978, Skutsch 1980, 95-96, Van Sickle 1980a, 5-42, Van Sickle 1980b, 576-603, Roberts 1982/1983, 39-47, Meillier 1986, 34-47, Lindahl 1994, 161-178, Seng 1999, Breed 2006b, 333-367, Ucciero 2007, 263-276 and Steenkamp 2011, 101124 9 See also Bowersock 1978, 201-202. 10 Hanslik 1955, 5-19, Wimmel 1960, 208-226 and Büchner 1982, 231-235.

Chapter 1

4

that can be identified throughout the collection. Most scholars argue that the honorand in Eclogue 8 is Asinius Pollio,11 while Liebs 2010, 32-52 and Voisin 2010, 321-344 find further references to historical characters in the collection such as Alfenus Varus. The language and style of the Eclogues constitute two more significant subjects that are examined by scholars who direct their attention to linguistical, syntactical and metrical features throughout the collection.12 Leaving aside these subjects and moving to the content of the corpus, Schmidt 1972b, 107-119 claims that the Eclogues are poems about poetry, since they contain rustics who are singers-herdsmen rather than herdsmen-singers.13 Schmidt’s approach is representative of an influential development in scholarship concerning the Eclogues, according to which Vergilian pastoral is concerned either with poetry or with what it has to say about poetry (i.e. the metapoetic interpretation).14 The metapoetic approach was later followed by several scholars who all concern themselves with the poetics of the collection or of a separate poem, suggesting that the Eclogues deal with a world that first cares for music and song, while they reflect on the historical reality that threatens its existence.15

11

Levi 1966, 73-79, Tarrant 1978, 197-199, Mayer 1983a, 17-30, Farrell 1991b, 204-211, Green 1996, 225-236, Coppola 1998, 170-174, Thibodeau 2006, 618623, Cairns 2008b, 49-79, Voisin 2010, 321-344 and Dzino 2011, 158-166. 12 Holtorf 1959, 253-286, Fedeli 1972, 273-300, Kollmann 1975, 97-112, Offermann 1975, 275-290, Serbat 1989, 213-229, Nisbet 1991, 1-14, Wills 1993, 3-11, Horsfall 1995, 217-248, O’Hara 1997, 241-258, Rumpf 1999, 157-175, Lipka 2001, Courtney 2003/2004, 425-431, Najock 2004, Casanova-Robin 2007, 105-124, Babiþ 2008, 259-266, Gries 2008, 179-203 and Kraggerud 2012, 118144. 13 See also Davis 2012. 14 Volk 2008, 6. 15 Ross 1975, 18-38, Wright 1983, 107-160, Deremetz 1987, 762-777, Rutherford 1989, 42-50, Courtney 1990, 99-112, Glei 1991, 83-95, Pachalis 1994, 437-449,

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

5

The most attractive research field for modern scholars is intertextuality and the ways in which the Eclogues recall the earlier literary tradition.16 This subject was first explored in several monographs and articles that examined Vergil’s relationship to the Greco-Roman tradition generally, and their contributions are valuable.17 Nonetheless, there are scholars who examine Vergil’s intertextual relationship with a single Greek or Roman source such as the Theocritus collection (Idylls 118)18 or the post-Theocritean tradition,19 while there are also critics, although they are few, who are concerned with other Greek sources whose influence on the collection is considerable.20 Callimachus is an exception given that his influence is related to his canons of poetry that are identified in the Eclogues.21 On the contrary, Vergil’s association with the Roman tradition begins with the Lucretian elements that are identified throughout Papanghelis 1995, Rumpf 1996, Papanghelis 1999, 44-59, Loupiac 2001, 93-103, Delignon 2006, 38-50, Dion 2006, 82-102 and Henkel 2009. 16 Papanghelis 1995, 16-17 has noticed a general rise of interest, especially among Anglophone scholars, in intertextuality during the last three or four decades of the 20th century. 17 Farrell 1991a, 3-25 and 278-314, Monteleone 1994, Hubbard 1995, 37-67, Hubbard 1995/1996, 11-23, Thomas 1996, 22-46, Farrell 1997, 222-238, MacDonald 1997 and Hubbard 1998. 18 Pöschl 1964, Klingner 1967, Posch 1969, Garson 1971, 188-203, Robertson 1970/1971, 8-23, Martin 1972, 187-199, Schmidt 1972b, 57-69, Du Quesnay 1976/1977, 18-41, Du Quesnay 1977, 25-99, Du Quesnay 1979, 35-69, Du Quesnay 1981, 36-53, Wright 1983, 107-160, Alpers 1990, 19-47, Segal 1987, 167-185, Wills 1993, 3-11, Faber 1995, 411-417, Rudd 1996, 53-77, Hatzikosta 2001, 105-110, Hunter 2001, 159-163, MacDonald 2005, 12-31, Kutzko 2007/2008, 141-161, Di Meo 2008, 209-222, Vox 2009, 305-330, Bernsdorff 2011, 187-194, Gagliardi 2011d, 676-696, Scholl 2014 and Kania 2016 passim. 19 Schmidt 1972b, 69-92, Du Quesnay 1976/1977, 23-29, Paschalis 1995, 617-621, Acél 2007, 349-368 and Kania 2012, 657-685. 20 Fernandelli 2008, 279-308 (Meleager), Prioux 2009, 309-317 (Aratus), Tartari Chersoni 2008, 91-103 (Aristophanes), Manuwald 2002, 150-174 and Gómez Gane 2003, 144-147 (Homeric Hymns). 21 Wimmel 1960, 132-147, Clausen 1964, 181-196, Kenney 1983, 49-52, Wright 1983, 107-160, Cameron 1995, 454-483, Papanghelis 1995, Hunter 2006a and Meulder 2010, 311-319 all deal with Vergil’s relationship to Callimachus.

Chapter 1

6

the collection and constitutes a research field that has been almost exhaustively examined.22 Finally, Vergil’s relationship with the Neoterics is a subject that is nicely touched on in several studies23 and is usually related to the tendency of scholars to suggest that Gallus’ lost Amores also influenced the collection.24 Despite these advances in several interpretative questions, there is still no monograph that focuses on intertextuality in Vergilian pastoral poetry; on the contrary, it has already been mentioned that there are several articles whose contribution is valuable, but they examine this subject only in individual poems of the collection. There is no systematic study on intertextuality and its complexity in Vergil’s Eclogues, which is a substantial research and bibliographical gap that this book aims to fill. Further support for the increasing interest of scholars in the matter of intertextuality is provided by several books and articles that focus on a theoretical discussion of intertextuality. The term “intertextuality” was first coined by Julia Kristeva in 1967.25 Nonetheless, its concept is hardly simple, encompasses several meanings26 and is currently associated

22 Farrington 1963, 87-94, Castelli 1966, 313-342 and 1967, 14-39, Mizera 1982, 367-371, Buchheit 1986a, 123-141, Chambert 2003, 247-264, Hardie 2006, 276300, Fabre-Serris 2007, 141-159, Hardie 2009, 13-40, Scafoglio 2011, 247-263 and recently Gale 2013, 278-296. 23 Otis 1963, 99-105 and Farrell 1991a, 278-314 and especially with Catullus by Klingner 1967, Du Quesnay 1977, 68-75, Michel 1990a, 140-148, Lefèvre 2000, 62-80, Gries 2008, 179-203, Rohacek 2008, 27-45, Gale 2013, 278-296 and Trimble 2013, 263-277. 24 See Skutsch 1956, 198-199, Suerbaum 1968, 74-82 and 313-316, Grillo 1971, Ross 1975, Rosen & Farrell 1986, 241-254, Kennedy 1987, 47-59, Whitaker 1988, 454-458, Michel 1990b, 57-68, Perkell 1996, 128-140, Gagliardi 2003, Gagliardi 2012a, 52-73, Gagliardi 2012b, 147-163, Gagliardi 2013, 117-136, who are all concerned with this hypothesis. 25 Kristeva 1967, 438-465. 26 Van Erp Taalman 1994 provides a detailed account of the way in which the concept of intertextuality has been developed.

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

7

with various terms (such as “the imagination”, “history” or “postmodernism”), which are underdetermined in meaning and overdetermined in figuration.27 Kristeva attempts to combine Saussure’s structuralistic semiotics (i.e. how signs derive their meaning within the structure of a text) with Bakhtin’s “dialogism” (i.e. an examination of the multiple meanings, namely heteroglossia, in each text and word),28 while also replacing the word “dialogism” with the term “intertextuality”.29 She argues that any literary text is a mosaic of quotations; in other words, the absorption of another, while the notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity and poetic language can be read at least as double.30 Barthes transforms Kristeva’s theory and concentrates its interest on similar ideas in far less technical language, thereby providing certain practical guidelines that can be used for the analysis of literary texts. Following Kristeva, he suggests that texts are made up of various antecedent or contemporary signifiers, echoes of other texts, cultural languages that clash and blend, allowing for potentially infinite complexity.31 Thus, texts have multiple meanings, and these meanings are attributed to texts and do not derive from some author, who creates de novo and ex nihilo, but through the interplay between the reader and the

27

Allen 2000, 2. Bakhtin, 1984. See also Irwin 2004, 228. 29 Harris 1992, 176 argues that “dialogism” is actually narrower than “intertextuality” since it is only related to the use of language in contrast to intertextuality that extends to all discourse. 30 Kristeva 1981, 66. See also Allen 2000, 39. Kristeva’s original definition of the term “intertextuality” was later reformulated by herself as the “transposition” of one or more systems of signs into another which is also accompanied by a new articulation of the enunciative and denotative position (cf. Kristeva 1974, 49-50). See also Kristeva 1981, 15. 31 Barthes 1977, 159-160. 28

Chapter 1

8

text itself.32 Moving from post-structuralist to structuralist theorists,33 Riffaterre suggests that texts are not referential but have their meaning because of the semiotic structures that link up their individual words, phrases, sentences, key images, themes and rhetorical devices.34 Genette uses the term “transtextuality” by which he denotes the various forms of interrelation between texts in which a textual model lies behind an original text.35 Jenny considers intertextual fragments as a kind of superparole and the previous literary texts as a superlangue from which authors draw individual paroles even as they choose from the vocabulary of their language. Therefore, the reader has the choice to read the text either for itself or in terms of its intertextual relationships.36 Finally, Leitch claims that the text is not an autonomous object but a set of relations with other texts whose language, grammar, and lexicon drag along numerous traces of history, thereby being a collection of incompatible ideas, beliefs and sources.37 These theoretical discussions of intertextuality by structuralist and post-structuralist thinkers can also be incorporated into literary criticism and especially into classical studies where texts are related to other texts. Jenny’s theory is close to an interpretative method of Roman poetry, which was first developed by Pasquali.38 His article deals with what he calls “arte allusiva”, namely, with literary allusions to Greek and 32

Barthes 1968, 12-17 = Barthes 2002, 3-7. Allen 2000, 92. It should be mentioned that the borders between structuralism and post-structuralism are often blurred or overlapping, because these terms do not refer to standard theoretical positions or ideas but to a series of broad approaches. See Jordaan 2016, 10. 34 Riffaterre 1978. 35 Genette 1982, 7-14. 36 Jenny 1982, 44-45. 37 Leitch 1983, 59. 38 Pasquali 1951, 11-20. See also Hubbard 1998, 9. 33

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

9

especially Hellenistic sources in Neoteric and Augustan poetry, which were considered as a conscious interpretative method of bringing into the text an additional level of importance beyond the context of the allusion itself. Following Pasquali’s suggestion, Thomas compiles a typology of allusive techniques, although the categories are more rhetorical than functional.39 He distinguishes seven categories, using the term “reference” rather than “allusion”:40 i) “casual reference”; ii) “single reference”, that is, a reference that recalls the content of the model; iii) “self-reference”; iv) “correction”;41 v) “window reference”, that is, a simultaneous reference to the model’s source as well as to the model itself; vi) “apparent reference”, by which is meant a different actual model from the one that originally seems to be recalled; and finally vii) “conflation or multiple reference”.42 Conte rejects the authorial intention suggested by Pasquali and considers allusion in terms of a relationship between texts, or intertextuality, rather than imitation, although the presence of the author is still felt in his theory.43 On the contrary, Hubbard examines intertextuality along with what he calls “literary filiation”, which is the author’s selection of a specific literary antecedent whose work stands in a special relation to his.44 He owes much to Bloom, who believes that intertextuality reflects intersubjectivity in the sense that every author selects a literary father

39

Hubbard 1998, 9 with n. 20. On a brief discussion about the use of the term “reference” instead of the term “allusion”, see Hinds 1998, 21-25. 41 See Giangrande 1967, 85-97, who examined the same interpretative method with the difference that he called it oppositio in imitando. 42 Thomas 1986, 171-198. 43 Conte 1986, and esp. 26-31. It should be mentioned that Conte focuses on the text and the relationships therein but continues to refer to the author by name and includes the author in the analysis of the text (cf. Conte 1986, 37), thereby confirming that the entire abstraction of the author is rare in classical scholarship. 44 Hubbard 1998 11. 40

10

Chapter 1

whose work is determinative in the younger author’s self-fashioning as a creative literary agent.45 Lyne criticises the use of the term “allusion” because it insists on the authorial involvement, encouraging us also to make unjustifiable assumptions concerning an author’s intentions, which we have no evidence or right to form. He also suggests that the term “intertextuality” can describe such relationships between texts much better, admitting, however, that it is indeed very difficult to determine when an intertext is identifiable as an intertext.46 Hinds prefers the term “allusion” over “reference”, arguing also against what he calls “philological fundamentalism” according to which, instead of trying to classify an allusion by attributing to it particular properties, it is preferable to search for more than one possibility that can be considered in an interpretation.47 Moreover, he rejects authorial intention, instead using the term “intertextualist fundamentalism”, suggesting, however, that authorial intention does feature in some form in the intertextualist model of interpretation.48 Edmunds disagrees with Hinds’ view concerning the term “allusion” because, he claims, we cannot distinguish between an intertext and allusion, arguing also that, although no scholar is interested in a real authorial presence, Hinds’ constructed authorial presence is only employed rhetorically as a matter of convention or persuasion.49 He also uses the term “quotation” to refer to intertextual phenomena, thereby overlapping with the earlier definitions of “allusion” and arguing that the

45

Bloom 1973, 1975, 1976 and 1982. Lyne 1994, 187-189. 47 Hinds 1998, 13 and 17. 48 Hinds 1998, 47-48. 49 Edmunds 2001, 164-168. 46

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

11

prerequisite for the identification of the quotation resides in the capacity of the reader.50 From the above, it becomes evident that the terms “allusion” and “intertextuality” are not used consistently throughout the scholarship, nor are they used in ways that conform to more common definitions. Furthermore, the various ways in which scholars use these two terms and the way in which “allusion” is used in classical scholarship show that this term is not compatible with a theoretical framework of intertextuality. Following Lyne’s, Edmunds’ and Plett’s views on the intertextual phenomena, I believe that the understanding of the relations between texts is partly based on the reader’s knowledge, judgement and instinct. Hubbard observes that Greek and Roman audiences, having more complete literary texts at their disposal and being more accustomed to aural or oral reading out loud and learning long texts by heart, are likely to have been more competent in recognising an intertextual phenomenon than modern academic scholars and readers.51 However, it is crucial to distinguish the conscious intertextual phenomena, which are associated with the author’s intentions, from the unconscious intertextual, which can be described as merely verbal similarities. This distinction is hardly easy or simple, given the fact that either conscious or unconscious intertextual phenomena might well fulfil, in one way or another, the authorial intentions. In other words, intertextuality is a concept that presupposes not only a reader who is competent in recognising the intertextual phenomena, 50 Edmunds 2001, 134. Edmunds’ definition concerning the term “allusion” comes from Heinrich F. Plett (cf. Plett 1991). Plett 2010, 282 has argued that quotation is a text segment that is taken from a pre-text and inserted into a primary text. He also claims that the recognition of intertextual phenomena is closely associated with the literary expertise of the reader, thereby implying that a reader without such expertise is missing something. 51 Hubbard 1998, 14.

Chapter 1

12

but also a reader who would be competent in explaining the author’s literary purposes that these phenomena serve.52 This study aims to fulfil this goal because it is a literary commentary that also focuses on the notion of intertextuality and especially on the ways in which Greek and Roman sources are used in Vergil’s Eclogues.53 This goal is not easy due to the various intertextual relationships that can be identified in the collection. Following Edmunds’ terminology, I use the term “quotation” here rather than the more common “allusion”, “echo”, “reference”, “reminiscence” or “transformation” in order to describe

these

intertextual

phenomena.54

These

can

be

either

“conventional quotations” in the sense that they typically recall some earlier source, or “unconventional quotations” in the sense that they recall some earlier source in an unusual and unorthodox way. The “conventional quotations” could also be described as “direct quotations”, because the author recalls or refers to some earlier source in a direct way, thereby enabling even the unfamiliar reader to realise the source which he recalls. These “direct quotations” could be further divided into the following types or subcategories: i) “thematic quotations” that require a thematic relationship between model and imitation and are usually reinforced by

52

Broich 1985, 33 and 43 provides a catalogue of “intertextual markers” which may facilitate the reader’s ability to trace intertextual references. 53 Following the classical scholars mentioned above, this study also rejects the author’s intentionality and is entirely based on the text and the intertextual relationships therein, although the total abstraction of the author is rare in classical scholarship. For this reason, it should be mentioned that no action is ascribed to Vergil himself and I use the noun “Vergil” or the adjective “Vergilian” in order to refer to the Eclogues, while the noun “intention” is also associated with characters in the text (e.g. Thestylis’ intention) or with the adjective “Vergilian” (e.g. the Vergilian intention) referring to the pastoral collection and not to Vergil himself. 54 Edmunds 2001, 134

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

13

several structural, verbal or metrical correspondences;55 ii) “linguistic quotations”

that

deal

only

with

structural,

verbal

or

metrical

correspondences between model and imitation, either individually or in combination recalling a source, which, however, is now set in a completely different content and context; iii) “oppositio in imitando”56 or “correction”,57 which is a quotation where the author indicates his source, reversing, however, its concept; iv) “double quotation”, which is a technique according to which the author simultaneously recalls not only an earlier source but also its model, and where the author draws on those sources in terms of subject, structure, language or metre either individually or in combination, but also sets them in a new context; v) “multiple quotations” that follow the earlier subcategory in the sense that they recall several sources from which the author draws either subject, structure, language or metre individually or in combination, but places them in an entirely new situation; and vi) “self-quotations” that constitute quotations from the author’s own work.58 On the other hand, the “unconventional quotations” are quotations that are related to sources that are sometimes manipulated and used by Vergil in an unorthodox and unconventional way (Eclogues 4 and 6). Vergil’s dependence on tradition is here not based on any thematic or verbal relationship between text and intertext. It has to do with literary subjects, mythological references, structure, style, metre, language and mostly common elements between Vergilian text and its sources; hence, it becomes evident that Eclogues 4 and 6 do not contain

55 It is worth noting that the correspondences between model and imitation may also be, although quite rarely, etymological. 56 Giangrande 1967, 85-97. 57 Thomas 1986, 185. 58 Thomas 1986, 182f., who uses the term “self-reference”.

Chapter 1

14

quotations from the Greek and Roman tradition but only similarities and analogies. Before examining the sources that can be identified throughout the Vergilian collection, it will be useful to summarise briefly those Greek and Roman antecedents who have a strong influence on the collection. The summary attempted here includes the sources that have been regarded as Vergil’s main models (Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Meleager and pseudoMoschus) because we have them or substantial parts of them. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that much Greek and Roman literature (especially Neoteric sources (Gallus), whose influence on Vergil has long been recognised as fundamental) has been lost, a fact which allows us to assume that the Vergilian innovations found in the Eclogues may have had more precedent than we are aware.59 This attempt should begin with Theocritus, whose influence on the Vergilian collection is omnipresent. Nonetheless, before this summary, we should first try to give an answer to the following preliminary question: which Idylls were included in the Theocritean collection that was used by Vergil for the composition of the Eclogues? Thirty poems, twenty four epigrams and a figured composition (Syrinx) are the production that has come down to us under the name of Theocritus. Furthermore, there are a few fragments of another poetic composition,60 while five verses, which apparently derive from Theocritus’ Berenice, are cited by Athenaeus.61 The history of Theocritus’

59

Coleman 1977, 17. Gow I 1952, 236-237. 61 Cf. Athen. Deipn. 7.284 a-b QeÒkritoj d' Ð SurakÒsioj œn tÍ œpigrafom{nV BerenfkV tÕn leàkon ÑnomazÒmenon ecqÝn derÕn kalel di¦ toÚtwn· keh tij ¢n¾r aeteltai œpagrosÚnhn te kai Ôlbon,/ œx ¡lÕj ú zw›, t¦ d੻ dfktua kefnJ ¥rotra,/ sf£zwn ¢krÒnucoj taÚtV qeù derÕn ecqÚn,/ Ön leàkon 60

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

15

textual transmission is a complicated issue that raises several questions that are not easily or always answered by modern scholars. Wilamowitz long ago suggested that the Idylls were actually not published by Theocritus in a collected pastoral edition, arguing that they were first published separately. Later, they were gathered in a corpus, which also included other pastoral compositions (Moschus’ and Bion’s poems), by the grammarian Artemidorus of Tarsus,62 who flourished in Alexandria around the first half of the 1st c. BC.63 Gow agrees that Artemidorus’ collection was in all probability used by Vergil, criticising, however, Wilamowitz’s view on the grounds that a pastoral collection could not contain non-pastoral, either Theocritean or non-Theocritean, compositions. In other words, he suggests that Artemidorus’ corpus exclusively consisted of ten poems that were ascribed to Theocritus (Id. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11).64 Gutzwiller, on the other hand, fairly rejects Gow’s suggestion, observing that we could not specify the poetic compositions that Artemidorus’ edition included. She argues that Idylls 2 and 13 were respectively described as Theocritean pastoral compositions by Apollonius Rhodius’ scholiast and Aelian,65 thereby reinforcing the suggestion for the inclusion of non-pastoral Idylls in Artemidorus’ edition.66

kal{ousin, Ð g£r q' derètatoj ¥llwn,/ kaf ke lfna st›saito kai œxerÚsaito qal£sshj }mplea. See also Gow I 1952, 238-239. 62 On Artemidorus see, RE II 1896, 1331-1332 and Van Sickle 1976, 28-31. 63 Cf. Artemid. 26 Gow = A.P. 9.205 Boukolikai Molsai spor£dej pok£, nàn d' ¤ma p©sai/ œnti mi©j m£ndraj, œnti mi©j ¢g{laj. See also Wilamowitz 1905, iii-iv and ibid 1906, 102ff. On the possibility that Artemidorus’ collection further included non-Theocritean poetry, see also Gallavotti 1946, xiv. 64 Gow I 1952, lix-lxii. 65 Cf. schol Ap. Rh. Arg. 1.1236 QeÒkritoj œn tolj Boukolikolj œn tù “Ulv and Ael. NA 15.19 QeÒkritoj Ð tîn nomeutikîn paignfwn sunq{thj. 66 Gutzwiller 1996b, 123-124.

16

Chapter 1

These hypotheses are in fact the basis for Coleman’s, Clausen’s and Cucchiarelli’s commentaries. These commentators stress that Artemidorus’ edition, which consisted of ten poems attributed to Theocritus, the so-called pastoral Idylls (Idylls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11), was in all probability used by Vergil for the composition of the Eclogues.67 Nevertheless, a thorough examination of the Eclogues indicates that Vergil’s knowledge of the Theocritean collection in the form in which it has come down to us is much greater. My investigation reveals certain quotations that are also drawn from Idylls 2,68 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26, showing that Vergil was aware of these Idylls too. Thus, it enriches our knowledge about Vergil’s relationship to Theocritus to know that his knowledge was not exclusively restricted to the so-called pastoral Idylls. Therefore, three theories are possible concerning which Idylls were included in the Theocritean corpus that was used by Vergil for the composition of the Eclogues: first, Wilamowitz long ago held that the Idylls were actually not published by Theocritus in a collected pastoral edition, but that they were first published separately; second, there was a Theocritean corpus with pastoral Idylls (Idylls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11);69 and finally, there was a more comprehensive Theocritean collection.70 The first theory is the least probable, since it is not supported

67

Coleman 1977, 14 with n. 1 and Clausen 1994, xx with n. 25. It should be mentioned that both Coleman and Clausen lay emphasis Ƞn Vergil’s knowledge of the non-pastoral Idyll 2, which they explain by its Catullan translation, already attested from antiquity (cf. Plin. NH 28.19 hinc Theocriti apud Graecos, Catulli apud nos proximeque Vergilii incantamentorum amatoria imitatio) but now lost to us. 69 The existence of a Theocritean collection consisting of Idylls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 was suggested by Gow I 1952, lxi with n. 1. 70 Wilamowitz 1905, iii-v with n. 3 further suggested that Artemidorus incorporated the Idylls into a comprehensive edition of pastoral poetry which consisted of Idylls 1-18, 22, 24, 26, and 30. See also Wilamowitz 1906, 102ff. 68

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

17

by the so-called Artemidorus epigram that confirms the existence of a pastoral collection. The validity of the second theory, on the other hand, is reinforced by ancient evidence (Artemidorus’ epigram), but it fails to explain the non-pastoral Idylls that can be identified in the Eclogues. There remains the third theory, which is the most probable not only because it satisfies the aforementioned requirements but also because it can explain why the Vergilian collection contains pastoral and non-pastoral literary pieces.71 However, Vergil’s dependence on Greek pastoral is not related only to Theocritus. Moschus, Bion and the anonymous author of the Lament for Bion are equally crucial. Moschus’ surviving work includes Europa, ”Erwj drap{thj and four passages from a collection entitled boukolik£72 by Stobaeus and composed in Doric hexameters. These are compositions of which only the first justifies the title boukolik£. Bion’s work consists of the Lament for Adonis and seventeen fragments which range from one to eighteen lines, also written in Doric hexameters; both the Doric dialect and dactylic hexameter confirm Moschus’ and Bion’s status in the canon of pastoral poets,73 explaining the title given to the anthologised fragments.74 Finally, the Lament for Bion is a Hellenistic 71

It is worth mentioning that the manuscript tradition for Theocritus’ poetry is unusually complex. Therefore, the early history of the circulation of the Theocritean compositions constitutes a subject which cannot be the object of a detailed examination here, where the scope is to examine which Idylls were available to Vergil during the composition of the Eclogues. See Gutzwiller 1996b, 119-148. 72 Cf. Stob. 4.17.19'Ek tîn MÒscou Boukolikîn. See also Stob. 4.20a.29, 4.20b.55. 73 Cf. Suid. s.v. QeÒkritoj. est{on d੻ Óti trelj gegÒnasi Boukolikîn œpîn poihtaf, QeÒkritoj oØtosf, MÒscoj Sikelièthj kai Bfwn Ð Smurnaloj, }k tinoj cwridfou kaloum{nou Flèsshj. 74 Cf. Stob. 1.5.7 'Ek tîn Bfwnoj Boukolikîn. See also Stob. 1.8.39, 1.9.3, 3.29.52, 4.1.8, 4.16.14, 4.20a.7, 4.20a.26, 4.20b.57, 4.21a.3 and 4.46.17.

18

Chapter 1

epitaph that was composed by an anonymous Greek poet who claims to be an Italian pupil of Bion (Epit. Bion. 93-97). The Lament for Bion shows very close parallels to the Lament for Adonis and to several Theocritean Idylls, among which Idyll 1 rightly has the dominant place. Quotations in the Eclogues from Moschus’ and Bion’s poetic fragments are notably scattered and sporadic, but are enough to show that Vergil was aware of them. Nevertheless, of far greater importance are the Laments, not only because Vergil composes a pastoral lament (Eclogue 5), but because especially the Lament for Adonis is an inspirational source whose influence on Roman literature has long been noticed by modern scholars.75 On the contrary, Vergil’s dependence on the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition is less complicated. Meleager’s Garland was compiled around the beginning of the 1st c. BC. However, its exact date is indeed hard to define. Beckby and Webster place the collection near the end of the first half of the 1st century, in 70 or 60 BC.76 Gow and Page place the publication of Meleager’s anthology between Antipater of Sidon’s death77 and the publication of Philodemus’ epigrams (around 80 BC). They considered the initial years of the 1st century as the most plausible date of publication, based on the lemmatist (1 G-P = A.P. 4.1) who set Meleager’s floruit in the reign of Seleucus VI Epiphanes Nicator (96-95 BC).78 Cameron, though, dates the Garland to between 102 and 90 BC,79 following Day’s suggestion that the Garland came to Rome along

75

Reed 1997, 60f. with further references. Beckby I 1957-1958, 63 and Webster 1964, 208. 77 They place it around 125 BC but it seems possible for it to be later, even around 90 BC or later. See Gutzwiller 1998, 236 n. 20. 78 Gow-Page I 1965, xiv-xvii and esp. xvi. 79 Cameron 1993, 49-56 observes a series of notable parallels between the erotic epigrams of the Garland and some early Latin epigrams written by Valerius Aedituus, Porcius Licinus and Q. Lutatius Catulus (cf. Gel. 19.9.10-14). 76

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

19

with the poet Archias.80 Finally, Ross significantly deviates from this last assumption, a fact which confirms the general disagreement on the exact publication date of Meleager’s anthology.81 Despite the lack of scholarly consensus, Meleager’s Garland was actually in circulation at Rome from around the beginning of the 1st c. BC and was thus available for consultation by any educated Roman of that period. Nevertheless, Vergil’s relationship with the Greek tradition is certainly not restricted to these sources. It also extends to any Greek and/or Roman source that can be identified in the collection and is used in order to serve the Vergilian literary goals either in each Eclogue in particular or in the whole corpus in general. This is the main aim of this study that consists of twelve chapters, ten of which analyse a separate Eclogue. Each of these chapters begins with an introductory section that provides the reader with a brief summary of the poem along with Coleman’s, Clausen’s and Cucchiarelli’s views on the sources used by Vergil in each Eclogue. The sources identified by these commentators come from the brief synopsis which they set after and before the analysis of each Eclogue.82 Coleman, Clausen and Cucchiarelli trace further sources cited in the analysis of each Eclogue, which, however, because they are included in commentaries alone, are discussed only briefly. Through line by line analyses, these scholars provide the sources on which the Vergilian text may be based. However, due to the commentary format, they do not supply the reader with the thematic, structural and verbal correspondences between the Vergilian text and its source(s)83 and, most 80

Day 1984, 104. Ross 1969, 143. 82 Coleman 1977, 89-91 and Clausen 1994, 29-33. 83 Though not always, since there are cases where such thematic, structural, metrical and verbal correspondences are noticed by these commentators. 81

20

Chapter 1

importantly, they do not supply the reader with a further discussion concerning the literary goals that Vergil’s dependence on those sources serves. These limitations are overcome by this monograph, which is a literary commentary where the reader can find the Greek and Roman sources used by Vergil along with thorough discussions on the role that these sources play and their relative importance, first for the composition of each Eclogue and second for that of the whole collection. In other words, Coleman, Clausen and Cucchiarelli recognise sources with primary and secondary significance, whereas this book evaluates the importance of the combination of Greek and Roman sources, stressing the importance that the understanding of this intertextual texture has for the interpretation of each individual poem and the collection as a whole. This significance of the sources apparently emerges through the line by line analysis of each Eclogue. Here, there is the examination of the relationship between the Greek and/or Roman source(s) and the Vergilian text in terms of subject, a relationship further reinforced by structural, metrical and verbal correspondences. This relationship to earlier Greek and Roman literature can also be concerned with those matters, thereby confirming that the Vergilian interest is not only in the subject but in any aspect of the original text. This can explain Vergil’s combined dependence on more than one source or on sources that are sometimes recalled for their symbolic significance (e.g. Callimachus) as well, and it can further justify the Vergilian alterations used in order to transform the original Greek or Roman text into an entirely new composition. However, this blending of Greek and Roman sources in the Eclogues cannot be merely identified with the typical way in which Roman literature was written in the 1st c. BC, as it is also a dynamic literary method used to define the

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

21

character of each individual poem separately and of the entire collection generally. Eclogue 1 shows the combination between Greek and Roman sources which can also, either implicitly or explicitly, betray literary models, subjects and techniques that can be identified throughout the collection; hence, it can rightly be considered as a programmatic literary composition. Eclogue 2 is a country komos because Vergil transfers the urban komos into an Italian country environment. This is confirmed by the Eclogue’s subject (Corydon’s unresponsive love for Alexis), by its main characters (the country character Corydon and the urban character Alexis) and by its narrative introduction (Ecl. 2.1-5), where the basic elements that the ancient readers recognised in this category can be traced into a country environment; most emphatically, however, the komastic character of the Eclogue also becomes evident from the Greek and Roman sources and especially from the way in which they are handled by Vergil in order to create this genre. Eclogue 3 constitutes the first Latin singing contest, and even though it is based mostly on Greek sources (Theocritean and postTheocritean pastoral where song contests abound), they are combined with other Roman sources or are manipulated in such a way as to stress or signify the emergence of the Roman character of the contest. Vergil’s dependence on the Greek and Roman tradition is also evident and thorough throughout Eclogue 4, which is concerned with a mysterious child whose birth coincides with the coming of the Golden Age. Nonetheless, the way in which this tradition is handled here is unconventional, and the Greek and Roman sources identified here are not based on thematic or verbal relationships between the Vergilian text and intertext. In other words, Eclogue 4 does not contain Vergil’s quotations from earlier traditions but similarities or analogies used in this

22

Chapter 1

unconventional way in order to generate a Roman pastoral encomium for the mysterious puer. Eclogue 5 constitutes an atypical singing contest between two Roman herdsmen who exchange songs in a friendly way on Daphnis’ death and deification, respectively based on Greek (Mopsus’ lament) and Roman (Menalcas’ encomium) sources, and therefore it is a Roman pastoral lament-encomium for this archetypical country singer. Eclogue 6 combines Greek and Roman sources that reflect typical Hellenistic characteristics that were later followed by the Neoterics and thus constitutes a Hellenistic-Neoteric literary composition. Nevertheless, the way in which the sources are handled and used here is very similar to that used in Eclogue 4, thereby confirming that there is no thematic or verbal relationship between Vergilian text and intertext. Vergil’s relationship to the earlier tradition deals only with literary subjects, mythological references, structure, style, metre, language and mostly common elements, and thus Eclogue 6 does not contain Vergil’s quotations from Greek and Roman literature but only similarities and analogies. Eclogue 7 is not yet another typical song contest that comes after Eclogue 3, but a “literary battle” between Roman herdsmen, who rival against each other in order to demonstrate their learning on the Greek tradition. Hence, Vergil’s dependence on Greek literature is here almost exhaustive, and the Greek and Roman sources identified in the Eclogue supply the Vergilian text with literary characters, motifs, subjects, structure, language and metre and, most importantly, constitute the agonistic element that defines the winner of the singing contest. Eclogue 8 is yet another atypical singing competition where the Greek and Roman sources identified combine pastoral and non-pastoral elements, which are used by Vergil in order to create an urban pastoral composition. Eclogue 9 deals with the threatened Vergilian (Roman) pastoral world that is in

Introduction: Intertextuality and Vergil’s Eclogues

23

emphatic contrast with its main source, the Theocritean Thalysia (Idyll 7), which is concerned with the secure Theocritean (Greek) pastoral world; as a result, Eclogue 9 could be considered as the Roman Thalysia, evidenced from the Greek sources (mostly Idyll 7) combined with self-quotations to the Vergilian collection (Ecl. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8), which is the Roman source traced in the Eclogue. Finally, Eclogue 10 is an encomium for the elegist Caius Cornelius Gallus and, in that sense, it may recall the other encomiastic references to literary characters that run through the Vergilian collection (Ecl. 3, 4, 5 and 6). Vergil’s encomium for Gallus emerges through the Greek and Roman sources used to strengthen the Eclogue’s encomiastic character, but most significantly through traditional elegiac subjects and themes that can be identified throughout the Eclogue and could be implied or extensively treated in Gallus’ Amores. Therefore, each Eclogue combines Greek and Roman sources that affect and define its own character, shedding new light on the ways in which we could read and interpret each poem and the whole collection. In other words, this book is not merely a synopsis of the Greek and Roman sources identified in the collection; rather, it is a literary commentary that indicates how the Greek and Roman sources were handled and used by Vergil in order to create Roman pastoral that overcomes its subjection to Greek precedent and expands the limits of the genre. Such an attempt, however, is hardly easy, given that the great number of sources that can be identified in the collection tends to blur the understanding of the prospective reader; for that reason, subheadings have been introduced in the left margin of the book in order to indicate the line

24

Chapter 1

or lines which each paragraph discusses.84 The analysis section of each Eclogue ends with concluding paragraphs explaining the purposes that the Greek and Roman sources serve. Finally, this study comes to its end with a concluding chapter that brings together the findings on the Greek and Roman sources and especially the ways they are used in the collection.

84 It should be mentioned that the lines which the subheadings denote are usually referred to in more than one paragraph, while sometimes the subheadings contain the name of the literary predecessor on which the Vergilian verse(s) is/are based or the subject which the paragraph examines.

CHAPTER 2 ECLOGUE 1* Vergil’s dependence on the Greco-Roman literature is evident from Eclogue 1. Its subject is concerned with the meeting between the Roman herdsmen Meliboeus and Tityrus, who used to enjoy a similar way of life but whose destinies are now diametrically opposed due to the harsh historical reality of the land confiscations.85 Eclogue 1 takes the form of a dialogue through which each of the herdsmen reveals his personal situation from the beginning to the end. Meliboeus is forced to leave his

* Hanslik 1955, 5-19 is concerned with Vergil’s dependence on Hesiod. Putnam 1975, 163-186 finds Lucretian elements in the Eclogue. Van Sickle 1975, 45-72 stresses Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus (Idylls 1 and 7). Du Quesnay 1981, 29-182 thoroughly examines the Eclogue, underlining Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus (Idylls 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 17). Wright 1983, 107-160 deals with Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus and Callimachus; Breed 2000b, 3-20 suggests that Ecl. 1.1-5 are based on Id. 1.3-6 and DRN 5.1379-1398. Van Sickle 2000, 21-58 is also concerned with Ecl. 1.1-5, claiming that Vergil may recall Homer, Plato, Theocritus, Cicero and Lucretius. Hardie 2006, 276-300 thoroughly examines Lucretius’ influence over Vergil’s Eclogues. Roche 2014, 450-453 suggests that Verg. Ecl. 1.55 is based on Meleag. 12 G-P = AP 7.195. Cairns 2015, 27-38 argues that Ecl. 1.34 may recall Callim. Aet. fr. 1.23-24 and more recently Kayachev 2016, 796-799 argues that Ecl. 1.3-4 are closely associated with Tyrtaeus (fr. 5, 10.1-6 and 10.7-10 West). 85 After the battle of Philippi in 42 BC between Mark Antony and Octavian on the one side and Brutus and Cassius on the other (Julius Caesar’s assassins), the two victorious triumvirs divided the political and military tasks (cf. e.g. App. BC 5.1 and Dio Cass. 48.1-2). Mark Antony remained in the east preparing the army for war against the Parthians in an effort to reorganise the eastern part of the empire. On the other hand, Octavian returned to Italy with the hard task of finding sufficient land on which to settle a large number of veterans. As a result, large regions of land were confiscated throughout Italy and were given as a reward to the soldiers of the victorious triumvirs for their good services.

Chapter 2

26

land and travel into exile, while Tityrus is allowed to remain on his farm enjoying the rustic leisure. Scholars have been concerned with various interpretative questions of the Eclogue (e.g. Tityrus and Meliboeus, the Eclogue’s date, Tityrus’ farm, the land confiscations, Octavian, etc.),86 including its sources. Coleman suggests that there is little Theocritus in the Eclogue (except for Idyll 7);87 Clausen shares almost the same view and emphasises Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 1,88 a suggestion that is also followed by Cucchiarelli, who recognises Vergil’s indebtedness to Theocritus, further claiming that Daphnis’ death (i.e. Idyll 1) is replaced by Vergil with the exile of Meliboeus (i.e. Eclogue 1), who is also a significant pastoral singer.89 Eclogue 1 shows the combination between Greek and Roman sources which can also, either implicitly or explicitly, betray literary models, subjects and techniques that can be identified throughout the collection, thereby reflecting the Vergilian intention to begin the collection with an Eclogue where his literary programme is either explicitly or implicitly announced. [Line 1] Tityrus

The first word of the Eclogue (i.e. Tityre)90 introduces the reader

to the world of Theocritean pastoral, where the name Tityrus is found twice (Id. 3.2-4 and 7.72-82); this is a notable place in the Eclogue that also stresses Vergil’s relationship to Theocritus. However, this relationship is not based on a simple translation of the original. The extensive use that

86 See e.g. Cucchiarelli 2012, 135 with an exhaustive bibliography on the several subjects that scholars have examined in Eclogue 1. 87 Coleman 1977, 89-91. 88 Clausen 1994, 29-33. 89 Cucchiarelli 2012, 133-134. 90 On the proper names in the first line of each Eclogue, see Clausen 1994, 33-34 who is based on Hubaux 1927, 603-616.

Eclogue 1

27

the name Tityrus receives in the Eclogues91 shows that the Vergilian intention is to modify and develop the use of the Theocritean pastoral names.92 Therefore, the occurrence of the name Tityrus in the most notable position of the collection is far from accidental. It enables Vergil to announce his dependence on the Theocritean collection (Idylls), but it also underlines that the Vergilian collection is different from the Theocritean, because of the extensive use that the Theocritean names receive in the Eclogues. In other words, the name Tityrus establishes the norm of the pastoral convention against which the significance of the Vergilian alterations and variations can be read. [Lines 1-4] Theocritus

However, the sound of the name Tityrus indicates that it is also

chosen for another purpose.93 The word Tityre enables Vergil to begin his

91

Cf. Ecl. 1.4, 13, 18, 38, 3.20, 96, 5.12, 6.4, 8.55 and 9.23-24. Two notable examples are the name Amaryllis that is identified ten times in the Eclogues (Ecl. 1.5, 30, 36, 2.14, 52, 3.81, 8.77-78, 101 and 9.22) and only five in the Idylls (Id. 3.1, 6, 22, 4.36 and 38) along with the name Corydon that is found eleven times in Vergil (Ecl. 2.1, 56, 65, 69, 5.86, 7.2-3, 16, 20, 40 and 70) but only four in Theocritus (Id. 4.1, 50, 58 and 5.6). See Clausen 1994, 33. 93 The case of the definition of Tfturojhas caused serious difficulties for scholars even from antiquity, since it is associated with several different meanings: i) aÙlÒj (Ath. Deipn. 4.176c, 4.182c; Hesych. s.v. tfturoj; Eust. Il. 18.495 and schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2a). Moreover, Appian (Pun. 66) refers to the word titurist›j with the meaning of a musician (cf. also Ath. Deipn. 4.176c-d), ii) priests (Str. 10.3.7 and schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2a), iii) Satyrs and Sileni, (Str. 10.3.10, 10.3.15; Ael. VH 3.40; Hesych. s.v. tfturoj and Eust. ad Il. 18.495 who observes that Tfturoj is the same with S£turoj in Italian (i.e. Doric) dialect (cf. also schol. Theoc. Id. 7.72c). In addition, schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2a remarks that Tfturoj is the name that the people of Sicily attribute to Sileni, while others use the same name for the Satyrs (cf. also schol. Theoc. Id. 7.72d) iv) male goats (Serv. Ecl. prooem. 1; schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2a and 3.2c), v) apes (Theophr. Char. 5.9), vi) birds (Hesych. s.v. tfturoj). Finally, Tityrus is connected to the name of a person (Suid. s.v. 'Epfcarmojand IG 9.2 638), of a goatherd (schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2c and 7.72c) and of a mountain (Str. 10.4.12), whereas in schol. Theoc. Id. 3.2a the name is related to the name of a Cretan city. See Lipka 2001, 182-183 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 136137. 92

Chapter 2

28

pastoral collection with a sound correspondence from Idyll 1,94 recalling its generated sound:95 Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena nos patriae finis et dulcia linquimus arua. nos patriam fugimus (Ecl. 1.1-4)

`AdÚ ti tÕ yiqÚrisma kai ¡ pftuj, aepÒle, t›na, ¡ poti talj pagalsi, melfsdetai, ¡dÝ d੻ kai tÚ surfsdej (Id. 1.1-3)

The alliteration of the consonant t and the assonance of the i and u vowels that are common in the first syllables of the Theocritean and Vergilian passages (Tityre, tu-`AdÚ ti tÕ) catch our attention. They are repeated in the next lines, where the Greek sound is reproduced in the Roman passage (tÚ ... tÚ ... te; teÕn ... tÚ ... tÚ Id. 1.1-11 and tu … nos … nos … tu … nobis … mihi … nostris … meas; Ecl. 1.1-10).96 However, Vergil uses the personal pronoun tu in order to specify the character (Tityrus) whose stance causes an emphatic opposition between the two rustics. This is a contrast that also emerges in the next verses through the chiastic arrangement tu (1) ... nos (3), nos (4) ... tu (4), the repetition of the name (Tityre, tu-tu, Tityre) and the use of more personal and possessive 94

On this term see, Wills 1996, 19 with n. 12. Skutsch 1956, 193-201 and esp. 199-201, Pöschl 1964, 9-11, Wright 1983, 108, Schmidt 1987, 29-36 and Hubbard 1998, 48f. See also Id. 7.88-89 tÝ d' ØpÕ drusin À ØpÕ peÚkaij/ ¡dÝ melisdÒmenoj katek{kliso, qele Kom©ta. 96 Hunter 2006b, 116. 95

Eclogue 1

29

pronouns (nos, nobis, mihi, nostris, meas). Moreover, the vocatives aepÒle and ð poim›n, which underline the country tasks of the herdsmen, are replaced with Tityre and O Meliboee that constitute the main characters of the Eclogue. Thus, Vergil transfers the reader’s attention to the herdsmen on whose antithetical characters and dialogue the Eclogue is based and away from the pastoral landscape, which in this Eclogue is in great danger and therefore unable to generate music. In other words, the casual meeting of two herdsmen in the country (Idyll 1)97 and the subsequent amoebaean song contest that creates pastoral music and song is adapted to the contemporary historical circumstances that run through Eclogue 1 (i.e. the land confiscations). The Theocritean sweet sound found in the goatherd’s song is replaced through suitable alterations with the bitter tone that Meliboeus’ eloquent distress expresses (cf. nos patriae finis et dulcia linquimus arua./ nos patriam fugimus-`AdÚ ti tÕ yiqÚrisma...¡dÝ d੻ kai tÚ/ surfsdej).98 Therefore, Vergil’s close dependence on Theocritus, already implied through the name Tityrus, is not expected to be merely an exercise of slavish copying (i.e. imitatio); in cȠntrast, it is rather a method that involves subtle quotations and variations in order to surpass the Greek original (i.e. aemulatio).

97 The Theocritean poems included in the collected edition, which seems to have been available to Vergil during the composition of the Eclogues, are arranged randomly. On the other hand, the primacy of Idyll 1 agrees with all three manuscript families (Laurentian, Ambrosian and Vatican) including also the posterior papyrus of Antinoe (c. 500 AD). See also Gow I 1952, lxvi-lxix. Despite the uncertainty around the collection of Theocritus’ poetry that had been used by Vergil and Theocritus’ readership, it is clear enough that they consider Idyll 1 both introductory and programmatic. See Cairns 1984, 89-113, Gutzwiller 1996b, 124128 and Hunter 1999, 60-61. 98 Cuchiarelli 2012, 140. Pace Kayachev 2016, who argues that Ecl. 1.3-4 draw on Tyrtaeus (fr. 5, 10.1-6 and 10.7-10 West).

30 [Lines 1-4] Theocritus Lucretius

Chapter 2

Nonetheless, the common elements of the Vergilian and the

Theocritean passages are more than merely verbal. Idyll 1 begins with a pastoral metaphor, according to which nature is described as creating music and therefore constitutes an inspiration source for the goatherd’s song (cf. Id. 1.1-3). The same metaphor is also used by Lucretius, who deals with the origins of human music:99 At liquidas auium uoces imitarier ore ante fuit multo quam leuia carmina cantu concelebrare homines possent aurisque iuuare. et zephyri caua per calamorum sibila primum agrestis docuere cauas inflare cicutas (DRN 5.1379-1383)

Ecl. 1.1-2 are obviously based on that metaphor, but they have been entirely altered. Vergil reverses their concept by transferring the act of singing from nature to the herdsman. The human character is now credited with the task of the creative process of pastoral song by making music and singing (siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena Ecl. 1.2), whilst nature listens and is taught by the herdsman’s musical performance (tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra/ formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas Ecl. 1.4-5). This Vergilian deviation from the Theocritean and Lucretian source is not accidental; on the contrary, it illustrates that Vergil’s Eclogues will be an original pastoral collection that will creatively use and combine rather than merely imitate the earlier Greek (i.e. Theocritus’ Idylls) and Roman (i.e. Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura) tradition.

99

Damon 1961, 281. See also DRN 5.1379-1387.

Eclogue 1 [Lines 1-4] Theocritus

31

The Vergilian tendency to recall more than one source constitutes

a typical feature100 that is first confirmed by all the sources that can be identified in Ecl. 1.1-2. These verses describe a scene where the herdsman Tityrus enjoys rustic leisure, thereby recalling Idyll 7 where the herdsman Comatas is found in a very similar state:101 Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena (Ecl. 1.1-2)

ð makarist Kom©ta, tÚ qhn t£de terpn¦ pepÒnqeij kai tÝ katekl®sqhj œj l£rnaka, kai tÝ meliss©n khrfa ferbÒmenoj }toj érion œxepÒnasaj. ahq' œp' œmeà zwolj œnarfqmioj êfelej Ãmen, éj toi œgën œnÒmeuon ¢n' êrea t¦j kal¦j aੇgaj fwn©j eesaǸwn, tÝ d' ØpÕ drusin À ØpÕ peÚkaij ¡dÝ melisdÒmenoj katek{kliso, qele Kom©ta (Id. 7.88-89)

Tityrus and Comatas are found singing under the shade of a tree, recalling the typical pastoral image of the herdsman who is seated at ease under a tree singing or piping.102 This image is closely associated with the locus amoenus subject, whose origin can be traced in the earlier Greek

100

See for instance Vergil’s densely allusive account of the celestial and terrestrial zones (i.e. G. 1.231-1258) that shows the influence of seven antecedents ranging from Homer to Varro of Atax. See Thomas 1986, 195-198, Thomas 1988, 107-112 and Mynors 1990, 53-58. 101 Clausen 1994, 34 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 137. 102 Cf. Theoc. Id. 1.12-14, 21, 5.31-32, 6.3-4, 8f. and 11.17-18; [Mosch.] Epit. Bion. 21. See also Longus 1.13.4.

32

Chapter 2

literature and then in that of the Hellenistic and Augustan Age.103 Nevertheless, the emotional interplay between man and nature that creates poetry was first employed by Theocritus, who bequeathed it to Bion and Moschus before it was finally received by Vergil, who used it extensively throughout the Eclogues.104 Hence, œxepÒnasaj that shows not only Comatas’ literal but also literary “labour”105 can be related to meditaris that displays Tityrus’ meditation for the creation of poetry.106 Moreover, the shade and ease (umbra and otium) that are typical elements of the Vergilian visual imagery107 can also be found in the Theocritean original. However, Comatas’ song is emphatically set in the secure Theocritean locus amoenus, while Tityrus is described singing carefree in the vulnerable Vergilian locus amoenus that is now threatened by the political turmoil caused by the land confiscations. Therefore, the relationship between Ecl. 1.1-2 and Id. 7.85-89 is not based on the same content or situation in which the rustics Comatas and Tityrus are engaged; rather, it is based on the locus amoenus subject, which Vergil stresses will be entirely different from the Theocritean (Greek), namely, Vergilian (Roman). This suggestion is reflected in the examination of the verbal correspondences recubans-katek{kliso, meditaris-melisdÒmenoj and sub tegmine fagi103

Cf. Hom. Od. 5.63-74, 7.112-131 and 9.132-141; Hes. Op. 588-596; Plat. Phdr. 229a-b, 230b-c; Soph. OC 14-20, 668ff.; Anyt. 3 G-P = A.Pl. 291, 16 G-P = A.P. 9.313, 17 G-P = A.P. 9.314, 18 G-P = A.Pl. 228 = 16.228 and Leon. 3 G-P = A.P. 6.334. 104 Cf. e.g. Ecl. 3.55-59, 5.1-7 and 7.1ff. The same motif is also commonplace in the post-Theocritean pastoral and especially in the anonymous Lament for Bion, where the main character reclines and sings in a context of pastoral otium and music-making that is very similar to Tityrus’ situation (cf. Epit. Bion. 20-21 kelnoj Ð talj ¢g{laisin œr£smioj oÙk{ti m{lpei,/ oÙk{t' œrhmafaisin ØpÕ drusin ¼menoj °dei). 105 Hunter 1999, 177 and Hatzikosta 2005, 253. 106 OLD s.v. meditor 1 with examples. 107 Smith 1965, 298 and Henkel 2009, 162. On a brief summary of the parts that compose this visual imagery, see Smith 1965, 298-299 and Benedetto 1938, 69-70.

Eclogue 1

33

ØpÕ drusin that fail to reaffirm the thematic similarity between the Vergilian and the Theocritean lines under examination. What is more, the grammatical forms of recubans-katek{kliso (participle-verb) and meditaris-melisdÒmenoj (verb-participle) are not the same; meditaris recalls melisdÒmenoj only when it is associated with Musa (Ecl. 1.2), which is absent from the Theocritean passage; the tree fagus reflects rather than translates the tree dràj; finally, the terms sub tegmine patulae fagi, siluestrem Musam, and tenui auena do not come from this Theocritean passage. [Lines 1-4] Meleager

These terms (excluding fagi and tenui auena) can be found in a

Meleagrian epigram that Vergil also recalls in Ecl. 1.1-2:108 'Ac›eij t{ttix, droseralj stagÒnessi mequsqeij ¢gronÒman m{lpeij moàsan œrhmol£lon· ¥kra d' œfezÒmenoj pet£loij prionèdesi kèloij aeqfopi kl£zeij crwti m{lisma lÚraj. ¢ll£, ffloj, fq{ggou ti n{on dendrèdesi NÚmfaij pafgnion, ¢ntJdÕn Pani kr{kwn k{ladon, Ôfra fugën tÕn ”Erwta meshmbrinÕn Ûpnon ¢greÚsw œnq£d' ØpÕ skierÍ keklim{noj plat£nJ (13 G-P = A.P. 7.196)

Both Vergil and Meleager describe a rustic figure who is seated under a shady tree. This common element is the first evidence of Vergil’s dependence on Meleager, further reinforced with the verbal correspondences recubans-keklim{noj and sub tegmine fagi-ØpÕ skierÍ plat£nJ. More specifically, the preposition sub recalls the Greek cognate ØpÕ, while

108

Clausen 1994, 35 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 139.

34

Chapter 2

tegmine, dealing with any sort of covering or protection of the body,109 in that sense is closer to the meaning of the adjective skierÍ. However, although the Vergilian (Ecl. 1.1-2) and Meleagrian lines (A.P. 7.196.7-8) lay special emphasis on the shade that both trees supply for the country character, fagus corresponds to a different tree and therefore it cannot translate pl£tanoj. Moreover, siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena is found in the same position, uses the same person (i.e. the second singular) and also has the adjective in the same place (i.e. at the beginning of the line) as the ¢gronÒman m{lpeij moàsan. Nonetheless, although the adjectives siluestrem and ¢gronÒman show a rustic setting, siluestrem (i.e. “sylvan”), which strongly emphasises the sylvan Vergilian landscape that is closely associated with the pastoral life and song,110 cannot recall ¢gronÒman. Finally, meditaris (“to contemplate”)111 can only translate m{lpeij (i.e. “to sing”), given that meditor can also be related to the verb meletî 112 and the typical metonymy of Muse for music113 (cf. the verbal correspondences Musam-moàsan) to mean “to exercise”.114 Thus, the herdsman Tityrus is seated under a shady tree exercising and singing

109 OLD s.v. tegimen (tegum-, tegm-) with examples. See also Verg. A. 1.275, 323, 3.594, 7.632, 666, 742, 9.518, 577, 10.476, 887, 11.576 and 777. The word tegmen is not different from tegimen in terms of style and its occurrence is due to metrical reasons. Perrot 1961, 120 associates a group of formations in -men with a common use, according to which these words are often connected with agriculture, breeding and the products of the practical activity or, more generally, with the rustic life. Notable exceptions to this group are culmen and tegmen, on which, see Lipka 2001, 17. 110 Cf. Ecl. 1.5, 2.4-5, 3.56-57, 5.1-7 and 10.8. 111 OLD s.v. meditor 1 with examples. 112 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 1.2 meditaris quod Graeci meletî dicunt, per antistoechon “meditor” dixerunt Latini. 113 OLD s.v. Musa 2a, 2b with examples. See also Ecl. 6.8 agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam. 114 OLD s.v. meditor 7. Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 6.8, 82-83; [Tib.] 3.4.71; Ov. Pont. 3.4.45-46.

Eclogue 1

35

(meditaris) the sylvan Muse (siluestrem Musam)115 that is pastoral music and poetry.116 In other words, the Meleagrian country character, who is only playing music under a shady tree, is replaced by the Vergilian Tityrus who creates pastoral music-poetry. [Lines 1-4] Lucretius

Nonetheless, Theocritus and Meleager are not the only sources

traced in Ecl. 1.1-2, since there are still certain terms in these lines that have come from elsewhere. Theocritus (Id. 1.1-3 and Id. 7.85-89) and Meleager (A.P. 7.196) are not the sources for sub tegmine fagi, whose metaphorical use had already been attested in Roman literature. Sub tegmine is first found in Cicero (cf. sub tegmine caeli Arat. fr. 34.47)117 from where it should have reached Lucretius, who uses it three times with variations.118 The second time is concerned with Lucretius’ suggestion that nothing is composed only of a single kind of atom, using examples drawn from the natural environment:119 Saepe itaque ex uno tondentes gramina campo lanigerae pecudes et equorum duellica proles buceriaeque greges eodem sub tegmine caeli ex unoque sitim sedantes flumine aquai (DRN 2.660-663)

115

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 1.2 siluestrem musam id est rusticum carmen. Cf. Schmidt 1972b, 108 who, observing that the Vergilian collection is always concerned with herdsmen-singers, reaches the final conclusion that the Eclogues are “Dichtung über Dichtung”. See also Davis 2012, 10-11. 117 See also Cic. Arat. fr. 34.233 caeli sub tegmine, 34.239 caeli sub tegmine and 34.346 caeli de tegmine with Clausen 1994, 34-35. Moreover, it should be mentioned that the phrase does not correspond to any equivalent phrase of Aratus’ Phaenomena (for a different view see Fedeli 1972, 275), which reinforces the suggestion of Guendel 1907, 54-55 who argues that this expression comes from Ennius. 118 Cf. Lucr. DRN 1.988 sub caeli tegmine, 2.662 sub tegmine caeli and 5.1016 caeli sub tegmine. 119 Clausen 1994, 34, Giesecke 2000, 47-48 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 138. See also DRN 2.581ff. 116

36

Chapter 2

Lucretius describes the pleasures (i.e. gramen and aqua) that the animals enjoy under the open sky, calm and relieved from the customary country life (i.e. labour). He stresses their physical condition that resembles Tityrus’ situation in Ecl. 1.1-2. There, Vergil lays special emphasis on the herdsman’s ease, who is seated under a shady beech tree, calm and secure from the chaos caused by the land confiscations; even the verbal structure of those lines is suggestive of Tityrus’ natural shelter. The terms patulae and fagi frame the recubans120 herdsman and, along with tegmen and its quasi-military overtones,121 figuratively create a shady “shield” for Tityrus. Although the themes of the Vergilian and Lucretian passages above are very different, their common element is the physical safety that sub tegmine provides and under which the animals and the herdsman enjoy their delights. Vergil’s dependence on Lucretian vocabulary in Ecl. 1.1-2 can also be confirmed by the adjective patulae that is regularly used to denote spreading trees (i.e. fagi),122 although it can also be used to denote the open space, recalling Lucretius, who uses the adjective with that meaning (cf. patuli super aequora mundi 6.108).123 Once again, it is quite clear that the Vergilian and Lucretian contexts are not the same. However, the meaning (i.e. “spreading”) with which the adjective is used by 120

For a similar use of the verb recubo see Cic. De Orat. 3.63 sed in hortulis quiescet suis, ubi uult,/ ubi etiam recubans molliter et delicate nos auocat a Rostris,/ a iudiciis, a curia, fortasse sapienter, hac praesertim re/ publica where, however, although recubo is associated with retreat from the public affairs that resembles Tityrus’ carefree condition, the Ciceronian passage does not result in the production of music. See also Prop. 3.3.1 molli recubans Heliconis in umbra that is modelled on this Vergilian line in terms of theme, structure and certain words (see Fedeli 1985, 116f.). 121 OLD s.v. tegimen (tegum-, tegm-) b and c with examples. 122 OLD s.v. patulus 2b. See also Var. R. 2.2.11 circiter meridianos aestus, dum defervescant, sub umbriferas rupes et arbores patulas subigiunt, quoad refrigeratur. 123 OLD s.v. patulus 2a. See also e.g. Calp. Ecl. 7.30 qualiter haec patulum concedit uallis in orbem.

Eclogue 1

37

Lucretius is the same as that which Meliboeus uses for the tree under which Tityrus is seated, confirming that the Vergilian intention is to recall the Lucretian language and not the content. This suggestion accords well with the programmatic overtones traced in Ecl. 1.1-2, since it can explain that Theocritus’ and Lucretius’ earlier juxtaposition shows not only the combination of Greek and Roman sources that runs through the Eclogues, but also how the sources will be used in the Vergilian collection that will be Greek (i.e. Theocritean) in subject and Roman (i.e. Lucretian) in language.124 [Lines 1-4] fagus

The last term that has not been examined yet in Ecl. 1.1 and can

further confirm Vergil’s dependence on the earlier tradition is the tree fagus (i.e. “beech”).125 Its choice caused great difficulties that are still a matter of discussion among scholars. Williams argues that fagus recalls the Theocritean (Id. 12.8-9) fhgÒj (i.e. “oak”),126 suggesting that Vergil’s erroneous identification can also explain its different meaning.127 Furthermore, he claims that the tree is usually associated with the country god Pan, recalling Nicander’s Georgica (cf. fhgoi PanÕj ¥galma fr. 69 Gow-Scholfield). In addition, he argues that the Roman poets used to identify the fagus with fhgÒj (cf. e.g. Prop. 1.18.19-22), also observing its overly rare occurrence in Roman literature (cf. Cat. 64.289ff., which is the only source before Vergil where the fagus can be identified).128 Kenney suggests that fagus shows Vergil’s erudition, which might be called 124

Giesecke 2000, 45. However, this suggestion should not cancel the fact that Vergil’s Eclogues can also contain philosophical ideas. See Davis 2012 who argues that there is an epicurean philosophical undercurrent that is related to the human felicity (i.e. eÙdaimonia) in the exchanges between the Vergilian singersherdsmen. 125 OLD s.v. fagus. See also e.g. RE III (1899) s.v. Buche. 126 LSJ s.v. fhgÒj. See also e.g. RE V (1905) s.v. Eiche. 127 Williams 1968, 318. 128 Williams 1968, 319.

Chapter 2

38

“learned catachresis”,129 and is followed by O’Hara who similarly claims that fagus is a “mistranslation” or “translation by homonym” of the Greek term fhgÒj,130 which has long been classified among the typical groups of Vergil’s etymological wordplay.131 O’Hara’s view was later adopted by Lipka, who considers that the tree fagus belongs to the Vergilian key words (i.e. siluae, formosus, etc.) and comes from the Theocritean collection (cf. Id. 12.8-9), thereby reflecting rather than translating the tree fhgÒj.132 Moreover, he claims that Vergil’s plants and fruits have a symbolic or poetic function, considering fagus as a notable example in order to show the pastoral setting par excellence.133 However, more recently, the same scholar has also examined Varro’s statement according to which fagus is identified with the trees that the Greeks call fhgoȪj;134 as a result, he has suggested that fagus has a double meaning, representing two different trees: the Greek “oak” and the Latin “beech”, given that fhgÒj denotes a Greek tree with no exact equivalent in the Latin language. Therefore, he concludes, any attempt by Varro and Vergil to refer to the beech tree should include the Greek term fhgÒj, which suggests that Vergil followed Varro’s terminology by taking fagus in its Greek rather than in its Roman sense.135 Nonetheless, the reason for which Vergil uses the tree fagus can also be explained by examining the context in which this term is found:

129

Kenney 1983, 50 with n. 23. See also Ecl. 8.58 omnia uel medium fiat mare, which is based on Id. 1.134 p£nta d' ¥nalla g{noito. 130 O’Hara 1996, 63 and 243f. 131 O’Hara 1996, 57-102. 132 Lipka 2001, 31 and 60. 133 Lipka 2001, 167f. 134 Cf. Var. fr. 1 = Charisius 1.130.8f. Barwick fagus quas Graece fhgoÚj uocant. 135 Lipka 2002, 133.

Eclogue 1

39

Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena; nos patriae finis et dulcia linquimus arua. nos patriam fugimus; tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas (Ecl. 1.1-5)

Tityrus’ song deals with Amaryllis’ beauty, which in that sense shows a love context. The relation of fagus to love is later traced in Roman love elegy and especially in Propertius 1.18, where the tree is also identified within an erotic context:136 uos eritis testes, si quos habet arbor amores, fagus et Arcadio pinus amica deo. ah quotiens uestras resonant mea uerba sub umbras, scribitur et teneris Cynthia corticibus! (1.18.19-22)

The thematic relationship of the Vergilian and Propertian lines is based on Propertius and Tityrus being found alone in the countryside singing for the love object. More specifically, sub umbras is related to lentus in umbra along with sub tegmine fagi that also suggests the shady location in which Tityrus reclines. Moreover, resonant mea uerba is very similar to the resonare Amaryllida siluas, which is picked up in the next resonent mihi “Cynthia” siluae (cf. Prop. 1.18.31). However, Propertius’ dependence on those Vergilian lines is emphatically confirmed with the verbal correspondence

fagus-fagi

which,

along

with

the

other

verbal

correspondences, can show that Propertius and Vergil have drawn on a 136

Du Quesnay 1981, 40.

40

Chapter 2

common lost source. Acontius’ and Cydippe’s love story (Call. fr. 67-75 Pf.)137 has long been considered as the source on which Propertius 1.18 is based and from which fagus comes;138 moreover, this love story is familiar to Vergil, who recalls it in Ecl. 1.4-5 (see below).139 In view of that, the term fagus seems to derive from Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story (Call. fr. 67-75 Pf.), which is famous thanks to its erotic content, and therefore it accords very well with the love associations with which Vergil enriches the tree fagus. This suggestion is confirmed by Tityrus’ singing that is associated with love, given that his song is concerned with the visual counterpart of the impersonal siluestrem Musam identified with the formosam Amaryllida (“beautiful Amaryllis”). In other words, Tityrus’ song for Amaryllis can be described as an erotic song; however, it is also an erotic song that establishes love as the central subject in the Eclogues,140 which is emphatically reaffirmed through the term fagus that comes from Acontius’ and Cydippe’s famous love story. [Lines 1-4] Lucretius

The creative combination of Greek and Roman sources continues

in Ecl. 1.2. Here, it has already been suggested that Vergil’s dependence on Meleager is based on the metonymy of Muse for music. However, this metonymy is also used by Lucretius.141 He examines the physical phenomenon of the echo, laying special emphasis on the beliefs around the 137

The fragmentary state in which Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe tale (i.e. fr. 67-75 Pf.) has come down to us does not allow us to go any further. Nevertheless, the version of late epistolographer Aristaenetus, who treats the same love story (i.e. Ep. 1.10), is considered as a trustworthy paraphrase that enables us to reconstruct several lost details of the original Callimachean version. 138 Cairns 1969, 131-134 and esp. 133. See also e.g. La Penna 1951, 167-172, Solmsen 1962, 73-88 and Fedeli 1980, 431f. 139 Cf. also Vergil’s dependence on Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story in Eclogue 2 that is considered as the earliest poetic creation in the Vergilian collection. See La Penna 1963, 489-492, Kenney 1983, 44-52 and Cairns 2008a, 45-51. 140 Cf. Ecl. 2, 8 and 10. 141 Coleman 1977, 71-72, Clausen 1994, 35 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 138.

Eclogue 1

41

creation of music that the local inhabitants attribute to the country god Pan: Quae bene cum uideas, rationem reddere possis tute tibi atque aliis, quo pacto per loca sola saxa paris formas uerborum ex ordine reddant. palantis comites cum montis inter opacos quaerimus et magna dispersos uoce ciemus. sex etiam aut septem loca uidi reddere uocis, unam cum iaceres: ita colles collibus ipsi uerba repulsantes iterabant dicta referri. haec loca capripedes Satyros Nymphasque tenere finitimi fingunt et Faunos esse locuntur, quorum noctiuago strepitu ludoque iocanti adfirmant uolgo taciturna silentia rumpi chordarumque sonos fieri dulcisque querellas, tibia quas fundit digitis pulsata canentum, et genus agricolum late sentiscere, quom Pan pinea semiferi capitis uelamina quassans unco saepe labro calamos percurrit hiantis, unco saepe labro calamos percurrit hiantis, fistula siluestrem ne cesset fundere musam (DRN 4.572-589)

The country setting (opacos montis, colles, pinea uelamina, hiantis calamos),142 the musical instruments (tibia, fistula),143 several rustic divine

142

Cf. e.g. Ecl. 1.83, 2.5, 21, 5.8, 28, 63, 76, 6.40, 52, 65, 71, 7.56, 66, 8.59 and 10.32 (mountains), 7.58, 9.7 and 49 (hills), 1.38, 7.24, 65, 68 and 8.22 (pine), 1.10, 2.32, 34, 3.13, 5.2, 48, 6.69 and 8.24 (reeds). 143 Cf. e.g. Ecl. 2.37, 3.22, 25, 7.24, 8.21, 25, 31, 33, 36, 42, 46, 51, 57, 61 and 10.34.

42

Chapter 2

creatures (capripedes Satyros, Nymphas, Faunos)144 and especially Pan (Pan), whose presence is closely associated with the pastoral genre,145 are similar to the natural setting of the Eclogues. Nonetheless, what further links this Vergilian line with those Lucretian verses is the phrase siluestrem Musam (Ecl. 1.2) that recalls the siluestrem musam (DRN 4.589). Both siluestrem Musam and siluestrem musam are metonymically used to denote music, a meaning that is unique to those two passages in all of Roman literature, strongly reinforcing the suggestion that Vergil and Lucretius recall one another.146 However, Lucretius metonymically uses Musa in order to show the superstitions that continue to haunt people’s minds, in emphatic contrast to Vergil where musa deals with what Lucretius denies (i.e. the rustic beliefs for the origin of human music). This difference shows that Lucretius’ ideas are used in order to be reversed in the Eclogues,147 confirming that the Vergilian tendency is to cancel the scientific explanation that is presented in the De Rerum Natura and to recall its language rather than its subject.148 [Lines 1-4] auena

The verses under examination (Ecl. 1.1-2) conclude with the

words used by Vergil in order to denote Tityrus’ musical instrument (tenui auena Ecl. 1.2).149 This term is not found in any of the foregoing Greek and Roman sources, and there is also no other source in the Greco-Roman literature from which it may derive. Its literal meaning (“an oaten

144

Cf. e.g. Ecl. 5.73, 6.14 (Satyrs), 2.46, 3.9, 5.20-21, 75, 6.55-56, 7.21, 9.19 and 10.55 (Nymphs), 6.27 (Fauns). 145 Cf. e.g. Theoc. Id. 1.3, 16, 123, 4.47, 63, 5.14, 58, 141, 6.21, 7.103 and 106; Verg. Ecl. 2.31-33, 4.58-59, 5.59, 8.24, 10.26. 146 Giesecke 2000, 44. 147 Giesecke 2000, 43. 148 Giesecke 2000, 56-57. 149 Cf. also Ecl. 10.51 carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor auena.

Eclogue 1

43

straw”)150 cannot denote a musical instrument151 given that there are two main wind instruments that can be identified in the pastoral genre: the panpipe (i.e. the sàrigx or fistula) and the pipe (i.e. the aÙlÒj or tibia).152 The aÙlÒj consists of the main resonance tube that can be made by several materials (e.g. reed, bone, lotus, boxwood, silver) and the vibrating mouthpiece (glîtta or lingula)153 whose ideal material is only reed (k£lamoj Ó aÙlhtikÒj or calamus tibialis).154 However, several straws can be used to create a vibrating mouthpiece155 due to the fact that, although a straw is thin and slender enough to be used as a pipe, it can also be cut or squeezed in order to produce sound. Children commonly use such a type of a straw squeaker as a musical toy, thereby resembling the wind instrument in part but lacking the main resonance tube. Therefore, it is the primitive ancestor of all wind instruments in the pipe category.156 Both instruments are found throughout the Eclogues, although a comparison between panpipe and pipe occurrences reveals that the panpipe has a more eminent role.157 Hence, 150

OLD s.v. auena. See e.g. Smith 1970, 497-510, who offers a detailed analysis of the instruments which are used in pastoral poetry. 152 On a thorough discussion regarding these two instruments and the antithetical features between them, see Cartault 1897, 484-486, Smith 1970, 498-504 and esp. 498 n. 5 with further bibliography. 153 The physical form of this instrument and its playing method is fully described by Smith 1970, 501-504. 154 Cf. Thphr. HP 4.10.1ff.; Plin. NH 16.164ff. 155 Cf. Pollux 4.77 par¦ d' Aeguptfoij polÚfqoggoj aÙlÒj, 'Osfridoj eÛrhma, œk kal£mhj kriqfnhj. 156 Baines 1967, 189-190. 157 The unique reference to an instrument of the pipe category (i.e. aÙlÕj or tibia) that occurs in the collection is found in Damon’s refrain (cf. Ecl. 8.21 etc. incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, uersus). In addition, stridenti stipula (Ecl. 3.27), which is the same with tibia, seems to recall the Theocritean instrument found in Id. 5.5-7 t¦n pofan sÚrigga; tÝ g£r poka, dîle SibÚrta,/ œkt£sw sÚrigga; tf d' oÙk{ti sÝn KorÚdwni/ ¢rkel toi kal£maj aÙlÕn poppÚsden }conti; (cf. 151

44

Chapter 2

the term auena and the instrumental references (i.e. agresti calamo Ecl. 1.10, cicuta Ecl. 5.85, harundine Ecl. 6.8 and Siculi auena Ecl 10.51), which are not classified in any of the above divisions, could be considered as Vergilian variations on the meaning of the panpipe employed for reasons of metre, euphony and variety.158 However, the literal meaning of auena cannot denote a panpipe tube, while it seems to be close to the sense of a pipe in the form of a straw squeaker (cf. stipula Ecl. 3.27).159 The word auena is, in that sense, the most appropriate term for the description of a primitive type of pipe in order to stress the pastoral setting where Tityrus is placed. This view accords very well with Cairns’ etymological gloss (i.e. Tityrus = auena); this etymology is used in the form of a Doricism for the term k£lamoj that is associated further with auena in order to describe Vergil’s Eclogues as an “Italian Doric” composition, thereby emphasising its Theocritean provenance.160 Therefore, the use of auena in Eclogue 1 is more than merely descriptive. The selection of this word and especially its literal meaning can lay special emphasis on the pastoral setting where the typical Vergilian herdsman (Tityrus)161 is to be found, further creating through its etymological gloss an implicit pointer to the programmatic character of the poem’s opening section (Ecl. 1.1-5). Smith 1970, 504-505). On the other hand, more frequent are the references to the panpipes which are expressed either explicitly (cf. Ecl. 2.37, 3.22, 3.25, 7.24, 8.33 and 10.34) or implicitly: i) reed or other tubes joined by wax (cf. Ecl. 2.32, 2.36 and 3.25-26), ii) the plural calami which suggests the sàrigx (cf. Ecl. 5.2, 48, 6.69 and 8.24) and iii) the singular calamus, whose context means the sàrigx (cf. Ecl. 2.34). 158 See Smith 1970, 506 who also underlines the trouble that Roman poets encountered due to the lack of an appropriate Latin verb to render the Greek surfzein along with the need for a musical instrument that could occupy the last foot in the dactylic hexameter. 159 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 1.2 tenui auena culmo, stipula, unde rustici plerumque cantare consuerunt: alibi stridenti miserum stipula disperdere carmen. 160 Cairns 1999, 289-293. 161 Pöschl 1964, 10.

Eclogue 1

45

However, the literal meaning of auena is not the only one that deserves our attention. It also has a symbolic significance, which is suggestive of Vergil’s writing style in the Eclogues, given that the tenui auena should be examined in association with siluestrem Musam. Thus, the tenui auena recalls the Callimachean prologue that refers to Callimachus’ poetic style with the terms “slim” and “slender” (Moàsan leptal{hn fr. 1.24 Pf.).162 Vergil is based on Callimachus’ Moàsan leptal{hn (i.e. poetry),163 but the Muse’s subtlety is related to the country musical instrument,164 stressing that the Vergilian auena (i.e. pastoral poetry)165 will also be “delicate” (i.e. tenui)166 or, in other words, that the Vergilian collection and especially its writing style will be Callimachean (i.e. Hellenistic-Neoteric). [Lines 4-5] Theocr. & Lucr.

Nonetheless, Callimachus’ influence over the Eclogues is actually

more significant, though it is also combined with Theocritus and Lucretius in Ecl. 1.4-5, where Tityrus is described singing for Amaryllis:

tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas (Ecl. 1.4-5)

162

Clausen 1994, 175-176 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 139. See also Call. fr. 1.11 Pf. kat¦ leptÒn, Epigr. 27.3f. Pf. = A.P. 9.507.3f. leptaf ૧›siej. 163 The meaning of the terms Muse and music has long been confused. Cf. Hom. Hymn. Pan. 14-16 tÒte d' Ÿsperoj }klagen ȠੇȠȞ/ ¥grhj œxanièn, don£kwn Ûpo moàsan ¢qÚrwn/ n›dumon; Theoc. Id. 1.19-20 ¢ll¦ tÝ g¦r d›, QÚrsi, t¦ D£fnidoj ¥lge' ¢efdej/ kai t©j boukolik©j œpi tÕ pl{on gkeo mofsaj. 164 Cf. also Ecl. 6.5 deductum carmen and 6.8 agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam. 165 Vergil follows his Greek pastoral predecessor since Theocritus had already established the rustic instrument syrinx as the symbol of and the metonymic term for pastoral poetry (cf. Id. 1.128ff.). See Cairns 1984, 101. 166 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 1.2 dicendo autem “tenui auena”, stili genus humilis latenter ostendit, quo, ut supra dictum est, in bucolicis utitur.

46

Chapter 2

The image of a lover who is singing under a tree or in the woods has a long history in Greco-Roman literature,167 but here Vergil seems to be based on Lucretius. Tityrus’ love object recalls the Theocritean collection ( Amarullf Id. 3.6 and 4.38), though Theocritus is not the only source that can be traced in those verses. Here, Lucretius’ influence is also evident through the expression resonare doces that suggests that Tityrus is teaching (doces) the woods that in turn echo (resonare) the name of his love object (Amaryllida), namely that man can control nature.168 However, Lucretius explains the echo phenomenon in an entirely different way (4.572ff.), suggesting that nature is responsible for the production of the echo:169 sex etiam aut septem loca uidi reddere uocis, unam cum iaceres: ita colles collibus ipsi uerba repulsantes iterabant docta referri170 (DRN 4.577-579)

In other words, the Vergilian resonare doces reverses the Lucretian docta referri, thereby stressing that Vergil’s relation to Lucretius is based on the oppositio in imitando technique,171 according to which Vergil reverses or cancels the scientific explanation of the echo phenomenon given in the De Rerum Natura. This suggestion indicates not only that the Vergilian intention is to recall the Lucretian language rather than the subject matter,

167

Cf. Phanocl. ”Erwtej À Kalof fr.1.1-6 Powell; Prop. 1.18.1-4. Giesecke 2000, 44-45 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 141. 169 Cf. also Id. 1.1-3 and Lucr. DRN 5.1379-1387, whose relationship with Ecl. 1.1-5 has already been examined. 170 docta (cf. 317) Lachmann: dicta OQP; referri OQP: referre Marullus 320. 171 Giesecke 2000, 39. On this type of quotation, see Giangrande 1967, 85-97 and Thomas 1986, 185-189. 168

Eclogue 1

47

but also that the Vergilian collection will be Greek (Theocritean) in subject and Roman (Lucretian) in language; this can also be reaffirmed by the verbal structure in Ecl. 1.4-5 where the Lucretian vocabulary is emphatically enclosed within its Theocritean framework (formosam resonare doces Amaryllida Ecl. 1.5).172 [Lines 4-5] Callimachus

Yet, Tityrus’ song for Amaryllis is also based on Acontius’ and

Cydippe’s love story (Call. Aet. fr. 67-75 Pf.) and especially on Acontius’ reaction because of his love for Cydippe:173 ¢ll' œni d¾ floiolsi kekomm{na tÒssa f{roite gr£mmata, Kudfpphn Óss' œr{ousi kal›n (fr. 73.1-2 Pf.)

Tityrus is found in the countryside teaching the woods to echo the name of the beautiful Amaryllis (formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas Ecl. 1.5), recalling Acontius, who is also found in the countryside (cf. ¥grade tù p£sVsin œpi proc£nVsin œfofta fr. 72.1),174 where he wishes that the trees could voice the name of the fair Cydippe (cf. Kudfpphn Óss' œr{ousi kal›n fr. 73.1-2). This suggestion is reinforced by the verbal correspondence formosam-kal›n and the structural correspondence, since the verb of the sentence (resonare-œr{ousi) is framed by an adjective (formosam-kal›n) and a proper name (Amaryllida-Kudfpphn). On the other hand, it should also be mentioned that the lover, who is carving the

172

Giesecke 2000, 45. Clausen 1994, 37, Wright 1983, 140-141 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 140-141. See also Longus 2.7.6 œpÇnoun t¾n 'Hcë tÕ 'Amarullfdoj Ônoma met' œm੻ kaloàsan, whose relationship to the Vergilian lines under examination is much more obvious. For more, see Clausen 1994, 37 who suggests that both Vergil and Longus draw on a common source in post-Theocritean pastoral. 174 See also Aristaen. Epistl. 1.10.55f. 173

Chapter 2

48

name of his/her beloved on the bark of a tree, constitutes a conventional erotic reaction.175 Nevertheless, the fact that the same reaction is also used elsewhere in the Eclogues (cf. Ecl. 10.53-54) may indicate that Vergil is familiar with this Callimachean subject, confirming that Callimachus can be considered as Vergil’s most obvious source. Unfortunately, the Callimachean love story has come down to us in meagre fragments which cannot show that Vergil is indeed based on Callimachus in Ecl. 1.4-5. However, the late epistolographer Aristaenetus (6th c. AD)176 gives a trustworthy paraphrase of Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story based on the Callimachean original.177 Therefore, Aristaenetus 1.10 could be used in order to reconstruct Acontius’ and Cydippe’s love story:178 mÒnon d੻ fhgolj Øpokaq›menoj À ptel{aij æmflei toi£de: ehqe, ð d{ndra, kai noàj Ømln g{noito kai fwn›, Ópj ¨n ehphte mÒnon: Kudfpph kal› À goàn tosaàta kat¦ tîn floiîn œgkekolamm{na f{roite gr£mmata, Ósa t¾n Kudfpphn œponom£zei kal›n (Epist. 1.10.57-61)

175

Cf. schol. Ar. Ach. 144 hdion œrastîn Ãn tÕ t¦ tîn œrwm{nwn ÑnÒmata gr£fein œn tolj tofcoij À d{ndroij À floiolj d{ndrwn oÛtwj “Ð delna kalÒj”. See also Glaucus 3 G-P = A.P. 9.341, anon. 27 G-P = A.P. 12.130 and Ov. Her. 5.21 incisae servant a te mea nomina fagi. For more parallel passages and further discussion, see Jacoby 1905, 57-60. 176 OCD s.v. Aristaenetus. The date is uncertain and is presumably placed as late as 500 AD. See Costa 2001, xvi. 177 Pfeiffer 1949, ad loc. 178 It should be mentioned that Prop. 1.18 is also based on the Callimachean version of Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story. However, Propertius makes very free use of the original and on these grounds it is hard to use this elegy in order to reconstruct the Greek passage in detail (cf. Cairns 1969, 131-134). Moreover, the same story is also employed by Ovid (Her. 20 and 21) who, however, does not lay special emphasis on this concept. See Michalopoulos 2014, ad loc.

Eclogue 1

49

Acontius is here found under beeches or elms (fhgolj Øpokaq›menoj À ptel{aij), where he wishes that the trees could have a voice to tell the world about Cydippe’s beauty (ð d{ndra, kai noàj Ømln g{noito kai fwn›, Ópwj ¨n ehphte mÒnon: Kudfpph kal›) or that the engraved letters on them could bear enough text to announce Cydippe’s beauty (Kudfpphn œponom£zei kal›n),179 looking forward to Tityrus in Ecl. 1.45. Tityrus is seated beneath a shady beech (recubans sub tegmine fagi patulae Ecl. 1.1 and tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra Ecl. 1.4.), whilst the woods are echoing the name of the beautiful Amaryllis (formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas Ecl. 1.5).180 However, Vergil replaces the lover Acontius with the herdsman Tityrus, who is in love and sings about love, constituting a conventional subject in pastoral poetry.181 In other words, Tityrus’ activities are the practising and singing of woodland music (siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena Ecl. 1.2), which is pastoral music-poetry, thereby establishing love among the typical themes employed in the Eclogues.182 This suggestion accords well with the reason for which fagus is used in Ecl. 1.1-2 and is further reinforced with Theocritus’ and Lucretius’ juxtaposition, which is also found here (Ecl. 1.4-5).

179

Harder 2012, 578 observes that the close verbal correspondence between tÒssa f{roite/gr£mmata, Kudfpphn Óss' and tosaàta kat¦ tîn floiîn œgkekolamm{na f{roite gr£mmata, Ósa can show that the Callimachean and Aristaenetean contexts were very similar and that Callimachus could also let Acontius say that, even though the trees had no mind and voice, they could at least bear enough text to announce Cydippe’s beauty. 180 On the echo in Vergil’s Eclogues, see Paraskeviotis 2016b, 41-64. 181 Cf. Theoc. Id. 3, 11; Mosch. fr. 2, 4 Gow; Bion fr. 3, 9 Gow. Song and love, very often or almost always unfulfilled, have long been recognised as standard features of pastoral poetry. See Vischer 1965, 135. 182 Cf. Ecl. 2, 8 and 10.

50 [Lines 6-7]

Chapter 2

The chaos in the Italian countryside in relation to Tityrus’

carefree activities (music and song) causes Meliboeus to react. Tityrus’ reply offers some further information. The herdsman explains that his exception from the land confiscations is the outcome of a divine deed (O Meliboee, deus nobis haec otia fecit Ecl. 1.6) that is also suggested by the emotional and solemn vocative O Meliboee.183 In other words, Tityrus’ otium is provided and assured by the involvement of an extra-pastoral benefactor who is called “god” (namque erit ille mihi semper deus Ecl. 1.7). The designation deus is in that sense a notable reminiscent of Lucretian poetry, because it recalls Lucretius’ address to Epicurus who is the only mortal whom the poet-philosopher identifies with a divinity (deus ille fuit, deus, inclyte Memmi DRN 5.8).184 The common structure deus .../... deus along with its emphatic repetition, which is used in order to create a ritual cry, is the first evidence for Vergil’s dependence on Lucretius;185 moreover, it is confirmed through the meaning of Tityrus’ words that are designed to attribute divine substance to the extra-pastoral benefactor. More specifically, it is the action itself that is considered as divine or a godsend, since it is an act of a type more likely expected of a divine being and not of a human. Hence, the identification of such an individual with a god is a personal decision, which is a typical part of the gratitudinal language (eÙcarist›rioj lÒgoj/gratiarum actio).186 The Lucretian context is also complimentary since the deification is the result of Lucretius’ subjective judgment for Epicurus’ philosophical discoveries,

183

Fedeli 1972, 276. Coleman 1977, 73 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 143. 185 Cf. also Ecl. 5.64 deus, deus ille, Menalca! 186 Du Quesnay 1981, 101-102. See also Hom. Od. 8.464-68, 15.180-82; Cic. Red. Sen. 8, 28, 30, Post. Red. 7, 15, 17, 18, 24, Pro Marc. 1. For more on this genre, see Cairns 1972, s.v. eucharistikon, soteria and “thanksgiving”. 184

Eclogue 1

51

which are a task beyond mortal powers (nemo, ut opinor, erit mortali corpore cretus DRN 5.6). Therefore, Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius is here used to show that deus is an extra-pastoral character whose divine substance is recognised only by the farmer, thereby reaffirming that the Vergilian intention is to recall the Lucretian language rather than the subject. [Lines 7-10]

Tityrus utters gratitude for this divine beneficence by promising

the sacrifice of a lamb:187 namque erit ille mihi semper deus, illius aram saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus. ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti (Ecl. 1.7-10)

There is a similar sacrificial offering that occurs in a votive Theocritean epigram,188 where several country dedications to Apollo and the Muses are described:189 T¦ ૧Òda t¦ drosÒenta kai ¡ kat£puknoj œkefna Ÿrpulloj keltai talj `Elikwni£sin, tai d੻ mel£mfulloi d£fnai tfn, PÚqie Pai£n, Delfij œpei p{tra toàtÒ toi ¢gl£ise· 187

Emphasis should also be laid on the structure of the phrase and especially on the repetition of ille ... illius ... ille that implies a style of sacral utterance (cf. Tib. 1.2.17ff.; [Tib.]. 3.6.13ff. and Prop. 1.14.17ff.). The Roman elegists and Vergil describe a procedure drawn from the Greek sacrificial language that deals with the anaphora of oátoj. For more on this subject, see Norden 1913, 163-166, McKeown 1989, 127-128, Navarro Antolín 1996, 483-484 and Maltby 2002, 160. 188 See Rossi 2001, 121-123, who discusses the possible literary categories in which this epigram could be classified in terms of its content and its constituent details. 189 Coleman 1977, 75, Du Quesnay 1981, 109-110 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 144.

52

Chapter 2 bwmÕn d' adm£xei keraÕj tr£goj, oátoj Ð m©loj, termfnqou trègwn }scaton ¢kremÒna (5 G-P = A.P. 6.336)

The above Vergilian and Theocritean lines deal with an animal sacrifice carried out by Tityrus for his deus and by some herdsman for the Muses and Apollo. This thematic relation is enhanced with the verbal correspondence aram imbuet-bwmÕn adm£xei. More specifically, the accusative aram clearly recalls bwmÕn while imbuet, in the sense of “drenching” or “soaking” the altar with the victim’s blood, recalls adm£xei. Moreover, the adjective tener is used in order to emphasise Tityrus’ careful selection of the victim, which in that sense deals much more with its purity than with its age.190 However, m©lojis only referred to the sacrificial victim through its white colour,191 but the whiteness of the sacrificial animals is considered as a conventional purity feature that can explain the verbal correspondence between tener and m©loj.192 Furthermore, the victim agnus hardly recalls tr£goj, because it is a different animal. Nonetheless, Tityrus is described as a shepherd and cowherd,193 which can justify the sacrifice of the lamb, given that the cow offering has long been considered as overly expensive,194 especially for a poor herdsman such as Tityrus. In other words, Vergil draws on a country donation carried 190

Cf. Hor. Carm. 3.18.5 and 4.2.54. See Rossi 2001, 127, who argues that the practice of recognising and naming animals by the colour of their coats derives from Theocritean pastoral (Id. 3.4f., 34 and 4.20) from where apparently it passed to the post-Theocritean pastoral tradition (Id. 8.27 and 9.9f.). 192 Special emphasis should also be laid on the etymological wordplay between the terms agnus-¡gnÒj. Cf. Paul. Fest. 14 agnus dicitur ¢pÕ toà ¡gnoà, quod significant castum, eo quod sit hostia pura et immolationi apta. See also Maltby 1991, s.v. agnus. 193 Cf. Ecl. 1.8-9, 45 and 49-50. 194 Cf. Plu. Quaest. Graec. 34. 191

Eclogue 1

53

out by some herdsman, replacing the Muses and Apollo with Tityrus’ extrapastoral benefactor (iuuenis deus), who does not receive a tr£goj but a beloved, humble and honorable tener agnus.195 Hence, the Theocritean epigram shows that Tityrus’ benefactor has a divine substance, stressing that Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is also concerned with his epigrams. [Lines 11-18]

Meliboeus’ reply begins by explaining that there is no reason to

envy Tityrus’ status, and he continues by recounting his own misery: Non equidem inuideo, miror magis: undique totis usque adeo turbatur agris. en ipse capellas protinus aeger ago; hanc etiam uix, Tityre, duco. hic inter densas corylos modo namque gemellos, spem gregis, a! silice in nuda conixa reliquit. saepe malum hoc nobis, si mens non laeua fuisset, de caelo tactas memini praedicere quercus. sed tamen iste deus qui sit, da, Tityre, nobis (Ecl. 1.11-18)

Meliboeus’ misery is closely associated with the terrible situation of his herd, with special emphasis laid on the tragic event where a sick she-goat lies down on the hard stones and gives birth to twins that are left to die there. The she-goat recalls the Theocritean collection, and especially Thyrsis’ song, in Idyll 1:196 aੇg£ t{ toi dwsî didumatÒkon œj trij ¢m{lxai, § dÚ' }cois' œrffwj potam{lgetai œj dÚo p{llaj (Id. 1.25-26)

195 196

Cf. Hor. Carm. 2.17.32; Tib. 1.1.22 and Ov. Tr. 1.10.43-44, Pont. 3.4.81-82. Hubbard 1998, 51. See also Cucchiarelli 2012,

Chapter 2

54

This suggestion is further reinforced by the fact that both the capella and aੇg£ are respectively mentioned by Meliboeus and the anonymous goatherd in order to request a reply from Tityrus (cf. sed tamen iste deus qui sit, da, Tityre, nobis, which is Tityrus’s story for the iuuenis) and Thyrsis (Thyrsis’ song for Daphnis’ lovesickness). Nonetheless, the Theocritean aੇg£ is the first prize (the second is the famous kissÚbion) offered to Thyrsis, symbolising fertility and good fortune, in contrast to the Vergilian capella that is a symbol of failure and sterility for Meliboeus,197 who is losing his status as a herdsman and, most importantly, as a singer of the pastoral world. [Lines 19-25]

Tityrus’ gratitude for the divine benefactor raises Meliboeus’

curiosity, who enquires after the god’s name, but Tityrus’ reply is Rome’s encomium: Urbem quam dicunt Romam, Meliboee, putaui stultus ego huic nostrae similem, quo saepe solemus pastores ouium teneros depellere fetus. sic canibus catulos similis, sic matribus haedos noram, sic paruis componere magna solebam. uerum haec tantum alias inter caput extulit urbes quantum lenta solent inter uiburna cupressi (Ecl. 1.19-25)

The herdsmen seem to be very familiar with the city nearby the countryside and especially with Rome. Furthermore, Tityrus’ way of thinking, based only in terms of size, and the way in which he

197

Gigante 1988, 39-40. See also Hubbard 1998, 51.

Eclogue 1

55

characterises Rome may recall a similar encomiastic reference to Helen’s beauty with the young singing girls found in Idyll 18:198 piefrv meg£la ¤t' ¢n{drame kÒsmoj ¢roÚrv À k£pJ kup£rissoj, À ¤rmati QessalÕj gppoj, ïde kai ¡ odÒcrwj `El{na Lakedafmoni kÒsmoj (Id.18.29-31)

These Theocritean verses use country analogies that follow the structural pattern that (A) is good for (B), (B) for (C), (C) for (D) and therefore (X) for (Y), ending with a characteristic example that derives from the human world (Helen) and deals with physical beauty (kÒsmoj)199 in order to pay tribute to the honoured character. Nevertheless, Theocritus refers to a living character (Helen) in strong contrast to Vergil, who deals with Rome. Moreover, he reduces the number of analogies (from three to one), changing also the literary effect of this structural formula, which is no longer the physical beauty (¢n{drame kÒsmoj ¢roÚrv/ À k£pJ kup£rissoj) but the magnitude of the honoured character that is expressed through the difference between cupressus and uiburnum, thereby showing that the Vergilian intention is to stay close to the specific rhetorical figure (country analogies) and not to its content. [Lines 26-35]

Rome’s encomium prompts Meliboeus’ next question about the

reason for Tityrus’ journey to Rome (Ecl. 1.26). Tityrus answers that he is an ex-slave who has recently been set free; first because the spendthrift Galateia did not allow him to save enough money in order to buy his

198 199

Cuchiarelli 2012, 148. Gow II 1952, 191-192.

56

Chapter 2

freedom, and second because, cheated by the townspeople, he returned home with less money than he should have: Et quae tanta fuit Romam tibi causa uidendi? Libertas, quae sera tamen respexit inertem, candidior postquam tondenti barba cadebat, respexit tamen et longo post tempore uenit, namque - fatebor enim - dum me Galatea tenebat, nec spes libertatis erat nec cura peculi. quamuis multa meis exiret uictima saeptis pinguis et ingratae premeretur caseus urbi, non umquam grauis aere domum mihi dextra redibat (Ecl. 1.26-35)

Tityrus’ hard-working spirit is emphatically evident through the expression multa uictima pinguis,200 which suggests that the herdsman breeds “many fat victims”, thereby recalling the Callimachean Aetia where Apollo instructs Callimachus to have a “fat victim”:201 ¢oid{, tÕ m੻n qÚoj Ótti p£ciston qr{yai, t¾n Moàsan d' çgaq੻ leptal{hn (Aet. fr. 1.21-24 Pf.)

In other words, Tityrus is actually in line with the Callimachean literary canons, something that can also be confirmed by siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena (Ecl. 1.2), which recalls qr{yai, t¾n Moàsan d' çgaq੻

200

Clausen 1994, 46) claims that pinguis should be understood with uictima and with caseus. 201 Cairns 2015, 28-29. See also Ecl. 6.3-5 which are also based on Aet. fr. 1.21-24 Pf.

Eclogue 1

57

leptal{hn (fr. 1.24 Pf.),202 underlining that the Vergilian auena (pastoral poetry) will also be tenuis and that the Vergilian collection and especially its style will be Callimachean (Hellenistic-Neoteric). However, Tityrus’ excuses for having remained in slavery for so long are also significant. Galateia’s extravagance along with the ingrata urbs constitute the reasons for which Tityrus could not save enough money in order to buy his freedom. Nonetheless, it was already noticed in antiquity that Tityrus’ pinguis caseus (“cream cheese”)203 is an easily produced and perishable product and therefore the herdsman could not justifiably have expected to receive a high price from the townspeople.204 On the other hand, it is clear enough that Galateia is a financial burden (Ecl. 1.30-31). In other words, Tityrus should visit Galateia or pay for his visit whilst returning home, something which shows that Galateia is not based in the countryside but in town, and therefore that she is not a typical rustic contubernalis but an urban meretrix.205 In that sense, Galateia is actually described as an autarchic and extravagant female character who is entirely alien to the pastoral genre but familiar to comedy and satire,206 demonstrating Vergil’s dependence on Roman comedy where meretrices have eminent roles.207 [Lines 36-39]

The Vergilian tendency to recall several sources continues in

Meliboeus’ speech, which is concerned with Amaryllis’ reaction and its consequent effects on nature due to Tityrus’ absence in Rome:

202

Cairns 2015, 28-29. Coleman 1977, 79, Clausen 1994, 45-46. See also Cairns 2015, 31. 204 Cf. Col. R.R. 7.8.6. 205 Cairns 2015, 32-36. 206 Coleman 1977, 78-79. On the humour that emerges in Ecl. 1.27-35, see Paraskeviotis 2020. 207 See Duncan 2006, 257-258. 203

58

Chapter 2 Mirabar quid maesta deos, Amarylli, uocares, cui pendere sua patereris in arbore poma; Tityrus hinc aberat. ipsae te, Tityre, pinus, ipsi te fontes, ipsa haec arbusta uocabant (Ecl. 1.36-39)

Nature’s emotional response to human events (pathetic fallacy) has long been considered as a convention of the pastoral genre that is more emphatically traced in the post-Theocritean pastoral tradition (Lament for Adonis and Lament for Bion). However, Tityrus’ departure from the country, leaving another character (Amaryllis) to do the rustic jobs, is based on Idyll 4, where Aegon also leaves the countryside, having assigned to another figure (Corydon) the supervision of his cattle (Id. 4.18).208 This relationship is also enhanced since Aegon is the lover of Amaryllis ('Amarullfdi Id. 4.36),209 who has the same name as Tityrus’ mistress (Amarylli Ecl. 1.36). Moreover, Aegon’s departure from the country has effects on the natural environment and especially on the animals, which refuse to eat because of the herdsman’s absence: tai dam£lai d' aÙtÕn mukèmenai agde poqeànti. deflaiaf g' aátai, tÕn boukÒlon æj kakÕn eáron. Ã m¦n deflaiaf ge, kai oÙk{ti lînti n{mesqai (Id. 4.12-14)

208

Du Quesnay 1981, 47. Cf. Id. 4.34-37 Ahgwn Ñgdèkonta mÒnoj katedafsato m£zaj./ thnei kai tÕn taàron ¢p' êreoj «ge pi£xaj/ t©j Ðpl©j k½dwk' 'Amarullfdi, tai d gunalkej/ makrÕn ¢n£usan, cç boukÒloj œxeg{lassen. See also Hunter 1999, 138. 209

Eclogue 1

59

Daphnis’ “absence” (death) is also the reason for an analogous reaction by the animals (the lament) found in Idyll 1 (cf. pollaf od p¦r possi bÒej, polloi d{ te taàroi, pollai d੻ dam£lai kai pÒrtiej çdÚranto Id. 1.74-75).210 However, it is quite clear that the relationship between the above Vergilian (Ecl. 1.38-39) and Theocritean lines (Id. 1.74-75 and 4.12-14) is not thematic. On the contrary, it is based on the structural correspondence ipse-polÚj designed to introduce three different reactions of nature (ipsae ... ipsi ... ipsa-pollaf ... polloi ... pollai). In other words, Tityrus’ departure recalls that of Aegon and is enriched with a typical mourning element (pathetic fallacy)211 that comes from Daphnis’ death to stress Amaryllis’ tragic situation and further reinforce her grief for Tityrus’ absence. However, Vergil replaces the weeping animals with the natural environment that voices Amaryllis’ lament (uocares Ecl. 1.36 and uocabant Ecl. 1.39), thereby following post-Theocritean pastoral, especially Bion’s Lament for Adonis, where nature laments Adonis’ death:212 êrea p£nta l{gonti, kai ad drÚej 'ak tÕn ”Adwnin'· kai potamoi klafonti t¦ p{nqea t©j 'Afrodftaj, kai pagai tÕn ”Adwnin œn êresi dakrÚonti, ¥nqea d' œx ÑdÚnaj œruqafnetai, ¡ d੻ Kuq›ra p£ntaj ¢n¦ knamèj, ¢n¦ p©n n£poj oektrÕn ¢efdei ‘aeal t¦n Kuq{reian ¢pèleto kalÕj ”Adwnij’ (Epit. Adon. 32-37)

Here, mountains (êrea) along with trees (drÚej) are described voicing (l{gonti) Cythereia’s lament in contrast to springs (pagai), which cry for 210

Du Quesnay 1981, 47. Alexiou 1974, 60. 212 Du Quesnay 1981, 47-48. 211

60

Chapter 2

the dead Adonis. This scene is reproduced in the Vergilian lines under examination (Ecl. 1.36-39) where trees (pinus) and springs (fontes) also voice (uocabant) Amaryllis’ lament for Tityrus’ absence with the noteworthy difference that drÚej are replaced with pinus. Both drÚej and pinus have sepulchral overtones,213 but the latter tree is more emphatically traced in sepulchral contexts and, along with the pathetic fallacy device, which is a conventional mourning feature, further reinforces Amaryllis’ tragic situation. In other words, Amaryllis’ condition (maesta) seems to have sepulchral overtones, although it is actually concerned with Tityrus’ departure (not death) from the country. On the other hand, nature’s (and especially the trees and springs) lament for a dead character is also found in the anonymous Lament for Bion whose influence on Vergil has already been noticed by scholars:214 Ahlin£ moi stonacelte n£pai kai Dèrion Ûdwr, kai potamoi klafoite tÕn dmerÒenta Bfwna. nàn fut£ moi mÚresqe kai ¥lsea nàn go£oisqe (Epit. Bion. 1-3)

Nonetheless, nature’s lament is a common feature in those Hellenistic epitaphs and therefore cannot confirm Vergil’s intertextual relationship with the Lament for Bion. Instead, the trees, which have obviously dropped their fruits in the form of tears because Bion is dead (sù d' œp' Ñl{qrJ/ d{ndrea karpÕn }riye t¦ d' ¥nqea p£nt' œmar£nqh· Epit. 213

Oak and pine, and especially picea or taeda, are considered as the commonest kinds of woods used for a funeral pyre. Cf. Verg. A. 4.504-505 and 6.214f. See also Plin. NH 16.40ff. 214 Vergil’s dependence on the Lament for Bion is well attested in Daphnis’ lament (Ecl. 5.20-44) and in the subject of the herdsman’s pining away which is employed twice throughout the Eclogues (Ecl. 8.17-61 and Ecl. 10). On Vergil’s relationship with the Lament for Bion, see Clausen (1994) s.v. [Moschus] and Paschalis 1995, 617-621.

Eclogue 1

61

Bion. 31-32), recall the fruits that Amaryllis left unpicked on trees because Tityrus is away (cui pendere sua patereris in arbore poma Ecl. 1.3637).215 However, Vergil reverses the original idea by describing the fruits left on the trees; first, because the neglect of the usual jobs is a typical love symptom in Vergil and in Greco-Roman literature216 and second, and most significantly, because Amaryllis’ lover (Tityrus) is not there to receive the poma that has a long history as a conventional erotic gift.217 Therefore, Idylls 1 and 4, along with the Lament for Adonis and the Lament for Bion, are used to stress Amaryllis’ tragic situation and her grief. [Lines 40-45]

Amaryllis’ reaction ends with Tityrus’ answer to Meliboeus’

earlier question (sed tamen iste deus qui sit, da, Tityre, nobis Ecl. 1.18), which is finally given here. The herdsman’s gratitude to the deus in Ecl. 1.6ff. continues with a second and more thorough account found in a more eminent place near the centre of the Eclogue. Tityrus announces the erection of an altar, and also promises a monthly sacrificial donation in order to display his recognition for the service received: Quid facerem? neque seruitio me exire licebat nec tam praesentis alibi cognoscere diuos. hic illum uidi iuuenem, Meliboee, quot annis bis senos cui nostra dies altaria fumant, hic mihi responsum primus dedit ille petenti: ‘pascite ut ante boues, pueri, submittite tauros (Ecl. 1.40-45) 215

Du Quesnay 1981, 47-48. Cf. e.g. Ecl. 2.69-72 and A. 4.86-89. See also e.g. Sappho fr. 102 L-P; Theoc. Id. 3.1ff., 10.1ff., 11.12-16 and 72-74; Longus 1.13.6 and 1.17.4; Lucr. DRN 4.1124. 217 Cf. Ar. Nub. 997 m›lJ blhqeij ØpÕ pornidfou, Plat. A.P. 5.79.1-2 tù m›lJ b£llw se· sÝ d' ee m੻n Œkoàsa filelj me,/ dexam{nh tÁj sÁj parqenfhj met£doj. See also Littlewood 1968, 147-181. 216

62

Chapter 2

These Vergilian lines recall a similar idea that is traced in Idyll 17; although Idyll 17 may not have been included in Artemidorus’ collected edition, there is internal evidence in the Eclogues which can reinforce this suggestion. First, contemporary historical personalities such as Pollio (Ecl. 2 and 8), Alfenus Varus (Ecl. 9) and J. Caesar (Ecl. 9) are praised in the Vergilian collection. Moreover, there is no encomiastic reference in the Theocritean pastoral Idylls,218 which suggests that the Vergilian encomiastic references could be based on Idyll 17.219 This is confirmed by the fact that its initial verse ('Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa kai œj Dfa l›gete Molsai Id. 17.1), which obviously comes from Aratus’ Phaenomena ('Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa Phaen. 1),220 is used by Vergil twice in the Eclogues (cf. Ecl. 3.60 and 8.11). Therefore, it would be unusual for Vergil, whose main source is Theocritus and whose relation with Aratus is very limited in the Eclogues (cf. Ecl. 3.60 and 8.11),221 to have drawn the line Ab Iove principium from the Phaenomena rather than Idyll 17. Finally, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 17 has also been noticed in Eclogue 4,222 which reinforces the suggestion that this Idyll had been available to Vergil. In other words, there is substantial internal evidence in the collection that can

218

Idyll 7 could be a singular exception, since it would be quite unusual to contain a reference to Ptolemy Philadelphus. Cf. Id. 7.93 t£ pou kai ZhnÕj œpi qrÒnon ¥gage f£ma, along with Gow II 1952, 155 and Hunter 1999, 179. 219 Hunter 2001, 159-163. 220 Cf. Strat. A.P. 12.1.1'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa, kaqëj ehrhken ”Aratoj; schol. Theoc. Id. 17.1-4a Aratefv k{crhtai eesbolÍ; Cic. Rep. 1.56.1-2 Imitemur ergo Aratum, qui magnis de rebus dicere exordiens a Iove incipiendum putat; Quint. Inst. 10.1.46.1f. Igitur, ut Aratus ab Ioue incipiendum putat, ita nos rite coepturi ab Homero uidemur. See also Gow II 1952, 327, Fantuzzi 1980, 165 and Kidd 1997, 162-163. 221 Clausen 1994, ad locc. and 236-237 with n. 15. 222 Williams 1974, 39ff., Du Quesnay 1977, 52-68 and Clausen 1994, 119-130, who are based on the original view of Kerlin 1908, 449-460.

Eclogue 1

63

confirm that Vergil was not only familiar with Idyll 17 but that he also used it as a source. This suggestion is first confirmed by Tityrus’ benefactor, who is found in Ecl. 1.42, structurally recalling Idyll 17 that constitutes Ptolemy Philadelphus’ encomium. It has already been observed by scholars that the term iuuenem is emphatically placed by Vergil very close to the very centre of Ecl. 1.42.223 Moreover, iuuenem occurs in the central position in the preceding verse and is followed by two and a half feet (cf. hic illum uidi iuuenem, Meliboee, quotannis Ecl. 1.42). The numerical centre either of a poem or of a verse has long been considered as an eminent place through which the significance of the person referred to is stressed.224 The same complimentary purpose is also served with the use of the conventional topos of the “first and last”, where an author announces the intention of beginning and ending the poem with reference to the same person he proposes to compliment.225 This formula was used for Zeus and by inference for Ptolemy Philadelphus, which has long been considered as a variation on the conventional “first and last” type, given that it has also the “middle” detail (¢ndrîn d' aâ Ptolemaloj œni prètoisi leg{sqw/ kai pÚmatoj kai m{ssoj· Ö g¦r profer{statoj ¢ndrîn Id. 17.3-4).226 Vergil recalls this variant form by locating Tityrus’ deus in the middle of 223

Wright 1983, 129. Cf. Verg. A. 1.378-1379 sum pius Aeneas, raptos qui ex hoste penatis/ classe ueho mecum, fama super aethera notus. These lines are the exact arithmetical centre of the first book of the Aeneid (378 verses out of 756) where the significant episode of Aeneas’ revelation occurs. For the use of this technique by Vergil and other Roman poets see Fredericksmeyer 1966, 214, Moritz 1968, 116-131 and Thomas 1983, 180 n. 16. 225 Cf. Ecl. 8.11 a te principium, tibi desinam, even though some manuscripts offer the reading desinet. On this formula and its relationship with gods or men who are treated similarly to divinities, see Levi 1966, 76ff. 226 Cf. Theogn. 3f. ¢ll' aeei prîtÒn te kai Ûstaton }n te m{soisin ¢efsw. See Wright 1983, 119. 224

Chapter 2

64

the Eclogue. In view of that, the position of the term iuuenem in Eclogue 1 is far from accidental; on the contrary, it is a considerable encomiastic topos which is used in order to strongly enhance the complimentary character of Tityrus’ words. Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 17 is not only based on terms of structure. The Vergilian lines also exploit the sacrificial contribution that Tityrus establishes for his benefactor (quotannis/ bis senos cui nostra dies altaria fumant Ecl. 1.42-43). This sacrifice recalls Idyll 17, where Theocritus describes the monthly sacrificial offerings that Ptolemy Philadelphus and Arsinoe offer to the recently established altars for the dead Ptolemy Soter and Berenice:227 poll¦ d੻ pianq{nta boîn Óge mhrfa kafei mhsi periplom{noisin œreuqom{nwn œpi bwmîn, aÙtÒj t' efqfma t' ¥locoj (Id. 17.126-128)

Tityrus’ and Ptolemy’s sacrificial contributions share the feature of being monthly. This suggestion is also reinforced with quotannis bis senos dies that denotes “twelve days each year”, referring to the Hellenistic king-cult that deals with the celebration of the ruler’s birthday every month, or in other words, twelve times per year.228 Therefore, the quotannis bis senos dies may recall the periplom{noisin mhsi,229 thereby confirming Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Idyll 17. However, Idyll 17 is not the only source that can be identified in Ecl. 1.42-43. Vergil also draws on a 227

Du Quesnay 1981, 43-44. See Clausen 1994, 48, who describes a series of Hellenistic kings such as Ptolemy III, Ptolemy V, Attalus II, Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Antiochus I of Commagene that received the same honour. 229 LSJ s.v. perit{llomai with examples. 228

Eclogue 1

65

Homeric passage that has long been considered as the source on which the above Theocritean lines (Id. 17.126-128) are based.230 There, Homer describes Erechtheus’ religious cult, stressing the procedure of the votive offerings that are submitted by the Athenians:231 }nqa d{ min taÚroisi kai ¢rneiolj dl£ontai koàroi 'Aqhnafwn peritellom{nwn œniautîn (Il. 2.550-551)

Once again, the time of the offerings is given through the phrase peritellom{nwn œniautîn (“revolving years or seasons”) that suggests an annual festival, confirming the sense of “twelve days each year” rendered with quotannis bis senos dies. Furthermore, the sacrificial victim ¢rneiolj is picked up by Tityrus, who has promised a sheep for his divine benefactor (cf. agnus Ecl. 1.8), while taÚroisi are omitted, since it is typically unsuitable for the low social status of a poor herdsman. Most significant, however, is the conflation between the Homeric years (quotannis-peritellom{nwn

œniautîn)

and

Theocritean

months

(quotannis bis senos dies-periplom{noisin mhsi) that shows the double quotation from Homer and Theocritus.232 Tityrus’ saviour enjoys the sacrificial contributions that are conventionally received by Homeric (i.e. Erechtheus) and Hellenistic (i.e. Ptolemy Philadelphus) divinities. This 230

See Gow II 1952, 345, who notices that this expression shows close affinities with the peritellom{nwn œniautîn found in Homer (Il. 2.551), since both phrases describe annual sacrifices. See also Du Quesnay 1981, 144 n. 93, who reinforces the validity of Gow’s suggestion by introducing additional verbal quotations which strongly enhance the relationship between those two passages (cf. Id. 17.123 egsato naoÚj and 126 pianq{nta boîn Óge mhrfa are variations of Il. 2.549f. eƒsen Œù œn pfoni nhù and 550 taÚroisi kai ¢rneiolj dl£ontai). 231 Du Quesnay 1981, 43-44. 232 On the technique of the double quotation, see McKeown 1987, 37-45.

66

Chapter 2

can show that the iuuenis deus shares Homeric and Hellenistic divine features, stressing that he is strong enough to secure Tityrus’ exception from the land evictions. Most importantly, this combination can illustrate that Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus in the Eclogues also deals with non-pastoral Idylls and their non-pastoral sources. [Lines 44-45]

The benefactor’s (iuuenis) reply is repeated in direct speech with

Tityrus’ words and is also expressed in strictly pastoral terms, thereby recalling the prologue of Hesiod’s Theogony:233 hic mihi responsum primus dedit ille petenti: “pascite ut ante boues, pueri; summittite tauros” (Ecl. 1.44-45)

ag nÚ poq' `Hsfodon kal¾n œdfdaxan ¢oid›n, ¥rnaj poimafnonq' `Elikînoj Ûpo zaq{oio tÒnde d{ me prètista qeai prÕj màqon }eipon, Moàsai 'Olumpi£dej, koàrai DiÕj aegiÒcoio poim{nej ¥grauloi (Theog. 22-26)

œn{pneusan d{ moi aÙd¾n q{spin, gna klefoimi t£ t' œssÒmena prÒ t' œÒnta, kaf m' œk{lonq' Ømneln mak£rwn g{noj ae੻n œÒntwn, sf©j d' aÙt¦j prîtÒn te kai Ûstaton ae੻n ¢efdein (Theog. 31-34)

Here, Hesiod, who is described as being both a poet and a shepherd,234 encounters a deity (Moàsai) that credits him with the gift of eloquence in 233

Hanslik 1955, 16-17. See also Clausen 1994, 49-50 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 156157.

Eclogue 1

67

order to generate poetry. On the other hand, Tityrus, who is also a shepherd (saepe tener nostris ab ouilibus imbuet agnus Ecl. 1.8 and non insueta grauis temptabunt pabula fetas,/ nec mala uicini pecoris contagia laedent Ecl. 1.49-50) and a singer (siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena Ecl. 1.2), meets a god (hic illum uidi iuuenem, Meliboee, quotannis/ bis senos cui nostra dies altaria fumant Ecl. 1.42-43)235 whose orders ensure his status as a farmer (pascite ut ante boues, pueri; summittite tauros Ecl. 1.45). However, Tityrus’ exception from the land confiscations secures not only his land but, most significantly, his capacity to compose and write pastoral music and poetry. Hence, the Vergilian herdsman enjoys exactly the same privileges as Hesiod, which thus could suggest that Vergil is based on Hesiod. This suggestion is further reinforced with the word primus that recalls prètista and with the term pueri, which can correspond to the phrase poim{nej ¥grauloi in the sense that the address is directed to a particular class (here the herdsmen).236 Hence, Tityrus’ meeting with the iuuenis deus introduces the herdsman to the tradition of the poetic initiation where the poet’s inauguration occurs after a divine meeting.237 This suggestion lays special emphasis on the divine substance of Tityrus’ benefactor, but most significantly, shows that the Vergilian rustics are singers-herdsmen rather than herdsmen-singers. [Lines 46-58]

The description of the herdsman’s journey and his explanation for

visiting Rome offer enough evidence to convince Meliboeus of the 234 The term `Hsfodon is implicitly expressed through the personal pronoun me in the following verse. Cf. schol. Hes. Theog. 22 ¢nti toà œm{, æj “Omhroj (A 240)· à pot' 'AcillÁoj poq›. `HsfodÒn fhsi tÕn eÙtelÁ. peri d੻ Œautoà l{gwn æj peri ¥llou l{gei· ¢rcalon d੻ tÕ Ãqoj. 235 On a brief discussion about the identity of iuuenis, see Williams 1968, 311-312 and Du Quesnay 1981, 133-134. 236 West 1966, 160. 237 Cf. Hes. Theog. 22-23, Call. Aet. fr. 1.21-24 Pf., Theoc. Id. 7.91-93 and Ecl. 6.64-73.

68

Chapter 2

security with which Tityrus has been ensured. The remaining part of the Eclogue continues with Meliboeus’ reply, which is actually a complimentary account of Tityrus’ secure place in the countryside. Meliboeus’ speech consists of two parts referring to the mental picture of Tityrus’ future life. The first section is a realistic and negative portrayal of Tityrus’ farm (Ecl. 1.46-50), counterbalanced by the subsequent idealised and emotional account (Ecl. 1.51-58): Fortunate senex, ergo tua rura manebunt et tibi magna satis, quamuis lapis omnia nudus limosoque palus obducat pascua iunco. non insueta grauis temptabunt pabula fetas nec mala uicini pecoris contagia laedent. fortunate senex, hic inter flumina nota et fontis sacros frigus captabis opacum; hinc tibi, quae semper, uicino ab limite saepes Hyblaeis apibus florem depasta salicti saepe leui somnum suadebit inire susurro; hinc alta sub rupe canet frondator ad auras, nec tamen interea raucae, tua cura, palumbes nec gemere aeria cessabit turtur ab ulmo (Ecl. 1.46-58)

The humble realities of the natural background that surrounds Tityrus’ land are replaced by a visualised and idyllic landscape typical of the Theocritean locus amoenus. These Vergilian lines recall the famous

Eclogue 1

69

passage in Idyll 7238 that describes the pleasures that rustic travellers encounter when they arrive on Phrasidamus’ farm:239 pollai d' ¥mmin Ûperqe kat¦ kratÕj don{onto ahgeiroi ptel{ai te tÕ d' œggÚqen derÕn Ûdwr Numf©n œx ¥ntroio kateibÒmenon kel£ruze. toi d੻ poti skiaralj Ñrodamnfsin aeqalfwnej t{ttigej lalageàntej }con pÒnon· ¡ d' Ñlolugèn thlÒqen œn pukinalsi b£twn trÚzesken ¢k£nqaij· ¥eidon kÒrudoi kai ¢kanqfdej, }stene trugèn, pwtînto xouqai peri pfdakaj ¢mfi m{lissai (Id. 7.135-142)

It is clear enough that the subject and the context of those passages are very different. However, there are notable verbal correspondences that can reinforce their relationship. The flora and fauna of the Roman and Greek passages show close parallels, which are also confirmed through the elms (ulmo-ptel{ai), the bees (apibus-m{lissai) and the turtledoves (turturtrugèn). Nevertheless, special emphasis should be laid on apibus. It is accompanied by the adjective Hyblaeis which, besides recalling an area famous for its honey (cf. Ecl. 7.37),240 denotes Sicily, which is Theocritus’ native land. Furthermore, the familiar streams (flumina nota) recall the corresponding springs (pfdakaj), the sacred fountains (fontis sacros), and the sacred water (derÕn Ûdwr), thereby calling to mind the shade that is created by the landscape. Moreover, the cool shade (frigus opacum) corresponds to the shady branches (skiaralj Ñrodamnfsin), and the 238

Coleman 1977, 83-84, Wright 1983, 136-137 and Hubbard 1998, 52-53. See Coleman 1977, 83 who also considers the Vergilian passage as an idyllic landscape reminiscent of that which is described in Id. 5.45-49. 240 Cf. e.g. Str. 6.2.2; Var. R. 3.16.14. 239

Chapter 2

70

slight whisper (leui susurro) can also imitate the murmur made by the noisy flight of bees (pwtînto xouqai m{lissai).241 Yet, the turtledove’s moaning (nec gemere cessabit turtur) is also found in Theocritus (}stene trugèn) and is almost the same as the pruner’s song (frondator canet), which can also recall the larks and linnets’ singing (¥eidon kÒrudoi kai ¢kanqfdej). On the other hand, the notable omission of the cicadas’ songs (t{ttigej lalageàntej) and the frog’s squawk (Ñlolugèn trÚzesken) should also be noticed. These details are replaced with the character of the pruner (frondator) and the boundary hedge (uicino ab limite saepes) that are typical Italian country features. Therefore, Tityrus’ farm is in fact an idealised pastoral landscape designed to stress Meliboeus’ misery over his confiscated land property, corresponding also to the Vergilian locus amoenus. However, Theocritus is not the only source that can be traced in Ecl. 1.46-58 because these verses are also based on Callimachus’ theories about poetry. This view is first confirmed by the realistic account of Tityrus’ farm (Ecl. 1.46-50), the symbolic reading of which has caught (though not unanimously) the interest of scholars.242 Nonetheless, the 241

Here, Roche 2014, 450-453 suggests that Ecl. 1.53-55 could also recall Meleag. 12 G-P = A.P. 7.195, something which, in that sense, can show that Meleager’s influence on the Eclogues is not exclusively associated with Vergil’s strong dependence on the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition (cf. Ecl. 1.1-2); on the contrary, it can also show that Callimachus along with Meleager are also related to the subtle style which accords with the Hellenistic background of Roman poetry in the 1st c. BC. 242 Martin 1946, 104 considers the strange herbage (Ecl. 1.49 insueta pabula) and the contagious disease (Ecl. 1.50 mala contagia) as clear elements of Callimachean poetics by identifying the first term with that kind of poetry which is alien to Vergilian pastoral and the second one with the envious competition which the poets of slender style try to avoid by following the Callimachean rules. However, Wright 1983, 134-135 observes that any symbolic interpretation of Meliboeus’ first account should be limited only to magna satis which possibly denotes Callimachus’ request for brevity. Moreover, he explains that any attempt to trace

Eclogue 1

71

following idealised version of Tityrus’ small-holding (Ecl. 1.51-58) contains striking correspondences to the concluding section of the Hymn to Apollo, where implicit references to Callimachean poetics abound:243 'Assurfou potamolo m{gaj ૧Òoj, ¢ll¦ t¦ poll£ lÚmata gÁj kai pollÕn œf' Ûdati surfetÕn Ÿlkei. Dhol d' oÙk ¢pÕ pantÕj Ûdwr for{ousi m{lissai, ¢ll' ¼tij kaqar› te kai ¢cr£antoj ¢n{rpei pfdakoj œx derÁj Ñlfgh lib¦j ¥kron ¥wton (Hymn 4.108-112)

The above Vergilian and Callimachean lines contain two standard subjects in the area of literary symbolism, which can show their intertextual relationship. The phrase fontis sacros recalls the corresponding pfdakoj derÁj, referring to the identification of the fountains and water with poetic inspiration;244 most significantly, the terms apibus and m{lissai constitute a characteristic verbal correspondence that has long been related to the gift of poetry.245 Nonetheless, the image of the muddy river that

further symbolisms, which recall Callimachus’ canons for poetry such as lapis nudus (Ecl. 1.47) or limoso and palus (Ecl. 1.48) that could respectively recall the elegant simplicity of the style and the muddy flow of Callimachus’ Assyrian river, would involve an inconsistency because these terms are foreign to the stylistic ideals which are adopted by Vergil in the Eclogues. Nevertheless, Wright 1983, 135-136 is keen on uncovering a notable reference to Callimachus by placing the Vergilian passage in the tradition of a divine encounter that is modelled on the pattern of the poet’s initiation. 243 Wright 1983, 137-138. On the references to the Callimachean canons for poetry found in this section of the Hymn to Apollo, see Williams 1978, 85-97. 244 Callimachus recognises two springs as sources of poetic inspiration: Hippocrene (cf. Aet. fr. 2.1-2 Pf.) and Aganippe (cf. fr. 696 Pf.). On water as a symbol of poetic inspiration, see Crowther 1979, 1-11. 245 Both the concept that the term m{lissa is figuratively used for the word “poet” (LSJ s.v. m{lissa II.1) and the fact that the activities of the poets and bees are

Chapter 2

72

represents the traditional writing of poetry in emphatic contrast to that manifested by Callimachus is entirely absent from Ecl. 1.51-58, given that it is found in the following verses (Ecl. 1.64-72). [Lines 59-63]

The long realistic and idealised account of Tityrus’ farm is

followed by the bitter reality that Meliboeus is currently facing, uttered through a series of adynata: Ante leues ergo pascentur in aethere cerui et freta destituent nudos in litore pisces, ante pererratis amborum finibus exsul aut Ararim Parthus bibet aut Germania Tigrim, quam nostro illius labatur pectore uultus (Ecl. 1.59-63)

Adynata or “impossibilities” constitute a common rhetorical figure, according to which an author can suitably set an idea, which he describes as impossible, side by side with one or more natural impossibilities in order to show that it is something absurd, impossible or improbable.246 In other words, an author can utter an impossible idea through a concrete example that is reinforced by several natural impossibilities with which it is juxtaposed.247 These verses contain several adynata that draw upon nature for impossible or highly unlikely conditions, which, however, are more probable than the forgetting of the young man (iuuenis) who secures his status as a farmer. The natural impossibilities uttered by Tityrus to sympathise with Meliboeus’ harsh fate could be fashioned on the adynata

often under comparison are well established from antiquity. On examples in Greek and Roman literature and further bibliography, see Berg 1974, 207 n. 60. 246 Dutoit 1936. 247 Rowe 1965, 392.

Eclogue 1

73

used by Thyris after Daphnis’ death (Id. 1.132-136), but the content is emphatically not the same. On the contrary, the adynaton that the Germans and Parthians will exchange territories is hardly appropriate. Instead, it is closely associated with exile and extreme migration by laying emphasis on the nomadic habit of these people (cf. pererratis amborum finibus) who were outside the imperial region at this temporal period, thereby foretelling a regular and secure future for himself within the pastoral world and anticipating an unsteady and insecure future for Meliboeus outside the pastoral world. [Lines 64-73]

Nonetheless, neither the Germans nor the Parthians will exchange

territories (patriae), but Meliboeus will. This is evidenced by the following verses where the elements, which supply Tityrus and are used to supply Meliboeus with the ideal landscape for singing, are replaced by those which adumbrate the future destinations of the departed herdsmen:248 At nos hinc alii sitientis ibimus Afros, pars Scythiam et rapidum cretae ueniemus Oaxen et penitus toto diuisos orbe Britannos en umquam patrios longo post tempore finis pauperis et tuguri congestum caespite culmen, post aliquot, mea regna, uidens mirabor aristas? impius haec tam culta noualia miles habebit, barbarus has segetes. en quo discordia ciuis produxit miseros: his nos conseuimus agros! insere nunc, Meliboee, piros, pone ordine uitis (Ecl. 1.64-73)

248

Papanghelis 1995, 196-197. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 163-164.

74

Chapter 2

The Oaxes’ designation as rapidum cretae (qui rapit cretam)249 introduces a strong contrast with the aforementioned flumina nota and fontis sacros, which also stand in emphatic opposition to the rapidum cretae Oaxen and vice versa; hence, they respectively reflect the literary controversy between the poets of short and highly employed poems and those who prefer writing long traditional epics. This controversy shows that the Callimachean details that are reproduced in the above Vergilian verses contain similar, if not the same, symbolic implications, thereby enriching the Eclogue with quotations from Callimachus’ canons for poetry. What is more, these symbolisms correspond to the Vergilian locus amoenus, which is not merely a place of pastoral otium free of the disturbances of everyday life (i.e. the Theocritean locus amoenus), but also a literary area where the Hellenistic poetics find their expression. Therefore, Meliboeus’ misery, earlier emphasised by the idealised description of Tityrus’ farm, is here underlined further, since the herdsman-poet is described as losing not only his land (confirmed with the schetliasmous, the political terms (patrios, finis, impius, miles, barbarus, discordia and ciuis) and the irony that is evident in Ecl. 1.67-73), but also the place of his poetic expression. However, the symbolisms of the river Oaxes are not only limited to the Hymn to Apollo. The same river seems to be associated closely with Meliboeus’ future life, given that Africa, Scythia, the Oaxes and Britain are the possible destinations of the herdsman. This geography is to some extent found in a Callimachean passage whose symbolic reading has already been noticed by scholars:250

249 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 1.65 et rapidum cretae Oaxen hoc est lutulentum, quod rapit cretam. See also Wellesley 1968, 140, Coleman 1977, 86 and O’Hara 1996, 245. 250 This passage is a section of fragment 1.13-18 Pf., which is the third in a series of contrasts that are found in Callimachus’ prologue to Aetia (Aet. fr. 1.1-40 Pf.),

Eclogue 1

75

.....]on œpi Qr›ikaj ¢p' AegÚptoio [p{toito agmat]i Pugmafwn ¹dom{nh [g]{ra[noj, Massag{tai kai makrÕn ÑisteÚoien œp' ¥ndra MÁdon] ¢[hdonfdes] d' ïde melicr[Ò]terai (Call. Aet. fr. 1.13-16 Pf.)

Sitientis Afros can correspond to the Pugmafwn, a fabulous race of dwarfs inhabiting the upper Nile region;251 Scythiam may recall the Massag{tai, a tribe of Scythian pedigree located near the east of the Caspian Sea;252 and finally the Oaxes253 can suggest the MÁdon that represents the people of the Medes settled in the east.254 Nonetheless, Vergil alters the Callimachean references that are emphatically related to Callimachus’ doctrina with the most likely journey’s ends of the Roman herdsman. Therefore, the controversy of “long” versus “short” is transferred to the remote and barbarous places which stand in opposition to the Roman countryside, thereby underlining Meliboeus’ misery in strong opposition to Tityrus’ happiness. This striking difference is emphatically placed in the area of symbolic meaning and especially in the literary debate on the composition of poetry, showing again that the Vergilian rustics are

where the poet sets forth his programmatic declaration on the composition of poetry. See Papanghelis 1995, 194-196. 251 For more about Pugmafouj see e.g. OCD s.v. pygmies with bibliographical notes. 252 Cf. Hdt. 1.215-16. See also RE XIV.II (1930) s.v. Massagetai. 253 Servius mentions that Oaxes is a river in Mesopotamia or Scythia (Serv. Ecl. 1.65, 2.24), but such a comment seems to be unsupported and therefore doubtful. The form found in the Roman passage never occurs elsewhere in literature, but still it could not be considered as a Vergilian invention. On the contrary, it seems almost certain that it is the variant of the Oxus river which flowed in the east (OCD s.v. Oxus. See also Arr. An. 3.29.2; Plin. NH 6.48; Curt. 7.10.13 and Mela 3.42) and is in all probability drawn from Callimachus’ treatise Peri tîn œn tÍ oekoum{nV potamîn. 254 On Medes see, OCD s.v. Medea with further bibliography.

Chapter 2

76

singers-herdsmen rather than herdsmen-singers and, most importantly, that Vergil’s dependence on Callimachus is not related only to his canons for poetry. [Lines 74-78]

Meliboeus’ long speech comes to an end with a farewell to the

idealised life of the pastoral world, which recalls Daphnis’ similar farewell, found in Idyll 1:255 ite meae, felix quondam pecus, ite capellae. non ego uos posthac uiridi proiectus in antro dumosa pendere procul de rupe uidebo; carmina nulla canam; non me pascente, capellae, florentem cytisum et salices carpetis amaras (Ecl. 1.74-78)

ð lÚkoi, ð qîej, ð ¢n' êrea fwl£dej ¥rktoi, cafreq'· Ð boukÒloj Ümmin œgë D£fnij oÙk{t' ¢n' Ûlan, oÙk{t' ¢n¦ drumèj, oÙk ¥lsea. calr', 'Ar{qoisa, kai potamoi toi celte kalÕn kat¦ QÚbridoj Ûdwr (Id. 1.115-118)

Both Meliboeus and Daphnis leave the pastoral world and its idyllic life forever, speaking in the same negative way (non…nulla…nonoÙk{t'…oÙk{t'…oÙk), showing the interaction between singer/herdsman and the world. However, Daphnis is dying of love in contrast to Meliboeus, who is forced to leave due to the land confiscations. Vergil transfers Daphnis’ pathetic words to Meliboeus in order to intensify the pain of the exiled herdsman, while he also anticipates Daphnis’ substantial role in the collection (cf. Eclogue 5 and especially Eclogue 10, where 255

Cucchiarelli 2012, 167.

Eclogue 1

77

Gallus’ entrance and behaviour into the pastoral world are compared to those of Daphnis). [Lines 79-83]

However, the melancholy that emerges from the Eclogue is

entirely reversed in Tityrus’ final speech, which is an open invitation to Meliboeus to spend a last night with him in the country: Hic tamen hanc mecum poteras requiescere noctem fronde super uiridi: sunt nobis mitia poma, castaneae molles et pressi copia lactis, et iam summa procul uillarum culmina fumant maioresque cadunt altis de montibus umbrae (Ecl. 1.79-83)

Invitations between herdsmen to meet each other in a certain place are frequently found in Theocritean pastoral.256 However, this Vergilian scene is based on Polyphemus’ invitation to Galateia,257 as suggested by the verbal structure: ¢ll' ¢ffkeuso poq' ¡m{, kai Œxelj oÙd੻n }lasson, t¦n glauk¦n d੻ q£lassan }a poti c{rson Ñrecqeln· ¤dion œn têntrJ par' œmin t¦n nÚkta diaxelj. œnti d£fnai thnef, œnti ૧adinai kup£rissoi, }sti m{laj kissÒj, }st' ¥mpeloj ¡ glukÚkarpoj, }sti yucrÕn Ûdwr, tÒ moi ¡ polud{ndreoj Ahtna leuk©j œk ciÒnoj potÕn ¢mbrÒsion proǸhti. tfj ka tînde q£lassan }cein kai kÚmaq' Ÿloito; (Id. 11.42-49)

256 257

Cf. Id. 1.12-14, 15-22, 5.31f., 50-52, 55-57 and 11.42-49. Clausen 1994, 59 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 169.

Chapter 2

78

The emphatic collocation sunt nobis that introduces the attractions of the country corresponds to the repeated }sti used for the description of a new offering each time.258 Moreover, the remaining items in the Vergilian lines are carefully arranged with the notable juxtaposition adjective-noun (mitia poma) and vice versa (castaneae molles), which is a structural feature that is also traced in the Theocritean passage (cf. ૧adinai kup£rissoi m{laj kissÒj

¥mpeloj

¡

glukÚkarpoj;

Id. 11.45f). Vergil transfers

Polyphemus’ grotesque invitation to Galateia into the tragic reality of the Eclogue. As a result, this Theocritean episode is deprived of its erotic content, which is replaced by Tityrus’ sympathy for the departing Meliboeus. Nonetheless, Polyphemus’ proposal is an erotic symptom and therefore ineffective. This is an observation that can also explain Vergil’s dependence on this episode, since his goal is to emphasise the weakness of Tityrus’ open invitation, which in fact postpones (not cancels) Meliboeus’ departure and misery. This weakness is also confirmed by the term poteras (“you could have, had you wished”), whose idiomatic imperfect tense rightly implies an unreal condition.259 What is more, Vergil’s dependence on the structure of this Theocritean passage can further show that Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is not only based in terms of subject but also in terms of structure. [Conclusions]

To sum up, it is clear that Vergil’s dependence on Greek and

Roman literature is evident throughout Eclogue 1, whose setting reflects the historical reality of the Italian countryside in the 1st c. BC (land confiscations). Thus, Eclogue 1 can be considered as a programmatic literary creation firstly because it shows the combination between Greek and Roman sources that runs through the collection and the ways they are 258 259

On the Doric form œnti instead of œsti, see Hunter 1999, 21-26 and esp. 26. Kühner-Stegmann 1914, 173.

Eclogue 1

79

used by Vergil; and secondly because these sources can also, either implicitly or explicitly, betray literary models, subjects and literary techniques, which can be identified throughout the collection. The collection is based on the Theocritean subject, structure, language, pastoral music-sound, sources (Homer), epigrams and nonpastoral Idylls. In other words, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is exhaustive and thorough, confirming that their relationship is far greater than we believe. Moreover, Bion’s and Pseudo-Moschus’ influences on the Eclogues are also substantial, given that these can show Vergil’s strong dependence

on

post-Theocritean

pastoral.

Furthermore,

Vergil’s

intertextual relationship with Meleager’s Garland can display the great influence that the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition has on the Eclogues. Hesiod’s influence is closely associated with the Vergilian rustics, because it stresses that they are singers-herdsmen rather than herdsmen-singers, which can thus demonstrate the metapoetic character of the collection. In addition, Callimachus’ influence on the Eclogues is related to the subtle (tenuis) style that runs through the collection and is consistent with the Hellenistic and Neoteric background of Roman poetry in the 1st c. BC. What is more, it is also associated with the Hellenistic narrativemythological elegy and therefore to its successor, the Roman love elegy (i.e. Gallus), thereby indicating how close the elegiac and the pastoral genres are. Finally, Lucretius’ influence on the Eclogues is mostly based on its structure and language, rather than its subject, stressing that the relationship with Lucretius is not a relationship with a philosophical source but with a literary one. On the other hand, Vergil’s indebtedness to Roman comedy is a relationship with a literary and humorous source, which, along with Lucretius, can programmatically show that they are the

80

Chapter 2

most striking Roman sources in the collection and that they are also used in order to lay special emphasis on its Roman character.260 More than the literary sources identified here, however, Eclogue 1 also contains specific literary subjects, themes and techniques, which the reader is expected to come across throughout the Vergilian corpus. Singers-herdsmen, love, land confiscations, pathetic fallacy, adynata, locus amoenus, musical instruments and traditional pastoral themes (e.g. Polyphemus’ and Galateia’s love story) are all brought together in this Eclogue. On the other hand, thematic quotations, linguistic quotations, double quotations and oppositio in imitando are the techniques used to reform and revise the literary sources and the subjects that are identified in Eclogue 1. In other words, Vergil’s great dependence on Greek and Roman sources in Eclogue 1 is not merely a scholarly or ornamental feature (quotation) but a substantial means for his poetic self-definition and his literary stance as a pastoral poet.

260

Here, it should also be mentioned that Hellenistic authors used to drawn on certain programmatic texts in order to further reinforce the programmatic function of their own poetic compositions (cf. e.g. Call. Aet. fr. 2.1f. Pf. that is heavily influenced by Hes. Theog. 1-23. See e.g. Pfeiffer 1949, ad loc.). In view of that, Vergil’s dependence on programmatic passages such Hesiod’s Theog. 1-23, Theocritus’ Idylls 1 and 7, the prologue of Callimachus’ Aetia and the concluding section of the Callimachean Hymn to Apollo accords very well with this practice.

CHAPTER 3 ECLOGUE 2* It is customary for readers to stress Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus in Eclogue 2 since it is a composition that is mostly based on the Theocritean collection. Indeed, a reader familiar with Theocritus will not fail to recognise that much in this Eclogue comes from the Theocritean collection, mostly from Idylls 3 and 11. On the other hand, it is also true that commentators tend to examine Eclogue 2 by focusing almost exclusively on Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus. Coleman lays special emphasis on the Theocritean (Idylls 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 20 and 23)261 and Meleagrian influences on the Eclogue, also observing the significance of *

La Penna 1963, 484-493 and Kenney 1983, 44-59 underline Callimachus’ influence (i.e. Acontius and Cydippe’s love story) on the Eclogue. Galinsky 1965, 161-191 focuses on the thematic relationship between the Vergilian Eclogue 2 and the Theocritean Idyll 11. Robertson 1970-1971, 8-23 examines Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus, laying special emphasis on Idylls 3, 6 and 11. MooreBlunt 1977, 23-42 concentrates her interest on Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 11. Du Quesnay 1979, 35-69 highlights Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus and Meleager, tracing also komastic elements in Corydon’s song. Fernandelli 2008, 279-308 examines Meleager’s (i.e. 79 G-P = A.P. 12.127) structural and thematic influence on the Eclogue. Van den Broeck 2008-2009 finds sexual overtones in Eclogues 2 and 3, suggesting that Eclogue 2 can be read as a parody of an elegiac paraclausithyron. Gagliardi 2011a, 56-73 claims that the way in which Vergil understood and received Idyll 11 has been influenced by Gallus. Gagliardi 2011b, 21-41, based on some “elegiac” characters in Ecl. 2, 8 and 10, further argues that love in the Eclogues is heavily based on Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Gallus (see also Gagliardi 2011c, 676-696). Paraskeviotis 2013, 115-130 traces humorous elements in Corydon’s love song to Alexis, suggesting that they are heavily based on the humorous features that are evident in the anonymous goatherd (Idyll 3) and Polyphemus (Idyll 11). 261 Here, it should be mentioned that the Theocritean authorship of Idyll 23 is uncertain. See Gow II 1952, 408.

82

Chapter 3

certain subjects which correspond to the elegiac tradition (Gallus).262 Clausen, on the other hand, first underlines Vergil’s Alexandrianism (Callimachus, Phanocles), which is emphatically evident from the introductory lines of the Eclogue, without failing to observe its Theocritean overtones (Idylls 3 and 11).263 Finally, Cucchiarelli shares almost the same view as Coleman by stressing Vergil’s indebtedness to the Theocritean corpus (Idylls 3, 6, 10, 11, 20 and 23) and identifying typical elegiac themes (Gallus).264 Nonetheless, Theocritus’ strong influence over the Vergilian collection should not render him as the only source identified in this Eclogue, given that Vergil also owes much more to other Greek and Roman sources whose blending creates a Roman country komos265 and demonstrates the independence with which Vergil handles the GrecoRoman and especially the Theocritean material. [Eclogue 2] Subject

Before we turn to consider the Eclogue, it would be helpful to

recall its subject, because it is the first evidence of Vergil’s dependence on the earlier tradition. Eclogue 2 deals with the love of the herdsman Corydon for the urban and urbane slave boy Alexis and his reaction when, unable to win over the love object, he resorts to the woods and mountains in search of a cure and relief from the erotic passion.266 Corydon’s 262

Coleman 1977, 107-109. Clausen 1994, 61-64. 264 Cucchiarelli 2012, 171-175. 265 Pace Du Quesnay 1979, 53, who argues that Corydon’s song fully uses standard komastic features, suggesting, however, that Ecl. 2.6-55 is actually a pseudo-komos which is subordinated to Ecl. 2.56-72 that are a renuntiatio amoris. 266 The subject of a country character in love with an urban slave boy has already been attested in the fabula Atellana and the mime. See Beare 1968, 137-142 (fabula Atellana) and 149-158 (mime). This suggestion can further be reinforced from the name Thestylis, whose origin is traced in the mime (cf. schol. Theoc. Id. 2 arg. a 6-7 t¾n d੻ Qestulfda Ð QeÒkritoj ¢peirok£lwj œk tîn Sèfronoj met›negke Mfmwn and ibid Id. 2 arg. b 3-4 t¾n d੻ tîn farm£kwn ØpÒqesin œk tîn Sèfronoj Mfmwn). 263

Eclogue 2

83

emotional situation recalls two Theocritean Idylls with a similar subject. Idyll 3 is a country komos267 that deals with the futile efforts of a nameless goatherd who, in despair, serenades the love object Amaryllis outside a cave in order to win her. On the other hand, Idyll 11, which has also been claimed to belong to the same category,268 reproduces the song of the Cyclops Polyphemus for the Nymph Galateia. Polyphemus’ song is a mythological exemplum used to confirm Theocritus’ view that the only cure from love is song (Id. 11.1-6).269 These models are clearly signalled throughout the Eclogue, and a reader can soon realise that Idyll 11 constitutes the primary source and Idyll 3 the secondary.270 However, the common element which associates these sources, also justifying Vergil’s dependence on them, comes from the basic idea that this genre expresses. This is the miserable complaint of the rejected lover who is a country character (cf. tai d{ moi a gej/ bÒskontai kat' Ôroj Id. 3.1-2, ¢ll' oátoj toioàtoj œën bot¦ cflia bÒskw Id. 11.34 and pastor Corydon Ecl. 2.1),271 thus confirming that Corydon’s song is a country komos.

267 On the genre of komos that is also known as paraclausithyron song or song of the locked-out lover, see Canter 1920, 355-368, Copley 1956, Schmeling 1971, 333-335, Cairns 1972, s.v. komos, Henderson 1973, 51-67, McKeown 1989, 121123 and Pinotti 2012, 116-137. 268 Cairns 1972, 143-147 has argued that Id. 11.19-79 (Polyphemus’ song) belong to the category of komos. 269 OÙd੻n pottÕn }rwta pefÚkei f£rmakon ¥llo,/ Nikfa, oÜt' }gcriston, œmin dokel, oÜt' œpfpaston,/ À tai Pierfdej· koàfon d{ ti toàto kai ¡dÚ/ gfnet' œp' ¢nqrèpoij, eØreln d' oÙ ૧®diÒn œsti/ ginèskein d' oੇmaf tu kalîj eatrÕn œÒnta/ kai talj œnn{a d¾ pefilhm{non }xoca Mofsaij. On the mythological exempla in the Theocritean collection, see Fantuzzi 1995, 16-35. 270 Du Quesnay 1979, 43. 271 The complaint of an anonymous cowherd to an urban girl with the name Eunica who rejected him is also the subject of Idyll 20, whose date and authorship remain uncertain (cf. Gow II 1952, 364-365). See also Du Quesnay 1979, 44, who suggests that Vergil, among other sources, may also recall Idyll 20, which is also based on Idylls 3 and 11.

84

Chapter 3

Following that train of thought, the subject of Eclogue 2 shows close parallels with two Meleagrian epigrams which, despite the fact that they are emphatically found within a book of sepulchral literary pieces (A.P. 7), are of an entirely different nature.272 The first one deals with a lovelorn country character who requests the singing performance of a grasshopper for relief from his erotic passion: 'Akrfj, œmîn ¢p£thma pÒqwn, paramÚqion Ûpnou, ¢krfj, ¢rourafh Moàsa ligupt{ruge, aÙtofu੻j mfmhma lÚraj, kr{ke mof ti poqeinÕn œgkroÚousa ffloij possi l£louj pt{rugaj, éj me pÒnwn ૧Úsaio panagrÚpnoio merfmnhj, ¢krf, mitwsam{nh fqÒggon œrwtopl£non. dîra d{ soi g›teion ¢eiqal੻j Ñrqrin¦ dèsw kai droser¦j stÒmati scizom{naj yak£daj (12 G-P = A.P. 7.195)

Both the Vergilian and the Meleagrian passages deal with a lovesick country character who seeks solace and relief from the pain of love through singing in a rustic setting, which is also confirmed by several details found in the Meleagrian passage. The phrase œmîn ¢p£thma pÒqwn stresses the power of song that can distract the lover’s mind from the love object by creating the illusion that they no longer exist, since lovers tend to imagine the beloved to be present, when in fact he/she is

272

Gutzwiller 1998, 319 claims that these two epigrams are found in the seventh book of the Palatine Anthology, belonging to a long sequence of animal epitaphs (A.P. 7.189-216) that were apparently arranged by Cephalas. However, neither of them is sepulchral and it seems doubtful that they were grouped there by Meleager. On komastic elements and features that are also identified in the Hellenistic epigram, see Tarán 1979, 52-114.

Eclogue 2

85

not.273 Yet although paramÚqion Ûpnou means “encouragement to sleep”,274 it would be more appropriate for Meleager in this context to use this phrase in the sense of “consolation of sleep”,275 explaining that music comforts the lover while he tries to sleep. Furthermore, the song is described as œrwtopl£non, which is an ambiguous compound, since its meaning can denote either “beguiling love” or even that the Meleagrian intention is to describe Eros’ wandering (planîmai) after he has released the love victim.276 The second Meleagrian epigram also has a very similar subject. Here, a country character asks for the musical performance of a cicada in order to escape from the painful love condition: 'Ac›eij t{ttix, droseralj stagÒnessi mequsqeij ¢gronÒman m{lpeij moàsan œrhmol£lon· ¥kra d' œfezÒmenoj pet£loij prionèdesi kèloij aeqfopi kl£zeij crwti m{lisma lÚraj. ¢ll£, ffloj, fq{ggou ti n{on dendrèdesi NÚmfaij pafgnion, ¢ntJdÕn Pani kr{kwn k{ladon, Ôfra fugën tÕn ”Erwta meshmbrinÕn Ûpnon ¢greÚsw œnq£d' ØpÕ skierÍ keklim{noj plat£nJ (13 G-P = A.P. 7.196) 273 Cf. Phanocl. fr. 1.1-6 Powell —H æj Oe£groio p£ȧj QrhǸkioj 'OrfeÝj/ œk qumoà K£laȧn st{rxe Borhȧ£dhn,/ poll£ki d੻ skierolsin œn ¥lsesin Ÿzet' ¢efdwn/ Ön pÒqon, oÙd' Ãn od qumÕj œn ¹sucfV,/ ¢ll' aeef min ¥grupnoi ØpÕ yucÍ meledînai/ }trucon, qalerÕn įerkom{nou K£laȧn; Lucr. DRN 4.10611062 nam si abest quod ames, praesto simulacra tamen sunt/ illius et nomen dulce obversatur ad auris and Ov. Rem. 583-584 tristis eris, si solus eris, dominaeque relictae/ ante oculos facies stabit, ut ipsa, tuos. 274 LSJ s.v. paramÚqion 1. See also Plat. Euthd. 272b paramÚqion toà m¾ fobelsqai. 275 LSJ s.v. paramÚqion 2. See also [Theoc.] Id. 23.7 pursîn paramÚqion; Lucian. D. Meretr. 2.1.11f. paramÚqion toà }rwtoj. 276 LSJ s.v. pl£noj with examples.

86

Chapter 3

Once again, the epigram’s subject is very similar to Corydon’s emotional situation. Both passages deal with a character in love in a country setting who tries to cure his love through singing, a relationship which is also reinforced by certain references to the place (countryside) and the time (noontime) of the singing performance. Therefore, the subject of the Eclogue is in fact based on the skilful combination of Theocritean pastoral and the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition, thereby creating a new composition that secures the originality that the Roman poets used to claim. This is consistent with the fact that the blending of two or more sources277 and the expansion of epigrams into major poems278 were not merely typical literary techniques, but also effective ways of achieving originality, since in that way the Roman text could not be described as merely a slavish copy of its Greek source.279 On the other hand, the combination of the pastoral genre, which is typically based in the countryside, and the epigram, whose literary setting is conventionally urban, anticipates the strong contrast between country and city that runs through the Eclogue. Most significantly, however, it can also show that Corydon’s song is a country komos, because it is in fact the country version (pastoral) of a conventional city song (komos). [Eclogue 2] Characters

The combination of pastoral (Theocritus) and epigrammatic

(Meleager) features is evident throughout the Eclogue, starting from its first line, where the names of the two main characters are introduced (Formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin Ecl. 2.1). The name Corydon

277

On the compositional technique of combined imitation between two or more sources, see Thomas 1986, 193-198. 278 The case of Roman love elegy is a characteristic example, since several elegiac poems are closely associated with extant Hellenistic epigrams. On the influence of the Hellenistic Greek epigram on Roman love elegy, see Keith 2011. 279 Du Quesnay 1979, 44 and 61.

Eclogue 2

87

comes from the Theocritean tradition and nomenclature,280 which can first be confirmed from the designation “shepherd” (pastor). Moreover, Corydon is the main character of Idyll 4, where he has the role of a cowherd with musical aspirations, and he is also a not very proficient musician in Idyll 5. On the contrary, Alexis is a non-Theocritean name with a long history in Greek literature,281 but as the name of a catamite it has its origins mostly in the Hellenistic epigram,282 in which case it is the source of the Vergilian character of Alexis.283 Vergil is based on a Meleagrian epigram that deals with a noontime encounter between two lovers, one of whom is called Alexis:284 EenÒdion stefconta mesambrinÕn eੇdon ”Alexin, ¥rti kÒman karpîn keirom{nou q{reoj. diplal d' ¢ktln{j me kat{flegon· ad m੻n ”Erwtoj paidÕj ¢p' Ñfqalmîn, ad d੻ par' ºelfou. ¢ll' §j m੻n nÝx aâqij œkofmisen· §j d' œn Ñnefroij ehdwlon morfÁj m©llon ¢neflÒgisen. lusfponoj d' Œt{roij œp' œmoi pÒnon Ûpnoj }teuxen }mpnoun pàr yucÍ k£lloj ¢peikonfsaj (79 G-P = A.P. 12.127)

280

Lipka 2001, 177 with n. 36. Cf. Anacreon fr. 394 b Page; A.P. 6.51.3 and 11.122.1. See also LGPN s.v. ”Alexij. 282 Cf. Meleag. 79.1 G-P = A.P. 12.127.1, 80.3 G-P = A.P. 12.164.3 and Strat. 12.229.1. See also Hubaux 1930, 46-65, who argues that the name Alexis is only one of the numerous borrowings that come from Hellenistic erotic epigrams. See also Robinson and Fluck 1937, 50. 283 Du Quesnay 1979, 46 with n. 120. 284 Coleman 1977, 91, Clausen 1994, 64 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 176-177. 281

88

Chapter 3

The subject of this epigram is obviously erotic and portrays the character with the name Alexis in a homosexual context,285 where he is also the erotic object. On the other hand, Eclogue 2 describes Corydon’s roaming at noontime in the countryside, because he is in love with the urban slave boy Alexis: nunc etiam pecudes umbras et frigora captant, nunc uiridis etiam occultant spineta lacertos, Thestylis et rapido fessis messoribus aestu alia serpyllumque herbas contundit olentis (Ecl. 2.8-11)

The thematic relationship of those passages is further reinforced through the concept of the twin fires that burn both Corydon and the lovelorn character of the epigram. The Eclogue begins by making its subject clear, which is Corydon’s flaming love for Alexis (ardebat Ecl. 2.1), further associated with the midday heat (sole sub ardenti Ecl. 2.13) during the harvest time (rapido fessis messoribus aestu Ecl. 2.10).286 Meleager’s epigram employs exactly the same subject, since its speaker relates the passion he felt at the sight of a young boy during the noontide in the harvest season. The feelings and the love for the boy are explicitly spoken of below when the lovesick character is also described as burning both because of love and the sun. This is a common motif in these texts that can 285

Special emphasis should also be laid on the position of this epigram, which is situated in a long sequence with amatory epigrams of Meleagrian authors on homosexual subjects (A.P. 12.37-168). See also Gutzwiller 1998, 282 with n. 111, who offers further bibliography about the place of the amatory epigrams from the Garland in the Palatine Anthology. 286 The season of the scene (summer) is implied through the country task of reaping, which has long been known to take place in summer. Cf. Var. R. 1.32; Plin. NH 18.255ff., 264ff. and Colum. 11.2.49ff.

Eclogue 2

89

also be confirmed by the verbal correspondence ardebat-kat{flegon, thereby further reinforcing Vergil’s dependence on Meleager. Yet, it has also been noticed that the Eclogue’s subject is based on Idylls 3 and 11. However, these sources are concerned with heterosexual affairs (unnamed goatherd-Amaryllis and Polyphemus-Galateia) in strong contrast to the Meleagrian epigram that features a homosexual erotic story (male loverAlexis). This observation accords well with the erotic Corydon-Alexis relationship, showing that the name Alexis is used to create a homosexual love story.287 What is more, the country character Corydon and the city character Alexis correspond to the emphatic contrast between country and city, thereby reflecting the country komos. Nevertheless, before we turn to examine the Greek and Roman sources identified in this Eclogue, it is necessary to make a brief reference to Vergil’s relationship with Gallus, whose name is only mentioned in Ecl. 6.64-73 (Gallus’ initiation) and in Ecl. 10 (Vergil’s dedication to Gallus), although modern scholars tend to overstress Gallus’ influence on the Eclogues by identifying standard elegiac themes throughout Eclogue 2 (e.g. the rich erotic rival, the lover’s alienation in the country, the rejected lover, etc.). As a result, we may also assume that Eclogue 2 is a country komos that has its roots in some similar literary composition created by Gallus for Lycoris in the country, given that the komos or paraclausithyron song possesses a central place in Roman love elegy, where the exlusus amator’s erotic monologue is the most distinctive love symptom. On the other hand, the fragmentary state in which the Gallan text has come down from antiquity allows us to go no further and to realise that there is no clear answer about Gallus’ influence on Eclogue 2.

287

Du Quesnay 1979, 53.

Chapter 3

90 [Lines 1-5] Introduction

The Eclogue begins with a narrative introduction to the erotic

story (Ecl. 2.1-5). Its first line catches our attention (Formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin Ecl. 2.1). It constitutes a typical example of the Neoteric word order with an adjective emphatically placed in the initial place of the hexameter line and a noun at its end;288 thus, it characteristically anticipates the eminent roles that Alexis’ physical appearance (formosum Alexin) and love will play in the Eclogue, which is also evident from a more detailed structural analysis of this line. Vergil has the verb (ardebat) framed by the subject of the erotic passion (Corydon) and its object (Alexis) along with descriptive terms of their status (pastor-formosum), thereby imitating a beloved configuration of Hellenistic poetry.289 Such an arrangement is a standard technique used for the narratives of love stories,290 recalling several texts that employ the same formula, which, in that sense, can also be described as Vergil’s sources. [Lines 1-5] Callimachus

Hence, the above Vergilian verses may first recall the

Callimachean love story of Acontius and Cydippe that begins with the same structural formula:291

AÙtÕj”Erwj œdfdaxen 'AkÒntion, ÐppÒte kalÍ Éqeto KudfppV palj œpi parqenikÍ t{cnhn oÙ g¦r Óg' }ske polÚkrotoj Ôfra l{go..[ toàto di¦ zwÁj oÜnoma kourfdion

(fr. 67.1-4 Pf.) 288

Clausen 1994, 61 and 64. On this Neoteric structural formula, see e.g. Norden 1926, 391-404, Conrad 1965, 195-258 and Ross 1969, 132-137. 289 Clausen 1994, 61-62. 290 Cf. Parthen. 4.1.1f. 'Al{xandroj d੻ Ð Pri£mou boukolîn kat¦ t¾n”Idhn ºr£sqh tÁj KebrÁnoj qugatrÕj Oenènhj. See also Du Quesnay 1979, 48. 291 Du Quesnay 1979, 48. See also Clausen 1994, 61.

Eclogue 2

91

These Callimachean verses are based on the abovementioned structural order, given that they juxtapose the subject and object of the love affair ('AkÒntion-Kudfpph), together with a brief description of them (paljkalÍ parqenikÍ) and an interposed verb (Éqeto) that lays special emphasis on their erotic relationship.292 Moreover, the adjective formosum recalls the corresponding kalÍ in the sense that these terms refer to the beautiful physical form of the love object.293 Finally, the imperfect ardebat is the exact equivalent of Éqeto, since these words deal with the nature of the erotic passion that is similarly described as a burning fire. Further thematic and verbal similarities between the Vergilian and the Callimachean passages can also be found in Corydon’s reaction to Alexis’ negative reply (cf. nec quid speraret habebat Ecl. 2.2):294 tantum inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos adsidue ueniebat. ibi haec incondita solus montibus and siluis studio iactabat inani (Ecl. 2.3-5)

Here, Corydon is roaming through the forests and mountains searching for cure and relief from love through singing, thereby recalling Acontius, who is also an unsuccessful lover who finds refuge in a solitary place in the countryside (cf. ¥grade tù p£sVsin œpi proc£nVsin œfofta Call. Aet. fr. 62.1 Pf. and kai eej ¢grÒn œpi p£sV prof£sei tÕn pat{ra feÚgwn

292

Special attention should be laid on the initial lines in the prose treatment of Acontius’ and Cydippe’s erotic story by the late epistolographer Aristaenetus, even though the rule that refers to the position of the verb is violated (cf. Aristaen. Ep. 1.10.1-2: 'AkÒntioj t¾n Kudfpphn kalÕj neanfaj kal›n }ghme kÒrhn). See also Du Quesnay 1979, 48. 293 On the adjective formosus in pastoral poetry, see Heuzé 1970, 147-149. 294 Clausen 1994, 65. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 177.

Chapter 3

92

œfofta Aristaen. Epistl. 1.10.55f.), where he utters his erotic misery (mÒnon d੻ fhgolj Øpokaq›menoj À ptel{aij æmflei toi£de Ep. 1.10.57). The adverb tantum recalls mÒnon, stressing the idea that only one solution (the isolation in the wilderness) is effective in the lover’s current condition. Moreover, fagos (“beeches”) calls to mind fhgolj (“oaks”), though it is not the same tree. Nonetheless, we have already seen Vergil’s attitude towards this tree in Eclogue 1, where fagus may come from the Callimachean love story of Acontius and Cydippe.295 In other words, the fagus-fhgÒj sound correspondence is created in order to recall exclusively the erotic context of the Callimachean passage where this tree is found. What is more, this sound correspondence (fagus-fhgÒj) may also have been a standard technique that the Roman authors used for this tree, which is also evidenced by examining the occurrences of fagus throughout Roman literature.296 [Lines 1-5] Phanocles

Nonetheless, Ecl. 2.1-5 are also based on Phanocles, who

describes the erotic story of Orpheus and Calais:297

—H æj Oe£groio p£ȧj QrhǸkioj 'OrfeÝj œk qumoà K£laȧn st{rxe Borhȧ£dhn, poll£ki d੻ skierolsin œn ¥lsesin Ÿzet' ¢efdwn Ön pÒqon, oÙd' Ãn od qumÕj œn ¹sucfV,

295

Cf. Ecl. 1.1: Tityre, tu patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi with Clausen 1994, 65. See also La Penna 1963, 488, Cairns 1969, 133, Ross 1975, 71-72 and Kenney 1983, 50. 296 Prop. 1.18.19-20 uos eritis testes, si quos habet arbor amores,/ fagus et Arcadio pinus amica deo is also based on Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story, employing the motif of the wretched lover who retires to the wild to find cure and relief from his erotic sorrow by delivering a complaining monologue (cf. Prop. 1.18.1-3 Haec certe deserta loca et taciturna querenti,/ et uacuum Zephyri possidet aura nemus./ hic licet occultos proferre impune dolores). See also Fedeli 1980, 416-419. 297 Du Quesnay 1977, 48-49 and Clausen 1994, 61.

Eclogue 2

93

¢ll' aeef min ¥grupnoi ØpÕ yucÍ meledînai }trucon, qalerÕn įerkom{nou K£laȧn (fr. 1.1-6 Powell)

The Phanoclean lines also reveal the names of the love story’s main characters ('OrfeÝj-K£laȧj), the nature of the relationship (st{rxe), along with a brief account of them, which is related to their origin (Oe£groio p£ȧj QrhǸkioj-Borhȧ£dhn). However, the close similarities between the Vergilian introductory section and the Phanoclean fragment are not confined to this typical structural formula alone. They are also associated with the way in which Corydon tries to find relief from his erotic passion:298 tantum inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos adsidue ueniebat. ibi haec incondita solus montibus and siluis studio iactabat inani (Ecl. 2.3-5)

Orpheus’ emotional condition is similar enough to that of Corydon, since the legendary singer is also found sitting in shady groves (poll£ki d੻ skierolsin œn ¥lsesin Ÿzet' ¢efdwn), singing (¢efdwn) in an attempt to nurse his erotic sorrow. This thematic relationship can also be reinforced by several verbal correspondences. The prepositional expression inter fagos, which denotes a place full of beeches, can correspond with that meaning to the respective phrase œn ¥lsesin. Nonetheless, Vergil improves the Greek source by specifying the trees of which the grove

298

Clausen 1994, 65. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 177.

Chapter 3

94

consists, which are suggestive of shade299 as well as being closely associated with love,300 and thus more appropriate for this erotic context. Furthermore, the adjectives densas and umbrosa suggest, either implicitly or explicitly, a shady place and with that meaning call to mind the respective skierolsin. More precise verbal correspondences, however, are also found in the term adsidue, which recalls poll£ki, since the adverbs refer to the temporal period of the lover’s wooing and along with the act of the singing performance, expressed with the imperfects ueniebat and iactabat that represent a repeated action, are reminders of the phrase Ÿzet' ¢efdwn in the sense of “come to sit and utter”.301 [Lines 1-5] Theocritus

On the other hand, Ecl. 2.1-5 are also based on the Theocritean

collection and especially on Idyll 11, where this conventional structural formula is not the same.302 Here, the narrative introduction is identified after the gnomic with which the Idyll begins (Id. 11.1-6) without, however, affecting its main function: oÛtw goàn ૧£ista di©g' Ð KÚklwy Ð par' ¡mln, ærcaloj PolÚfamoj, Ók' ½rato t©j Galatefaj, ¥rti genei£sdwn peri tÕ stÒma tëj krot£fwj te. ½rato d' oÙ m£loij oÙd੻ ૧ÒdJ oÙd੻ kikfnnoij, ¢ll' Ñrqalj manfaij, ¡gelto d੻ p£nta p£rerga. poll£ki tai Ôiej poti twÜlion aÙtai ¢pÁnqon clwr©j œk bot£naj· Ö d੻ t¦n Gal£teian ¢efdwn aÙtÕj œp' ¢iÒnoj katet£keto fukio{ssaj 299

Cf. OLD s.v. patulus 2b. See also Var. R. 2.2.11 circiter meridianos aestus, dum deferuescant, sub umbriferas rupes et arbores patulas subigiunt, quaad refrigerator. 300 Cf. Prop. 1.18.19-20 uos eritis testes, si quos habet arbor amores,/ fagus et Arcadio pinus amica deo. 301 Clausen 1994, 66. 302 Du Quesnay 1979, 49-50.

Eclogue 2

95

œx ¢oàj, }cqiston }cwn Øpok£rdion Ÿlkoj, KÚpridoj œk meg£laj tÒ od ¼pati p©xe b{lemnon. ¢ll¦ tÕ f£rmakon eáre, kaqezÒmenoj d' œpi p{traj Øyhl©j œj pÒnton Ðrîn ¥eide toiaàta (Id. 11.7-18)

Once again, the names of the main characters (PolÚfamoj-Gal£teia) and the nature of their relationship, suggested with an interposed verb (½rato), are quite clear. Nonetheless, the Theocritean structural formula avoids describing the love object, focusing exclusively on Polyphemus (Ð KÚklwy Ð par' ¡mln ærcaloj PolÚfamoj and ¥rti genei£sdwn peri tÕ stÒma tëj krot£fwj te). Such an account first lays special emphasis on Polyphemus’ humorous-grotesque side that has long been described as a fundamental goal for Idyll 11;303 and secondly, the great popularity that this erotic story enjoyed in antiquity304 could also explain the omission of the informative detail that Galateia is a Sea Nymph. However, much information is given on Polyphemus’ erotic passion (Id. 11.10-16) and the reaction to his situation by going to serenade Galateia (Id. 11.17-18). This is an activity that finally cured Polyphemus’ love for Galateia, confirming the original gnomic, according to which there is no cure for love except song (Id. 11.1-6). On the other hand, it is also behaviour that places the Cyclops in the role of the unhappy lover who withdraws to the countryside in order to find a cure for his love. Corydon has already been identified with such a role, and the association between the Vergilian and Theocritean introductory sections also lies in this subject. Corydon’s 303

Gow II 1952, 208. On the popularity that Polyphemus and Galateia’s love story and Idyll 11 enjoyed in antiquity, see Gow II 1952, 118 and 208-209, Hunter 1999, 215-217 and 222-223.

304

96

Chapter 3

retreat to the woods and mountains, singing of erotic passion in order to find relief from the pain of love, is very close to Polyphemus. Likewise, Polyphemus is a rejected lover, who is also found sitting on a lofty rock near the seashore gazing out to sea while singing in order to achieve the same goal. This thematic relationship can further be reinforced by the verbal correspondence between the imperfects ueniebat and iactabat that denote the repeated action of the lover’s singing and, with that meaning, can also recall the corresponding verb ¥eide. Nonetheless, the land-sea contrast that is implied in the characters of Polyphemus and Galateia is emphatically replaced by the country-town antithesis that is not only suggested in the characters of Corydon and Alexis but can also be identified in Eclogue 2. However, the Theocritean herdsmen do not emphasise the superiority of the country life over that of the city, although they are well aware of its beauties and comforts.305 Such a suggestion accords well with the fact that country versus urban life is a famous subject that had already been employed in Roman comedy, and is characteristically found in the first scene of the Mostellaria (Plaut. Most. 1-83).306 There, Plautus describes in detail the quarrel between a country and a city slave whose exchange of teasing insults corresponds to the country-town antithesis, thereby confirming that the country-city antithesis also has its roots in the Roman tradition. [Lines 1-5] Idyll 23

Finally, Ecl. 2.1-5 are also based on Idyll 23 and especially on its

first two verses that are a variant version of the abovementioned structural formula;307 they constitute a narrative introduction to the erotic story 305

Dover 2000, lvii. On Vergil’s fondness of Mostellaria, see Currie 1976, 412 with n. 2. 307 Cf. also Mosch. fr. 1-4 Gow”Hrato P¦n 'Acîj t©j geftonoj, ½rato d' 'Acè/ skirtat© SatÚrw, S£turoj d' œpem›nato LÚdv./ æj 'Acë tÕn P©na, tÒson S£turoj fl{gen 'Acè/ kai LÚda Saturfskon with Clausen 1994, 64. Here, 306

Eclogue 2

97

where the characters, the nature of their erotic relationship and a brief account of them can be found, although the lovers remain anonymous:308 'An›r tij polÚfiltroj ¢phn{oj ½rat' œf£bw, t¦n morf¦n ¢gaqî, tÕn d੻ trÒpon oÙk{q' Ðmofw (Id. 23.1-2)

Nevertheless, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 23 is not based exclusively on this story-telling technique, because there are also striking thematic correspondences. Both Vergil and the anonymous author describe a lovesick character (Corydon-An›r) in love (ardebat-½rat') with a young boy (Alexin-œf£bw) who is unresponsive. Moreover, the erotic relationships with which Eclogue 2 and Idyll 23 deal are the same (a homosexual one), while the special emphasis laid on the young boy’s beautiful form (t¦n morf¦n ¢gaqî) can also recall Alexis’ elegant beauty (formosum), which thus stresses the exquisite physical appearance of the love object that can seduce the anonymous lover and Corydon. To sum up, it should be clear enough by now that Ecl. 2.1-5 are simultaneously based on Call. fr. 67.1-4 Pf., Phanocl. fr. 1.1-6 Powell, Theocr. Id. 11.7-18 and Id. 23.1-2. These texts employ the typical structural formula of the narrative of erotic tales, according to which the names of the characters, together with a brief account of them and the nature of the relationship, are introduced in the initial lines of the love

Moschus is similarly concerned with several love couples by juxtaposing the subject and object of each love affair with a verb which emphatically describes their erotic relationship. The main components of the specific structural arrangements are obvious, strongly enhanced by the verbal correspondence ardebat-fl{gen that underlines the characterisation of the erotic relationship through the metaphor of the burning flame. 308 Du Quesnay 1977, 49. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 175.

98

Chapter 3

story, which is also unambiguously evident in Vergil (formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin/ delicias domini, nec quid speraret habebat Ecl. 2.1-2). Nonetheless, Vergil’s relationship with these sources can hardly be thematic, although the erotic element, the phraseology used in order to describe the love between lover and beloved (e.g. “burning with love”) and the emphasis given to the love object’s beauty constitute common features that are also identified in these sources. However, these thematic similarities could also be described as mere coincidences, especially given that they are explicitly found in texts with a clear-cut erotic context. In view of that, Ecl. 2.1-5 constitute a narrative introduction to some erotic story where the lover (Corydon), the love object (Alexin), the lover’s futile efforts to win the beloved (nec quid speraret habebat and studio iactabat inani) and the literary setting (tantum inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos/ adsidue ueniebat. ibi haec incondita solus/ montibus and siluis studio iactabat inani) are introduced. However, these are also the basic elements that ancient readers recognised in the komos,309 and therefore Eclogue 2 can be classified in this literary category. Furthermore, these elements are clearly modified and adapted since the lover is a countryman, the beloved is an urban boy and the literary setting is placed in the countryside, thus explaining why Corydon is not singing at Alexis’ door. [Lines 6-8]

Corydon’s desperate situation becomes evident from the very

beginning of the song. The erotic song begins with several successive questions towards the love object, which resemble the anonymous goatherd’s initial words in Idyll 3:310

309 310

Pinotti 2012, 127. Coleman 1977, 92-93, Clausen 1994, 66 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 179-180.

Eclogue 2

99

O crudelis Alexi, nihil mea carmina curas? nil nostri miserere? mori me denique cogis? (Ecl. 2.6-7)

’W carfess' 'Amarullf, tf m' oÙk{ti toàto kat' ¥ntron parkÚptoisa kalelj, tÕn œrwtÚlon; Ã ૧£ me miselj; Ã ૧£ g{ toi simÕj katafafnomai œggÚqen Ãmen, nÚmfa, kai prog{neioj; ¢p£gxasqaf me pohselj (Id. 3.6-9)

Both passages deal with the hopeless condition in which Corydon and the anonymous goatherd find themselves, because of the indifference of the unresponsive love object. This relationship is further reinforced by the exclamations O crudelis Alexi and ’W carfess' 'Amarullf that enrich each passage with a more emotional tone. It is more than evident that the Vergilian intertextual relationship with these Theocritean verses is mostly concerned with their technique rather than their content, because Vergil is focused on the successive direct questions that are addressed to the unresponsive erotic object and the lover’s threat to commit suicide. Further support for the validity of this view is found in parallels of word order (namely, exclamatory particle (O-’W) + adjective (crudeliscarfess') + vocative name at the beginning (Alexi-'Amarullf) + infinitive (mori-¢p£gxasqaf) + personal pronoun (me-me) + second person verb at the end of the line (cogis-pohselj)) and in verbal correspondences between the two passages that recall certain phrases drawn not only from the present passage, but also from other parts of Idylls 3 and 11. In view of that, though the exclamation O crudelis Alexi is closely associated with ’W carfess' 'Amarullf (Id. 3.6), its origin should

100

Chapter 3

also be sought in ’W leuk¦ Gal£teia (Id. 11.19),311 since both exclamations contain an etymological wordplay. Polyphemus’ song begins with the emotional address ’W leuk¦ Gal£teia (Id. 11.19). This beginning is designed to lay special emphasis on the etymology of the proper name Gal£teia, which is a derivative from the noun g£la (“milk”).312 Corydon, in a similar way, employs the etymological principle kat' ¢ntffrasin,313 according to which a thing is defined from its opposite, in order to show that the name Alexis has its origins either in ¢l{xw (“protect”, “defend”)314 or in ¢l{gw (“care”).315 However, the effect of the etymological wordplay is not the same in each passage. While Polyphemus’ exclamation is an acknowledgement of Galateia’s beauty, Corydon’s words create a sort of oxymoron (i.e. “O cruel saviour ... will you compel me to die?” or “O caring one ... do you not care for my songs?”),316 which shows that even the name of the beloved suggests the incompatibility of this love affair; these exclamations also exaggerate Polyphemus’ and Corydon’s humorous side by placing a typical characteristic of the Hellenistic doctrina (etymology) into the mouth of an uneducated character.

311

Coleman 1977, 92, Clausen 1994, 66 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 179. The ancients associated the name Gal£teia with the words g£la and gal›nh by etymologising it respectively either through milky-white foam or the calm sea. Cf. Eust. Il. 4.135.13ff. See also Michalopoulos 2001, s.v. Galatea and Paschalis 2008, 3 § 6-13. 313 Cf. Quint. Inst. 1.6.34 etiamne a contrariis aliqua sinemus trahi, ut lucus quia umbra opacus parum luceat, et ludus quia sit longissime a lusu, et Ditis quia minime diues? On the method of etymologising kat' ¢ntffrasin, see O’Hara 1996, 66. 314 Cf. LSJ s.v. ¢l{xw with examples. See also Var. L.L. 7.82 aut Alexandrum ab eo appellatum in Graecia qui Paris fuisset, a quo Herculem quoque cognominatum Alexicacon, ab eo quod defensor esset hominum? 315 Cf. LSJ s.v. ¢l{gw with examples. 316 Du Quesnay 1979, 44. 312

Eclogue 2

101

Further combined verbal correspondences are found in nihil mea carmina curas? which recalls oÙc ØpakoÚeij (Id. 3.24) and tin d' oÙ m{lei, oÙ m¦ Df' oÙd{n (Id. 11.29), which are suggestive of the lover’s despair due to unrequited love.317 Moreover, the question nil nostri miserere? shows close parallels to à ૧£ me miselj;, especially because of the adverbial particle nil which recalls the corresponding Ã, since both terms are used with the interrogative function by introducing a question.318 Finally, the most immediate point of contact occurs in mori me denique cogis?319 which finds an exact equivalent in the phrase ¢p£gxasqaf me pohselj, pointing to the lover’s intention to kill himself in order to persuade the unresponsive beloved. This is a conventional threat used by the komast in order to win over the love object320 and along with further typical komastic features such as the herdsman’s complaints that the love object is cruel, does not care for his songs and has no pity (Ecl. 2.8-9)321 confirm that Corydon’s song is, similarly to the goatherd’s song, a country komos. Nonetheless, it should be noticed that Theocritus lays special emphasis on the goatherd’s physical appearance, which is also yet another typical komastic feature.322 On the contrary, Vergil stresses that Corydon’s song is what is rejected by the beloved, which indicates that the herdsman’s musical dowry is the only way in which Corydon tries to seduce the urban Alexis throughout the Eclogue, thereby underlining the 317 Cf. also Id. 3.18: tÕ p©n lfqoj, 39 kaf k{ m' hswj potfdoi, 52 tin d' oÙ m{lei, 7.119 œpei tÕn xelnon Ð dÚsmoroj oÙk œleel meu. See also Du Quesnay 1979, 54. 318 Cf. OLD s.v. nihil and LSJ s.v. à II.1 with examples in each term. 319 coges R: cogis P, even though the corresponding term of the Theocritean model (pohselj) supports the reading of coges. See Du Quesnay 1979, 216 n. 148. 320 Copley 1956, 1. See also Pinotti 2012, 130. 321 Copley 1956, 19 with n. 44, 45, 46 and 47 and 32 with n. 25. See also Du Quesnay 1979, 53-54 and Pinotti 2012, 130. 322 Cairns 1972, 210 with n. 62 and Pinotti 2012, 131 and 134 with n. 71.

Chapter 3

102

difference between the Theocritean (Greek) and the Vergilian (Roman) country komast. [Lines 8-9]

The herdsman’s emotional situation becomes more evident in the

following lines that describe the countryside he is roaming (Ecl. 2.8-13). The first two verses focus on the countryside’s animal life and recall Lycidas’ initial greeting to Simichidas in Idyll 7:323 nunc etiam pecudes umbras et frigora captant, nunc uiridis etiam occultant spineta lacertos (Ecl. 2.8-9)

Simicfda, p´ d¾ tÝ mesam{rion pÒdaj Ÿlkeij, ¡nfka d¾ kai saàroj œn admasialsi kaqeÚdei, oÙd' œpitumbfdioi korudallfdej ºlafnonti; (Id. 7.21-23)

These passages suggest the intensity of the midday heat via the retreat of the animals (note the verbal correspondence lacertos-saàroj) to a shady place at the noontide, while they also underline the contrasting picture of a man who is exposed to the ardour of the sun. Corydon recalls Lycidas’ surprise at encountering Simichidas during the noontide. This is the time when animals and people in the country used to retreat to a cool place to avoid the scorching sun and when the herdsmen are regularly to be found under shady trees because of the flock’s need to stay away from the midday heat.324 Vergil alters the reason on which the character’s presence 323

Coleman 1977, 93, Clausen 1994, 66 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 180. Cf. Eclogue 3.98-99 Cogite ouis, pueri: si lac praeceperit aestus,/ ut nuper, frustra pressabimus ubera palmis. See also Varro, R. R 2.2.11 circiter meridianos aestus, dum deferuescant, sub umbriferas rupes et arbores patulas subigiunt, quaad refrigeratur. 324

Eclogue 2

103

under the hot sun is based by replacing Simichidas’ journey to Phrasidamus’ farm with Corydon’s ardent love. This is a striking change that creates a more contrasting picture where the wandering character is described as burning both because of the sun and love. However, the herdsman’s roaming under the hot sun is also associated with komos because the lover’s sufferings constitute a typical komastic element,325 although the traditional komast usually suffers from wind, rain and cold,326 in contrast to Corydon who is here under the hot sun, burning because of the sun and love.327 [Lines 10-11]

Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus continues in the next two

lines that describe human life in the countryside: Thestylis et rapido fessis messoribus aestu alia serpyllumque herbas contundit olentis (Ecl. 2.10-11)

325

Copley 1956, 19. See also Du Quesnay 1979, 54 and Pinotti 2012, 130 and 132 with n. 65. 326 Copley 1956, 19 with n. 40 and 42, Cairns 1977, 330 with n. 1, Du Quesnay 1979, 54 and Pinotti 2012, 130. See also Karakasis 2011, 60 with several examples. 327 See Du Quesnay 1979, 54, who suggests that there are further komastic elements in Ecl. 2.8-13. These are the komast’s wakefulness in emphatic contrast to the exhausted reapers who retire for the noontime siesta and to the cicadas’ song that can typically cause sleep, his suffering under the hot sun in the noontime, his reference to the sun and finally his accompaniment by the singing of cicadas. According to his view, these are actually variations on typical komastic features such as the komast’s vigil in opposition to the sleep enjoyed by others, his suffering from wind, rain and cold, his reference to the moon and stars and his accompaniment by musical instruments, flute girls or singing. However, it should be mentioned that the fact that the komast is accompanied by the cicadas’ singing is in strong contrast to Corydon’s emotional situation (the lover’s alienation) that is emphasised by his roaming in the countryside under the hot sun.

104

Chapter 3

Thestylis recalls the Theocritean non-pastoral poetry, since it is the name of the maid who assists Simaetha for the preparation of a love charm in Idyll 2 (Qestulfj).328 This activity, in which this female character is engaged, reveals the second source on which these Vergilian verses are modelled. Alia serpyllumque herbas contundit olentis refers to the preparation of a moretum, whose main ingredients are garlic (alia) and wild thyme (serpyllum).329 Garlic is a plant whose heating properties were particularly popular in antiquity.330 Such detail, however, makes Thestylis’ intention to offer the reapers, who are already tired due to the scorching heat (fessis aestu), a dish with this content quite strange. Nonetheless, it should be mentioned that both herbs are closely associated with love. The former is considered as a strong stimulant for intending fighters331 and an aphrodisiac,332 while the latter is also a conventional sacrificial offer to Aphrodite.333 In view of that, Thestylis’ moretum is in that sense not a mere rustic dish but, most significantly, an aphrodisiac concoction that is used to excite the exhausted reapers.334 Thus, Thestylis is described as a seductive character who provokes sexual intercourse, thereby recalling 328

Cf. also Id. 2.18-19 ¥lfit£ toi pr©ton puri t£ketai. ¢ll' œpfpasse,/ Qestulf. deilafa, p´ t¦j fr{naj œkpepÒtasai; and 59-62 Qestulf, nàn d੻ labolsa tÝ t¦ qrÒna taàq' ØpÒmaxon/ t©j t›nw fli©j kaq' Øp{rteron ªj }ti kai nÚx,/ [œk qumî d{demai· Ö d{ meu lÒgon oÙd{na poiel] where Thestylis is also described mixing several ingredients. 329 Coleman 1977, 93, Clausen 1994, 67 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 181. On the preparation of a moretum, see [Verg.] Mor. 85ff. 330 Cf. Galen. Mixt. 12.126.9-10 SkÒrodon xhrafnei kai qermafnei kat¦ t¾n tet£rthn ¢pÒstasin. 331 Cf. Xen. Symp. 4.9 Mhdamîj, }fh, ð Sèkratej. eej m੻n g¦r m£chn Ðrmwm{nJ kalîj }cei krÒmmuon Øpotrègein, ésper }nioi toÝj ¢lektruÒnaj skÒroda sitfsantej sumb£llousin. 332 Cf. Ath. Deipn. 10.422d Stflpwn d' oÙ katepl£gh t¾n œgkr£teian katafagën skÒroda kai katakoimhqeij œn tù tÁj MhtrÕj tîn qeîn derù. 333 Cf. Mosch. Eur. 65-71 with Campbell 1991, 72. See also Lembach 1970, 168170. 334 Moore-Blunt 1977, 36-38.

Eclogue 2

105

Hesiod’s description of the harvest season where the same subject is found:335 ’Hmoj d੻ skÒlumÒj t' ¢nqel kai ºc{ta t{ttix dendr{J œfezÒmenoj ligur¾n kataceÚet' ¢oid¾n puknÕn ØpÕ pterÚgwn, q{reoj kamatèdeoj érV, tÁmoj piÒtataf t' aigej, kai oinoj ¥ristoj, maclÒtatai d੻ gunalkej, ¢faurÒtatoi d{ toi ¥ndrej eesfn, œpei kefal¾n kai goÚnata Sefrioj ¥zei (Op. 582-587)

The cicadas’ song, the harvest time, the female seductiveness and the weariness of men because of the raging heat can also be found in the abovementioned Vergilian verses. On the other hand, these thematic correspondences could be described as mere coincidences, especially in a passage dealing with an account of the harvest season. However, the two last details have great significance, since they seem to be traced in the above Vergilian passage where they are also associated with Thestylis: Thestylis et rapido fessis messoribus aestu alia serpyllumque herbas contundit olentis (Ecl. 2.10-11)

maclÒtatai gunalkej, ¢faurÒtatoi d{ toi ¥ndrej eesfn, œpei kefal¾n kai goÚnata Sefrioj ¥zei (Op. 586-587)

335

Moore-Blunt 1977, 36-38.

106

Chapter 3

The selection and blending of these sources can be explained by the examination of the earlier couplet (Ecl. 2.8-9) whose meaning ends with these lines (Ecl. 2.10-11). Corydon’s wandering at noontide, when each creature seeks shade, while the reapers stop working in order to enjoy rustic aphrodisiac meals that are prepared by country girls, lays special emphasis on the herdsman’s emotional situation (the lover’s alienation). On the other hand, there is also an oblique reference to some other erotic object mentioned by Corydon to warn Alexis that he can find another beloved (cf. also Ecl. 2.14-15 nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidis iras/ atque superba pati fastidia? nonne Menalcan, where Amaryllis and Menalcas are the erotic alternatives that are available to Corydon, if Alexis continues to remain unresponsive),336 which constitutes a typical komastic threat.337 Lines 12-13]

This suggestion is also confirmed by the next two verses where

Corydon follows Alexis’ footprints, recalling Acontius’ anonymous lovers who fitted their feet into his footsteps because of their erotic passion, according to Aristaenetus’ paraphrase of Acontius’ and Cydippe’s story based on the lost Callimachean original:338 at mecum raucis, tua dum uestigia lustro, sole sub ardenti resonant arbusta cicadis (Ecl. 2.12-13)

336

Here, it should be noticed that this suggestion can convincingly explain the urban name Thestylis which is used by Corydon, since it would be more familiar to the urban Alexis than a typical pastoral name. 337 Pinotti 2012, 131 and 134 with n. 74. 338 Kenney 1983, 50-51, Clausen 1994, 68 and Lipka 2001, 91.

Eclogue 2

107

kai pollof ge di¦ tÕ lfan œrwtikÕn tolj hcnesi toà meirakfou toÝj Œautîn œf›rmozon pÒdaj 339 (Epist. 1.10.13-14)

The thematic relationship is evident and is used to enrich the Vergilian text with a vital homoerotic element, thereby facilitating the connection between Acontius’ heterosexual love for Cydippe and Corydon’s homosexual love for Alexis, which has already been noticed in the narrative introduction of the Eclogue (Ecl. 2.1-5). Furthermore, Callimachus uses the term hcnoj as a metaphor for literary influence,340 and uestigium can mean either “an imprint” or “a visible trace or remnant of something that is no longer exists or is present”.341 Therefore, we may assume that Corydon is either literally following the Cean lovers’ behaviour by placing his feet in Alexis’ footsteps, or he is metapoetically reading the Callimachean love story of Acontius and Cydippe,342 roaming through the forests under the burning sun and searching for a cure and relief from his love through singing. In any case, Corydon’s attempt to soothe his erotic passion lays special emphasis on the lover’s erotic misery and desperation that constitutes two crucial komastic elements.343 339

Cf. Meleag. 114.5 G-P = AP 12.84.5 bafnw d' hcnoj œp' hcnoj with Hubaux 1927, 51 n. 2., Clausen 1994, 68 and Lipka 2001, 91 n. 288. 340 Cf. Callim. Aet. fr. 1.26-28 Pf. Œt{rwn hcnia m¾ kaq' Ðm£/ dffron œl]©n mhd' oƒmon ¢n¦ platÚn, ¢ll¦ keleÚqouj/ ¢trfpto]uj, Hor. Epist. 1.19.21-22 libera per uacuum posui uestigia princeps,/ non aliena meo pressi pede where uestigia aliena recall the Callimachean Œt{rwn hcnia (cf. Mayer 1994, ad loc.), AP 286287 nec minimum meruere decus uestigia Graeca | ausi deserere et celebrare domestica facta and Epist. 2.2.80 tu me inter strepitus nocturnos atque diurnos/ uis canere et contracta sequi uestigia uatum? where contracta uestigia can refer to the Callimachean keleÚqouj ¢trfpto]uj (cf. Brink 1971 ad loc.). See also Henkel 2009, 80 with n. 117. 341 Cf. OLD s.v. uestigium 6 and 7 with examples. 342 See also Fitzgerald 2016, 6. 343 Pinotti 2012, 130.

Chapter 3

108 [Lines 14-18]

Nevertheless, Corydon’s emotional situation and the oblique

reference to some other erotic rival fail to seduce the urban Alexis, who continues to remain untouched. Hence, the herdsman then refers to Amaryllis and Menalcas who are eager to have an erotic relationship with him, focusing also on Alexis’ physical appearance by laying special emphasis on the fact that beauty is not everlasting but a passing thing. This idea is associated with the contrast between the fair-skinned and the sunburned rustic complexion of the love object, which is introduced with a country analogy:344 nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidos iras atque superba pati fastidia? nonne Menalcan, quamuis ille niger, quamuis tu candidus esses? o formose puer, nimium ne crede colori: alba ligustra cadunt, uaccinia nigra leguntur (Ecl. 2.14-18)

Amaryllis is bad-tempered (cf. iras) and egoistically scornful (cf. superba fastidia),345 recalling the autarchic female figures from comedy and satire rather than pastoral.346 Yet, Menalcas is a character drawn from Idyll 8, where he is described as being a fair, red-haired youth and equal in age and outlook to the cowherd Daphnis (Id. 8.1-4).347 However, Vergil

344

Cf. also Ecl. 10.38-39 seu quicumque furor quid tum, si fuscus Amyntas? et nigrae uiolae sunt et uaccinia nigra. 345 Cf. also Ecl. 2.51-52 ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala/ castaneasque nuces, mea quas Amaryllis amabat, which suggest that Corydon and Amaryllis had or have an erotic relationship. 346 Coleman 1977, 78-79. On the female characters in Vergil’s Eclogues, see Paraskeviotis 2014e, 58-75. 347 Coleman 1977, 94, Clausen 1994, 68 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 208-209. It should also be mentioned that the name Menalcas is also found in Idyll 9 (cf. Id. 9.2, 6 and

Eclogue 2

109

reverses the colour of his complexion (niger Menalcan) that is also related to a rustic analogy drawn from Idyll 10:348 BombÚka carfessa, SÚran kal{ontf tu p£ntej, escn£n, ¡liÒkauston, œgë d੻ mÒnoj melfclwron kai tÕ hon m{lan œstf, kai ¡ grapt¦ Ø£kinqoj· ¢ll' }mpaj œn tolj stef£noij t¦ pr©ta l{gontai (Id. 10.26-29)

Here, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is clearly based on the rustic analogy.349 Theocritus uses a country example in order to mitigate the comment on Bombyca’s dark skin (¡liÒkauston), associating it with the dark colour of the violet and the hyacinth that is not an obstacle to their beauty. On the contrary, Vergil reverses the concept of the Theocritean original by describing the idea of beauty’s swift decline through the physical languishing, which equally threatens dark and bright flowers, namely Menalcas (niger-nigra) and Alexis (candidus-alba). In other words, whilst the Theocritean example refers to Bucaeus’ current mistress, the Vergilian analogy is connected to Corydon’s past and future erotic objects. What is more, the lover’s threat that the love object’s beauty will be lost constitutes a notable komastic element350 used by Corydon, who

14) and Idyll 27 (cf. Id. 27.44), but its association with Idyll 8 is based on the description of the physical appearance. 348 Coleman 1977, 94-95, Clausen 1994, 68-69 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 183-184. 349 Du Quesnay 1979, 54. 350 Copley 1956, 19 with n. 53, 34 with n. 33 and 60 with n. 42, Du Quesnay 1979, 54 with n. 156 and Pinnoti 2012, 131.

Chapter 3

110

earlier warned Menalcas and is now warning Alexis that beauty is a fleeting thing.351 [Lines 19-22]

The following lines (Ecl. 2.19-27) are a large part that is divided

into three different sections that recite Corydon’s credentials as a farmer, musician and handsome suitor. However, it is customary for the komast to use typical boasts to win the love object.352 Hence, the herdsman’s boastings about his pastoral wealth, his musical capacity and his exquisite physical appearance are conventional komastic elements.353 The first section contains Corydon’s boasting of his pastoral wealth that resembles that of Polyphemus in Idyll 11:354 despectus tibi sum, nec qui sim quaeris, Alexi, quam diues pecoris, niuei quam lactis abundans mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae; lac mihi non aestate nouum, non frigore defit (Ecl. 2.19-22)

¢ll' oátoj toioàtoj œën bot¦ cflia bÒskw, kºk toÚtwn tÕ kr£tiston ¢melgÒmenoj g£la pfnw· turÕj d' oÙ lefpei m' oÜt' œn q{rei oÜt' œn Ñpèrv, oÙ ceimînoj ¥krw· tarsoi d' Øperacq{ej aeef

(Id. 11.34-37)

351

See also Du Quesnay 1979, 54 with n. 156, who further suggests that the cadunt could allusively hint to yet another traditional komastic element that the erotic object will die alone and unloved. 352 Du Quesnay 1979, 45. 353 Du Quesnay 1979, 55. 354 Coleman 1977, 95-96, Clausen 1994, 70 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 184-185.

Eclogue 2

111

This thematic similarity is further reinforced with striking verbal correspondences. Mille meae Siculis errant in montibus agnae recalls the corresponding bot¦ cflia bÒskw and, in particular, the numeral mille constitutes the exact equivalent of cflia. However, the term agnae could hardly render the meaning of the word bot¦.355 Corydon’s agnae are used in order to out-boast Polyphemus in pastoral wealth;356 while Polyphemus simply has a thousand animals alone, Corydon lays special emphasis on the fact that he possesses a thousand female lambs (agnae), without mentioning the rest of the flock such as rams, ewes or male lambs.357 Furthermore, errant (“to wander about”)358 can hardly recall bÒskw (“to graze”).359 Once again, the Vergilian verses emphatically stress Corydon’s pastoral superiority, because his flock remains far away, grazing and being looked after by others, in opposition to Polyphemus who is obliged to tend and herd the animals by himself.360 The same reason can also justify the occurrence of the possessive pronoun meae, which is not found in the Theocritean original, since it reflects Corydon’s pride of ownership and therefore his naïve and humorous attempt to impress the urban Alexis, given that, as a slave, Corydon cannot be the legal owner of such a large flock.361 [Line 22]

The thematic similarity that is found in the following verse is less

complicated. Here, Corydon boasts of having a sufficient supply of fresh milk during summer and winter (lac mihi non aestate nouum, non frigore 355 The word bot¦ can refer either to sheep and cattle mixed together or to grazing animals in general. On the use of this term see, Gerber 1969, 178-179. 356 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 2.21 et quod ait agnas, et a sexu et ab aetate laudavit. 357 Du Quesnay 1979, 64-65. 358 Cf. OLD s.v. erro 1 with examples. 359 Cf. LSJ s.v. bÒskw II with examples. 360 Du Quesnay 1979, 64-65. 361 On the civil status of Corydon, see Mayer 1983b, 298-300, Cancik 1986, 15-34 and Van Sickle 1987, 127-129.

Chapter 3

112

defit Ecl. 2.22) in contrast to the Cyclops, who claims that he has enough cheese in summer, autumn and winter (turÕj d' oÙ lefpei m' oÜt' œn q{rei oÜt' œn Ñpèrv,/ oÙ ceimînoj ¥krw Id. 11.36-37).362 Vergil alters the item and the time of its production by replacing cheese with milk and the triple division of the seasons with the strong contrast between winter and summer. The exaggerated substitution of lac for turÕj indicates that Corydon’s claim surpasses that of Polyphemus, because the conservation of cheese during the year has long been considered as an easy procedure in relation to milk, which in summer may turn sour because of the heat, while its winter production is difficult due to the lack of fodder.363 On the other hand, Corydon’s and Polyphemus’ boastings of their pastoral wealth cause laughter,364 given that they in fact adjust the typical komastic feature, according to which the lover is boasting of his riches, to the country setting.365 [Lines 23-24]

Corydon’s next boast deals with his musical excellence, which is

also based on Polyphemus’ musical boasting found in Idyll 11:366 canto quae solitus, si quando armenta uocabat, Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho367 (Ecl. 2.23-24)

362

Coleman 1977, 95-96, Clausen 1994, 70 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 184-185. The fact that the seasons can cut off the flow of the milk has long been recognised as one of the constant worries of the herdsman. Cf. Ecl. 3.98-99 Cogite ouis, pueri: si lac praeceperit aestus,/ ut nuper, frustra pressabimus ubera palmis. 364 Du Quesnay 1979, 55. See also Pinotti 2012, 134 with n. 71. 365 Pinotti 2012, 131. 366 Coleman 1977, 96, Clausen 1994, 71 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 185. 367 On this mythical figure, see OCD s.v. Amphion. See also Desport 1952, 173181. 363

Eclogue 2

113

surfsden d' æj oÜtij œpfstamai ïde Kuklèpwn, tfn, tÕ fflon glukÚmalon, ¡m´ kºmautÕn ¢efdwn poll£ki nuktÕj ¢wrf (Id. 11.38-40)

The lover’s musical excellence constitutes a typical komastic feature,368 but striking differences can be traced. Thus, Polyphemus’ ability as a musician is recognised only among the Cyclopes. This is a musical performance that is not great in itself, nor in relation to Corydon who claims to be an accomplished musician, capable of matching even the legendary singer Amphion.369 In addition, Polyphemus’ song is based on a single occasion (love for Galateia).370 On the contrary, Corydon’s music is what the herdsmen used to do in the Eclogues (cf. Ecl. 2.31-39) and, further, is the first evidence of Corydon’s poetic self-awareness, because it actually places the lovesick shepherd into a long musical tradition that starts from the mythical singer Amphion and ends with Corydon himself (see below). [Lines 25-27]

Corydon’s last boast deals with the matter of his outward

appearance and recalls Polyphemus’ similar self-description in Idyll 11:371 nec sum adeo informis: nuper me in litore uidi, cum placidum uentis staret mare.372 non ego Daphnin

368

Du Quesnay 1979, 55. On the occurrence of a solecism in this line, see Rose 1942, 34, Putnam 1970, 97-98 and Moore-Blunt 1977, 28-29. 370 Cf. Id. 11.12-16 poll£ki tai Ôiej poti twÜlion aÙtai ¢pÁnqon/ clwr©j œk bot£naj· Ö d t¦n Gal£teian ¢efdwn/ aÙtÕj œp' ¢iÒnoj katet£keto fukio{ssaj/ œx ¢oàj, }cqiston }cwn Øpok£rdion Ÿlkoj,/ KÚpridoj œk meg£laj tÒ od ¼pati p©xe b{lemnon. 371 Du Quesnay 1979, 63-64. 369

114

Chapter 3 iudice te metuam, si numquam fallit imago (Ecl. 2.25-27)

ginèskw, carfessa kÒra, tfnoj oÛneka feÚgeij· oÛnek£ moi lasfa m੻n ÑfrÝj œpi panti metèpJ œx çtÕj t{tatai poti qèteron ðj mfa makr£, eƒj d' ÑfqalmÕj Ûpesti, platela d੻ ૧ij œpi ceflei (Id. 11.30-33)

Nonetheless, these Theocritean verses are not only limited in application to a one-eyed giant and therefore unsuited to Vergil’s purpose, but are also irrelevant, given that the Cyclops appears to be conscious about his grotesque external appearance, which he considers as the main reason for which Galateia is unresponsive. On the other hand, the ironic words of the herdsman Damoetas, who sings in the persona of Polyphemus in Idyll 6, laying emphasis on the beauty of his outward appearance, are in fact more appropriate:373 kai g£r qhn oÙd' eੇdoj }cw kakÕn éj me l{gonti. Ã g¦r pr©n œj pÒnton œs{blepon, Ãj d੻ gal£na kai kal¦ m੻n t¦ g{neia, kal¦ d{ meu ¡ mfa kèra, æj par' œmin k{kritai, katefafneto, tîn d{ t' ÑdÒntwn leukot{ran aÙg¦n Parfaj Øp{faine lfqoio (Id. 6.34-38)

372

The complicated problem of seeing one’s reflection in the sea based on the ambiguous meaning of the term litore (OLD s.v. litus 1) was a matter under discussion by scholars already in antiquity. See Serv. Ecl. 2.25, who cites a series of various opinions on this subject. 373 Coleman 1977, 97-98, Clausen 1994, 72-74 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 186-188.

Eclogue 2

115

The Vergilian and the Theocritean passages deal with the same subject (the main character’s self-admiration by gazing at his reflected image in still water) that shows their intertextual relationship, further reinforced by certain verbal correspondences. The sentence nec sum adeo informis recalls the respective oÙd' eੇdoj }cw kakÕn, while nuper me in litore uidi recalls the corresponding to pr©n œj pÒnton œs{blepon with the temporal adverb nuper being the exact equivalent of pr©n.374 However, litore (“the shallows along the shore”)375 cannot recall pÒnton (“sea”),376 something that can be explained by the fact that the size of a Cyclops could allow the monster to have seen its reflection on a calm sea in contrast to the human Corydon. The herdsman could only have seen himself in a small pool on the shore caused by the waves or a storm,377 which is suggested by cum placidum uentis staret mare378 that can semantically correspond to the Ãj d੻ gal£na, thereby underlining the relationship between the Vergilian and the Theocritean passages more emphatically.379 However, Damoetas’-Polyphemus’ beauty is a subjective judgment (cf. æj par' œmin k{kritai) and is also in strong contrast to Corydon, who is confident enough to rival Daphnis even in a beauty

374

Cf. also Ecl. 5.13 Immo haec, in uiridi nuper quae cortice fagi where, similar to the case discussed above, the adverb nuper also attributes the meaning of the corresponding Greek pr©n which is found in a passage drawn from Id. 7.50f. eh toi ¢r{skei /toàq' Óti pr©n œn Ôrei tÕ melÚdrion œxepÒnasa. On the relationship of those two passages, see Hunter 1999, 166. 375 Skånland 1967, 93-101 and Clausen 1994, 72f. 376 LSJ s.v. pÒntoj I. 377 Cf. Id. 6.10f. § d੻ baäsdei /eej ¤la derkom{na, where Polyphemus’ dog is mirrored in the sea waves while running. 378 Coleman 1977, 97 observes that uentis should be an instrumental ablative rather than locative, given that the winds are commonly said to calm the sea by relaxing their force on its surface. See also Clausen 1994, 73 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 187. 379 On the watery image in Greek and Latin pastoral poetry, see Paraskeviotis 2016a, 1-13.

116

Chapter 3

contest to be judged by Alexis (cf. iudice te), given that imago numquam fallit. Si imago numquam fallit should have its roots in the Epicurean theory on mirrors, according to which the images reflected on natural mirrors are exactly the same as the objects (cf. Luc. DRN IV 98-101)380 and therefore Corydon is in fact right.381 However, it should be noticed that the senses cannot deceive, in opposition to the judgements about the sensations that can delude (cf. Luc. DRN IV 464ff.).382 As a result, Corydon’s imago certainly cannot mislead the lovelorn herdsman, but only cause a wrong judgement concerning his imago, believing that he is beautiful, as opposed to the archetypical Daphnis whose beauty is an example par excellence.383 Hence, Corydon has the same illusion as Damoetas-Polyphemus, wrongly believing that he is in fact handsome and causing laughter, which is further confirmed with the mythological exemplum and the Epicurean theory on mirrors that are incongruously placed into the uneducated Corydon’s mouth.384 Nonetheless, while Id. 6.34-38 stress the grotesque aspect of Damoetas-Polyphemus who claims that he is actually handsome, explaining also how he realised his beauty, Ecl. 2.25-27 are yet another komastic feature (the lover’s fear of looking

380

Postremo speculis in aqua splendoreque in omni/ quae cumque apparent nobis simulacra, necessest,/ quandoquidem simili specie sunt praedita rerum,/ exin imaginibus missis consistere eorum. 381 Traina 1999, 84-90 and esp. 84-85. See also Clausen 1994, 74 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 188. 382 ne quiquam, quoniam pars horum maxima fallit/ propter opinatus animi, quos addimus ipsi,/ pro uisis ut sint quae non sunt sensibus uisa. See also Traina 1999, 85. 383 On Daphnis’ exquisite beauty, see Parth. 29, 1-2 'En Sikelfv d D£fnij `Ermoà palj œg{neto, sÚriggi d› te dexiîj cr›sasqai kai t¾n ed{an œkprep›j with Lightfoot 1999, ad loc. 384 On humour in Corydon’s love song to Alexis, see Paraskeviotis 2013, 115-130.

Eclogue 2

117

ugly),385 which thus can also recall Polyphemus’ self-description in Idyll 11.30-33. However, the Cyclops is in fact conscious of his horrible external form in strong contrast to Corydon, who fears that the beloved may consider him as ugly. [Lines 28-30]

Corydon’s close relationship to Polyphemus is also evident in the

next three verses. Here, the herdsman invites the urban love object to live together with him in the countryside, which is a conventional komastic feature:386 o tantum libeat mecum tibi sordida rura atque humilis habitare casas et figere ceruos, haedorumque gregem uiridi compellere hibisco! (Ecl. 2.28-30)

Polyphemus similarly urges Galateia to leave the sea and live in the humble surroundings of a cave, sharing certain country duties with him:387 ¤dion œn têntrJ par' œmin t¦n nÚkta diaxelj. œnti d£fnai thnef, œnti ૧adinai kup£rissoi, }sti m{laj kissÒj, }st' ¥mpeloj ¡ glukÚkarpoj, }sti yucrÕn Ûdwr, tÒ moi ¡ polud{ndreoj Ahtna leuk©j œk ciÒnoj potÕn ¢mbrÒsion proǸhti (Id. 11.44-49)

poimafnein d' œq{loij sÝn œmin ¤ma kai g£l' ¢m{lgein kai turÕn p©xai t£mison drimelan œnelsa (Id. 11.65-66) 385

Du Quesnay 1979, 55. See also Pinotti 2012, 131 and 134 with n. 71. Du Quesnay 1979, 55. 387 Coleman 1977, 28, Clausen 1994, 74 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 188. 386

118

Chapter 3

Nonetheless, Vergil replaces Polyphemus’ cave with Corydon’s country residence, whose humbleness is emphatically enclosed within sordida rura and humilis casas.388 Moreover, he alters milking and cheese making with hunting, which is an activity almost unknown to Theocritean rustics389 but has an eminent role in the Eclogues.390 In other words, the Cyclops lays special emphasis on the land and its advantages against the sea (the cave and its safety, the trees and the fresh cold water),391 referring also to pastoral duties that he asks the Nymph Galateia to share with him. On the contrary, Corydon moderates the picture of the hard country life implied in sordida rura and humilis casas by omitting the hard pastoral tasks,392 stressing also the detail of hunting that is a beloved activity of the townsmen393 and one that has homoerotic overtones,394 which is in fact very appropriate for a catamite like Alexis. Unlike Polyphemus, therefore, Corydon is a conscious komast who, realising the incongruity of the love relationship with an urban and urbane slave boy (cf. rusticus es, Corydon; nec munera curat Alexis,/ nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas Ecl. 2.56-57), tries to create an idealised picture of the countryside in order to convince the love object to accept the erotic invitation.

388

On the Callimachean overtones implied in sordida rura and humilis casas, see Papanghelis 1995, 55-56. 389 The deer hunting is only found once into the Theocritean collection through the adynaton subject in Id. 1.135 kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi. Cf. also Dover 2000, lix. 390 Cf. Ecl. 3.12-13, 74-75, 5.60f., 7.29-30, 8.27-28 and 10.55-61. 391 Du Quesnay 1979, 52. 392 This is also evident through the periphrastic account of the shepherding expressed in the next line. Cf. Ecl. 2.30: haedorumque gregem uiridi compellere hibisco. 393 Toynbee 1973, 143-145. 394 Sergent 1987, 7-48.

Eclogue 2 [Lines 31-39]

119

This suggestion is further reinforced in the following verses

where Corydon continues his erotic invitation to Alexis to enter the countryside by challenging him to imitate the country god Pan: mecum una in siluis imitabere Pana canendo Pan primum calamos cera coniungere pluris instituit, Pan curat ouis ouiumque magistros, nec te paeniteat calamo triuisse labellum (Ecl. 2.31-34)

Scholars have suggested that these lines cannot recall the Theocritean collection.395 The opposite view from that expressed in these Vergilian verses is held by Lucretius, who denies the existence of Pan and claims that humans fashioned the flute:396 et genus agricolum late sentiscere, quom Pan pinea semiferi capitis uelamina quassans unco saepe labro calamos percurrit hiantis, fistula siluestrem ne cesset fundere musam (DRN 4.586-589) At liquidas auium uoces imitarier ore ante fuit multo quam leuia carmina cantu concelebrare homines possent aurisque iuuare. et zephyri caua per calamorum sibila primum agrestis docuere cauas inflare cicutas (DRN 5.1379-1383) 395

Cartault 1897, 97-98, Galinsky 1965, 164-165, Posch 1969, 41-42, Coleman 1977, 99-100, Clausen 1994, 75-76 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 190-191. 396 Coleman 1977, 99 and Giesecke 2000, 43 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 190-191. Lucretius’ rational explanation of the echo phenomenon along with the origins of human music is fully employed in DRN 4.572-594 and 5.1379-1435.

120

Chapter 3

Certain verbal correspondences (calamos-calamorum, primum-primum) and especially Pan, whose presence is closely associated with the genre of pastoral,397 can indicate that there is an intertextual relation based on the oppositio in imitando technique that describes Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius.398 However, the reference to the rustic god Pan, who is also introduced with a sentence which refers to this god as the first inventor of the syrinx (Pan primum calamos cera coniungere pluris/ instituit Ecl. 2.32),399 can suggest yet another source. The fact that most things in the world had been invented by some god or man (prîtoj eØret›j or primus inventor) was a widespread convention in antiquity.400 Pan’s association with the invention of the cross-flute is found in a fragment of Bion on which the above Vergilian passage is based (æj eáren plagfaulon Ð P£n fr. 10.7 Gow). Pan recalls P£n, while instituit recalls eáren that suggests the act of invention,401 either with the normal infinitival construction “to begin the practice”402 or with the inclusion of the object in the sense of “to teach someone to”.403 Furthermore, the phrase pluris calamos coniungere cera is a periphrastic reading of the cross-pipe,404

397

Cf. e.g. Theoc. Id. 1.3, 16, 123, 4.47, 63, 5.14, 58, 141, 6.21, 7.103 and 106, Verg. Ecl. 2.31-33, 4.58-59, 5.59, 8.24 and 10.26, Calp. Ecl. 3.132-133, Nemes. Ecl. 1.5, 24-25, 2.73, 3.3, 11, 17. 398 Giesecke 2000, 39. See also for instance the relationship between Ecl. 1.1-10 and DRN 4.577-579 that has already been examined in Chapter 2. 399 Clausen 1994, 75-76. 400 See Prometheus who has long been characterised as the inventor of writing, arithmetic, yokes and ships (cf. A. Pr. 459ff.). 401 Cf. LSD s.v. eØrfskw 3. 402 Cf. Ecl. 5.29-31 Daphnis et Armenias curru subiungere tigris/ instituit, Daphnis thiasos inducere Bacchi/ et foliis lentas intexere mollibus hastas. See also OLD s.v. instituo 4 with examples. 403 Cf. G. 1.147f. prima Ceres ferro mortalis uertere terram/ instituit. See also OLD s.v. instituo 6b with examples. 404 Pan-pipes were frequently made by a number of separate hollow reeds or hemlock stalks of unequal lengths, usually between seven and twenty-one in

Eclogue 2

121

which in that sense may recall the plagfaulon. Nonetheless, Corydon is not only a herdsman but also the successor to the continuous pastoral musical tradition invented by Pan: haec eadem ut sciret, quid non faciebat Amyntas? est mihi disparibus septem compacta cicutis fistula, Damoetas dono mihi quam dedit olim, et dixit moriens: “te nunc habet ista secundum” dixit Damoetas, inuidit stultus Amyntas (Ecl. 2.35-39)

In other words, Corydon brings forth the countrymen’s musical dowry that is the only striking means in which the lovesick herdsman outdoes Alexis’ diues amator. Moreover, he lays special emphasis on its divine origin (cf. Pan … Pan … Pan)405 in order to demonstrate the idealised place where the urban and urbane love object is invited, realising that Alexis can hardly accept his erotic invitation. [Lines 40-44]

However, the pleasures of country life are not enough to entice

the urban Alexis. Hence, the herdsman turns to a catalogue of country, but valuable for him,406 gifts, which has long been considered as a conventional komastic feature.407 These gifts are once again based on

number, which were joined together with beeswax. Cf. Id. 8.18-19: sÚrigg' §n œpÒhsa kal¦n }cw œnne£fwnon,/ leukÕn khrÕn }coisan hson k£tw ੇson ¥nwqen. 405 Pace Du Quesnay 1979, 55 with n. 159, who suggests that Corydon’s triple reference to Pan has a hymnic effect, thereby recalling the komast’s appeal to some divinity for assistance that constitutes yet another typical komastic feature. See Du Quesnay 1979, 55 n. 160 and Pinotti 2012, 131 and 134 with n. 73. 406 Pace Du Quesnay 1979, 55-56, who suggests that Corydon’s gifts have no real value, which is also evident from the herdsman’s efforts to reinforce their value in the next lines. 407 Pinotti 2012, 131.

122

Chapter 3

Polyphemus’ offerings to Galateia in Idyll 11, along with the gift given to Amaryllis by the anonymous goatherd in Idyll 3:408 praeterea duo nec tuta mihi ualle reperti capreoli, sparsis etiam nunc pellibus albo, bina die siccant ouis ubera; quos tibi seruo. iam pridem a me illos abducere Thestylis orat; et faciet, quoniam sordent tibi munera nostra (Ecl. 2.40-44)

tr£fw d{ toi Ÿndeka nebrèj, p£saj mannofÒrwj, kai skÚmnwj t{ssaraj ¥rktwn (Id. 11.40-41)

à m£n toi leuk¦n didumatÒkon aੇga ful£ssw, t£n me kai ¡ M{rmnwnoj œriqakij ¡ melanÒcrwj aetel· kai dwsî od, œpei tÚ moi œndiaqrÚptV (Id. 3.34-36)

This intertextual relationship in terms of the subject is based on a series of country presents offered to the object of love (Alexis, Galateia and Amaryllis). Vergil is first based on Idyll 11 for the kind of country present, which is a wild animal (capreoli-nebrèj and skÚmnwj ¥rktwn), further recalling Idyll 3 from which the subject of the feminine rival comes (Thestylis-¡ M{rmnwnoj œriqakij), which is yet another typical komastic feature (cf. also Ecl. 2.10-11).409 Further support for this relationship is

408

Coleman 1977, 100, Clausen 1994, 77-78 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 193. Here, it should also be noticed that Corydon’s reference to some erotic rival (Thestylis, Amaryllis or Menalcas) is used to cause Alexis’ envy and in that sense

409

Eclogue 2

123

also provided by a number of verbal correspondences (servo-ful£ssw, orat-aetel and et faciet, quoniam-kai dwsî od, œpei). However, Vergil changes the number (two different species of animals), the quantity (eleven fawns and four bear cubs) and the kind of the offered animals (fawns and bear cubs) by having Corydon offer two roebucks (duo capreoli). Roebucks constitute wild creatures that Roman aristocrats used to rear on their properties because of the elegance and the pleasure which they offer.410 Therefore, duo capreoli is a more appropriate gift for stimulating Alexis’ urban interest than a she-goat with two kids or even eleven fawns and four bear cubs. [Lines 45-55]

Corydon’s last gift is a floral (i.e. flowers, plants and fruits)411

garland given to Alexis by the Nymphs and is a typical gift that is usually offered by the komast to the love object:412 huc ades, o formose puer: tibi lilia plenis ecce ferunt Nymphae calathis; tibi candida Nais, pallentis uiolas et summa papauera carpens, narcissum et florem iungit bene olentis anethi; tum casia atque aliis intexens suauibus herbis mollia luteola pingit uaccinia calta. is an adapted komastic feature, given that the komast’s typical reference to some rival is usually associated with insults to him/her. See Pinotti 2012, 131. 410 See Toynbee 1973, 143-145. Cf. also Col. Rust. 9.1.1 Ferae pecudes, ut capreoli dammaeque nec minus orygum ceruorumque genera et aprorum, modo lautitiis ac uoluptatibus dominorum seruiunt, modo quaestui ac reditibus. sed qui uenationem uoluptati suae claudunt contenti sunt, utcumque conpetit proximus aedificio loci situs, munire uiuarium semperque de manu cibos et aquam praebere. qui uero quaestum reditumque desiderant, cum est uicinum uillae nemus id enim refert non procul esse ab oculis domini, sine cunctatione praedictis animalibus destinatur. 411 On Corydon’s floral garland (Ecl. 2.45-55) that is a catalogue of flowers, plants and fruits, see Paraskeviotis 2018, 763-772. 412 Pinotti 2012, 131.

Chapter 3

124

ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala castaneasque nuces, mea quas Amaryllis amabat; addam cerea pruna honos erit huic quoque pomo, et uos, o lauri, carpam et te, proxima myrte, sic positae quoniam suauis miscetis odores (Ecl. 2.45-55)

Scholars have already suggested that Vergil is here based on the Theocritean Polyphemus who gives flowers to Galateia:413

ae m¾ tÕ stÒma lÍj, }feron d{ toi À krfna leuk£ À m£kwn' ¡pal¦n œruqr¦ platagèni' }coisan· ¢ll¦ t¦ m n q{reoj, t¦ d gfnetai œn ceimîni, ést' oÜ k£ toi taàta f{rein ¤ma p£nt' œdun£qhn (Id. 11.56-59)

Nevertheless, although Vergil is indeed based on the Theocritean subject, Polyphemus’ gift is not a garland but a bouquet,414 and therefore Meleager is a more appropriate source, since he describes a floral garland that is given to his erotic object:415 Pl{xw leukÒion, pl{xw d' ¡pal¾n ¤ma mÚrtoij n£rkisson, pl{xw kai t¦ gelînta krfna, pl{xw kai krÒkon ¹dÚn· œpipl{xw d' Ø£kinqon

413

Coleman 1977, 101 and Clausen 1994, 79 and Cuchiarelli 2012, 194. Hunter 1999, 238, who assumes that Polyphemus’ gift could be a floral garland, based on Id. 2.121-122 krati d' }cwn leÚkan, `Hrakl{oj derÕn }rnoj,/ p£ntoqi porfur{aisi peri zèstraisin Œlikt£n and mostly on 3.21-23 tÕn st{fanon tllaf me kat' aÙtfka lept¦ pohselj,/ tÒn toi œgèn, 'Amarulli ffla, kissolo ful£ssw,/ ¢mpl{xaj kalÚkessi kai eÙÒdmoisi selfnoij. 415 Coleman 1977, 101 and Clausen 1994, 79 and Cuchiarelli 2012, 194. 414

Eclogue 2

125

porfur{hn, pl{xw kai fil{rasta rÒda, æj ¨n œpi krot£foij murobostrÚcou `Hliodèraj eÙplÒkamon cafthn ¢nqobolÍ st{fanoj (46 G-P = A.P. 5.147)

The above Vergilian and Meleagrian verses deal with a floral garland, which is designed to be an erotic gift offered by the lover to the erotic object. This relationship is further reinforced by striking verbal correspondences. Almost every flower of Corydon’s garland finds its equivalent

in

Heliodora’s

wreath

(lilia-krfna,

uiolas-leukÒȧon,

narcissum-n£rkisson, luteola calta-krÒkon, myrte-mÚrtoij), while the verb iungit emphatically recalls the corresponding pl{xw, thereby confirming that Vergil and Meleager are describing a floral garland. However, Vergil emphasises the fact that the garland is not only Corydon’s creation; on the contrary, the Nymphs have actually prepared and woven the floral present for Alexis (tibi lilia plenis ecce ferunt Nymphae calathis; tibi candida Nais Ecl. 2.45-46),416 which shows that the garland is a divine gift that can seduce the beloved. On the other hand, the Muses, who are related to the Nymphs417 and to the gift of poetry,418 are also found in Meleager’s Garland gathering flowers and intertwining a garland: Moàsa ffla, tfni t£nde f{reij p£gkarpon ¢oid¦n À tfj Ð kai teÚxaj Ømnoqet©n st{fanon; (1.1-2 G-P = A.P. 4.1.1-2)

416

See also Ecl. 2.51-55 ipse ego cana legam tenera lanugine mala/ castaneasque nuces, mea quas Amaryllis amabat;/ addam cerea pruna honos erit huic quoque pomo,/ et uos, o lauri, carpam et te, proxima myrte,/ sic positae quoniam suauis miscetis odores, where Corydon contributes further plants and fruits to the garland. 417 Cairns 1984, 95-96. 418 Cf. Hes. Theog. 22ff.

126

Chapter 3

This gift is not a material garland but a literary garland, since it consists of forty eight poets, each of whom is represented with a flower or plant (1.3ff. G-P = A.P. 4.1.3ff.). The garland-poem metaphor is a typical figure in Greek and Roman literature.419 Nonetheless, it is entirely absent from the Theocritean collection and especially from the floral gift of Polyphemus towards Galateia (cf. }feron d{ toi À krfna leuk£/ À m£kwn' ¡pal¦n œruqr¦ platagèni' }coisan Id. 11.56-57). On the contrary, Corydon’s erotic gifts conclude with a composition which constitutes the only means through which the shepherd can compete with the urban rival. Thus, Corydon is a conscious komast who realises his incongruous love for an urban slave boy (cf. rusticus es, Corydon; nec munera curat Alexis,/ nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas Ecl. 2.5657). [Lines 56-62]

Corydon’s self-awareness is emphatically uttered through a self-

address (rusticus), which is followed by two country metaphors that also show the herdsman’s return to the hard reality: rusticus es, Corydon; nec munera curat Alexis, nec, si muneribus certes, concedat Iollas. heu heu, quid uolui misero mihi? floribus Austrum perditus et liquidis immisi fontibus apros (Ecl. 2.56-59)

419 Cf. Pind. Ol. 6.86f., Nem. 7.77-79; Antip. Sid. A.P. 7.14.3-4.; Hor. Carm. 1.26.8.

Eclogue 2

127

Corydon is a countryman and for that reason (rusticitas) is rejected by Alexis, something that recalls the reason for which some anonymous herdsman is rejected by Eunica in Idyll 20:420 boukÒloj ín œq{leij me kÚsai, t£lan; oÙ mem£qhka ¢grofkwj fil{ein, ¢ll' ¢stik¦ ceflea qlfbein (Id. 20.3-4)

But while Eunica emphatically scorns the anonymous herdsman for his rusticitas, Corydon condemns himself and stresses pejoratively that he is only a mere countryman, thereby explaining how the urban and urbane Alexis would describe him, something which is also expressed proverbially through the two country metaphors. The rainy storms that ruined his flowers and the wild boars that spoiled his crystal springs refer obliquely to the herdsman who realises that his rusticitas ruined everything. Nonetheless, Corydon makes a final attempt by suggesting to Alexis that he follow Paris’-Alexander’s example and enter the countryside: quem fugis, a! demens? habitarunt di quoque siluas Dardaniusque Paris. Pallas quas condidit arces ipsa colat; nobis placeant ante omnia siluae (Ecl. 2.60-62)

Paris and Pallas create a strong contrast, given that they refer to Paris’ judgement where he judged Aphrodite as the fairest goddess, rejecting Hera

420

Robertson 1970-1971, 19-20. On the suggestion that the phrase Dardaniusque Paris may also refer to Paris’ and Oenone’s love story, see Paraskeviotis 2017, 361-365.

Chapter 3

128

and Athena.421 What is more, Paris has a long history as the most notorious adulterer in antiquity, and thus he also stands in contrast with the very chaste Athena. Finally, Paris is connected to the country environment and is usually called pastor422 in emphatic opposition to Pallas Athena, who is closely associated with an urban setting.423 In other words, Paris and Pallas reflect the strong antithesis between country and town. Most significantly, they also correspond to the contrast between Corydon’s rusticitas and Iollas’ urbanitas, which is used by Corydon in order to convince Alexis to choose a rusticus (Corydon) over an urbanus lover (Iollas). Nonetheless, it has already been mentioned that the lover’s invitation to the urban love object in order to live together in the countryside constitutes a traditional komastic feature. It has also been observed that Corydon tries to create an idealised picture of the countryside in order to convince the urban love object to accept the erotic invitation, confirming again that Corydon realises how hard it is for Alexis to enter the country.424 Furthermore, the herdsman realises the reason for which he is rejected, which can explain why he calls for divine assistance (cf. also Ecl. 2.63-65) and most importantly why he ceases trying to win the urban love object. [Lines 63-65]

Corydon’s self-awareness about the reason for which he has been

rejected by Alexis can also be confirmed by his effort to justify himself for

421

Papanghelis 1995, 52-53. Cf. Aen. 7.363-364 at non sic Phrygius penetrat Lacedaemona pastor,/ Ledaeamque Helenam Troianas uexit ad urbes? See also Kyriakidis 2007, 18-19. 423 Coleman 1977, 424 Cf. Ecl. 2.28-39. 422

Eclogue 2

129

his earlier behaviour, which is evident through a series of country analogies:425 torua leaena lupum sequitur, lupus ipse capellam, florentem cytisum sequitur lasciua capella, te Corydon, o Alexi: trahit sua quemque uoluptas (Ecl. 2.63-65)

These Vergilian verses recall the Theocritean collection, where similar country analogies can be found in Idyll 10:426 ¡ akx t¦n kÚtison, Ð lÚkoj t¦n aੇga dièkei, ¡ g{ranoj têrotron· œgë d' œpi tin mem£nhmai (Id. 10.30-31)

Both passages contain two same country analogies that confirm their relation, which is also reinforced by the verbal correspondences lupus ipse capellam-Ð lÚkoj t¦n aੇga dièkei and sequitur lasciua capella-¡ akx t¦n kÚtison. Nonetheless, Vergil alters the strange example of the crane following the plough427 with lions coming after the wolves, which is also a bizarre analogy, since lions do not prey on wolves, and they had also been extinct in Europe since pre-historic times.428 On the other hand, lovers and 425

The rhetorical figure of the kllmax or gradation, which is also closely associated with the priamel form (cf. Race 1982, 24), has long been considered as a conventional feature of pastoral poetry. Cf. Id. 8.57-59, 76-80; Ecl. 5.32-34, 7.65-68. See also Rosenmeyer 1969, 257-261. 426 Coleman 1977, 105, Clausen 1994, 83 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 197-198. 427 The crane is considered as a scavenger for the worms turned up by the plough or the seed which is scattered. Cf. A.P. 7.172.1-2; Babr. 13.1ff.; Theophyl. Epist. 5; EM 227.55-56. See also Gow II 1952, 201 and Hunter 1999, 208. 428 Cf. BNP s.v. lion with the singular exception of Macedonia, where they were found between the rivers Nestus and Achelous at the time of Xerxes (cf. Hdt. 7.125).

Chapter 3

130

especially admirers of young boys are likened to wolves (cf. æj lÚkoi ¥rnaj ¢gapîsin, ìj palda filoàsin œrastaf Phaedr. 241d 1).429 Most significantly, the strange analogy that lions prey on wolves is used in order to create the structural form that (A) follows (B), (B) follows (C) and (C) follows (D). In other words, the crane is replaced with the lion in order to create a more suitable country analogy for the homosexual context (wolfCorydon  goat-Alexis). Corydon, on the other hand, stresses that he follows Alexis (te Corydon, o Alexi) because the urban love object can hardly understand the country analogies used by the herdsmen. Hence, the Theocritean country analogies constitute the conventional country means (rustic analogy) used by Bucaeus to express his love for the countrygirl Bombyca in strong opposition to the Vergilian rustic analogies, which are also used by Corydon in order to express his love for the urban boy Alexis. Furthermore, the Theocritean country analogies end with Bucaeus’ erotic utterance (œgë d' œpi tin mem£nhmai) in strong contrast to the Vergilian country analogies that conclude with Corydon’s gnomic utterance (trahit sua quemque uoluptas). Corydon’s gnome deals with the natural erotic desire that creates uoluptas in the entire flora and fauna and thus may recall Lucretius’ introduction to the De Rerum Natura:430 Aeneadum genetrix, hominum diuomque uoluptas, alma Venus, caeli subter labentia signa quae mare nauigerum, quae terras frugiferentis concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum concipitur uisitque exortum lumina solis:

429 430

Luck 1959, 34-37. Davis 2012, 108-109.

Eclogue 2

131

te, dea, te fugiunt uenti, te nubila caeli aduentumque tuum, tibi suauis daedala tellus summittit flores, tibi rident aequora ponti placatumque nitet diffuso lumine caelum. nam simul ac species patefactast uerna diei et reserata uiget genitabilis aura fauoni, aeriae primum uolucris te, diua, tuumque significant initum perculsae corda tua ui. inde ferae pecudes persultant pabula laeta et rapidos tranant amnis: ita capta lepore te sequitur cupide quo quamque inducere pergis. denique per maria ac montis fluuiosque rapacis frondiferasque domos auium camposque uirentis omnibus incutiens blandum per pectora amorem efficis ut cupide generatim saecla propagent (DRN 1.14-20)

Here, Aphrodite is called hominum diuomque uoluptas and is also praised for her role in raising the sexual libido (omnibus incutiens blandum per pectora amorem), which is necessary for reproduction in the animal and human worlds. In other words, Aphrodite personifies the creative natural force (uoluptas) that can excite the entire animate world (te sequitur cupide quo quamque inducere pergis).431 As a result, and most significantly given Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius (i.e. the Vergilian tendency to reverse or to cancel the Lucretean scientific explanation), the gnome trahit sua quemque uoluptas can also be read as trahit sua quemque Venus, thereby suggesting that Corydon’s love for Alexis is stimulated by Aphrodite. This can move Alexis and is also yet another 431

Gale 1994, 231.

Chapter 3

132

strong argument made in order to convince him to leave the city, which accords well with Corydon’s earlier reference to Athena (Dardaniusque Paris. Pallas quas condidit arces/ ipsa colat; Ecl. 2.61-62). What is more, it can be associated with the lover’s appeal to Aphrodite for help, which is a conventional komastic feature.432 [Lines 66-68]

Corydon’s next words also refer to the natural environment,

because they deal with the herdsman’s emotional burning that is in strong contrast to the country’s tranquillity, while the sun is setting: aspice, aratra iugo referunt suspensa iuuenci, et sol crescentis decedens duplicat umbras; me tamen urit amor: quis enim modus adsit amori? (Ecl. 2.66-68)

The herdsman’s emotional situation may recall the Theocritean Simaetha, who is also burning for Delphis in strong opposition to the tranquillity of the sea and winds:433 ºnfde sigÍ men pÒntoj, sigînti d' ¢Átai· ¡ d' œm¦ oÙ sigÍ st{rnwn }ntosqen ¢nfa, ¢ll' œpi t›nJ p©sa katafqomai Ój me t£lainan (Id. 2.38-40)

These passages deal with the lover’s human emotions that are in contrast with the natural order and quiet, which has long been considered as a

432

Copley 1956, with 19 with n. 48, Du Quesnay 1979, 55 and Pinotti 2012, 131 and 134 with n. 73. 433 Coleman 1977, 106 and Clausen 1994, 84.

Eclogue 2

133

typical literary theme.434 This intertextual relationship is further reinforced by the expression me tamen urit amor that exactly corresponds to ¢ll' œpi t›nJ p©sa katafqomai Ój me t£lainan, suggesting that Corydon and Simaetha burn for Alexis and Delphis respectively. Similarly to the initial verses of the Eclogue (ardebat Ecl. 2.1), its concluding lines also describe the lovesick herdsman as burning with erotic passion (urit amor Ecl. 2.68). However, at the beginning of the Eclogue, the love described as fire (ardebat Ecl. 2.1) is closely associated with the midday heat (sole sub ardenti Ecl. 2.13); here, by contrast, it is related to the setting of the sun (sol decedens Ecl. 2.67) when the heat of the day is past, which displays that, despite a whole day of his singing performance, Corydon could neither win Alexis nor find cure from the erotic passion. Hence, Simaetha, who also could neither win the love object nor overcome her love for Delphis even though she had tried love potions (Id. 2.1-62), is a more appropriate model in contrast to Polyphemus, who found relief in singing (¢ll¦ tÕ f£rmakon eáre, kaqezÒmenoj d' œpi p{traj/ Øyhl©j œj pÒnton Ðrîn ¥eide toiaàta Id. 11.17-18), which can also justify Vergil’s dependence here on Idyll 2 rather than Idyll 11. Additionally, Corydon’s love song is a country komos that should end unsuccessfully while the sun is setting, because this is the most suitable time for the country komast to end the song, in strong antithesis to the nocturnal komast whose song usually unsuccessfully comes to its end when the sun is rising.435

434

Cf. Ap. Rh. Arg. 3.744-760; Verg. Aen. 4.522-532. See also Clausen 1987, 62-

63. 435

Copley 1956, 131 with n. 19, Cairns 1972, 254 with n. 48, Du Quesnay 1979, 55 with n. 164 and Pinotti 2012, 131.

Chapter 3

134 [Lines 69-73]

The Eclogue comes to an end with Corydon’s return to the rough

country reality, expressed through the usual country jobs that the herdsman had abandoned for Alexis: a, Corydon, Corydon, quae te dementia cepit! semiputata tibi frondosa uitis in ulmo est: quin tu aliquid saltem potius, quorum indiget usus, uiminibus mollique paras detexere iunco? inuenies alium, si te hic fastidit, Alexin (Ecl. 2.69-73)

The Vergilian verses are clearly based on Polyphemus’ analogous monologue in Idyll 11:436 ð KÚklwy KÚklwy, p´ t¦j fr{naj œkpepÒtasai; ah k' œnqën tal£rwj te pl{koij kai qallÕn ¢m£saj talj ¥rnessi f{roij, t£ca ka polÝ m©llon }coij nîn. t¦n pareolsan ¥melge· tf tÕn feÚgonta dièkeij; eØrhselj Gal£teian hswj kai kallfon' ¥llan (Id. 11.72-76)

Both passages begin with a double self-exclamation (a, Corydon, Corydon-ð KÚklwy KÚklwy) as an indicator of the strong emotional tone of the lover.437 Moreover, they describe love as madness (quae te dementia cepit-p´ t¦j fr{naj œkpepÒtasai),438 which is enhanced by

436

Coleman 1977, 106-107, Clausen 1994, 84-85 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 200. On the device according to which the spoken character uses his own name in self-address, see Williams 1968, 461-463 and Wills 1996, 52-53. 438 Cf. also Ecl. 6.47 a, uirgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit! On the intratextual relationship between Ecl. 2.69 and 6.47, see Paraskeviotis 2016b, 57-58. 437

Eclogue 2

135

the sound correspondence quae te-p´ t¦j. In addition, the task in which Corydon urges himself to be engaged is basket weaving (uiminibus mollique paras detexere iunco), which is also Polyphemus’ concern (ah k' œnqën tal£rwj te pl{koij kai qallÕn ¢m£saj/ talj ¥rnessi f{roij).439 More verbal correspondences are also found in the sentence inuenies alium, si te hic fastidit, Alexin, which is the equivalent of eØrhselj Gal£teian hswj kai kallfon' ¥llan; yet, there is also a change in the word order (alium ... Alexin-Gal£teian ... ¥llan) in order to end the Eclogue with the name Alexin, stressing that Corydon’s thoughts, in emphatic contrast to Polyphemus (¥llan), are still dominated by Alexis. In view of that, Vergil has based the Eclogue on the Theocritean original for its main theme, according to which Polyphemus could not win over Galateia. However, Polyphemus finds a cure through singing in the pastoral world, where the “fairer” (kallfon) maidens (the daughters of other Cyclopes),440 who go after him, live:441 pollai sumpafsden me kÒrai t¦n nÚkta k{lontai, kiclfzonti d੻ p©sai, œpef k' aÙtalj ØpakoÚsw (Id. 11.77-78)

439

Further emphasis should also be laid on Corydon’s country job in the sense that it could also recall the composition of poetry given that detexo has also a metaphorical meaning (OLD s.v. texo 3b). See also Ecl. 10.70-71 Haec sat erit, diuae, uestrum cecinisse poetam,/ dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco. This observation can again emphatically show Corydon’s poetic self-awareness that further highlights the difference between the Vergilian and the Theocritean country komasts. See also Papanghelis 1994, 61f. 440 Cf. Id. 11.79 dÁlon Ót' œn t´ g´ kºgèn tij fafnomai Ãmen, where the phrase œn t´ g´ (“on land”) suggests Polyphemus’ prestige over the land in opposition to Galateia’s marine environment. 441 Hunter 1999, 242.

136

Chapter 3

On the other hand, Corydon, like his Theocritean antecedent, could not win over Alexis, nor he could find a cure and relief through the singing performance, which is unequivocally shown by the hope for another beloved (inuenies alium Alexin). Thus, the lack of the two-line conclusion of the Greek passage (Id. 11.80-81) and the position of Alexin as the last word of the Eclogue suggest that the frustrated shepherd will find another beloved similar to Alexis, which means outside the pastoral world.442 The momentary hope that the love object will be moved is a typical komastic feature;443 however, the country komasts Corydon and Polyphemus fleetingly hope that they can cure their erotic passion for their current beloved by searching for some other erotic object. This is related to the sexual freedom that runs through the pastoral world and genre,444 laying also special emphasis on the strong contrast between country and city and, more significantly, between the country and urban komos and komast. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 2 is a country komos since Vergil transfers

the urban komos to the Italian country. This is confirmed by the Eclogue’s subject (Corydon’s unrequited love for Alexis), by its main characters (the country character Corydon and the urban character Alexis)445 and by its narrative introduction (Ecl. 2.1-5), where the basic elements that the ancient readers recognised in this category can be traced to a country environment; most emphatically, however, the komastic character of the Eclogue also becomes evident from the Greek and Roman sources and

442

See also Hubbard 1998, 67-68 who nicely observes that there is no clear answer to the issue whether alium Alexin can refer to some reciprocated or unreciprocated erotic object. 443 Pinotti 2012, 131 and 133 with n. 68. 444 Cf. Ecl. 3.64-67, 9.21-22 and 10.37-38. 445 On rustic characters in Roman comedy, see Kella 2015, 181-193.

Eclogue 2

137

especially from the way in which they are used by Vergil in order to create this genre. Vergil is heavily based on Theocritus (Id. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 10, 11, 20, 23) but he focuses mostly on Idylls 3 and 11, which are country komoi, to surpass them and their komasts (the anonymous goatherd and Polyphemus). This shows the way in which Vergil handles the Theocritean (Greek) country komos, stressing first the difference between the Theocritean (Greek) and Vergilian (Roman) country komos and komast, and second his originality. Moreover, the influence that other Idylls have on the Eclogue is related to the fact that elements coming from these sources are revised and reformed in order to adjust typical urban komastic features to the country setting. This lays special emphasis on the strong antithesis between the country and urban komos and komast and is also confirmed by Vergil’s dependence on Hesiod, Bion, Meleager and Lucretius, who are also combined with Theocritus in order to underscore this contrast.

CHAPTER 4 ECLOGUE 3* Eclogue 3 deals with the casual meeting of the herdsmen Damoetas and Menalcas, followed by a verbal fight, which ends with an amoebaean song contest.446 As a result, it is reasonable that, within a *

Gallavotti 1966, 421-436 compares the descriptions of the Vergilian (Ecl. 3.3839) and Theocritean (Id. 1.27-56) rustic cups. Veremans 1969 gives a detailed interpretative analysis of the Eclogue. Garson 1971, 188-203 focuses on the Theocritean elements found in the Vergilian collection (Eclogues 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8). Skutsch 1971, 26-29 examines Vergil’s modifications of the Theocritean elements that are identified in Eclogues 3 and 7. Schöpsdau 1974, 268-300 discusses in detail the antitheses between Theocritus’ Idyll 5 and the elegiac features that are found in Vergil’s Eclogue 3. Barigazzi 1975, 54-78 comparatively examines Eclogue 3 and Idyll 5, laying emphasis on the Theocritean realism. Hofmann 1985, 468-480 claims that Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ riddles contain allusions to Aratus’ Phaenomena and Euphorion’s Hyacinthus. Currie 1976, 411-420 and Wills 1993, 3-11 identify in the Eclogue certain comic elements drawn from Roman comedy. Buchheit 1986a, 123-141 deals with Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Lucretius. Monteleone 1994 interprets Eclogue 3 thoroughly, focusing also on Vergil’s intertextual relationship with the Theocritean collection. Hendry 1995, 5152 claims that Ecl. 3.8-9 could have been based on Anyte of Tegea (A.P. 9.745). Hunter 2001, 159-163 discusses Vergil’s dependence on the encomiastic Idyll 17. Loupiac 2003, 130-135 examines the Vergilian pocula in comparison with the Theocritean kissÚbion. MacDonald 2003, 199-207 argues that Eclogues 3 and 7 are structurally based on Idyll 8. Mader 2008, 185-191 focuses on Ecl. 3.25-27 and 84-87 which are examined in relation to Callimachean aesthetics. Hasegawa 2011 suggests that Eclogue 3 has an invective-iambic character that displays many parallels to Horace Epode 10. Karakasis 2011, 87-124 claims that Eclogue 3 combines literary elements and subjects that derive from various genres, especially from Roman comedy and love elegy. Finally, Stöckinger 2016, 61-87 focuses on the symbolic value of gifts in Vergil’s Eclogues. 446 Gow II 1952, 92 argues that the rules of the rustic song contests are nowhere described, quoting, however, Servius, who refers to the conditions under which an amoebaean song competition takes place. Cf. Serv. Ecl. 3.28 amoebaeum autem est, quotiens qui canunt, et aequali numero uersuum utuntur, et ita se habet ipsa responsio, ut aut maius aut contrarium aliquid dicant, sicut sequentia indicabunt.

Eclogue 3

139

singing match between herdsmen, any quotations belonging to genres other than pastoral would be particularly meagre. This suggestion accords well with the views of modern commentators, according to whom Eclogue 3 is heavily based on the Greek pastoral tradition. Coleman stresses Vergil’s dependence on Theocritean and pseudo-Theocritean pastoral (Idylls 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8)447 in a similar way to Clausen (Idylls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8), who also lays special emphasis on the comparison of Eclogue 3 to Idyll 5.448 On the other hand, Cucchiarelli once again emphasises the Theocritean and pseudo-Theocritean (Idylls 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9) influences on the Eclogue, but he observes that Vergil is also heavily based on the language of Roman comedy (Plautus and Terence).449 Nonetheless, Eclogue 3 is the first Latin singing contest, and even though it is based mostly on Greek sources, they are combined with other, Roman sources or manipulated in such a way in order to stress or signify the emergence of the Roman character of the contest. [Lines 1-2]

The Eclogue begins with Menalcas’ straight question to

Damoetas, which is based on Battus’ similar question to Corydon in Idyll 4:450

See also Id. 8.29-32 coe m੻n paldej ¢efden, Ð d' aepÒloj ½qele krfnein./ pr©toj d' ðn ¥eide lacën eukt¦ Men£lkaj,/ eੇta d' ¢moibafan Øpel£mbane D£fnij ¢oid£n/ boukolik£n· oÛtw d੻ Men£lkaj ¥rxato pr©toj; Ecl. 3.59 incipe, Damoeta; tu deinde sequere, Menalca./ alternis dicetis; amant alterna Camenae, where Palaemon explains in detail the conditions of the singing competition, and 7.18-19 alternis igitur contendere uersibus ambo/ coepere, alternos Musae meminisse uolebant, where the form of the contest is implied. On the form of those contests see, Sistakou 1998, 93-94. 447 Coleman 1977, 128-129. 448 Clausen 1994, 86-92. 449 Cucchiarelli 2012, 201-203. 450 Cf. Coleman 1977, 109, Clausen 1994, 92 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 204.

140

Chapter 4 Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus? an Meliboei? Non, uerum Aegonis; nuper mihi tradidit Aegon (Ecl. 3.1-2) Eep{ moi, ð KorÚdwn, tfnoj ad bÒej; Ã ૧a Filènda; oÜk, ¢ll' Ahgwnoj· bÒskein d{ moi aÙt¦j }dwken (Id. 4.1-2)

The thematic and verbal relationships of the Vergilian and Theocritean verses (Dic mihi-Eep{ moi non, cuium pecus?-tfnoj ad bÒej; uerum Aegonis-oÜk, ¢ll' Ahgwnoj and nuper mihi tradidit Aegon-bÒskein d{ moi aÙt¦j }dwken) are quite clear. However, the Vergilian herdsmen Menalcas and Damoetas replace the Theocritean B£ttoj and KorÚdwn, thereby confirming the typical Vergilian tendency to change the Greek personal names, especially when adapting a Theocritean passage.451 Furthermore, the name Meliboeus, embedded in the straight question an Meliboei?, which translates the corresponding straight question à ૧a Filènda, has been preferred as a substitute for the name Philondas. This is not only to follow this Vergilian tendency; it is also a substantial indication of Vergil’s deviation from Theocritus, given that this name is entirely absent from the Theocritean collection.452 On the other hand, the name Aegon (Aegon-Ahgwnoj) is a striking exception. Nonetheless, Vergil alters the reason for which the flock is neglected (Aegon’s love for

451

See Lipka 2001, 62, who claims that there are many more exceptions to this Vergilian tendency such as Lycidas (Ecl. 9-Id. 7), Menalcas (Ecl. 3.58-Id. 9.2) and Tityrus (Ecl. 3.96, 5.12, 9.23f.-Id. 3.3f.). 452 See Lipka 2001, 187f. with n. 111 for the etymology of this name and 190.

Eclogue 3

141

Neaera)453 in strong contrast to Theocritus, who associates Aegon’s absence with athletic activities at Olympia: Infelix o semper, oues, pecus! ipse Neaeram dum fouet ac ne me sibi praeferat illa ueretur (Ecl. 3.3-4)

oÙk ¥kousaj; ¥gwn nin œp' 'AlfeÕn õceto Mflwn (Id. 4.6)

feà feà baseàntai kai tai bÒej, ð t£lan Ahgwn, eej 'Afdan, Óka kai tÝ kak©j ºr£ssao nfkaj (Id. 4.26-27)

Nevertheless, while there are still two terms in Ecl. 3.1-3 which can be easily explained by Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus, their origins are rather different. The Vergilian dic mihi obviously recalls the Theocritean eep{ moi. This is a characteristic expression whose pastoral (Theocritus)454 and mimic (Herodas)455 origin introduces an abrupt initial question, which from the outset reinforces the realistic character of Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ verbal argument. However, the same expression is also frequent in Roman comedy, where it had long been considered as a typical formula for introducing a question456 or for preparing the listener for a comic reply, 453

Klingner 1967, 50. See also Monteleone 1994, 22. The neglect of the usual, here country, jobs has long been considered as a symptom of lovesickness in Vergil and in Greco-Roman literature. 454 See also Coleman 1977, 109, Clausen 1994, 92 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 204. 455 Cf. Herod. 5.1 l{ge moi sÚ, G£strwn, ½d' Ùperkor¾j oÜtw. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 204. 456 Cf. Plaut. Bacch. 600f. Dic mihi,/ quis tu es?, Capt. 623f. Eho dic mihi,/ quis illic igitur est?, Curc. 406f. Dic mihi,/ quid eum nunc quaeris?; Ter. Andr. 931f.

142

Chapter 4

if attached to a self-dependent interrogative sentence.457 Similarly, the term cuium pecus instead of the more appropriate cuius pecus is a phrase that could be the exact equivalent of the corresponding tfnoj ad bÒej.458 On the other hand, it has been claimed that Vergil preferred cuium pecus to avoid homoeoteleuton (cuius pecus),459 which he had long been at pains to avoid.460 Moreover, the same phrase constitutes a comic element, because Vergil may also have had Roman comic models in mind.461 Finally, it is also an attempt to recall the general country character of the dialogue between the Theocritean herdsmen,462 which had already been suggested in antiquity.463 What is more, cuium was a common word among early Roman comedians, especially Plautus and Terence,464 but was

eho dic mihi,/ quid eam tum?, Eun. 360f. eho dum dic mihi:/ estne, ut fertur, forma?, Adel. 726f. dic mihi,/ non clamas? See also Don. Andr. 667.2 semper tÕ “dic mihi” iniuriosum est, ut ille “dic mihi Damoeta, cuium pecus?” and MacGlynn I 1963, s.v. dico VIII and XI with examples. See also Clausen 1994, 92, Saunders 2008, 13 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 204. 457 Cf. Plaut. Men. 923-926 Med. Dic mihi hoc: solent tibi umquam oculi duri fieri?/ Men. Quid? tu me lucustam censes esse, homo ignauissime?/ Med. Dic mihi: en umquam intestina tibi crepant, quod sentias?/ Men. Ubi satur sum, nulla crepitant; quando esurio, tum crepant. See also Clausen 1994, 92. 458 Cf. TLL s.v. pecus 951.70-952.14. 459 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 3.1 cuium autem antique ait, uitans homoeoteleuton, ne diceret cuius pecus quod modo trium est generum. 460 Norden 1926, 405-407. See also Clausen 1994, 92 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 204. 461 Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr I 1928, 473, Currie 1976, 411-420, Wills 1993, 311 and esp. 6-7. 462 Wackernagel II 1920-1924, 81f. and Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr II 1965, 178f. 463 Cf. Numit. Antib. fr. 2.1-2 Dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus anne Latinum?/ Non, uerum Aegonis nostri sic rure locuntur. For the associations of this passage (Ecl. 3.1-2) with parody see Schmidt 1972b, 65-66. 464 OLD s.v. cuius 1a and b with examples, though they are not restricted only to Plautus and Terence. See also Currie 1976, 411, Clausen 1994, 92-93, Tracy 2003, 71-72, Maurach 2008, 230-231 and Karakasis 2011, 110 with n. 96, who observes that the term ipse [dominus] (Ecl. 3.3-4) is yet another comic colloquial element found in Roman comedy (Plaut. Aul. 356, Ter. Andr. 360, Eun. 535, etc.).

Eclogue 3

143

obsolete in formal Latin by Vergil’s day, which has led to the explanation that Vergil used this form as an archaism.465 Nonetheless, its place in the Eclogue can also show that it was chosen for another reason. Vergil begins Eclogue 3 with a striking quotation from Theocritus, which is further enriched with minor details that are emphatically associated with Roman comedy. This is a genre where abusive backchat (Wortgefechte) is one of the conventional characteristics and a widespread feature of comedy at all periods.466 Additionally, its vivid language has long been described as a way of supplying the Latin, pastoral or other hexameters with colloquial and archaic forms that recall the rural dialects, while also avoiding unpleasantness in sound and rhythm. In other words, dic mihi and cuium are typically Roman terms (Plautus, Terence) placed in a Greek background (Theocritus, Herodas) in order to stress the Roman character of the song contest. [Lines 3-6]

The Vergilian tendency to recall and to modify the Theocritean

original continues in Menalcas’ counter-charge that is also based on Idyll 4:467 Infelix o semper, oues, pecus! ipse Neaeram dum fouet ac ne me sibi praeferat illa ueretur (Ecl. 3.3-4)

465

See Williams 1979, 100 and Courtney 1993, 284, though the latter combines the archaic and country explanations by describing this term as a rustic archaism. 466 Cf. Plaut. Pseud. 357-368 where Calidorus and Pseudolus placed on either side of Ballio alternate insults, a scene that is a variant form of the Italian folk-justice technique called flagitatio. Cf. Usener 1901, 1-28. See also Fraenkel 2007, 387 n. 37. 467 Coleman 1977, 110, Clausen 1994, 93 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 205.

144

Chapter 4

Menalcas’ accusation of Damoetas’ bad treatment of the flock is introduced with a sympathetic word towards the sheep, which is also found in Idyll 4:

deflaiaf [bÒej] g' aátai, tÕn boukÒlon æj kakÕn eáron (Id. 4.13)

Nonetheless, the thematic relationship of the Vergilian and the Theocritean verses under consideration is not so clear, unless we focus on their context. Both Vergil and Theocritus refer to the fortune of the animals because they have a bad herdsman, which is reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence infelix-deflaiaf. In a similar way, Menalcas’ accusation of Damoetas’ excessive milking of his master’s flock also has its roots in Idyll 4, where Battus asks Corydon whether or not he secretly milks his master’s cows:468 hic alienus ouis custos bis mulget in hora, et sucus pecori et lac subducitur agnis (Ecl. 3.5-6)

à p® ye krÚbdan t¦ poq{spera p£saj ¢m{lgej; (Id. 4.3)

This thematic relationship is also enhanced by the verbal correspondences mulget-¢m{lgej and bis in hora-poq{spera, although the latter is a striking exaggeration based on the physical impossibility of milking the

468

Coleman 1977, 110, Clausen 1994, 94-95 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 206.

Eclogue 3

145

sheep twice an hour, instead of twice a day.469 Here, it is also used in order to emphasise the bickering and humorous character of Menalcas’ and Damoetas’ conversation. Nonetheless, an important difference remains. Theocritus’ remark on the sheep’s secret milking is an implicit charge of theft, which is expressed by a question in order to cause the next jesting interchange (Id. 4.3-25). On the other hand, Vergil’s comment is a direct accusation explicitly articulated in a clearly affirmative way (note the indicative mood “mulget”), enriched also by further details about the results of this act (sucus pecori et lac subducitur agnis Ecl. 3.6). In other words, the goal is no longer a joking exchange but an exchange that is designed to intensify the verbal fight between the Roman herdsmen.470 [Lines 7-11]

Vergil’s deviation from Theocritus is more emphatically evident

in the next exchange, where the tone of the passage and the content of the insult become harsher: Parcius ista uiris tamen obicienda memento. nouimus et qui te transuersa tuentibus hircis et quo sed faciles Nymphae risere sacello. Tum, credo, cum me arbustum uidere Miconis atque mala uitis incidere falce nouellas (Ecl. 3.7-11)

469

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 3.5 bis mulget in hora quod bis per totum diem debet in ouibus fecundis fieri: nam pro laude in georgicis posuit, bis ad diem mulgeri oues, dicens “quod surgente die mulsere horisque diurnis, nocte premunt; quod iam tenebris et sole cadente, sub lucem exportant calathis”. quid autem sit ‘bis mulget in hora’ ipse dicit, ‘et sucus pecori et lac subducitur agnis’. 470 See also Karakasis 2011, 96, who argues that the Vergilian herdsmen Damoetas and Menalcas are closer to the Theocritean Comatas and Lacon (Id. 5), whose verbal fight is much more acrid.

Chapter 4

146

Menalcas’ sexual orientation is almost the same as that which is found in Idyll 5.471 There, Comatas describes in specific terms the homosexual acts between himself and Lacon:472 ¡nfk' œpÚgizÒn tu, tÝ d' ¥lgeej· ad d੻ cfmairai agde kateblhcînto, kai Ð tr£goj aÙt¦j œtrÚph. m¾ b£qion t›nw pugfsmatoj, Øb{, tafefhj (Id. 5.41-43)

The homosexual intercourse and the same sexually incontinent animals (hircis-tr£goj) during the sexual act can confirm Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus. However, the obscene verb is absent from the Vergilian verses. Instead, it is allusively supplied from the context in strong contrast to Theocritus, where the account of the same act is explicitly and brutally described (cf. œpÚgizÒn). This aposiopesis is a conventional sexual euphemism473 that comes from Idyll 1.474 There, Theocritus gives the subject and the object of the sexual act in a similar way, also leaving out the obscene verb:475 oÙ l{getai t¦n KÚprin Ð boukÒloj; (Id. 1.105) 471

Coleman 1977, 110, Clausen 1994, 94 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 206-207. Cf. also Id. 5.116-117 à oÙ m{mnas', Ók' œgè tu kat›lasa, kai tÝ sesarèj/ eâ potekigklfzeu kai t©j druÕj ehceo t›naj. 473 Gow II 1952, 23 and Adams 1981, 120-128 and esp. 120-121. On the aposiopesis in general, see Hofmann 1951, 53-55. 474 Clausen 1994, 94-95 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 206. See also Hunter 1999, 96. 475 Cf. Id. 5.147-149 oátoj Ð leukftaj Ð koruptfloj, eh tin' Ñceuselj/ t©n aegîn, flassî tu, prin À œm੻ kallierÁsai/ talj NÚmfaij t¦n ¢mnÒn. Ö d' aâ p£lin. See also Meleag. 72.5 G-P = A.P. 5.184.5 oÙc Ð perfbleptÒj se Kl{wn...;; Ter. Eun. 479 ego illum eunuchum, si opus siet, uel sobrius..., Heaut. 913 qui se uidente amicam patiatur suam...?; Priap. 82.6 hunc tu, sed tentoscis, puto, quod sequitur. 472

Eclogue 3

147

In other words, Vergil removes the Theocritean realism (Idyll 5) by creating a more subtle description, which is achieved by this elliptical structure (Idyll 1). This structural construction can explain the expression transuersa tuentibus hircis, which further describes that the he-goats are looking askance in the sense that the animals are similarly stimulated by watching the sexual activity of those herdsmen. However, this subject can once again recall the Theocritean original (Id. 5.41-43) with the striking exception that the goats’ sidelong glances are unequivocally absent. On the contrary, this is found in an anonymous Hellenistic epigram that has long been considered as the source on which Id. 1.105 is based:476 Cafrw tÕn lak{ruzon Ðrîn qeÕn eej tÕ f£lanqon br{gm' ØpÕ t©n Ñcn©n, aepÒle, tuptÒmenon. AepÒle, toàton œgë trij œpÚgisa· toi d੻ tragfskoi eej œm੻ derkÒmenoi t¦j cim£raj œb£teun.477 ”Ontwj s', `ErmafrÒdite, pepÚgiken; OÙ m¦ tÕn `Erm©n, aepÒle. Nai tÕn P©n', aepÒle, k¢pigelîn (54 G-P = A.P. 9.317)

Examining those passages, it becomes evident that their common element is sexual domination, which is also identified in the above Vergilian lines (Ecl. 3.8-9).478 However, Theocritus employs this subject in order to explain the longstanding hostility between the two herdsmen (cf. Id. 5.3543, where Comatas is emphatically described to have taught and sexually dominated Lacon some time ago). On the other hand, Vergil uses it in

476

Gow II 1952, 102. See also Hunter 1999, 96. 4 }blepon Salm: œb£teun. 478 On the subject of sexual submission in Roman culture, see Wiseman 1985, 1014 and Williams 1999, 163-181. 477

Chapter 4

148

order to create a severe insult in order to intensify the quarrel between the Roman herdsmen (cf. parcius ista uiris tamen obicienda memento Ecl. 3.7, which clearly shows Damoetas’ advantage in masculine maturity). This can also explain Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 1 and the anonymous epigram that is used to moderate the obscene character of the main source (Id. 5.41-42). This obscene character is certainly very consistent with the long Theocritean conversation (Id. 5.35-44) but not with the brief Vergilian insult (Ecl. 3.8-9). What is more, Comatas’ “active” and Lacon’s “passive” sexual roles in their homosexual relations are not the facts on which this accusation (Id. 5.41-43) is based, because the Theocritean text emphasises Lacon’s bad attitude towards Comatas, who is an elder herdsman in the community and had once been Lacon’s music teacher (cf. ¢ll' oÜti speÚdw· m{ga d' ¥cqomai ee tÚ me tolmÍj/ Ômmasi tolj Ñrqolsi potibl{pen, Ón pok' œÒnta/ pald' }t' œgën œdfdaskon. hd' ¡ c£rij œj tf poc' Ÿrpei·/ qr{yai kai lukidelj, qr{yai kÚnaj, éj tu f£gwnti Id. 5.35-38). Hence, Comatas’ and Lacon’s liaison, which is based on the age difference and on a teaching bond between lover and beloved, is that between a pedagogue and a boy.479 In view of that, it is also entirely absent from these Vergilian verses, where Menalcas, who has a “passive” sexual function in their homosexual intercourse, is accused of not being a man (parcius ista uiris tamen obicienda memento).480 The homosexual man who plays the female role in a homosexual act constitutes a common subject (“female” sexual submission) in the ancient bisexual literature.481 However, a slave who is forced to play a “submissive” sexual role is a 479

Pretagostini 1984, 137-141 and esp. 138. See also Karakasis 2011, 97 with n.

47. 480 481

Monteleone 1994, 23. See also Karakasis 2011, 97 with n. 47. Coleman 1977, 110.

Eclogue 3

149

common comic subject that has its origin in Roman comedy and especially in Plautus, who used jokes on the slaves’ “female” sexual behaviour to deviate from the Greek original (cf. Pseud. 1180-1181, Rud.1073-1075, Epid. 66 and Most. 890ff.).482 Therefore, Menalcas’ “female” sexual role has its roots in Roman literature483 and is here used in order to highlight the Roman character of the contest. [Lines 12-15]

Vergil’s dependence on the Theocritean collection is also evident

in the next verses, where Damoetas criticises Menalcas’ behaviour towards Daphnis, in all probability after some singing match:484 Aut hic ad ueteres fagos cum Daphnidis arcum fregisti et calamos: quae tu, peruerse Menalca, et cum uidisti puero donata, dolebas, et si non aliqua nocuisses, mortuus esses (Ecl. 3.12-15)

Once again, these Vergilian verses recall Idyll 5, where Lacon is charged with stealing Comatas’ goatskin:485 tÕ [n£koj] KrokÚloj moi }dwke, tÕ poikflon, ¡nfk' }quse talj NÚmfaij t¦n aੇga· tÝ d', ð kak{, kai tÒk' œt£keu baskafnwn, kai nàn me t¦ lofsqia gumnÕn }qhkaj (Id. 5.11-13) 482

Williams 1999, 35. See also Karakasis 2011, 98. Karakasis 2011, 99. 484 Clausen 1994, 96. 485 Clausen 1994, 96 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 207-208. Hubbard 1998, 70f. claims that Menalcas’ hostile reaction recalls the embittered defeat of the namesake rustic in Id. 8.90-91 æj d੻ [Men£lkaj] katesmÚcqh kai ¢netr£peto fr{na lÚpv/ éteroj, oÛtw kai nÚmfa dmaqels' ¢k£coito. However, the subject that is common in these Vergilian and Theocritean verses favours Id. 5.11-13 as the most suitable model. 483

150

Chapter 4

These passages are concerned with a herdsman who gives a gift to another, thereby causing the jealousy of a third herdsman who reacts by rendering the gift useless. This thematic relationship is strongly reinforced by structural and verbal correspondences. The et ... et construction is based on the kai ... kai structure, whereas donata and dolebas respectively recall }dwke and œt£keu, which is also emphasised with the alliteration (donate/dolebas-}dwk ke/œt£k keu).486 Nonetheless, Comatas uses vivid language (œt£keu baskafnwn) in order to describe Lacon’s envy for the goatskin, whereas Vergil expresses the same feeling indirectly through the absent figure of Daphnis (et cum uidisti puero donata, dolebas). Moreover, special emphasis should be laid on the Vergilian and the Theocritean gifts that share the common feature of being country gear (arcum et calamos/n£koj). However, the Theocritean goatskin is only used to stress the realism of the country.487 On the contrary, the Vergilian bows and arrows, which were the winning prize for some earlier singing contest, are in that sense associated with pastoral music and poetry.488 What is more, Vergil’s deviation from Theocritus is also emphatically evidenced by the language Damoetas uses in the above Vergilian lines. The adjective peruersus, especially in its vocative form (peruerse), is a common comic word that is found in Plautus, where it is

486

Merone 1961, 205. Cf. Id. 3.25, 5.2, 9-11, 15, 50-52, 56-57, 98-99 and 7.15-19. See also Karakasis 2011, 17. Nonetheless, Karakasis 2011, 99 argues that the goatskin is associated with singing and song-making on a goatskin or sheepskin based on Id. 5.50-59 where, however, these accessories are not a vital prerequisite for singing or songmaking. 488 Here, special emphasis should also be laid on the term calamos which, while it is clear that its meaning is “arrows” since it is related to the “arcum”, it is also found elsewhere in the collection denoting “pipes” (Ecl. 1.10 and 10.22), thereby confirming its relation to the pastoral music and poetry. See also Coleman 1977, 111, Clausen 1994, 96, Saunders 2008, 20 and Karakasis 2011, 104 with n. 71. 487

Eclogue 3

151

also used for abuse.489 In addition, et si non aliqua nocuisses, mortuus esses constitutes colloquial hyperbole that is also found in comic language and especially in Plautus490 (cf. Nulla sum, nulla sum, tota, tota occidi,/ cor metu mortuomst Cas. 621-622, where the expression is used hyperbolically with the meaning of “as good as dead in another’s eyes”).491 The same literary origin can be identified in aliqua that is found in Plautus (cf. Epid. 100, 152, 331, Merc. 334, Mil. 221 and Poen. 973), Terence (cf. Phorm. 585 and Ad. 283) and particularly in Lucilius (cf. 26.632), given that it later occurs only here in Vergil.492 In other words, the language used here by Damoetas in order to criticise Menalcas has its roots in Roman comedy, laying special emphasis on the Roman character of the singing match. [Lines 16-20]

Menalcas’ countercharge against Damoetas is one of theft

because the latter herdsman is accused of stealing one of Damon’s goats: Quid domini faciant, audent cum talia fures? non ego te uidi Damonis, pessime, caprum excipere insidiis multum latrante Lycisca? et cum clamarem 'quo nunc se proripit ille? Tityre, coge pecus', tu post carecta latebas (Ecl. 3.16-20)

489

Clausen 1994, 96 and TLL 10.1.12.1861 68ff. See also Karakasis 2011, 106. Clausen 1994, 96. See also Maurach 2008, 234 with n. 25 and Karakasis 2011, 106. 491 Cf. OLD s.v. mortuus 1c. See also Karakasis 2011, 106 with n. 78 who claims that this meaning is a common comic turn which is also found in Plaut. Cist. 647, Pers. 20 and Ter. Phorm. 1015. 492 Clausen 1994, 96 and Maurach 2008, 233 with n. 21. See also Karakasis 2011, 106. 490

Chapter 4

152

This passage begins with a line that may recall the Catullan translation of Callimachus’ Coma Berenices493 (quid facient crines, cum ferro talia cedant? Cat. 66.47).494 Indeed, the content is entirely different, but the most immediate point of contact of those passages is the gnomic proverb which refers to the weakness of the subject (domini/crines), while also stressing the supernatural power of the object (fures/ferro). This thematic relationship can be enhanced further by structural (quid ... cum/quid ... cum) and verbal (acient-faciant and talia-talia) correspondences. Nonetheless, the complaint and the image of the weakness of the crines are here transformed to a Roman herdsman, whose social status accords with the use of proverbs or maxims. Moreover, his Roman nationality can explain Vergil’s dependence on a Roman source, which constitutes a close translation of a Greek source. This suggestion can be reinforced further through the language used by Menalcas. The term fures (Ecl. 3.16), used in order to denote a slave (pro seruo furem posuit Serv. Ecl. 3.16), is wellattested exclusively in Roman comedy,495 and the vocative pessime (Ecl. 3.17) is a typical abuse term which is frequently found in Plautus and only twice in Terence, where it is traced in Eunuchus, which is a linguistically Plautine comic play (cf. Eun. 152 and 1015).496 [Lines 21-24]

Damoetas admits the theft but argues that the goat belonged to

him because he had won it in a song contest against Damon, who then refused to hand over the prize:

493

Cf. Call. fr. 110 Pf. See also Pfeiffer 1949, ad loc. Clausen 1994, 96 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 209. See also Call. fr. 110.47 Pf. tf plÒkamoi ૧{xwmen, Ót' oÜrea tola sid›[rJ/ ehkousin; 495 Coleman 1977, 111. See also Karakasis 2011, 110 with n. 98. 496 Clausen 1994, 96. See also Karakasis 2011, 110 with n. 97. 494

Eclogue 3

153

An mihi cantando uictus non redderet ille, quem mea carminibus meruisset fistula caprum? si nescis, meus ille caper fuit; et mihi Damon ipse fatebatur sed reddere posse negabat (Ecl. 3.21-24)

Damoetas’ musical capacity (carminibus and mea fistula) may recall the Theocritean Damoetas, whose musical talent is evident by the fact that he replies to Daphnis’ song by singing in the persona of Polyphemus (Id. 6.21-41). Nonetheless, the Theocritean Damoetas ends the contest with a friendly exchange of gifts accompanied by a kiss for Daphnis:

TÒss' eepën tÕn D£fnin Ð Damoftaj œfflhse· cí m{n tù sÚrigg', Ö d{ tù kalÕn aÙlÕn }dwken. aÜlei Damoftaj, sÚrisde d{ D£fnij Ð boÚtaj (Id. 6.42-44)

On the contrary, the Vergilian Damoetas gets angry after the end of the song contest when he realises that Damon is not going to recognise his victory by handing over the winning prize and thus he decides to steal the caprum. Theft is an attitude that is closely related to Roman comedy, where there are various bickering scenes between two slaves accusing each other of stealing or squandering their master’s fortune (cf. e.g. Plaut. Most. 1-83,497 where the slave Grumio blames the seruus callidus Tranio for wasting the master’s wealth).498

497 498

On Vergil’s fondness of Mostellaria, see Currie 1976, 412 with n. 2. Karakasis 2011, 100 with n. 58.

Chapter 4

154 [Lines 25-29]

Nonetheless, Menalcas is incredulous and turns the conversation

to the matter of song, recalling Lacon’s and Comatas’ wrangling in Idyll 5:499 Cantando tu illum? aut umquam tibi fistula cera iuncta fuit? non tu in triuiis, indocte, solebas stridenti miserum stipula disperdere carmen? Uis ergo inter nos quid possit uterque uicissim experiamur? (Ecl. 3.25-29)

t¦n pofan sÚrigga; tÝ g£r poka, dîle SibÚrta, œkt£sw sÚrigga; tf d' oÙk{ti sÝn KorÚdwni ¢rkel toi kal£maj aÙlÕn poppÚsden }conti; (Id. 5.5-7)

The content, the verbal structure (the first two lines in each text have almost the same length) and the interrogatory form are very similar in those passages. What is more, there are verbal correspondences that can confirm their thematic relationship. The mocking insult stipula (“stalk”)500 translates kal£maj aÙlÕn and stridenti (“shrill”)501 in association with the flute (i.e. tibia)502 recalls poppÚsden,503 which is an onomatopoeic word504 used for animal noises (Plut. Mor. 713 B), for kissing (A.P. 5.245, 285) and for similar explosive sounds (Mart. 7.18.11). More significant, 499

Coleman 1977, 112, Clausen 1994, 97 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 210. Cf. OLD s.v. stipula with examples. 501 Cf. OLD s.v. strido 1 with examples. 502 Cf. Cat. 64.263-264 multis raucisonos efflabant cornua bombos,/ barbaraque horribili stridebat tibia cantu. 503 Cf. LSJ s.v. poppÚsdw IV. See also Barigazzi 1975, 72. 504 Cf. Hesych. s.v. battarfzein. See also Gow II 1952, 96. 500

Eclogue 3

155

however, is the next modification, because it is a striking minor detail on which Vergil’s deviation from the Theocritean original is based. Vergil changes the cruel exclamation dîle by introducing the more subtle indocte, which stresses the subject of song (cantando) rather than the instrument (sÚrigga). Such an alteration creates an entirely different insult from that which occurs in Idyll 5. Unlike Comatas, who is surprised by the fact that the slave Lacon has a syrinx, Menalcas’ charge only deals with the bad musical dexterity of the rival herdsman, which forces Damoetas to reply by suggesting a song contest to resolve the verbal fight (cf. Vis ergo inter nos quid possit uterque uicissim/ experiamur? Ecl. 3.2829). Nevertheless, emphasis should also be laid on Menalcas’ and Damoetas’ language. The verb uicisti is omitted in order to give a more colloquial tone to Menalcas’ words; on the contrary, the more suitable participle cantans is replaced by the ablative gerund cantando (cf. also Ecl. 3.21 ah mihi cantando) because it is common in everyday speech.505 Additionally, the paratactic use of the verb experiamur, the interjected ne clause and the irregular word order in Ecl. 3.28-29 are features that recall Plautus’ and Terence’s vivid colloquial style.506 [Lines 29-31]

The beginning of the song contest only requires the arrangement

of a prize, which is set by Damoetas: ego hanc uitulam ne forte recuses, bis uenit ad mulctram, binos alit ubere fetus depono; tu dic mecum quo pignore certes (Ecl. 3.29-31)

505 506

Coleman 1977, 112. See also Karakasis 2011, 107. Coleman 1977, 112. See also Karakasis 2011, 107.

156

Chapter 4

These Vergilian lines are based on Idyll 1, where the same subject can also be identified:507 aੇg£ t{ toi dwsî didumatÒkon œj trij ¢m{lxai, § dÚ' }cois' œrffwj potam{lgetai œj dÚo p{llaj (Id. 1.25-26)

It is quite clear that these Vergilian and Theocritean verses are concerned with a country award (a productive animal) offered by one herdsman to another. Nonetheless, there are also substantial differences that call for special attention. First of all, Vergil emphatically replaces aੇga with uitulam, which is a reasonable change, because a cow constitutes a richer award than a humble goat;508 this is shown by the detail of the offspring, since cows seldom give birth to twins.509 Moreover, Thyrsis can milk the Theocritean goat three times per day (œj trij ¢m{lxai) to fill two milking pails in opposition to the Vergilian cow, which comes to the milking pail of its own accord twice a day to fill it twice (bis uenit ad mulctram). What is more, the aੇga is the anonymous goatherd’s reward for Thyrsis’ song, in contrast with the uitula that constitutes the stake for Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ contest. However, the contestants’ harmony to select the prize could not be based on Idyll 5, where Comatas’ and Lacon’s verbal fight is extended over the prize (Id. 5.21-30). Therefore, Vergil recalls Idyll 1, the structure of which (a dialogue between herdsmen, a song exchange and a

507

Coleman 1977, 112, Clausen 1994, 97 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 212. Here the pastoral hierarchy that is found among the Theocritean herdsmen should be mentioned: cowherd, shepherd and goatherd, which can also suggest the humbleness of the goat in comparison to the cow. See also Gow II 1952, 20 and Rossi 1971b, 6-7. 509 Cf. Arist. HA 575a 29f. Tfktei d' ਨn t¦ plelsta, Ñlig£kij d੻ dÚo· kai tfktei kai ÑceÚei Ÿwj ¨n zÍ. See also Plin. NH 8.177.4f. gignunt raro geminos. 508

Eclogue 3

157

final verdict) can also resemble the singing contest in Idyll 5.510 In other words, the Vergilian alterations aim to modify properly the Theocritean gift and to reinforce its value further in order to be consistent with the agonistic context in Eclogue 3. [Lines 32-34]

However, Menalcas’ reply is negative since he declines to

provide a stake from the flock: De grege non ausim quicquam deponere tecum: est mihi namque domi pater, est iniusta nouerca, bisque die numerant ambo pecus, alter et haedos (Ecl. 3.32-34)

This refusal recalls Idyll 8 where the pseudo-Theocritean Menalcas has an analogous behaviour towards the rival herdsman:511 oÙ qhsî poka ¢mnÒn, œpei calepÕj Ð pat›r meu c¢ m£thr, t¦ d੻ mÁla poq{spera p£nt' ¢riqmeànti (Id. 8.15-16)

This thematic relationship is first confirmed by the verbal correspondence Menalcas-Men£lkaj. Moreover, the phrase de grege quicquam finds its equivalent in the poka ¢mnÒn, while the expression non ausim deponere can also correspond to oÙ qhsî.512 Furthermore, pater and nouerca recall

510

Clausen 1994, 98. Coleman 1977, 113, Clausen 1994, 99 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 213. Idyll 8 is a literary piece that was extensively used by Vergil in the Eclogues despite the fact that its Theocritean authorship has been, though not unanimously, denied. See Gow II 1952, 170-171. 512 It should be noticed that the use of the verb depono (cf. Ecl. 3.31 and 32) with the meaning “to put up a stake” is unique in Roman literature (TLL s.v. depono). Nonetheless, Vergil’s use of depono instead of the more appropriate pono (cf. Ecl. 511

158

Chapter 4

the meaning of the corresponding pat›r and m£thr, while the latter is replaced by iniusta nouerca (“oppressive stepmother”). This is a typically bad character,513 used by Vergil in order to stress the wrath of Menalcas’ parents and his fear of offering a stake from the flock. This can also explain why the adverb poq{spera is replaced with bis die, which has already been used by Vergil in the Eclogue (Ecl. 3.5); here, however, its function is to underline the austerity of Menalcas’ parents through the exaggerated statement that the flock is counted twice daily in order to intensify Menalcas’ hesitation and fear of staking something from the flock. What is more, the saeua nouerca is a stock figure in Roman literature.514 Titinius’ Insubra and Priuingna deal with stepmother relationships, Laberius’ Belonistria is concerned with a stepmother who is in love with her stepson in strong contrast to Pomponius’ Praeco Posterior, where the reverse subject is employed.515 Leaving aside the fabula atellana and the mime where the cruel stepmother is not a crucial dramatic character in the sense that it contributes to the plot’s development, we may turn to Roman comedy and especially to Plautus where there is a reference to the “tightfisted stepmother” (non esse argentum tibi, apud nouercam querere Pseud. 313-314, where Ballio’s refusal to give financial assistance is uttered with the example of a tightfisted stepmother) who can thus resemble the Vergilian nouerca.516

3.36) shows very close parallels with pseudo-Theocritus who also uses the verb tfqhmi (Id. 8.11) as a variant form of katatfqhmi (Id. 8.15). See Clausen 1955, 49-51, Watkins 1966, 115-119 and Renehan 1977, 243-248. 513 Otto 1962, 245-246. On an extended treatment of this character, see also Watson 1995. 514 Watson 1995, 92-134. 515 Watson 1995, 131-134. See also Karakasis 2011, 109. 516 Watson 1995, 105. See also Karakasis 2011, 109 who observes that Vergil’s dependence on Plautus can also be confirmed by Damoetas’ language which is also

Eclogue 3 [Lines 35-48]

159

Menalcas’ counter-suggestion to Damoetas’ original wager is two

beechwood cups that are adorned with the portraits of two figures:517 uerum, id quod multo tute ipse fatebere maius insanire libet quoniam tibi, pocula ponam fagina, caelatum diuini opus Alcimedontis lenta quibus torno facili superaddita uitis diffusos hedera uestit pallente corymbos (Ecl. 3.35-39)

These and the following Vergilian lines (Ecl. 3.40-47) constitute an ecphrasis,518 which is closely based on the corresponding Theocritean ecphrasis (Id. 1.27-60),519 though this subject has a long tradition before Theocritus:520 tî poti m੻n ceflh marÚetai ØyÒqi kissÒj, kissÕj ŒlicrÚsJ kekonim{noj· ¡ d੻ kat' aÙtÒn karpù Ÿlix edleltai ¢gallom{na krokÒenti (Id. 1.29-31) based on Plautine vocabulary. See also Clausen 1994, 99 and Maurach 2008, 236 with n. 38 and 243 with n. 74. 517 The first figure is Conon, who is identified with a Samian mathematician and astronomer based in Alexandria (OCD s.v. Conon 2). On the other hand, the identity of the second figure is obscured by the enigmatic etquis fuit alter (Ecl. 3.40), which has received a number of different interpretations. The Scholia Veronensia alone lists seven possible suggestions: Aratus, Archimedes, Euclid, Euctemon, Eudoxus, Hesiod and Hipparchus, while modern scholars tend to favour either Archimedes or Eudoxus. See Hagen 1902, 304-305 and Coleman 1977, 114f. For more bibliography on this subject, see also Karakasis 2011, 91 with n. 21. 518 On the Vergilian ecphrasis and its antecedents, see Barchiesi 1997, 271-281. 519 Coleman 1977, 113, Clausen 1994, 101 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 213-214. For more bibliography on this subject, see also Karakasis 2011, 92 with n. 28. 520 On a comprehensive treatment of ecphrasis, see Friedländer 1969, 1-103. See also Bühler 1960, 85-108 who focuses on the traditional nature of such descriptions and Manakidou 1993 who examines art descriptions in Hellenistic poetry.

160

Chapter 4

However, the invitation to sing, the object (pocula/kissÚbion) and its non-practical use (wager/reward for a song)521 can confirm Vergil’s dependence on Id. 1.29-31. Furthermore, Menalcas’ pocula show close parallels to the Theocritean kissÚbion. The Vergilian herdsman describes the pocula carefully, stressing their decoration that contains a pliant vine laid on them entwined with spreading clusters of pale ivy. The Theocritean narrative also lays special emphasis on the kissÚbion’s wooden lips on which there is ivy with helichryse, while ivy-tendril also winds along the flower. These similarities are further reinforced by the plant that adorns the cups (hedera-kissÒj) and by several significant correspondences in terms of subject and language. Menalcas continues to praise the cups by claiming that they are unused and therefore in pristine condition: in medio duo signa, Conon et quis fuit alter, descripsit radio totum qui gentibus orbem, tempora quae messor, quae curuus arator haberet? necdum illis labra admoui, sed condita seruo (Ecl. 3.40-43)

This is a compliment which is later repeated by Damoetas, who has yet another two such cups that are also fashioned by the same artist: Et nobis idem Alcimedon duo pocula fecit et molli circum est ansas amplexus acantho, Orpheaque in medio posuit siluasque sequentis;

521

Papanghelis 1994, 48-49 and Schäfer 2001, 93. On the associations of the kissÚbion with song and poetry, see also Goldhill 1987, 1-6.

Eclogue 3

161

necdum illis labra admoui, sed condita seruo si ad uitulam spectas, nihil est quod pocula laudes (Ecl. 3.44-48)

Both Vergilian lines recall Idyll 1, where the anonymous goatherd praises the Theocritean kissÚbion in a similar way:522 oÙd{ tf pw poti celloj œmÕn qfgen, ¢ll' }ti keltai ¥cranton. tù k£ tu m£la prÒfrwn ¢resafman ah k£ moi tÚ, ffloj, tÕn œffmeron Ûmnon ¢efsVj (Id. 1.59-61)

This thematic relationship can also be reinforced by significant verbal correspondences (necdum-oÙd{ tf pw, labra-celloj, admoui-qfgen 523 and condita-¥cranton). Moreover, Damoetas’ pocula and their decoration recall the Theocritean kissÚbion. The twining acanthus clasped around the handles (et molli circum est ansas amplexus acantho Ecl. 3.45) can resemble the acanthus design running around the base of the cup in Idyll 1 (pant´ d' ¢mfi d{paj perip{ptatai ØgrÕj ¥kanqoj; Id. 1.55), which is also emphatically suggested by the verbal correspondences circum-¢mfi, amplexus

est-perip{ptatai

and

especially

molli

acantho-ØgrÕj

¥kanqoj.524

522

Coleman 1977, 115, Clausen 1994, 103 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 217-218. Lipka 2001, 40 argues that the verb admoueo is slightly modified in order to retain the force of the preposition poti which belongs to the structure poti ... qfgen. See also Gow II 1952, 15. 524 Cf. schol. Theoc. Id. 1.55a pantacoà d੻ peri tÕ pot›rion perip{ptatai kai perik{cutai ØgrÒj tij kai malakÕj ¥nanqoj, Óper œstin eੇdoj futoà ¢kanqîdej, camafzhlon, eej mÁkoj œxanqoàn lfan. See also idem Id. 1.55c ØgrÕj ¥kanqoj Ð eÙkamp¾j ka੻ eÜtonoj. On the poetological value which the phrases mollis acanthus and ØgrÕj ¥kanqoj have, see Karakasis 2011, 90-91. 523

162

Chapter 4

Nonetheless, the Vergilian and the Theocritean ecphrases are certainly not the same. First, Vergil refers to the pocula using the phrase caelatum opus, which is applied exclusively to artefacts that are manufactured from metal, not carved out of wood.525 Caelatum’s untypical use could recall various Homeric and Hellenistic ecphrases.526 However, this misapplication indicates that the Vergilian pocula, unlike the Theocritean kissÚbion that is described as aepolikÕn q£hma (an expression appropriate for the rustic cup),527 are used exclusively for nonpractical purposes (wagers).528 The second and crucial alteration is that the number of cups has also been changed.529 Vergil increases the number of Theocritean offerings (aੇg£ kai kissÚbion) by providing not just one but two cups for each rustic contestant (duo pocula).530 This is yet another change based on the blending of Idyll 1.27-60 and Idyll 8.11-20.531 There, Menalcas intends to wager a syrinx rather than a lamb, fearing the family’s wrath, something with which Damoetas agrees by offering exactly the same item. Finally, the Vergilian ecphrases contain centrepieces that are the medial objects found in the art descriptions (Conon et quis fuit alter 525

Faber 1995, 411 with n. 3. For more bibliography on this subject see Karakasis 2011, 89 with n. 15. 526 Faber 1995, 411-417. 527 Cf. Athen. Deipn. 11.53.8-9 tÕ g¦r kissÚbion, fhsf, l{getai œpi sunÒdou ¢groikikÁj, }nqa pros›kei m£lista tÕ xÚlinon pot›rion. 528 On the literary and material value of the cups in the sense of Vergil’s dialogue with the sources or the readership, see Farrell 1992, 64-71. 529 The number of cups offered by Menalcas (two) has been denied by Powell 1976, 115, who emphasises the singularity of caelatum opus (Ecl. 3.37), ignoring however the term pocula (Ecl. 3.36), as well as by Henderson 1998a, 220 with n. 6, who argues that Menalcas never specifies the number of cups, which thus is deduced from the number of figures that adorn the cups or from Damoetas’ two cups. 530 On other views about how many cups belong to Menalcas, see Powell 1976, 115 and Henderson 1998a, 220 with n. 6. 531 On Vergil’s dependence on Id. 8.11-20, see Hubbard 1998, 71-72 and Saunders 2008, 11-12.

Eclogue 3

163

Ecl. 3.40 and Orpheaque Ecl. 3.46). This suggestion can also be reinforced by the formulaic introductory tag in medio, which is clearly found in Menalcas’ and Damoetas’ accounts (Ecl. 3.40 and 3.46).532 This feature is entirely absent from this Theocritean ecphrasis, thereby stressing Vergil’s originality and deviation from the Theocritean kissÚbion. In other words, the Vergilian changes are not designed in order to imitate Theocritus slavishly, but only to recall and rival the Theocritean kissÚbion by creating a Roman country prize, which stresses the Roman character of the contest. [Lines 49-54]

Menalcas is so confident of winning the singing contest that he

agrees to compete on Damoetas’ terms,533 and the only thing required for the contest to begin is a referee. The latter is chosen by Menalcas without forethought and may recall the way in which the judge has been selected by the herdsmen Daphnis and Menalcas in Idyll 8:534 Numquam hodie effugies; ueniam quocumque uocaris. audiat haec tantum uel qui uenit ecce Palaemon. efficiam posthac ne quemquam uoce lacessas. Quin age, si quid habes; in me mora non erit ulla, nec quemquam fugio: tantum, uicine Palaemon, sensibus haec imis res est non parua reponas (Ecl. 3.49-54) 532

On Vergil’s ecphrastic centrepieces, see Thomas 1983, 175-184. Palaemon concludes the song contest by saying that the contestants and all those who like them deserve the heifer without any reference to the cups (Ecl. 3.108-111). This omission has received various different interpretations, among which are that Damoetas’ cow never was really a pledge (Veremans 1969, 18 and Powell 1976, 115 n. 4), that in the end Menalcas matched Damoetas’ offer of a heifer (Coleman 1977, 127), that the cups were simply forgotten (Segal 1967, 279308) and finally that the judge never realised that the cup was the original stake (Henderson 1998a, 227). 534 Coleman 1977, 116, Clausen 1994, 104 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 219-220. 533

164

Chapter 4 ¢ll¦ tfj ¥mme krinel; tfj œp£kooj }ssetai ¡m{wn; tÁnÒn pwj œntaàqa tÕn aepÒlon, ½n, kal{swmej, ú poti talj œrffoij Ð kÚwn Ð f£laroj Ølaktel (Id. 8.25-27)

Each source employing a song contest where a judge appears may be Vergil’s model. However, Vergil does not extend Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ wrangle over the matter of who is to judge the song contest, recalling the situation that is described in Idyll 8. Vergil avoids Comatas’ and Lacon’s acrid banter, which is extended to the choice of a judge (cf. Id. 5.62-65), drawing on Idyll 8, where the chance selection accords very well with the conventional pastoral procedure for the choice of such figures.535 Furthermore, D£fnij’ and Men£lkaj’ unanimity on the question of the arbiter resembles Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ harmony before the advent of Palaemon. However, D£fnij and Men£lkaj find their umpire, who is a silent figure, nearby (œntaàqa), whereas Palaemon is described as coming to the singing place (uenit), thereby underlining the accidental nature of the judge’s selection. [Lines 55-57]

Nonetheless, Palaemon’s words indicate that the judge is also

crucial for another reason. He constitutes the turning point from the quarrel between the two herdsmen to the amoebaean song contest: Dicite, quandoquidem in molli consedimus herba. et nunc omnis ager, nunc omnis parturit arbos, nunc frondent siluae, nunc formosissimus annus (Ecl. 3.55-57)

535

Cf. Theoc. Id. 5.61-66; Verg. Ecl. 7.7f. See also e.g. Clausen 1994, 212.

Eclogue 3

165

These lines confirm that the most appropriate season for the song contest is spring.536 What is more, they may recall the Theocritean collection, where the idyllic location for the production of music and song is usually described.537 Nonetheless, Vergil’s model should be sought in the postTheocritean pastoral tradition and especially in Bion:538 eੇar œmoi tripÒqhton ÓlJ luk£banti parefh, ¡nfka m›te krÚoj m›q' ¤lioj ¥mme barÚnei. ehari p£nta kÚei, p£nt' eharoj ¡d{a blastel, c¢ nÝx ¢nqrèpoisin hsa kai Ðmofioj ¢èj (fr. 2.17 Gow)

Both et nunc omnis ager and nunc frondent siluae reflect the meaning of the expression p£nt' eharoj ¡d{a blastel, emphasising nature’s rebirth in the spring. This thematic relationship can also be confirmed by the striking verbal correspondence parturit-kÚei. The metaphorical sense of parturio is here found for the first time in Roman literature.539 This detail shows that its origin should also be traced exclusively to Greek literature and especially to Bion’s fragment, where kÚei 540 is also used metaphorically. However, Bion’s fragment deals with Cleodamus’ and Myrson’s conversation on the best season (eੇar), which is not related to the creation of pastoral music-poetry. On the other hand, Vergil relates the nature in spring to the creation of pastoral music and poetry, and thus it is an essential source of inspiration for the herdsmen. This subject may recall Lucretius, who is concerned with the origins of human music, claiming 536

Rose 1942, 226-227. Cf. Id. 1.12-14, 21-23, 5.31-34, 45-49 and 6.1-5. 538 Coleman 1977, 116, Clausen 1994, 105 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 221. 539 TLL s.v. parturio 533.11-533.31. 540 LSJ s.v. kÚw I.2. See also Xen. Cyr. 5.4.35 ¹ yuc› mou di¦ tÕ Øbrfsqai kai Ñrgfzesqai oÙ tÕ ¢sfal{staton skopoàsa diÁgen, ¢ll' aeei toàto kuoàs'. 537

Chapter 4

166

that the countrymen used to generate music and song (cf. DRN 5.14051407) in spring:541 saepe itaque inter se prostrati in gramine molli propter aquae riuom sub ramis arboris altae. non magnis opibus iucunde corpora habebant, praesertim cum tempestas ridebat et anni tempora pingebant uiridantis floribus herbas (DRN 5.1392-1396)542

These Lucretian verses contain the soft grass, the running stream and the shade provided by a tall tree, which are traditional elements in the locus amoenus subject.543 The in molli consedimus herba recalls the prostrati in gramine molli, the nunc frondent siluae calls to mind the sub ramis arboris altae, since these phrases suggest a shady location, and the nunc formosissimus annus corresponds to the anni tempora pingebant uiridantis floribus herbas because they refer to the springtime. Nonetheless, Lucretius’ account on the origins of the human music suggests that nature is responsible for the creation of music, given that the winds teach the countrymen to play the pipe (DRN 5.1379-1387) in strong contrast to Vergil, who reverses this concept by transferring the singing action to the herdsman (Ecl. 1.1-5). In other words, Ecl. 3.55-57 do not only refer to the

541

Buchheit 1986, 123-127. Cf. also DRN 2.29-33 cum tamen inter se prostrati in gramine molli/ propter aquae riuum sub ramis arboris altae/ non magnis opibus iucunde corpora curant,/ praesertim cum tempestas adridet et anni/ tempora conspergunt uiridantis floribus herbas. 543 Gale 2009, 211-212. See also Fowler 2002, 104-105 who observes the Lagerundmotiv (prostrati) that constitutes a standard element in the locus amoenus subject. 542

Eclogue 3

167

idealised singing location for a song contest between Roman herdsmen, but also to nature that is ready to be taught by them. [Lines 58-59]

Palaemon undertakes the role of the arbiter by setting the rules

for the singing match: incipe, Damoeta; tu deinde sequere, Menalca. alternis dicetis; amant alterna Camenae (Ecl. 3.58-59)

These verses recall the judge’s attitude towards the competing herdsmen of the song contest carried out in Idyll 9:544 Boukoli£zeo, D£fni· tÝ d' òd©j ¥rceo pr©toj, òd©j ¥rceo, D£fni, œfey£sqw d੻ Men£lkaj (Id. 9.1-2)

The fact that it is the judge who urges the competing herdsmen to begin singing is the main subject on which the relationship of those two passages is based. This is also reinforced by the verbal correspondence incipe¥rceo, sequere-œfey£sqw and Menalcas-Men£lkaj, which occupies the end of the verse in those passages. Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 9 emphatically changes in the next line, where Palaemon instructs the competing herdsmen to sing alternately (Ecl. 3.59). It has already been suggested that this line comes from Catullus and especially from the epithalamic Cat. 62 (iure igitur uincemur: amat uictoria curam Cat. 62.16).545 The similarities of those two passages are based on structure (the sense unit ends after the first long syllable of the third foot 544 545

Coleman 1977, 117. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 221. Fraenkel 1955, 3-4. See also Clausen 1994, 105-106.

Chapter 4

168

dicetis/uincemur), metre (efthimemerical caesura dicetis/uincemur) and paronomasia

(alternis-alterna/uincemur-uictoria),

while

the

verbal

correspondence amant-amat is found in the same position in those lines.546 [Lines 60-61]

Damoetas begins the singing match with an invocation to Jupiter: Ab Ioue principium Musae: Iouis omnia plena; ille colit terras, illi mea carmina curae (Ecl. 3.60-61)

The first hemistich recalls the initial line of Idyll 17 combined with the introductory verse of Aratus’ Phaenomena, which has long been considered as Theocritus’ source:547 'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa kai œj Dfa l›gete Molsai (Id. 17.1)

'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa, tÕn oÙd{pot' ¥ndrej œîmen ¥rrhton 548 (Phaen. 1f.)

546 It should be noted that the archaic Roman term Camenae that stands for the corresponding Greek Musae can further reinforce the Roman character of the song contest. 547 Cf. Strat. A.P. 12.1.1'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa, kaqëj ehrhken ”Aratoj; schol. Theoc. Id. 17.1-4a 'Aratefv k{crhtai eesbolÍ; Cic. Rep. 1.56.1-2 Imitemur ergo Aratum, qui magnis de rebus dicere exordiens a Ioue incipiendum putat; Quint. Inst. 10.1.46.1f. Igitur, ut Aratus ab Ioue incipiendum putat, ita nos rite coepturi ab Homero uidemur. See also Coleman 1977, 117, Clausen 1994, 106 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 222-223. 548 Serv. Ecl. 3.60 uel o musae, sumamus ab Ioue principium. est autem Arati, qui ait 'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa tÕn oÙd{pot' ¥ndrej œîmen ¥rrhton. TrencsényiWaldapfel 1961, 172f. and Hubbard 1998, 73 suggest that Vergil is modeled on Cicero (Cic. Arat. fr. 1 A Ioue Musarum primordia). Nonetheless, the lack of certain cases where Cicero’s influence upon the Eclogues becomes evident offers enough evidence to favour Vergil’s simultaneous dependence on Aratus and Theocritus.

Eclogue 3

169

Vergil combines these sources, recalling the Theocritean Molsai (Musae)549 and the Aratean and Theocritean 'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa, rendered with the Ab Ioue principium. The dependence on Aratus can also be evidenced by the second half of Ecl. 3.61 (Iouis omnia plena), which draws on the next verses of the Aratean text:550 mestai d੻ DiÕj p©sai m੻n ¢guiaf, p©sai d' ¢nqrèpwn ¢goraf, mest¾ d੻ q£lassa kai lim{nej (Phaen. 2-4)

Aratus notices Jupiter’s presence in those places, which are associated with almost all human preoccupations by stressing the abundance and the aspect of universality. These ideas are also summarised in the second half of the Vergilian line, which is also suggested by the verbal correspondences plena-mestai and omnia-p©sai. Both Theocritus and Aratus are concerned with compositions whose character (encomium and astrological treatise) can allow the use of solemn invocations. However, such invocations are incongruent with Damoetas, who is a country character. On the other hand, Damoetas’ words are part of a contest in amoebaean form, where the rivals fashion the song, trying to surpass or to cap what the other has just sung.551 Thus, given that Damoetas is the herdsman who begins the singing competition, he actually has the slight advantage of being able to select the subject of each exchange. Therefore, it is reasonable for the first singer to select a subject which could hardly be 549

On whether the term Musae is a vocative or a genitive, see Karakasis 2011, 111 n. 100 with further bibliography on this subject. 550 Coleman 1977, 117, Clausen 1994, 106 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 222-223. 551 On the dynamics of the singing match between the two country contestants, see Powell 1976, 116ff.

170

Chapter 4

outdone by the opponent and Damoetas’ evocation of the most supreme of all gods (Jupiter) is expected to serve this agonistic goal in order to win the singing contest. In addition, Jupiter is a god who is not related to the pastoral tradition.552 Most significantly, Idyll 17 is not a pastoral composition but an encomium where Muses and Charites are used in order to highlight the excellence of the praised person’s deeds, which is in full accord with the standards of this genre.553 Hence, Damoetas begins the song contest by calling upon the non-pastoral Jupiter554 who is also incongruously (given that the Nymphs traditionally have this role) selected in order to be the herdsman’s inspiration source (illi mea carmina curae).555 Nonetheless, these incongruities show that the first Latin country song contest contains nonpastoral elements such as invocations to non-pastoral gods and encomia. [Lines 62-63]

Menalcas’ reply is also concerned with a solemn invocation to a

divinity (Apollo), and also refers to the regular offerings of this deity: et me Phoebus amat; Phoebo sua semper apud me munera sunt, lauri et suaue rubens hyacinthus (Ecl. 3.62-63)

These verses show very close parallels to Idyll 5, where the herdsman Lacon also claims that he enjoys Apollo’s favour:556

552

Karakasis 2011, 111. Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 152-153. 554 Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 152-153 claims that the Theocritean characters that call upon Jupiter are untypical pastoral figures (Id. 4.50 where Battus’ language is alien to pastoral poetry, Id. 5.74 where Lacon’s invocation to Jupiter along with similar unpastoral features can explain Comatas’ victory and Id. 11.29 where the Cyclops Polyphemus is the main character). See also Karakasis 2011, 111-112. 555 Karakasis 2011, 112. 556 Coleman 1977, 117, Clausen 1994, 107 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 223. 553

Eclogue 3

171

kai g¦r }m' `WpÒllwn fil{ei m{ga, kai kalÕn aÙtù kriÕn œgë bÒskw· t¦ d੻ K£rnea kai d¾ œf{rpei (Id. 5.82-83)

Further support for this suggestion is offered by striking thematic and verbal correspondences (Et me Phoebus amat-kai g¦r }m' `WpÒllwn fil{ei m{ga). Moreover, these passages have the same structure, which is evident by the position of the object before the nominative (me-}m') and the verbal correspondence et-kai g¦r. However, Menalcas’ offerings (lauri and hyacinthus) are not the same as that of Lacon (kriÕn), and therefore Vergil must be based on some other source. Here, the donation of laurels to Apollo is a minor detail which can also be traced in a Theocritean epigram, where laurels are offered by some country character to the same god: T¦ ૧Òda t¦ drosÒenta kai ¡ kat£puknoj œkefna Ÿrpulloj keltai talj `Elikwni£sin, tai d੻ mel£mfulloi d£fnai tfn, PÚqie Pai£n, Delfij œpei p{tra toàtÒ toi ¢gl£ise· bwmÕn d' adm£xei keraÕj tr£goj, oátoj Ð m©loj, termfnqou trègwn }scaton ¢kremÒna (5 G-P = A.P. 6.336)

This thematic relationship is further reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence lauri-d£fnai. However, Vergil omits the detail that deals with the colour of the bays (mel£mfulloi). This is unequivocally transferred to the second offering found neither in this epigram nor in the

172

Chapter 4

Idylls, where the regular colour of this flower is “black”.557 On the other hand, the hyacinth’s ruddiness is underscored by Euphorion:558

porfur{h Ø£kinqe, s੻ m੻n mfa fÁmij ¢oidîn `RoitefVj ¢m£qoisi dedoupÒtoj Aeakfdao eharoj ¢nt{llein gegramm{na kwkÚousan (fr. 40.1-3 Powell)559

Both passages stress the hyacinth’s colour, suggested by the verbal correspondence suaue rubens hyacinthus-porfur{h Ø£kinqe, which can confirm Vergil’s relationship to Euphorion. Therefore, Menalcas realises that the invocation to Jupiter could hardly be outdone and for that reason claims to maintain a close relationship with another deity (Apollo); so close, in fact, that it enables him to be well aware of Apollo’s love affairs (Daphne and Hyacinthus), implied by the gifts to this god (lauri and hyacinthus).560 In other words, Menalcas implicitly introduces a new subject (love, especially thwarted love) in order to compete with his opponent in the next exchange (Ecl. 3.64-65 and Ecl. 3.66-67), having realised that he cannot surpass Damoetas’ earlier couplet. Most significant, however, is that thwarted love constitutes a subject that is traditionally

557

Cf. Id. 10.28 kai tÕ hon m{lan œstf, kai ¡ grapt¦ Ø£kinqoj. On Euphorion, see DNP 4 1998, s.v. Euphorion. 559 Cf. Ov. M. 10.162ff. The other version deals with the origin of the hyacinth flower from Ajax’s blood, who committed suicide having been defeated by Odysseus in the contest for Achilles’s arms. See also Ov. M. 13.382ff. 560 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 3.63 sua munera ipsi grata, id est laurus et hyacinthus. nam scimus et Daphnen, Ladonis fluminis Arcadiae filiam, dilectam ab Apolline et Terrae miseratione in laurum conuersam, et Hyacinthum amatum tam a Borea quam ab Apolline: qui cum magis Apollinis amore laetaretur, dum exercetur disco, ab irato Borea eodem disco est interemptus et mutatus in florem nominis sui. 558

Eclogue 3

173

found in Roman tradition and especially in Roman comedy and love elegy,561 thereby underlining the Roman character of the song contest. [Lines 64-65]

Damoetas responds appropriately by introducing a typical erotic

subject: Malo me Galatea petit, lasciua puella, et fugit ad salices et se cupit ante uideri (Ecl. 3.64-65)

These Vergilian verses recall various passages drawn from the Theocritean collection. The subject of throwing apples at somebody has long been considered as a typical erotic signal562 and is found in Idyll 5 in the sense of a symbol of affection:563 b£llei kai m£loisi tÕn aepÒlon ¡ Klearfsta t¦j aੇgaj parel©nta kai ¡dÚ ti poppuli£sdei (Id. 5.88-89)

The love motif of pelting someone with apples confirms the relationship of those passages, which is reinforced by the verbal correspondence malom£loisi and petit-b£llei. On the other hand, the name of the erotic object in the Vergilian passage (Galateia) is entirely different from that which is found in the Theocritean passage (Klearfsta). This difference can easily be explained by the fact that the Vergilian tendency is to change

561

Karakasis 2011, 112. Cf. Ar. Nub. 997 m›lJ blhqeij ØpÕ pornidfou, Plat. A.P. 5.79.1-2 tù m›lJ b£llw se· sÝ d' ee m੻n Œkoàsa filelj me,/ dexam{nh tÁj sÁj parqenfhj met£doj. See also Littlewood 1968, 147-181. 563 Littlewood 1968, 154-155. See also Coleman 1977, 118, Clausen 1994, 107 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 224-225. 562

174

Chapter 4

the personal names when adapting a Theocritean passage, but it can also recall the name of the erotic object found in Idyll 6:564 b£llei toi, PolÚfame, tÕ pofmnion ¡ Gal£teia m£loisin, dus{rwta kai aepÒlon ¥ndra kaleàsa (Id. 6.6-7)

This passage is almost the same as that in Idyll 5, with the striking exception that the beloved is described as throwing apples at the flock and not at the lovesick herdsman. Hence, this detail can also explain why the name Galateia comes from Idyll 6. Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 6 is based on the next line of Damoetas’ couplet (et fugit ad salices et se cupit ante uideri Ecl. 3.65). The Vergilian Galateia reacts similarly to the Theocritean Galateia, who also joins in a playful chase in Idyll 6 (kai feÚgei fil{onta kai oÙ fil{onta dièkei Id. 6.17). Moreover, the erotic game between the lovers and the common structure of those two passages (et ... et/kai ... kai) can strongly reinforce their thematic relationship. However, Theocritus describes an erotic tag between the lovers, unlike Vergil who prefers the more playful game of hide and seek, thereby recalling Roman love elegy; Galateia’s token resistance can also be found in Tibullus’, Propertius’ and Ovid’s erotic objects,565 which shows that

564

Coleman 1977, 118, Clausen 1994, 107 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 224-225. Cf. Tib. 1.4.53-56 Tum tibi mitis erit, rapias tum cara licebit/ oscula: pugnabit, sed tamen apta dabit./ Rapta dabit primo, post adferet ipse roganti,/ post etiam collo se inplicuisse uelit 1.9.44 Et latuit clausas post adoperta fores Prop. 2.15.5-6 nam modo nudatis mecumst luctata papillis,/ interdum tunica duxit operta moram, Ov. Am. 1.5.13-16 Deripui tunicam nec multum rara nocebat;/ pugnabat tunica sed tamen illa tegi./ quae cum ita pugnaret, tamquam quae uincere nollet,/ uicta est non aegre proditione sua and Ar. Am. 1.665-666 Pugnabit primo fortassis, et 'improbe' dicet:/ Pugnando uinci se tamen illa uolet. See also Hor. Carm. 1.9.2124 nunc et latentis proditor intumo/ gratus puellae risus ab angulo/ pignusque 565

Eclogue 3

175

Vergil, Tibullus and Ovid could have been based on a common lost source that in all probability is Gallus.566 Hence, Damoetas’ and Galateia’s love story combines pastoral and elegiac features, thus creating an ideal erotic story that hardly could be surpassed by Menalcas’ reply. [Lines 66-67]

The next couplet continues on the same subject (love), but its

form is not the same, given that it is concerned with Menalcas’ homosexual love for Amyntas: At mihi sese offert ultro, meus ignis, Amyntas, notior ut iam sit canibus non Delia nostris (Ecl. 3.66-67)

Amyntas’ eagerness to meet the lover resembles the gentle temper with which another love object, Cratidas, runs to encounter his lover in Idyll 5:567 kºm੻ g¦r Ð Kratfdaj tÕn poim{na leloj Øpantîn œkmafnei· lipar¦ d੻ par' aÙc{na sefet' }qeira (Id. 5.90-91)

Both passages describe the love object offering himself to the lover (sese offert-Øpantîn), though Vergil lays special emphasis on the consent of the beloved (ultro). This is a crucial alteration which can be explained by dereptum lacertis/ aut digito male pertinaci and 2.12.25-28 cum flagrantia detorquet ad oscula /ceruicem aut facili saeuitia negat/ quae poscente magis gaudeat eripi/ interdum rapere occupet? 566 Gallus is considered as the precursor of the Roman love elegy (Ov. Trist. 4.10.53-54 successor fuit hic tibi, Galle, Propertius illi/ quartus ab his serie temporis ipse fui) and a poet whose influence on Vergil was fundamental (Ecl. 6.64-73 and especially Ecl. 10). See also Jacoby 1905, 67-81. On Gallus, see Courtney 1993, 259-262 with further bibliography, Gall 1999, 141-151 and Hollis 2007, 219-252. 567 Clausen 1994, 107.

Chapter 4

176

Menalcas’ intention to rival what Damoetas has just sung, suggested also by the verbal correspondence at mihi-kºm੻. The consent with which the beloved Amyntas encounters the lover Menalcas is in contrast to Galateia, who engages in erotic games before coming to Damoetas. Nevertheless, the Theocritean original is not the source on which the next Vergilian line depends (notior ut iam sit canibus non Delia nostris). Barking dogs, as a danger for lovers, has been considered as a typical motif of Roman love elegy,568 while Delia recalls the pseudonym used by Tibullus for his mistress.569 Both these distinctive details can again demonstrate that Vergil and Tibullus could have been based on some common lost source which, in all probability, is Gallus. The song contest continues with the herdsmen singing of the gifts they have for their love objects: Parta meae Ueneri sunt munera: namque notaui ipse locum, aeriae quo congessere palumbes. Quod potui, puero siluestri ex arbore lecta aurea mala decem misi; cras altera mittam (Ecl. 3.68-71)

568

Cf. Tib. 1.6.31-32, 2.4.31-34, Prop. 3.16.17, 4.5.73-74, Ov. Am. 2.19-39-40, Tris. 2.459. See also Maltby 2002, 270. 569 The identity of the name Delia already confused commentators even in antiquity (Servius, Ecl. 3.67 Deliam alii amicam priorem uolunt, alii Dianam, quae est a Delo et est canibus nota, per quos uenamur, quasi dea uenationis). Modern scholars tend to favour the suggestion that the name Delia belongs to a mistress or contubernalis (Clausen 1994, 108). Moreover, the suggestion that Vergil is based on a common, though now lost, source (Gallus?) can also explain the name Neaera (Ecl. 3.3), who is yet another mysterious female character in the Eclogues. Neaera’s relationship to Roman love elegy can also be confirmed by [Tib.] 3, where she is Lygdamus’ mistress. On the human female characters in Vergil’s Eclogues, see Paraskeviotis 2014e, 58-75.

Eclogue 3

177

Damoetas announces that the gift will be the eggs from some woodpigeons’ nest, thereby recalling Idyll 5 where Comatas offers a ringdove resting in a juniper tree:570 kºgë m੻n dwsî t´ parq{nJ aÙtfka f£ssan, œk t©j ¢rkeÚqw kaqelèn· thnei g¦r œffsdei (Id. 5.96-97)

It is clear that Vergil substitutes the eggs from the woodpigeons’ nest that are implied in the phrase aeriae quo congessere palumbes for the ringdove (f£ssan), stressing the danger involved in getting this present. Moreover, Comatas’ account is real, unlike that of Damoetas, whose words merely highlight the danger in obtaining Galateia’s gift (parta, ipse and especially aeriae).571 Similarly, Menalcas’ gift (ten apples, which are offered as a prominent erotic symbol) is also based on the Theocritean collection and especially on the gift given by the anonymous goatherd to a countrywoman in Idyll 3:572

ºnfde toi d{ka m©la f{rw· thnîqe kaqellon ï m' œk{leu kaqeleln tÚ· kai aÜrion ¥lla toi oesî (Id. 3.10-11)

This thematic relationship is reinforced by the verbal correspondences aurea mala decem misi-ºnfde toi d{ka m©la and cras altera mittam-kai aÜrion ¥lla toi oesî. However, Vergil alters d{ka m©la with aurea

570

Coleman 1977, 119, Clausen 1994, 108 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 225. Coleman 1977, 119 and Clausen 1994, 109, who observe that this adjective underlines the danger in reaching the birds. 572 Coleman 1977, 119, Clausen 1994, 109 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 225-226. 571

Chapter 4

178

mala decem, thus creating a striking sound correspondence with the aÜrion ¥lla (aurea mala-aÜrion ¥lla m©la).573 Moreover, aurea improves the Theocritean original since it is used by Menalcas in order to rival Damoetas’ couplet, which can be reaffirmed by the ironic phrase with which Menalcas’ reply begins (quod potui, “it was all I could”). Most important, however, is that the apples offered by the lover to the love object as an erotic gift constitute a famous subject that also has a clear-cut elegiac origin.574 [Lines 72-75]

Damoetas continues with the same subject (love), begging that

the love object’s (Galateia) vows be heard by the gods, who would therefore force it (her) to keep them:575 O quotiens et quae nobis Galatea locuta est! partem aliquam, uenti, diuom referatis ad auris (Ecl. 3.72-73)

The false oaths that are uttered by the lover and are unheard by the gods because winds or waves carry them away are a subject that is absent from Greek pastoral. On the contrary, the same subject is very common in the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition.576 It is also much more famous in Roman literature, especially in comedy (cf. Plaut. Cist. 472), elegy (cf. Tib. 1.4.21-22, 1.9.1-6, [Tib.] 3.6.49-50, Prop. 1.15.33ff., 2.16.47-56, 2.28a.5-8, Ov. Am. 1.8.85-86, 2.8.19-20, 3.3.13-14, Ars 1.631-634) and

573

Garson 1971, 195 and Clausen 1994, 109. Karakasis 2011, 114. See Prop. 1.3.24. 575 Cf. Ecl. 8.19-20 dum queror, et diuos, quamquam nil testibus illis/ profeci, extrema moriens tamen adloquor hora. See also Monteleone 1994, 30 and Karakasis 2011, 115. 576 Cf. A.P. 5.6.3-4. 574

Eclogue 3

179

lyric poetry of erotic subjects (cf. Cat. 30.9-10, 70.3-4, Hor. Carm. 2.8).577 On the other hand, Menalcas’ answer also deals with a love object (Amyntas) whose feelings are not unrequited (animo non spernis), although the herdsman’s reaction is only to look after the nets while Amyntas is hunting: Quid prodest quod me ipse animo non spernis, Amynta, si, dum tu sectaris apros, ego retia seruo? (Ecl. 3.74-75)

The lover who is used to carrying or to watching the hunting nets of the erotic object constitutes a typical elegiac subject that in all probability has been used by Gallus.578 Moreover, it received special attention from the Roman elegists, who used this subject extensively (cf. Tib. 1.4.49-50, [Tib.] 3.9.11-12 and Ov. Ars 2.189, Epist. 5.19). In other words, Ecl. 3.7273 and Ecl. 3.74-75 deal with subjects that can be identified in Greek literature, but which have a much more eminent role in Roman literature. [Lines 76-79]

The erotic rivalry carries on with Damoetas and Menalcas

battling for the countrywoman Phyllis, who is already Iollas’ mistress: Phyllida mitte mihi: meus est natalis, Iolla; cum faciam uitula pro frugibus, ipse uenito. Phyllida amo ante alias; nam me discedere fleuit et longum 'formose, uale, uale,' inquit, Iolla (Ecl. 3.76-79)

577

Maltby 2002, 221-222. See also Karakasis 2011, 115 n. 119 with further bibliography. 578 La Penna 1981, 166, Murgatroyd 1991, 148 and Monteleone 1994, 31. See also Karakasis 2011, 115 with n. 119 and 120.

180

Chapter 4

Damoetas and Iollas battle for Phyllis, thereby creating an erotic triangle, which is a subject traditionally found in Roman comedy and love elegy.579 On the other hand, Menalcas, given that he answers in propria persona to Iollas580 rather than by assuming Iollas’ role,581 claims that Phyllis is his favourite beloved. Hence, Menalcas, Iollas and Phyllis make up yet another erotic triangle582 which, though it is also identified in other genres, is not a typical pastoral subject. In other words, Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ verbal fight over the countrywoman Phyllis is again based on literary subjects that have an eminent role in Roman literature, thereby emphasising the Roman character of the above Vergilian verses. [Lines 80-83]

The bitter love subject continues in Damoetas’ and Menalcas’

next exchange, the structure of which is based on several successive country comparisons (priamel). These comparisons are very common in the Vergilian and Theocritean collections, which could suggest that Theocritus is the source on which Vergil is based for this structural form:583 Triste lupus stabulis, maturis frugibus imbres, arboribus uenti, nobis Amaryllidis irae Dulce satis umor, depulsis arbutus haedis, lenta salix feto pecori, mihi solus Amyntas (Ecl. 3.80-83)

579

Karakasis 2011, 116. Coleman 1977, 120 who argues that this interpretation presupposes that formose cannot be construed with Iolla. See also Clausen 1994, 110 and Monteleone 1994, 18. 581 Coleman 1977, 120 who claims that this interpretation presupposes that the two vocatives formose Iolla should go together, along with Phyllis’ reported farewell. See also Berg 1974, 43-44 and Alpers 1979, 24. 582 Karakasis 2011, 116. 583 Schöpsdau 1974, 281f. 580

Eclogue 3

181

However, these Vergilian lines recall the pseudo-Theocritean Idyll 8 where the same structure is also found:584 d{ndresi m੻n ceimën foberÕn kakÒn, Ûdasi d' aÙcmÒj, Ôrnisin d' Ûsplagx, ¢grot{roij d੻ lfna, ¢ndri d੻ parqenik©j ¡pal©j pÒqoj (Id. 8.57-59)

It is evident that these Vergilian and Theocritean verses do not have the same content, which shows that the thematic quotation is not strong enough. By contrast, the structure and the effect of the pseudo-Theocritean passage constitute substantial features that have heavily influenced these Vergilian verses. The structure of the Greek passage is based on a series of country analogies following the pattern that (A) is bad for (B), (C) for (D), (E) for (F), (G) for (H) and (I) for (J). They end with an example drawn from the human world that deals with the love subject and is therefore a self-reference to the singer’s personal situation (Id. 8.59). Vergil maintains the literary effect of this structural formula that is the illustration of love by adapting its details into the amoebaean context of the singing competition. Hence, he reduces the number of analogies (three in each case), splitting them into two couplets where (A) is good (Ecl. 3.82-83) or bad (Ecl. 3.80-81) for (B) and so on. As a result, he exploits the dynamics of the song contest expressed through the priamel form, which is properly adapted to the country character of the contestants because its structure is based on several country analogies, which vividly portray the tension between the herdsmen through Damoetas’ bad comparisons and Menalcas’ good examples. Most significant, however, is that Daphnis’ love for a 584

Coleman 1977, 120, Clausen 1994, 111 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 228.

Chapter 4

182

country girl is replaced by the irate Amaryllis, who is not a typical pastoral character but a stock figure in Roman comedy used to underline the Roman character of the song contest (cf. Plautus’ Asinaria, whose rage can be soothed by the audience’s applause at the end of the play, along with Terence’s Phormio where Nausistrata, who emphatically criticises Chremes’ bad management of her fortune, becomes furious later in the play when she finds out that her husband had a secret erotic relationship in Lemnos).585 [Lines 84-91]

The smooth course, which the country song contest has had so

far, is suddenly interrupted by certain historical characters who are introduced into the Vergilian locus amoenus. This parenthesis is a Vergilian innovation since it is not found in Theocritus. Nonetheless, the blending of real and rustic features is concerned with poetry and thus is closely associated with the country singing match between Damoetas and Menalcas, who are singers/herdsmen rather than herdsmen/singers. What is more, it transforms the contest into a literary conflict on the art’s value, thereby enabling the country contestants to indicate their Neoteric leaning: Pollio amat nostram, quamuis est rustica, Musam: Pierides, uitulam lectori pascite uestro Pollio et ipse facit noua carmina: pascite taurum, iam cornu petat et pedibus qui spargat harenam (Ecl. 3.84-87)

Gaius Asinius Pollio586 had an outstanding political and military career, and his eminence in literary life has been well established by several

585 586

Karakasis 2011, 116-117. Cf. OCD s.v. Pollio.

Eclogue 3

183

ancient sources.587 Moreover, he was the patron of young poets such as Gallus, Catullus, Vergil and Horace (cf. si canimus siluas, siluae sint consule [Pollio] dignae Ecl. 4.3).588 Nevertheless, Pollio’s occurrence in the Eclogue is here associated with the pastoral genre, since he is the good-natured reader who will eagerly read the rustica Musa, as is also confirmed by Menalcas, who refers to Pollio’s noua carmina.589 Nouus is in all probability the famous catchword that is related to the Neoteric style, and here in particular it could also refer to Pollio’s erotic nugae (cf. Plin. Epist. 5.3.5). Moreover, he had friendly relationships with Calvus, Cinna and especially Catullus, who refers to him using Neoteric vocabulary (cf. crede Pollioni/ fratri, qui tua furta uel talento/ mutari uelit: est enim leporum/ differtus puer ac facetiarum Cat. 12.6-9). This Neoteric source can also be evidenced by the next exchange, where Pollio’s literary career is praised by Damoetas in contrast to his literary enemies, who are described in an unfavourable way by Menalcas: Qui te, Pollio, amat, ueniat quo te quoque gaudet; mella fluant illi, ferat et rubus asper amomum Qui Bauium non odit, amet tua carmina, Maeui, atque idem iungat uulpes et mulgeat hircos (Ecl. 3.88-91)

Pollio vs. Bavius and Maevius reflects the “fight” between Callimachus and Telchines, which is characteristically articulated here through Damoetas and Menalcas’ song contest. What is more, the proverbial 587 Cf. Hor. S. 1.10.42-43, Carm. 2.1.9-12; Sen. Declam. passim; Tac. Dial. 21.7. See also Ecl. 8.6-13. 588 Coleman 1977, 121. 589 La Penna 1981, 159-160. See also Karakasis 2011, 104-105 n. 72 with further bibliography.

184

Chapter 4

phrase atque idem iungat uulpes et mulgeat hircos and especially the mulgeat hircos may recall the Catullan term caprimulgus (Cat. 22.10) that refers to Suffenus, who is a contrast to the Neoteric sensibilities (Cat. 22.1-3). Thus, either mulgeat hircos or caprimulgus could be Neoteric catchwords that are used in order to describe everyone who has antiNeoteric beliefs.590 Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ song contest is not interrupted by Pollio’s “entrance” into the Vergilian locus amoenus, and it continues with the herdsmen’s donations (Damoetas’ heifer to the reader Pollio, which is overshadowed by Menalcas’ bull to the author Pollio) and with the herdsmen’s Neoteric beliefs (Damoetas’ praise of Pollio’s Neoteric career and Menalcas’ scorn for Pollio’s literary enemies). In other words, Ecl. 3.84-92 emphatically show the herdsmen’s Neoteric leaning, which intensifies the Roman character of the song contest. Leaving aside the historical characters who come into the Vergilian locus amoenus, the song contest continues with Damoetas and Menalcas giving certain instructions to some hireling herdsmen who are forced to drive the animals away from somewhere: Qui legitis flores et humi nascentia fraga, frigidus, o pueri fugite hinc!, latet anguis in herba. Parcite, oues, nimium procedere: non bene ripae creditur; ipse aries etiam nunc uellera siccat. (Ecl. 3.92-95) Tityre, pascentis a flumine reice capellas: ipse, ubi tempus erit, omnis in fonte lauabo. Cogite ouis, pueri: si lac praeceperit aestus,

590

Papanghelis 1995, 113-114. See also Karakasis 2011, 105 with n. 73.

Eclogue 3

185

ut nuper, frustra pressabimus ubera palmis (Ecl. 3.96-99)

These Vergilian verses may recall the Theocritean collection and especially Idyll 5, where Comatas and Lacon give similar pastoral instructions that are related to the animals:591 sftt' ¢pÕ t©j kotfnw, tai mhk£dej· ïde n{mesqe, æj tÕ k£tantej toàto geèlofon ag te murlkai. oÙk ¢pÕ t©j druÒj, oátoj Ð Kènaroj ¤ te Kinafqa; toutei boskhselsqe pot' ¢ntol£j, æj Ð F£laroj (Id. 5.100-103)592

aੇgej œmaf, qarselte, keroucfdej· aÜrion Ümme p£saj œgë lousî Subarftidoj }ndoqi lfmnaj (Id. 5.145-146)

The relationship of these Vergilian and Theocritean passages is based on the herdsmen’s concern for protecting and caring for the flock. Nonetheless, the Theocritean orders are used to instruct the flocks not to graze in distant places in opposition to the Vergilian instructions that are substantial warnings about the serious dangers that are caused by the natural environment (frigidus latet anguis in herba, non bene ripae/ 591

Coleman 1977, 123-124 and Clausen 1994, 113-114 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 232. See also Id. 4.45-49. 592 Gow II 1952, 110 argues that these two distiches interrupt the exchanges dealing with Clearista and Cratidas, which are resumed in the following lines (Id. 5.104-107) and that therefore they could be considered as aside couplets, entirely irrelevant to the singing competition (schol. Theoc. Id. 5.100.1-2 toàto metaxÝ tÁj òdÁj/ œpefènhse prÕj t¦j aੇgaj· ¢nacwrelte tÁj ¢grielafou). Nevertheless, he observes that it is better to recognise these couplets as Comatas’ temporary attention to the flock, which is based on the form of an agonistic distich.

186

Chapter 4

creditur, ipse aries etiam nunc uellera siccat and si lac praeceperit aestus,/ ut nuper, frustra pressabimus ubera palmis).593 In other words, the Vergilian song contest is extended over the subject of the hard country jobs which the herdsmen endure, transforming the immune Greek pastoral setting into the realistic Roman pastoral countryside that is dangerous for both the herdsmen and the flocks. [Lines 100-103]

The unhappy love re-enters the song contest in Damoetas’ and

Menalcas’ following exchange, where love affects the herdsmen and the animals: Heu heu, quam pingui macer est mihi taurus in eruo! idem amor exitium pecori pecorisque magistro his certe neque amor causa est; uix ossibus haerent; nescio quis teneros oculus mihi fascinat agnos (Ecl. 3.100-103)

Damoetas’ couplet deals with a bull that is surrounded by a fat vetch but remains lean, which can be explained by love that is fatal to the herdsman and the bull. Lovesick animals is a subject that is also found in the Theocritean collection and especially in Idyll 8, where Nais’ departure has a significant influence on the cattle and the cowherd:594 }nqa kal¦ Na૗j œpinfssetai· ae d' ¨n ¢f{rpV, cç t¦j bîj bÒskwn cae bÒej aÙÒterai (Id. 8.43 and 48)595

593

Karakasis 2011, 118. Clausen 1994, 115. 595 On the transposition of the lines 41-43 and 45-47, see Gow II 1952, 177. 594

Eclogue 3

187

The thematic relationship of these Vergilian and pseudo-Theocritean lines is clear and is also confirmed by the fact that love affects the herdsmen and the animals (idem amor exitium pecori pecorisque magistro-cç t¦j bîj bÒskwn cae bÒej aÙÒterai). Moreover, Menalcas’ reply is also concerned with emaciated animals (Ecl. 3.102-103), recalling Idyll 4 where Battus observes how thin Corydon’s heifer is:596 t›naj m੻n d› toi t©j pÒrtioj aÙt¦ l{leiptai tçstfa. m¾ prîkaj sitfzetai ésper Ð t{ttix; (Id. 4.15-16)

Nonetheless, Id. 8.43 and 48 refer to the animals pining away, caused by Nais leaving, in strong contrast to Ecl. 3.100-101, where Damoetas’ beloved is absent. Battus’ thin heifer is actually the result of Corydon’s bad treatment in emphatic opposition to Menalcas, whose lean cow is the result of some evil eye. However, Vergil’s deviation from the Theocritean collection is also evidenced by the language that the herdsmen use in these lines. His in his certe neque amor causa est; uix ossibus haerent is the reading of codices confirmed also by Donatus, who comments on hisce (pro ‘hi’ uetuste; Vergilius ‘his certe…haerent’ quia ‘hice’ delebat dicere Ter. Eun. 269),597 and although the form his for hi is unattested in extant Latin literature, its compound hisce for hice can be found in Roman comedy where it is a striking colloquialism.598 This colloquialism, together with the colloquial phrase nescio quis, can show Vergil’s dependence on comic language and vocabulary, thereby accentuating the Roman character of the contest. [Lines 104-107] 596 Coleman

1977, 124, Clausen 1994, 115 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 232. Coleman 1977, 124-125. See also Karakasis 2011, 120 with n. 136. 598 Cf. Plaut. Mil. 374. 597

Chapter 4

188

The song contest comes to an end with two riddles (Ecl. 3.104105 and 106-107). Damoetas’ riddle is concerned with the lands where the sky’s span is no wider than three elms, while Menalcas’ reply refers to the lands where flowers that are inscribed with royal names grow:599 Dic quibus in terries-et eris mihi magnus Apollotris pateat caeli spatium non amplius ulnas. Dic quibus in terris inscripti nomina regum nascantur flores, et Phyllida solus habeto (Ecl. 3.104-107)

Riddles are entirely absent from the Theocritean and post-Theocritean pastoral tradition, and therefore their first occurrence is here in Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ song contest. On the other hand, they are a very common comic feature in the fabula atellana and the fabula palliata, especially in Plautus (e.g. Rud. 150-151 and 514-519).600 Nonetheless, the Vergilian riddles significantly deviate from the corresponding Plautine puzzles, whose form is that of a brief and baffling remark followed by a farcical explanation of it,601 and thus they could hardly be a Plautine influence. In any case, however, these riddles are related to the Roman tradition (the comic genre) and highlight the Roman character of the contest. [Lines 108-111]

The riddles are followed by Palaemon’s verdict that each

herdsman deserves the prize, confirming that we are dealing with a drawn contest that is yet another significant subject that comes from the Theocritean collection: 599

On the various solutions and answers that have been suggested, see Briggs 1981, 1310-1311 and Clausen 1994, 116-117. See also Karakasis 2011, 121 n. 138 with further bibliography. 600 Currie 1976, 415 with n. 9. See also Karakasis 2011, 121. 601 Currie 1976, 415. See also Karakasis 2011, 121 with n. 137.

Eclogue 3

189

Non nostrum inter uos tantas componere lites: et uitula tu dignus et hic, et quisquis amores aut metuet dulcis aut experietur amaros. claudite iam riuos, pueri; sat prata biberunt (Ecl. 3.108-111)

The same verdict is found in Idyll 6, where the singing match ends in complete harmony without a specific winner:602 TÒss' eepën tÕn D£fnin Ð Damoftaj œfflhse· cí m੻n tù sÚrigg', Ö d੻ tù kalÕn aÙlÕn }dwken. aÜlei Damoftaj, sÚrisde d੻ D£fnij Ð boÚtaj· çrceànt' œn malak´ tai pÒrtiej aÙtfka pofv. nfkh m੻n oÙd£lloj, ¢n›ssatoi d' œg{nonto (Id. 6.41-46)

The relationship of those two passages is based on the draw with which each contest ends and can also be reinforced with the verbal correspondence Damoetas-Damoftaj. In view of that, the Vergilian verses are not only based on the Theocritean collection. On the contrary, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is designed to establish the appropriate pastoral background, wherein Greek and Roman sources are brought together. More specifically, love as a bitter-sweet thing has long been considered as a recurrent subject in the Greek pastoral tradition:603 et uitula tu dignus et hic, et quisquis amores aut metuet dulcis aut experietur amaros (Ecl. 3.109-110) 602 603

Coleman 1977, 127. Coleman 1977, 10 with examples.

Chapter 4

190

Nonetheless, its origin has its roots in Sappho, whose influence upon Vergil is well established by Catullus, who employs the same subject in one of his longer poems:604 ”Eroj dhât{ m' Ñ lusim{lhj dÒnei, glukÚpikron ¢m£canon Ôrpeton (fr. 130.1-2 L-P) multa satis lusi: non est dea nescia nostri, quae dulcem curis miscet amaritiem (Cat. 68.18)

Vergil draws on the ambiguous emotional situation that Sappho simultaneously enjoys (glukÚ-) and hates (-pikron), placing it into a song contest in order to underscore Palaemon’s ambiguity about issuing a verdict

(dulcis

et

amaros

amores).

Nonetheless,

the

Vergilian

correspondence from Sappho is associated with the Catullan quotation found in the next line that recalls the very last stanza of Catullus 61:605 claudite iam riuos, pueri; sat prata biberunt (Ecl. 3.111) claudite ostia, virgines: lusimus satis. at, boni coniuges, bene vivite et munere assiduo valentem exercete iuventam! (Cat. 61.224-228) 604 605

Coleman 1977, 127. Coleman 1977, 128. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 236-237.

Eclogue 3

191

These passages end a poem with a successful resolution (song contest/marriage). This thematic relationship is also reinforced by the verbal correspondence claudite-claudite and sat-satis and the use of an analogy drawn from the context of each poem. Catullus describes a group of virgin girls who are explicitly ordered to close the doors, implying the completion of the epithalamic poem (Cat. 61). On the contrary, Vergil appeals to certain boys to close the springs, which is an indirect reference to the conclusion of the country singing competition (Ecl. 3). However, Vergil’s dependence on Sappho and Catullus, especially at the end of the Eclogue, can also emphatically reflect the conflation of Greek and Roman sources on which the country song contest between the Roman herdsmen draws.606 [Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 3 constitutes the first country amoebaean

singing competition in Latin literature. However, its sources are not only traced in the various contests of Theocritean and post-Theocritean pastoral. Vergil is strongly influenced by Theocritean and pseudoTheocritean

subjects,

structure

and

language,

recalling

mostly

conventional (Idylls 5 and 9) and unconventional singing competitions (Idylls 1, 4, 6 and 8), as well as elements from other pastoral or nonpastoral genres found in the Theocritean collection (Idylls 3 and 17). In addition, the Eclogue is based on Theocritus’ and Meleager’s epigrams, Aratus, Callimachus, Euphorion and Bion. Most significantly, however, Plautine, Terentian, Lucretian and Catullan (Cat. 22, 61, 62, 66 and 68) subjects, structure and language (especially its colloquial style) along with certain themes coming from Fabula atellana, Roman mime, comedy, love 606

See also Karakasis 2011, 123-124, who observes that the combination amoramarus (Ecl. 3.109-110) has its roots in the Roman tradition and especially in Plautus (Cist. 68 Eho an amare occipere amarum est, obsecro? and Trin. 260 Amor amara dat tamen).

Chapter 4

192

elegy (Gallus) and lyric poetry are also brought together and creatively combined with the Greek sources in order to signify the Roman character of the contest. The Greek subjects, structure and language are combined with the language of the Roman comedy, thus generating an Italian country dialect that shows that the Vergilian intention is to create a Latin song contest and reiterates the question of whether the Eclogues were ever performed publicly in theatre.607 Nonetheless, the Vergilian intention to create a Latin singing match is not evidenced only by the blending of sources but also by the way in which the Greek sources that are not combined with any source are handled. These are associated with the pastoral characters, who stress the fundamental difference between the Greek herdsmen-singers and the Roman singers-herdsmen, and with typical pastoral (locus amoenus) and non-pastoral subjects (ecphrasis) and the way in which they are manipulated by the Theocritean and post-Theocritean traditions. Most importantly, however, they are combined with certain “alien” pastoral elements (encomiastic references, exclamations to non-pastoral gods, historical characters and riddles) that can be identified in the contest, thereby underscoring Vergil’s originality and intention to expand the limits of the country song contests and of the literary genre in general.

607

Highet 1974, 24-25, Steinmetz 1968, 115-125, Coleiro 1979, 66-70, Quinn 1982, 152-153, Horsfall 1995, 17, Kohn 1999-2000, 267-274, Panayotakis 2008, 185-197 and Höschele 2013, 44-47. See also Panayotakis 2010, 251 and Panayotakis 2014, 392.

CHAPTER 5 ECLOGUE 4* Eclogue 4 could rightly be considered as the most puzzling poetic creation in ancient literature. This is easily confirmed by an examination of its content, which deals with a mysterious child608 whose birth coincides with the coming of the Golden Age. Scholars have focused on various *

Smith 1930, 141-143 focuses on Vergil’s dependence on Catullus 61 and 64. Bollack 1967, 304-324 claims that the child’s heroic features come from Theocritus’ Idyll 24. Leach 1971, 167-184 is concerned with Vergil’s relationship with the Homeric Hymns, the Platonic Laws and Catullus 64, suggesting that they constitute literary models. Williams 1974, 31-46 examines the Eclogue section by section, identifying similar sources. Du Quesnay 1977, 25-99 focuses on the Eclogue’s relation with Idyll 17 and Catullus 64. Nisbet 1978, 59-78 thoroughly analyses the Eclogue, suggesting for each section an analogy which is drawn either from eastern religions or from western literary traditions. Morgan 1992, 76-79 suggests that the Vergilian puer is a human character who, however, can also recall the Callimachean }poj d' œpi tutqÕn Œlfssw/ palj ¤te (Call. fr. 1.5ff. Pf.). Stroh 1993, 289-322 claims that Vergil’s prophesy is based on the Jewish literary tradition. Hubbard 1995-1996, 11-23 and Lefèvre 2000, 62-80 deal with Vergil’s relation with Catullus 64. Moya de Baño 1996, 135-137 argues that Thetim is used to recall Catullus 64. Marinþiþ 2001, 484-504 examines Vergil’s relationship with Catullus 64 and Theocritus‘ Idyll 24. Hardie 2006, 276-300 focuses on Vergil’s indebtedness to Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura. Meulder 2010, 815-828 examines the common elements between Vergil’s Eclogue and Callimachus’ Coma Berenices and Bernsdorff 2011, 187-194 suggests that Ecl. 4.62-63 are related to Theocritus’ Idyll 24, which in its conclusion (Antinoe Codex) contains Heracles’ apotheosis and marriage with Hebe. 608 The identity of the mysterious child in the Eclogue still remains a matter under discussion among modern scholarship, given that several suggestions have been proposed but none has won general acceptance. Human candidates include: a) a son of Pollio, b) a child of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, c) a child of Mark Antony and Octavia, d) a child of Octavian and Scribonia, e) the child of Marcellus and Octavia, f) Octavian Augustus, and g) Jesus Christ, while non-human candidates include: a) the Golden Age, b) the treaty of Brindisium, c) Vergil’s poetry, especially the Aeneid, and d) Neoteric poetry. For the bibliography on this subject, see Briggs 1981, 1313-1316.

194

Chapter 5

interpretative issues of this Eclogue,609 while also examining the sources on which this Vergilian composition draws. Coleman argues that there are sources in the Eclogue, laying special emphasis on Vergil’s dependence on Catullus (Carm. 64).610 Clausen, on the other hand, focuses on Vergil’s indebtedness to Greek literature, while examining, though very briefly, various non-classical sources in the Eclogue.611 Finally, Cucchiarelli argues that the Golden Age myth may recall Hesiod and Aratus, also highlighting Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus’ Idylls 16, 17, 24 and Catullus 64.612 Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on the Greek and Roman sources is much greater, but the way in which this earlier tradition is handled here is unconventional. Vergil’s relationship with the Greek and Roman sources is not based on thematic or verbal relationships between the Vergilian text and intertext; in other words, the Eclogue’s constituent elements are only similar or analogous to the various features from the Greco-Roman literature that are brought together here. Thus, Eclogue 4 does not contain Vergilian quotations from earlier traditions, but similarities or analogies are used in this unconventional way to create an encomiastic poetic creation for the puer, namely, a Roman pastoral encomium. [Lines 1-3]

The Eclogue begins with Vergil’s prayer for inspiration to the

Muses: Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus! non omnis arbusta iuuant humilesque myricae; si canimus siluas, siluae sint consule dignae (Ecl. 4.1-3)

609

See Briggs 1981, 1311-1325. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 243-244. Coleman 1977, 150-154. 611 Clausen 1994, 119-130. 612 Cucchiarelli 2012, 237-244. 610

Eclogue 4

195

Nearly every term of those lines is related to the Greek and Roman tradition. The phrase Sicelides Musae has been considered as a reference to Sicily to underscore Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus.613 However, when Theocritus refers to the Muses or the Nymphs, he used to place the noun first (cf. NÚmfai Kastalfdej Id. 7.148 and Molsai Pierfdej 10.24).614 This is usually avoided by Vergil, who used to introduce a spondaic word in the first foot of a hexameter verse.615 However, there is yet another and a more significant reason. The artificial lengthening of the first syllable in the patronymic Sicelides/Sikelfdej also has its roots in the Theocritean collection616 and is a striking stylistic feature later followed by post-Theocritean pastoral, where an address to the Muses occurs as well; hence, the sources where a similar phrase to the Vergilian Sicelides Musae can be found are:617 Sikelfdan nfkhmi tÕn œk S£mw oÜte Filftan (Id. 7.40)

¥rcete Sikelikaf, tî p{nqeoj ¥rcete, Molsai (Epit. Bion. 8)

On the other hand, paulo maiora recalls the Roman tradition and especially Roman comedy, satire and love elegy, where this structure (paulo + comparative) is found.618 In addition, its occurrence in those

613

On Theocritus’ origin, see Gow I 1952, xv-xxii and Hunter 1999, 1-2. Cf. also Call. Hymn 4.109 NÚmfai Qessalfdej. See Clausen 1994, 130. 615 Norden 1926, 435-436. 616 Gow II 1952, 180. 617 Coleman 1977, 129, Clausen 1994, 130 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 244-245. 618 Cf. Plaut. Men. 681 Tibi dedi equidem illam, ad phrygionem ut ferres, paulo prius; Ter. Ad. 831 omissiores paullo; Lucil. 833 Marx meliore paulo facie; Hor. S. 614

Chapter 5

196

genres stresses its colloquial tone.619 Furthermore, paulo, which is not found elsewhere in Vergil, shows that its use is associated with a prosaic nuance combined with the Eclogue’s elevated beginning. This suggestion is further reinforced by the structure of the same verse, because the colloquial expression is emphatically framed by a divine invocation along with a typical heroic verb (Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus).620 In other words, the structure with which the Eclogue begins reflects its character, which is an elevated poetic creation (si canimus siluas, siluae sint consule dignae) that is placed into a humble genre (non omnis arbusta iuuant humilesque myricae). Furthermore, paulo constitutes an unusual literary term,621 but not for Lucretius.622 However, it is juxtaposed with maiora only once by Lucretius (ipsaque pro porro paulo maiora lacessunt DRN 2.137), being similar to the Vergilian paulo maiora.623 There, Lucretius thoroughly explains the conflict between small atoms and other particles, which are described with the expression paulo maiora (“a bit greater”). Vergil only uses Lucretian language, since the expression is now transferred into a different context through which the Muses are urged to sing “something greater”. Therefore, the paulo maiora is not selected exclusively for its colloquial associations; it can suggest the combination of Greek (Sicelides Musae) and Roman (paulo maiora) sources and the unconventional way these are going to be used here in order to generate a high poetic 1.9.71 sum paulo infirmior; Ov. Trist. 2.1.577 tutius exilium pauloque quietius oro. See also Clausen 1994, 130 with further examples. 619 TLL s.v. paulo 832.40. See also Gotoff 1967, 67-68 and Lipka 2001, 72 and 138. 620 Clausen 1994, 130. 621 Axelson 1945, 95-96. 622 Cf. DRN 1.429, 531, 794, 907, 911, 913, 2.486, 764, 3.312, 485, 602, 4.383, 6.989, 997, 1240. 623 Coleman 1977, 129. See also Lipka 2001, 72.

Eclogue 4

197

composition that is located in a humble genre. In other words, the untypical way the Greek and Roman sources are used in Ecl. 4.1 (Theocritean structure, language and metre along with Lucretian language) suggests how the Greco-Roman literature will be handled throughout the Eclogue, thereby laying special emphasis on its original and innovative character. This suggestion is first confirmed by the next verse, where the elevated tone continues and is further strengthened: non omnis arbusta iuuant humilesque myricae (Ecl. 4.2)

The term myricae has its roots in the Homeric tradition, where they are found in the Iliad:624 kafonto ptel{ai te kai et{ai ºd੻ murlkai, kafeto d੻ lwtÒj te ed੻ qrÚon ºd੻ kÚpeiron (Il. 21.350-351)

However, myricae as well as arbusta are associated with pastoral song. Arbusta constitutes a term whose meaning is the same as that of siluae, which has long been considered as a symbol of Vergilian pastoral poetry.625 Furthermore, humiles is also crucial, given that it is an epithet indicative not only of the shrub, but most significantly, of the humble subjects which are normally employed in this genre (cf. si canimus siluas,

624

Clausen 1994, xxvii. Cf. Ecl. 1.2 siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena, 4.3 si canimus siluas, siluae sint consule dignae and 6.2 nostra neque erubuit siluas habitare Thalea. See Griffiths 1969-1970, 1-19 and Clausen 1994, 130.

625

Chapter 5

198

siluae sint consule dignae Ecl. 4.3).626 The Vergilian myricae call to mind the Theocritean collection where the murlkai are an outstanding landscape feature, which is related to song exchange. What is more, they are connected with the singing place, which is rejected for a more attractive one:627 lÍj poti t©n Numf©n, lÍj, aepÒle, telde kaqfxaj, æj tÕ k£tantej toàto geèlofon ag te murlkai, surfsden; (Id. 1.12-14)

deàr' ØpÕ t¦n ptel{an Œsdèmeqa tî te Pri›pw kai t©n kranfdwn katenantfon, •per Ð qîkoj tÁnoj Ð poimenikÕj kai tai drÚej (Id. 1.21-23)

However, the rejections in the Theocritean and in the Vergilian collections are not the same. The Theocritean herdsmen reject them to countersuggest another singing location in strong contrast to Vergil, whose rejection has to do with the traditional pastoral poetry (Greek) that is here transformed (Roman) in order to sing of greater subjects. Vergil’s relationship to Theocritus is only based on the verbal level and on the term myricae, which is also used in a context that is unequivocally different from the Theocritean. Therefore, Ecl. 4.1-3 are not only the traditional prayer to the Muses for inspiration, they are also the narrative introduction

626 Cf. Ecl. 6.10 captus amore leget, te nostrae, Vare, myricae. See Lipka 2001, 195 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 245. 627 Coleman 1977, 129 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 245. See also Id. 5.100-101 sftt' ¢pÕ t©j kotfnw, tai mhk£dej· ïde n{mesqe,/ æj tÕ k£tantej toàto geèlofon ag te murlkai, where the tamarisks are described as the ideal place for grazing.

Eclogue 4

199

that shows the untypical way in which the Greek and Roman sources are going to be used throughout the Eclogue and the “untypical” (high) literary creation that is placed into a humble genre. [Lines 4-5]

Vergil begins the prophecy with the utmost solemnity: Ultima Cumaei uenit iam carminis aetas magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo (Ecl. 4.4-5)

Cumaei is an adjective that recalls the Cumaean Sibyl and the Sibylline Oracles;628 it is also a term which, in combination with the ambiguous meaning of the following verse,629 inevitably calls to mind several oracles, prodigies and cosmic speculations which flourished in Rome’s political turmoil during the 1st c. BC. Nevertheless, it is clear that nothing in the Eclogue could be read as a clear-cut reference to any extant oracle, scheme or concept of cyclic change and resolution.630 On the other hand, the structure of these two verses (each verse is framed by an adjective and a noun in agreement: ultima...aetas, magnus...ordo) calls for our attention. This structure may recall Catullus 64, whose relationship with Eclogue 4

628

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 4.4 Sibyllini, quae Cumana fuit. See also Coleman 1977, 129130, Clausen 1994, 131 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 246-247. 629 See Williams 1974, 33 who argues that the expression magnus saeclorum ordo is considered as ambiguous, because there is no definite article in Latin and therefore it could mean either “the great cycle of ages” or “the great series of centuries”. 630 Scholars have tried to associate certain terms in this section (ultima aetas, magnus ordo, Apollo) with Servius’ remarks (Serv. Ecl. 4.4.1-11), with extant sibylline books (cf. Briggs 1981, 1319-1320) and even with the Stoic Great Year, but this interpretation is inconsistent with the Eclogue’s context. See Williams 1974, 33 with n. 9.

Chapter 5

200

has already been recognised631 and where analogous enclosed verses can be found.632 Nevertheless, the absence of the specific stylistic feature before the Neoterics, except for Cicero’s Aratea (a translation of Aratus’ Phaenomena), gives enough evidence to suggest that its origin should also be sought in the Hellenistic tradition633 and especially in Aratus, who had already employed the same structural formula.634 What is more, this suggestion confirms that the Vergilian intention is to focus on the Catullan and Aratean high narrative style, which accords well with the Eclogue’s elevated tone and character. [Lines 6-9]

Nonetheless, Vergil’s relationship with Aratus is not associated

only with the structure. The prophecy also deals with the return of Virgin, who is currently coming back to earth in order to be present among humans again (iam redit et Virgo Ecl. 4.6). This goddess is Astraea or Justice, who is called Virgin by her identification with the constellation of Virgo where she moved after leaving men during the Bronze Age. This mythological story is fully described in Aratus’ Phaenomena (Phaen. 96136).635 However, Vergil reverses the Aratean version because the Virgin is returning to earth.636 This change can be explained by the general joy that runs through the Eclogue since a blissful and peaceful age is coming 631

On Vergil’s relationship with Catullus 64 concerning Eclogue 4, see Hubbard 1998, 78 and n. 65 with further bibliography. 632 Clausen 1994, 130-131. On this structural form and its Catullan origin, see Pearce 1966a, 140-171. 633 Pearce 1966b, 298-320. 634 Pearce 1966b, 299-303. See also Clausen 1994, 130-131. 635 Coleman 1977, 131-132, Clausen 1994, 120 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 248-249. 636 Cf. Arat. Phaen. 133-136 Kai tÒte mis›sasa Dfkh kefnwn g{noj ¢ndrîn/ }ptaq' Øpouranfh, taÚthn d' ¥ra n£ssato cèrhn,/ Âcf per œnnucfh }ti fafnetai ¢nqrèpoisi/ Parq{noj œggÝj œoàsa polusk{ptoio Boètew. See also Hes. Op. 197-200 kai tÒte d¾ prÕj”Olumpon ¢pÕ cqonÕj eÙruodefhj/ leukolsin f£ressi kaluyam{nw crÒa kalÕn/ ¢qan£twn met¦ fàlon hton prolipÒnt' ¢nqrèpouj/ Aedëj kai N{mesij who is the source on which Aratus’ myth depends.

Eclogue 4

201

with the birth of a mysterious child. Nonetheless, the return of the Virgin is further accompanied by the age of Saturn, which is also described as returning in the same line (redeunt Saturnia regna Ecl. 4.6). Saturn has long been associated with the Greek Cronus (KrÒnoj),637 and therefore Saturnia regna here refers to this specific temporal period, also explaining the Virgin’s return, which is closely connected with the Saturnia regna and vice versa. Once again, Vergil reverses the original subject of the reign of Saturn by describing it as a temporal period, which is at hand, in strong contrast to the conventional story where the Saturnian period appears to be an age of lost innocence and happiness.638 What is more, Saturn’s reign introduces the Golden Age subject, which becomes evident in the following verse (iam noua progenies caelo demittitur alto Ecl. 4.7). The expression noua progenies (“a new race of men”) calls to mind the Hesiodic myth of races,639 according to which there are five distinct species (g{nh) of men.640 Four races are related to a metal (Gold, Silver, Bronze and Iron, in descending order of merit), while the Heroic race is placed between Bronze and Iron (Hes. Op. 106-120). However, Vergil reduces the number of these races from five to three, which are Gold (Saturnia regna Ecl. 4.6),641 Heroic (heroas Ecl. 4.16) and Iron (ferrea Ecl. 4.8). Furthermore, he reverses the idea of the successive deterioration

637

Cf. Liv. Andr. fr. 2 Büchner pater noster Saturni filie, which translates Hom. Od. 1.45 ð p£ter ¹m{tere Kronfdh. 638 Cf. Hes. Op. 111 oj m੻n œpi KrÒnou Ãsan, Ót' oÙranù œmbasfleuen. See also Baldry 1952, 84-86 who observes that the idea of a happy and easy life in Cronus’ reign existed independently of the myth of the five metallic races. 639 Coleman 1977, 132-133, Clausen 1994, 120-121 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 249250. 640 Cf. Ecl. 4.8-9 tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum / desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo. See also Coleman 1977, 133-134. 641 Cf. Ecl. 4.18-20 At tibi prima, puer, nullo munuscula cultu/ errantis hederas passim cum baccare tellus/ mixtaque ridenti colocasia fundet acantho.

202

Chapter 5

of races by describing the Golden Age642 as a period that is expected to be restored to mankind by the birth of a child:643 tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum desinet ac toto surget gens aurea mundo (Ecl. 4.8-9)

This is an important innovation, which is also obliquely suggested by the literal and metaphorical use of the verb nascor,644 thereby confirming that the Vergilian intention is to combine the Golden Age myth with the birth of a mysterious child and vice versa. This observation shows that Eclogue 4 constitutes an encomiastic literary creation (a Roman pastoral encomium) that is based on Greek and Roman literature. Here, however, the Greek and Roman traditions are handled unconventionally; Ecl. 4.6-9 actually draw on Hesiod and Aratus for the Golden Age subject without recalling anything specific from these sources, but this mythological subject is also employed in an original and innovative way. [Line 10]

This birth constitutes a real and imminent fact and, for that

reason, the goddess of childbirth, Lucina, is evoked (casta faue Lucina: tuus iam regnat Apollo; Ecl. 4.10). The same goddess can be found in

642

It should be mentioned that the Greek authors who treat the myth of races exclusively refer to the Golden Race (crÚseon g{noj). It is only in the Roman tradition where the Golden Race is replaced by the Golden Age, and in that way it has come down to modern literature. 643 See also Hardie 2006, 293-294 who observes that Ecl. 4.7 iam noua progenies caelo demittitur alto, calls to mind DRN 2.1153-1154 haud, ut opinor, enim mortalia saecla superne/ aurea de caelo demisit funis in arua, but Vergil reverses the Lucretian scientific explanation, instead recalling its language. 644 Cf. Ecl. 4.5-8 magnus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo./ iam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna, /iam noua progenies caelo demittitur alto./ tu modo nascenti puero, quo ferrea primum.

Eclogue 4

203

Ptolemy’s birth on the island of Cos in Idyll 17 where Eelefquia is summoned for assistance:645 }nqa g¦r Eelefquian œbèsato lusfzwnon 'AntigÒnaj qug£thr bebarhm{na çdfnessin· ¿ d{ od eÙmen{oisa parfstato, k¦d d' ¥ra p£ntwn nwdunfan kat{ceue melîn (Id. 17.60-63)

Vergil and Theocritus refer to the goddess of childbirth (LucinaEelefquian) who is called for the delivery of a child whose coming guarantees prosperity for the people. This is the only common element between these Vergilian and Theocritean verses, since there is no thematic or verbal relationship between them. What is more, Theocritus refers to a historical character (Ptolemy Philadelphus) in emphatic contrast to Vergil, who is concerned with a mysterious child (puer), whose messianic and beneficial overtones, which have already become evident (cf. Ecl. 4.7-9 where the coming of the Golden Age coincides with the child’s birth), are here reinforced further with Apollo, who has a close relationship with the child (tuus iam regnat Apollo). [Lines 11-17]

The prophecy’s smooth course is suddenly interrupted by the

following verses. Here, historical characters and events are introduced with Vergil’s address to Pollio, which calls to mind his role in bringing about the peace of Brundisium:646

645

Du Quesnay 1977, 52-68. See also Clausen 1994, 132 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 252. 646 On Pollio’s role in Brundisium’s treaty, see Syme 1939, 243ff., Williams 1974, 44-46 and Della Corte 1983, 1-5.

204

Chapter 5 teque adeo decus hoc aeui, te consule, inibit, Pollio, et incipient magni procedere menses te duce, si qua manent sceleris uestigia nostri, inrita perpetua soluent formidine terras (Ecl. 4.11-14)

These lines set up a historical setting for the child, which, while having divine features, is still a real human being and not a creature of the Vergilian imagery.647 Nonetheless, the realistic tone established here is temporary, given that it soon changes in the subsequent verses: ille deum uitam accipiet diuisque uidebit permixtos heroas et ipse uidebitur illis, pacatumque reget patriis uirtutibus orbem (Ecl. 4.15-17)

The divine life that the child will enjoy recalls Hesiod, who lays emphasis on the fact that the Golden Race people live like gods:648 oj m੻n œpi KrÒnou Ãsan, Ót' oÙranù œmbasfleuen· éste qeoi d' }zwon ¢khd{a qumÕn }contej nÒsfin ¥ter te pÒnwn kai ÑizÚoj, oÙd{ ti deilÕn gÁraj œpÁn, aeei d੻ pÒdaj kai celraj Ðmoloi t{rpont' œn qalfVsi, kakîn }ktosqen ¡p£ntwn (Op. 111-115)

647

It should be mentioned that there are also some scholars who tend to examine the child’s identity symbolically by describing the puer as the Golden Age subject (RE VIII A 1 1955, 1021-1024), the peace which came after Brundisium’s treaty (Otis 1963, 135, Mette 1973, 71-78 and Williams 1974-1975, 1-6) or even the Eclogue itself (Berg 1974, 167-177 and Northrup 1983, 111-125). 648 Coleman 1977, 135 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 254-255.

Eclogue 4

205

In addition, the coexistence between gods and men (diuisque uidebit/permixtos heroas) is found in Catullus:649 praesentes namque ante domos inuisere castas heroum et sese mortali ostendere coetu caelicolae nondum spreta pietate solebant (Cat. 64.384-386)

These Vergilian, Hesiodic and Catullan verses do not have any thematic or verbal relationship, and in that sense the only common element between them constitutes a traditional feature of the Golden Age subject (the coexistence of gods and men).650 But Vergil changes the Catullan original to be consistent with the Eclogue’s character; he reverses its subject, according to which the Catullan Golden Age is a distant and forever lost time (ante),651 in order to stress that the Vergilian one is not irretrievably lost. On the contrary, it will come back and be restored with the birth of a mysterious child who, in that sense, has Golden Age characteristics drawn from Hesiod and Catullus. [Lines 18-20]

These oblique references to the Golden Age subject give their

place to a detailed account of its gradual coming that is fully exploited in the following verses (Ecl. 4.18-45). The description is divided into three different sections, each of which is closely associated with a period of the child’s life, beginning with infancy (Ecl. 18-25), advancing to adolescence 649

Coleman 1977, 135, Clausen 1994, 133 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 254-255. It should also be noted that Ecl. 4.15-17 ends with a verse that is framed by an epithet and noun in agreement (pacatumque reget patriis uirtutibus orbem Ecl. 4.17), which is a typical Catullan feature that can reinforce (though only in terms of structure) Vergil’s relationship with Catullus. 651 It should be noted that Tromaras 2004, 501 observes that Catullus should refer here to the Heroic rather than the Golden Age (domos inuisere castas/ heroum), although the narrative is emphatically vague (ante). 650

Chapter 5

206

(Ecl. 26-36) and concluding with manhood (Ecl. 37-45). The first section begins with nature’s reaction to the child’s birth: At tibi prima, puer, nullo munuscula cultu errantis hederas passim cum baccare tellus mixtaque ridenti colocasia fundet acantho (Ecl. 4.18-20)

The spontaneous bounty of the natural environment (nullo cultuaÙtom£th) constitutes a typical characteristic of the Golden Age subject652 which has its roots in Hesiod, who stresses the earth’s natural profusion for the Golden Race: karpÕn d' }fere zefdwroj ¥roura aÙtom£th pollÒn te kai ¥fqonon (Op. 117-118)

On the other hand, the joy that the earth feels because of the mysterious child’s birth is most similar to the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, where the island of Delos rejoices at Apollo’s birth:653 calre d੻ DÁloj, ¢meibom{nh d੻ proshÚda· Lhtol kudfsth qÚgater meg£lou Kofoio, ¢spasfh ken œgè ge gon¾n Œk£toio ¥naktoj dexafmhn· aenîj g¦r œt›tumÒn eemi dushc¾j ¢ndr£sin, ïde d{ ken peritim›essa genofmhn (Hom. Hymn Ap. 61-65)

652 653

Gatz 1967, 229. Williams 1974, 39.

Eclogue 4

207

Moreover, it is also similar to the Callimachean Hymn to Delos, where the island of Asteria (Delos) rejoices at Apollo’s birth by being transformed into an entirely golden place:654 crÚse£ toi tÒte p£nta qemeflia gefneto DÁle, crusù d੻ trocÒessa pan›meroj }rree lfmnh, crÚseion d' œkÒmhse gen{qlion }rnoj œlafhj, crusù d੻ pl›mure baqÝj 'InwpÕj Œlicqefj. aÙt¾ d੻ crus{oio ¢p' oÜdeoj egleo palda, œn d' œb£leu kÒlpoisin, }poj d' œfq{gxao tolon· 'ð meg£lh, polÚbwme, polÚptoli, poll¦ f{rousa, pfonej ½peirof te kai aj perinafete nÁsoi, aÛth œgë toi›de· dus›rotoj, ¢ll' ¢p' œmelo D›lioj 'ApÒllwn kekl›setai, oÙd{ tij ¥llh gai£wn tossÒnde qeù pefil›setai ¥llJ, oÙ Kercnij krefonti Poseid£wni LecafJ, oÙ p£goj `ErmefV Kull›nioj, oÙ Dii Kr›th, æj œgë 'ApÒllwni· kai }ssomai oÙk{ti plagkt›. 'ïde sÝ m੻n kat{lexaj· Ð d੻ glukÝn }spase mazÒn (Hymn 4.260-274)

Finally, it is also analogous to Idyll 17, where the island of Cos rejoices when Ptolemy is born:655 KÒwj d' ÑlÒluxen edolsa, f© d੻ kaqaptom{na br{feoj cefressi fflVsin· Ôlbie koàre g{noio, tfoij d{ me tÒsson Óson per DÁlon œtfmhsen kuan£mpuka Folboj 'ApÒllwn (Id. 17.64-67) 654 655

Williams 1974, 39-40. See also Papanghelis 1995, 288-289. Williams 1974, 39.

Chapter 5

208

The Vergilian verses under consideration could recall these Greek sources. However, Vergil’s relationship with these sources is only based on two common elements: a child is delivered in each of them, and special emphasis is also laid in each on the extraordinary transformation that the birthplace experiences due to the childbirth. In other words, the Vergilian puer is a human child whose delivery will guarantee peace and prosperity (Ptolemy) while also having a certain divine substance (Apollo). What is more, the newborn child receives flowers (hedera, baccare and colocasia), which call to mind Corydon’s literary garland to Alexis (Ecl. 2.45-55)656 and, most significantly, Thyrsis’ poetic wreath:657 Pastores, hedera crescentem ornate poetam, Arcades, inuidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro; aut, si ultra placitum laudarit, baccare frontem cingite, ne uati noceat mala lingua futuro (Ecl. 7.25-28)

In view of that, the newborn child is also associated closely with music and poetry.658 Therefore, the mysterious newborn child shares human, divine and literary features, which emphatically enhances the Eclogue’s encomiastic character and tone. [Line 21]

The earth’s bounty continues in the next verses, where Vergil

describes the goats returning home of their own accord, thereby rendering the herdsman’s job unnecessary:

656

Cf. also Ecl. 2.45 huc ades, o formose puer with Ecl. 4.18 at tibi prima, puer and Ecl. 2.56 munera with Ecl. 4.18 munuscula. 657 Coleman 1977, 136, Clausen 1994, 130 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 257. 658 Berg 1974, 169.

Eclogue 4

209

ipsae lacte domum referent distenta capellae ubera (Ecl. 4.21)

The same subject can be traced in the Theocritean collection and especially in Idyll 11, where Polyphemus’ flocks return home without his assistance:659 poll£ki tai Ôiej poti twÜlion aÙtai ¢pÁnqon clwr©j œk bot£naj (Id. 11.12-13)

This relationship can also be reinforced by the characteristic verbal correspondence ipsae-aÙtai. However, Theocritus relates the voluntary return of the animals to Polyphemus’ love for Galateia, since lovesickness is the typical reason for abandoning one’s usual jobs. In contrast, Vergil refers to the Golden Age when the animals returned home by themselves, given that people no longer needed to work due to the natural bounty that is expressed with the phrase lacte distenta ubera, which is not found in the Theocritean original. However, a very similar phrase can be found in Lucretius:660 hinc fessae pecudes pinguis per pabula laeta corpora deponunt et candens lacteus umor uberibus manat distentis (DRN 1.257-259)661

659

Clausen 1994, 130 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 257-258. Coleman 1977, 137 and Clausen 1994, 149-150. 661 See also Hor. Epod. 16.49-50 illic iniussae ueniunt ad mulctra capellae/ refertque tenta grex amicus ubera where these two details are brought together. 660

Chapter 5

210

These Vergilian and Lucretian verses stress the goats’ bursting udders (lacte distenta ubera-lacteus uberibus distentis), which is designed to show nature’s bounty. Nevertheless, the Lucretian bounty is the result of the rain which brings about the natural renewal and therefore is the nutritious means for the growth of the animals. On the contrary, the Vergilian bounty constitutes a miraculous event, which is provided by the coming of the Golden Age with which the birth of the mysterious child coincides. This can emphatically display the Vergilian tendency to cancel the scientific explanation that is given in the De Rerum Natura and to recall its language rather than its subject.662 In other words, the Vergilian image with the goats returning home is based on the combination between the Greek (Theocritean) and Roman (Lucretian) sources; however, the elements drawn from these sources are modified in order to be consistent with the Golden Age subject. [Line 22]

This suggestion is also strengthened by the next verse, which

contains another aspect consistent with the absence of toil (nec magnos metuent armenta leones Ecl. 4.22). Once again, the herdsman will no longer be required to guard the flock.663 The flock’s lack of fear can suggest the nonexistence of lions and wild animals in general (occidet et serpens Ecl. 4.24),664 which is also related to another feature of the Golden Age subject, according to which primitive people were vegetarians.665 There is only one analogous case in the earlier tradition that employs this

662

Giesecke 2000, 56-57. See also Hor. Epod. 16.33 credula nec rauos timeant armenta leones, which is concerned with the peace between natural enemies which has long been considered as a typical adynaton and a subject whose eminence in the Vergilian collection has already been noticed (cf. Buchheit 1986b, 143-167). 664 Cf. also Ecl. 5.60-61 nec lupus insidias pecori, nec retia ceruis/ ulla dolum meditantur. 665 Williams 1974, 36 with n. 33. See also Gera 2003, 60. 663

Eclogue 4

211

subject, which moves one step further by arguing that the animals were also vegetarians. Plato’s Politicus constitutes a philosophical dialogue which, among other subjects, analyses the Cyclic Ages subject, beginning from the Golden Age:666 kai d¾ kai t¦ zùa kat¦ g{nh kai ¢g{laj oƒon nomÁj qeloi dieil›fesan dafmonej, aÙt£rkhj eej p£nta Ÿkastoj Œk£stoij ín oƒj aÙtÕj }nemen, éste oÜt' ¥grion Ãn oÙd੻n oÜte ¢ll›lwn œdwdaf, pÒlemÒj te oÙk œnÁn oÙd੻ st£sij tÕ par£pan (Pltc. 271d6-e2)

It is clear that there is no certain thematic or verbal similarity between these passages and Vergil’s relationship with Plato is therefore only based on this common element. Human vegetarianism constitutes an innovative feature of the Golden Age subject and is also unequivocally absent from earlier versions of this subject before Plato’s. In other words, the unconventional way in which the Platonic dialogue is handled here can once again reflect that the Vergilian intention is to generate an original Golden Age version. [Line 23]

Vergil’s Golden Age is enriched with two more novel features in

the next three lines. The first one is concerned with the child’s cradle: ipsa tibi blandos fundent cunabula flores (Ecl. 4.23)667

666

Williams 1974, 36-37. See also Dillon 1992, 29-30. The transposition of line 23 after 20 in order to create four verses which are directed at the child and are then followed by four dealing with the Golden Age subject has long been suggested and objected. On a brief reference to this issue, see Clausen 1994, 135 with further bibliography.

667

Chapter 5

212

The blooming cradle is not without parallel in the earlier Greek tradition. Euripides employs a very similar subject when referring to Dionysus’ birth when curly ivy blooms created a floral garland around the baby:668 BrÒmion }nqa t{keto m£thr DiÕj g£moisi, kissÕj Ön peristef¾j Ÿlikoj eÙqÝj }ti br{foj clohfÒroisin }rnesin kataskfoisin Ñlbfsaj œnètisen (Phoen. 649-654)

Furthermore, the Callimachean Hymn to Delos provides an even stronger parallel, given that here the Delian olive tree puts forth golden foliage upon Apollo’s birth:669 crÚseion d' œkÒmhse gen{qlion }rnoj œlafhj (Call. Hymn 4.262)

Nonetheless, Vergil’s relationship with these sources is neither thematic nor verbal. On the contrary, the abovementioned Vergilian, Euripidean and Callimachean lines have only one common element, which is nature flourishing at the birth of a child. However, Euripides and Callimachus refer to a god’s birth (Apollo and Dionysus) in emphatic contrast to Vergil, who deals with the mysterious newborn human child. What is more, the flowering is not connected to nature but to the child’s cradle. As a result, it becomes evident that Vergil stresses that the earth’s renewal is

668 669

Clausen 1994, 135. Clausen 1994, 135.

Eclogue 4

213

first supplied by the child, from whom it spreads out into the entire natural environment, thereby laying special emphasis on the divine substance of the mysterious child. [Lines 24-25]

Moreover, nature’s blooming is related to the death of the snakes

and poisonous plants:670 occidet et serpens, et fallax herba ueneni occidet; Assyrium uulgo nascetur amomum (Ecl. 4.24-25)

This is the second innovative feature that is identified in the Vergilian Golden Age, recalling the reference to the wild animals that are also absent at this time (Ecl. 4.22). What is more, the fact that the serpents are absent from the Golden Age calls to mind Nicander, who argues that the reptiles sprang from the Titans’ blood in the Silver Age:671 'All' ½toi kakoerg¦ fal£ggia, sÝn kai ¢nigroÚj Œrphst¦j }ci£j te kai ¥cqea murfa gafhj Tit›nwn œn{pousin ¢f' agmatoj, ee œteÒn per 'Askraloj muc£toio Meliss›entoj œp' Ôcqaij `Hsfodoj kat{lexe par' Ûdasi Permhssolo (Ther. 8-12)

It is clear that Vergil’s relationship with Nicander is not based on any thematic or verbal similarity but on the common element that deals with

670

See also Hor. Epod. 16.52 nec intumescit alta uiperis humus. Cf. See also Hes. Theog. 881-885 aÙt¦r œpef ૧a pÒnon m£karej qeoi œxet{lessan,/ Tit›nessi d੻ tim£wn krfnanto bfhfi,/ d› ૧a tÒt' êtrunon basileu{men ºd੻ ¢n£ssein/ Gafhj fradmosÚnVsin 'OlÚmpion eÙrÚopa ZÁn/ ¢qan£twn.

671

Chapter 5

214

the absence of snakes. The death of the snakes and poisonous plants constitutes innovative characteristics, which have never been detected in earlier descriptions of the Golden Age subject. Hence, they are here used to stress the novel character of the Vergilian Golden Age. On the other hand, they are also traditional country hazards672 used to stress the idyllic country life that the child’s birth guarantees (Assyrium uulgo nascetur amomum). [Lines 26-30]

The earth’s natural bounty continues even when the mysterious

child becomes a youth: At simul heroum laudes et facta parentis iam legere et quae sit poteris cognoscere uirtus, molli paulatim flauescet campus arista incultisque rubens pendebit sentibus uua et durae quercus sudabunt roscida mella (Ecl. 4.26-30)

The terms laudes, facta and uirtus are very closely associated with the language used in aretalogical poetry,673 which recounts the deeds of a god or a single hero through a third person authorial voice in a linear narrative.674 The laudandus is usually heroised while actions and virtues are extolled, and hence Eclogue 4 and its encomiastic character accord well with this genre, although Vergil does not recall any specific aretalogy. Furthermore, the next three verses are all end-stopped and have 672 Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 3.93 frigidus, o pueri fugite hinc!, latet anguis in herba, 8.71 frigidus in pratis cantando rumpitur anguis; G. 1.129 ille malum uirus serpentibus addidit atris, 2.151-54 at rabidae tigres absunt et saeua leonum/ semina, nec miseros fallunt aconita legentis,/ nec rapit immensos orbis per humum neque tanto/ squameus in spiram tractu se colligit anguis. 673 Clausen 1994, 136. 674 Lipka 2018, 209.

Eclogue 4

215

a molossus and a verb after the main caesura,675 and thus may recall the Catullan style that is most characteristically identified in Peleus’ and Thetis’ story (Cat. 64),676 thereby confirming the unconventional way the earlier tradition is here used since Vergil’s relationship with aretalogical poetry and Catullus is not based on any certain thematic or verbal source: non humilis curuis purgatur uinea rastris non glebam prono conuellit uomere taurus, non falx attenuat frondatorum arboris umbram (Cat. 64.39-41)

[Lines 31-36]

However, Vergil’s relationship with Catullus is more than merely

structural. The following verses deal with the gradual approach of the Golden Age, whose coming is closely associated with the vanishing of traces of the corrupted past: pauca tamen suberunt priscae uestigia fraudis, quae temptare Thetim ratibus, quae cingere muris oppida, quae iubeant telluri infindere sulcos (Ecl. 4.31-33)

These are typical features of the Iron Age, in which seafaring was the main reason for expeditions and military conflicts;677 building walls implies war since it is a defensive means of protection from external enemies and 675

On this structural formula, which is also known by the term “Golden Line”, see Wilkinson 1963, 215-217. 676 Clausen 1994, 136. See also Cat. 64.62-64 prospicit et magnis curarum fluctuat undis,/ non flauo retinens subtilem uertice mitram,/ non contecta leui uelatum pectus amictu. 677 Cf. Hes. Op. 686-87 cr›mata g¦r yuc¾ p{letai deilolsi brotolsin./ deinÕn d' œsti qaneln met¦ kÚmasin.

216

Chapter 5

ploughing implies violence, given that it has long been described as an act of violence towards the earth.678 The same features can also be identified in the next three verses through certain mythological exempla:679 alter erit tum Tiphys et altera quae uehat Argo delectos heroas; erunt etiam altera bella atque iterum ad Troiam magnus mittetur Achilles (Ecl. 4.34-36)

The above mythological references are also found in Catullus 64, which begins with the Argo (Cat. 64.1-21) and concludes with Achilles (Cat. 64.338-370),680 suggesting the order of the mythical characters referred to in the Vergilian verses. But there are more substantial analogies between those Vergilian and Catullan verses. The invention of sailing motivated by greed for gain has long been considered as an old and typical theme that emphatically signals the decline of the Golden Age.681 The association of this subject with the Argo occurs in Catullus 64, where the Argo’s sailing is an action of arrogance (illa rudem cursu prima imbuit Amphitriten Cat. 64.11), further reinforced by the delectos heroas that is similar to the cum lecti iuuenes.682 Furthermore, the Vergilian and Catullan verses metonymically employ the name of a Nereid (Thetin-Amphitriten), which 678

Cf. Ecl. 4.40-41 non rastros patietur humus, non uinea falcem;/ robustus quoque iam tauris iuga soluet arator. 679 On these mythological exempla, see Paraskeviotis 2014c, 420-422. 680 Coleman 1977, 139-140, Clausen 1994, 138 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 265-266. 681 Cf. Hes. Op. 236-37 oÙd' œpi nhîn/ nfsontai, karpÕn d੻ f{rei zefdwroj ¥roura; Arat. Phaen. 110-111 calep¾ d' ¢p{keito q£lassa,/ kai bfon oÜpw nÁej ¢pÒproqen ºgfneskon; Tib. 1.3.37-38 Nondum caeruleas pinus contempserat undas,/ effusum ventis praebueratque sinum; Hor. Epod. 16.57-60 non huc Argoo contendit remige pinus/ neque inpudica Colchis intulit pedem;/ non huc Sidonii torserunt cornua nautae,/ laboriosa nec cohors Ulixei. 682 Williams 1974, 37 with n. 44 and 144.

Eclogue 4

217

is obviously used in order to denote the sea. However, Amphitrite is replaced with Thetis, which can confirm the relationship between Catullus and Vergil,683 since Thetis is a main character in the Catullan epyllion (tum Thetidis Peleus incensus fertur amore Cat. 64.19).684 Nevertheless, Vergil’s relationship with Catullus 64 is exclusively based on these mythological references, which are used to symbolise the traces of the Iron Age. Furthermore, Catullus 64 constitutes a negative composition, whose pessimistic tone is stressed in its conclusion on human degeneracy (Cat. 64.382-408). On the other hand, Vergil describes in a very optimistic way how the Iron Age traces will vanish through the coming of the Golden Age, which the child’s birth heralds. [Lines 37-39]

Vergil’s relationship with Catullus 64 can be seen more

emphatically in the final section on the Vergilian Golden Age where the child becomes a mature man: hinc, ubi iam firmata uirum te fecerit aetas, cedet et ipse mari uector, nec nautica pinus mutabit merces; omnis feret omnia tellus (Ecl. 4.37-39)

Pinus has long been considered as the typical metonymy for the Argo685 drawn from the Catullan epyllion (pinus 64.1),686 since the Argo was the 683

Moya de Baño 1996, 135-137. Special emphasis should also be laid on the ending -in suggesting Vergil’s dependence on some Greek source which, in all probability, is Lycophron’s Alexandra where the same metonymy also occurs (Lyc. Alex. 22f. ad d੻ parqenoktÒnon Q{tin/ eoulÒpezoi qelnon eÙîpej sp£qaij). See Clausen 1994, 136 and 140. 685 Cf. Eur. Med. 4 tmhqelsa peÚkh; Ov. Am. 2.11.2 peliaco pinus uertice; Sta. Theb. 5.336-37 Pelias intacti late subit hospita ponti/ pinus. 686 Coleman 1977, 142, Clausen 1994, 139 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 266-267. 684

Chapter 5

218

first ship to violate nature’s boundaries, resulting in the development of seafaring due to greed for gain. Nonetheless, Vergil’s indebtedness to Catullus 64 is concerned with the metonymy of ship for sea. Moreover, the Catullan pinus denotes the ship (Argo), which is to carry a band of select heroes in the heroic quest for the Golden Fleece (Cat. 64.1-7). On the contrary, the Vergilian pinus suggests sea commerce (nautica pinus Ecl. 4.38), thereby referring to the ship used by merchants for gaining profit (Ecl. 4.38-39). In other words, Vergil deflates the heroic overtones of the Catullan pinus, laying special emphasis on the least respected form of seafaring (commerce), which the mysterious child and the Golden Age that it heralds will put an end to. [Lines 40-41]

This suggestion can be strengthened by the next two verses,

where it becomes evident that human labour will also be unnecessary: non rastros patietur humus, non uinea falcem; robustus quoque iam tauris iuga soluet arator (Ecl. 4.40-41)

These Vergilian lines call to mind Catullus, who narrates that the Thessalian people abandoned their usual country jobs on Peleus’ and Thetis’ wedding day:687 Pharsalum coeunt, Pharsalia tecta frequentant rura colit nemo, mollescunt colla iuuencis, non humilis curuis purgatur uinea rastris, non falx attenuat frondatorum arboris umbram, non glebam prono conuellit uomere taurus, squalida desertis robigo infertur aratris (Cat. 64.38-42) 687

Coleman 1977, 142-143 and Clausen 1994, 139.

Eclogue 4

219

Vergil’s dependence on Catullus is only based on the fact that they are concerned with the same subject (the lack of human labour) and is further reinforced by certain verbal correspondences (rastros-rastris, falcem-falx, uinea-uinea and tauris-taurus). However, Catullus narrates that the lack of human labour is caused by Peleus’ and Thetis’ wedding and deals only with the Thessalian people who leave their jobs for this event. On the contrary, Vergil connects the lack of human labour to the mysterious child whose birth brings the Golden Age, which will be enjoyed universally and last forever. In other words, the Vergilian intention is not to focus on the Catullan subject but on the language used in order to create a typical Golden Age characteristic. Nonetheless, the Vergilian Golden Age also seems to be similar to Lucretius’ account of the primitive man:688 nec robustus erat curui moderator aratri quisquam, nec scibat ferro molirier arua nec noua defodere in terram uirgulta neque altis arboribus ueteres decidere falcibus ramos (DRN 5.933-936)

Certain verbal correspondences can confirm this analogy of Vergil to Lucretius. The Vergilian sentence robustus quoque iam tauris iuga soluet arator can correspond to the Lucretian nec robustus erat curui moderator aratri. Once again, however, the Vergilian and the Lucretian contexts are not the same, thereby reaffirming that the Vergilian intention is to cancel the Lucretian scientific explanation. Lucretius lays special emphasis on the absence of country work not because it is unnecessary, but because the 688

Coleman 1977, 142, Clausen 1994, 139 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 267.

Chapter 5

220

agricultural art had not yet been invented by people. Moreover, the earth’s natural bounty is not based on some human benefactor (child), but on the sun and rain (quod sol atque imbres dederant, quod terra crearat/ sponte sua). Furthermore, Vergil reverses the Lucretian subject that modern humanity is incapable of recapturing the early people’s qualities, replacing it with the view that the Golden Age, whose living conditions call to mind those of the early men, is about to return. Hence, the abovementioned Vergilian verses combine Catullan and Lucretian language, but they also oddly combine Catullus’ mythological and Lucretius’ rationalising explanations of the Golden Age subject. [Lines 42-45]

The natural bounty that the Golden Age guarantees is also

associated with sheep and especially with their wool, which is a traditional country product: nec uarios discet mentiri lana colores, ipse sed in pratis aries iam suaue rubenti murice, iam croceo mutabit uellera luto; sponte sua sandyx pascentis uestiet agnos (Ecl. 4.42-45)

Scholars focus on the coloured ram, describing this strange feature in terms ranging from extravagant and surprising to even humorous.689 However, the coloured ram is not without an analogy in the earlier tradition, because it is found in the Etruscan libri where a sheep with unusual colour constitutes a prosperous omen:690

689

Leach 1971, 178, Williams 1974, 38, Segal 1977, 158-163 and Thornton 1988, 226-228. 690 Coleman 1977, 143. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 267-268.

Eclogue 4

221

Traditur autem in libro Etruscorum, si hoc animal insolito colore fuerit inductum, portendi imperatori rerum omnium felicitatem (Saturn. 3.7.2)691

This suggestion can also be reinforced by the subsequent lines in Macrobius, where the ram’s coloured fleece is also described: Est super hoc liber Tarquitii transcriptus ex Ostentario Tusco. Ibi reperitur: Purpureo aureoue colore ouis ariesue si aspergetur, principi ordinis et generis summa cum felicitate largitatem auget, genus progeniem propagat in claritate laetioremque efficit (Saturn. 3.7.2)692

The multi-coloured sheep grazing on the fields is a striking example of how the earth’s spontaneity (sponte sua) effectively renders human intervention unnecessary. The bounty is such that even the complex wooldyeing practice will be taken care of. This is an innovative feature in the Vergilian Golden Age, which reaches its climax with the coloured ram, which is very analogous to the sheep in the Etruscan tradition. It is clear that there is a thematic or verbal relationship between these passages. Nonetheless, the Etruscan libri underline the Golden Age’s originality,

691

Cf. also Serv. Ecl. 4.43 traditur enim in libris Etruscorum, si hoc animal miro et insolito colore fuerit infectum, omnium rerum felicitatem imperatori portendi. 692 Cf. also Tarquitius fr. 1.1-4.

Chapter 5

222

thereby enriching this mythological subject with a traditionally Italian element.693 [Lines 46-47]

The coloured ram ends the third section that is related to the

forthcoming Golden Age for which the Fates are longing: “Talia saecla” suis dixerunt “currite” fusis concordes stabili fatorum numine Parcae (Ecl. 4.46-47)694

These lines recall Cat. 64.323-381695 and especially the recurring refrain of the ill-omened wedding song for Peleus and Thetis, repeated in each deadly achievement of the couple’s future child (currite ducentes subtegmina, currite, fusi Cat. 64.327 et al.). Vergil and Catullus express the request and expectation for the coming of something new (saecla  fata),696 which is also related to the arrival of a child (puer-Achilles). This relationship is further enhanced by the verbal correspondences curritecurrite and fusis-fusi. However, Vergil’s dependence on Catullus is only based on their common language. What is more, Catullus describes the Fates foretelling Achilles’ murderous future, while in Vergil they urge the advent of the idealised and peaceful Golden Age.697 Therefore, Vergil

693

On the Etruscan influence on the Roman literature, see Macfarlane 1996, 241265 and Maxwell 1996, 267-285. 694 The case of the phrase talia saecla (accusative or vocative) has been considered as a disputed matter ever since antiquity. See Clausen 1994, 140-141 with further bibliography. 695 Coleman 1977, 143-144, Clausen 1994, 140-141 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 269270. 696 It should be mentioned that on its first occurrence the refrain is closely associated with the earlier lines, which results in the following construction currite fusi ducentes subtegmina quae fata sequuntur. 697 The term talis is frequently used in Roman poetry to recapitulate or to sum up a section coming from a literary composition. See Fraenkel 1962, 261.

Eclogue 4

223

changes the gloomy tone that runs through the Catullan prophesy and is associated with the child Achilles to create a joyful prophecy which confidently foretells the coming of the Golden Age and is related to the mysterious puer. [Lines 48-52]

Vergil shares the Fates’ longing for the Golden Age, calling on

the child whose arrival is heralded by the universe, while nature’s response is extended over its constituent elements: adgredere o magnos aderit iam tempus honores, cara deum suboles, magnum Iouis incrementum! aspice conuexo nutantem pondere mundum, terrasque tractusque maris caelumque profundum; aspice, uenturo laetentur ut omnia saeclo! (Ecl. 4.48-52)

These lines are very analogous to the conventional reaction of the natural environment to the epiphany of a god, calling to mind the Callimachean Hymn to Apollo and especially its introduction:698 Oƒon Ð tçpÒllwnoj œsefsato d£fninoj Órphx, oƒa d' Ólon tÕ m{laqron· Œk¦j Œk¦j Óstij ¢litrÒj. kai d› pou t¦ qÚretra kalù podi Folboj ¢r£ssei· oÙc Ðr£vj; œp{neusen Ð D›lioj ¹dÚ ti folnix œxapfnhj, Ð d੻ kÚknoj œn º{ri kalÕn ¢efdei. aÙtoi nàn katocÁej ¢naklfnasqe pul£wn, aÙtai d੻ klhldej· Ð g¦r qeÕj oÙk{ti makr›n· od d੻ n{oi molp›n te kai œj corÕn œntÚnasqe (Hymn 2.1-8)

698

Williams 1974, 41.

Chapter 5

224

Apollo’s appearance is closely related to the trembling motif (œsefsato, oƒa and œp{neusen), which in that sense is very analogous to the Vergilian nutantem. Once again, there is no thematic or verbal relationship between Vergil and Callimachus. The Callimachean hymn exploits nature’s reaction to Apollo’s miraculous coming, which is emphatically analogous to the abovementioned Vergilian verses that invest the newborn child with similar epiphany features, thereby reinforcing its divine status. However, the Callimachean natural rejoicing is temporary and is based only on Apollo’s epiphany in strong contrast to Vergil, who deals with an everlasting rejoicing that coincides with the Golden Age, whose return is secured by the child’s birth. [Lines 53-59]

The life and deeds of the mysterious child constitute a great

subject for poetry, which is actually a future poetic composition that Vergil would write (Ecl. 4.53-54). The suggestion for such a literary objective is strongly reinforced by two mythological exempla that deal with Orpheus, Linus and Pan:699 o mihi tum longae maneat pars ultima uitae, spiritus et quantum sat erit tua dicere facta! non me carminibus uincet nec Thracius Orpheus nec Linus, huic mater quamuis atque huic pater adsit Orphei Calliopea, Lino formosus Apollo (Ecl. 4.53-57)

699

On these mythological exempla, see Paraskeviotis 2014c, 422-424.

Eclogue 4

225

There is no specific source from which these Vergilian verses could come. However, their structure is very analogous to the structural formula used by Theocritus in Idyll 16:700 Molsai m੻n qeai œntf, qeoÝj qeai ¢efdonti· ¥mmej d੻ brotoi ogde, brotoÝj brotoi ¢efdwmen (Id. 16.3-4)

These Vergilian and Theocritean verses contain certain patterned expressions and also have symmetrical verbal constructions which, however, do not deal with the same contexts: non me carminibus uincet nec Thracius Orpheus nec Linus, huic mater quamuis atque huic pater adsit Orphei Calliopea, Lino formosus Apollo

Molsai m੻n qeai œntf, qeoÝj qeai ¢efdonti· ¥mmej d੻ brotoi ogde, brotoÝj brotoi ¢efdwmen

This structural form is more evident and culminates in the two following verses,701 again recalling the Theocritean collection and especially Daphnis’ self-identification and Polyphemus’ expression of love for Galateia:702 Pan etiam, Arcadia mecum si iudice certet, Pan etiam Arcadia dicat se iudice uictum (Ecl. 4.58-59) 700

Williams 1974, 42. Williams 1974, 43. 702 Williams 1974, 43. 701

Chapter 5

226

D£fnij œgën Óde tÁnoj Ð t¦j bÒaj ïde nomeÚwn, D£fnij Ð tëj taÚrwj kai pÒrtiaj ïde potfsdwn (Id. 1.120-121) foitÍj d' aâq' oÛtwj Ókka glukÝj Ûpnoj }cV me, ohcV d' eÙqÝj eols' Ókka glukÝj Ûpnoj ¢nÍ me (Id. 11.22-23)703

It is more than obvious that Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is here based only on this structural formula, which is a typical feature in the Theocritean collection704 and which is equally employed in pastoral (Id. 1 and 11) and non-pastoral (Id. 16) poems. In other words, the above Vergilian verses can demonstrate the pastoral and non-pastoral elements which are brought together in Eclogue 4. [Lines 60-61]

Vergil concludes the Eclogue with the hope that the child’s birth

is coming soon, requesting also that the child recognise his mother with a smile: Incipe, parue puer, risu cognoscere matrem matri longa decem tulerunt fastidia menses (Ecl. 4.60-61)

It has already been suggested that these Vergilian verses call to mind Catullus 61 and especially its concluding section, where Torquatus is called to smile to his father:705

703 See also Ecl. 6.29-30 nec tantum Phoebo gaudet Parnasia rupes,/ nec tantum Rhodope miratur et Ismarus Orphea. 704 Dover 2000, xlv-l. 705 Smith 1930, 141-143, Westendorp Boerma 1958, 56, Putnam 1970, 163 and Hubbard 1998, 83.

Eclogue 4

227

Torquatus uolo paruulus matris e gremio suae porrigens teneras manus dulce rideat ad patrem semihiante labello (Cat. 61.216-220)

Both Vergil and Catullus utter the same wish, namely for the child to smile to its parent, but this is the only common element between these Vergilian and Catullan verses. However, Torquatus’ father (patrem) is replaced with the child’s mother (matrem). This is a striking change that can easily be explained by the following reference, where the child should utter its gratitude to the mother for the long gestation period. What is more, Torquatus’ smile is a common physical feature between father and son, which also confirms Manlius Torquatus’ paternity: sit suo similis patri Manlio, ut facie omnibus noscitetur ab insciis et pudicitiam suae matris indicet ore (Cat. 61.221-225)

On the other hand, the puer’s smile is considered as the necessary requirement for its acceptance by the pantheon (incipe, parue puer: qui non risere parenti,/ nec deus hunc mensa, dea nec dignata cubili est Ecl. 4.62-63), thereby laying special emphasis on the child’s divine substance. But this common element between the Vergilian and Catullan verses cannot explain the mother’s long gestation period (matri longa

228

Chapter 5

decem tulerunt fastidia menses). Hence, the most obvious analogy in the earlier tradition can be found in the Callimachean Hymn to Delos:706

eੇpe d' ¢lusqen{ousa· tf mht{ra, koàre, barÚneij; aÛth toi, ffle, nÁsoj œpiplèousa qal£ssV. gefneo, gefneo, koàre, kai ½pioj }xiqi kÒlpou (Hymn 4.212-214)

Vergil’s longing for the birth of the mysterious child, which is emphatically indicated by the recurring request incipe, parue puer (Ecl. 4.60 and 62), is similar to Leto’s reaction, which is also evidenced by the gefneo, gefneo, koàre (Hymn 4.214).707 Moreover, Vergil and Leto, either implicitly or explicitly, identify the child as a burden because of the long gestation period (longa fastidia-tf

mht{ra, koàre, barÚneij).708

Nonetheless, Callimachus underlines the mother’s agony and weariness in strong contrast to Ecl. 4.60-61, where the same emotions are transferred to Vergil, who longs for the coming of the mysterious child and thus of the Golden Age. Nevertheless, the Vergilian structural construction also shows very close parallels to Idyll 24:709

706

Clausen 1994, 123. Cf. also Call. Hymn 4.116-117 ð œmÕn ¥cqoj,/ pol se f{rw; 708 It is worth mentioning that both Coleman 1977, 148 and Clausen 1994, 144 remark that the period of ten months was the typical length of a pregnancy in the ancient world, calculated in lunar months. Thus, at that stage of pregnancy, no literary intertext is needed for the mother’s desire to give birth. Vergil, however, draws on the Callimachean passage for Leto’s weariness caused by her ceaseless wanderings to find a proper place for childbirth, a weariness which intensifies her desire to give birth. Such a desire is reflected by the line under discussion, with the difference that the desire is here caused by Vergil’s longing for the coming of the Golden Age which the birth of the child secures. 709 Clausen 1994, 123. 707

Eclogue 4

229

Incipe, parue puer, risu cognoscere matrem matri longa decem tulerunt fastidia menses incipe, parue puer: qui non risere parenti, nec deus hunc mensa, dea nec dignata cubili est (Ecl. 4.60-63)

eÛdet', œm¦ br{fea, glukerÕn kai œg{rsimon Ûpnon· eÛdet', œm¦ yuc£, dÚ' ¢delfeof, eÜsoa t{kna (Id. 24.7-8)

Both Vergil and Theocritus employ the same structural formula, which is based on certain recurrent expressions (incipe, parue puer ... incipe, parue puer-eÛdet', œm¦ br{fea ... eÛdet', œm¦ br{fea), but the result is unequivocally not the same. Vergil longs for the coming of the mysterious child and therefore of the Golden Age in strong opposition to Theocritus, where Alcmene sings a lullaby to Heracles and Iphicles. [Lines 62-63]

Vergil’s strong longing for the child’s smile is justified by the

fact that this is the way for it to enter the pantheon: incipe, parue puer: qui non risere parenti, nec deus hunc mensa, dea nec dignata cubili est (Ecl. 4.62-63)

The only mortal who enjoyed such transcendent gratification was Heracles, whose acceptance in heaven is described in Idyll 17:710 tù kai œpei dafthqen hoi kekorhm{noj ½dh n{ktaroj eÙÒdmoio fflaj œj dîm' ¢lÒcoio, 710

Williams 1974, 44 with n. 66 and 145.

Chapter 5

230

tù m੻n tÒxon }dwken Øpwl{niÒn te far{tran, tù d੻ sid£reion skÚtalon kecaragm{non Ôzoij· oj d' eej ¢mbrÒsion q£lamon leukosfÚrou “Hbaj Ópla kai aÙtÕn ¥gousi genei›tan DiÕj udÒn (Id. 17.28-33)711

Both Vergil and Theocritus refer to the privilege that is enjoyed by a deified mortal for sharing the same table (mensa/dafthqen) and bed (cubili/dîm') as the gods; this is the only common element between these Vergilian and Theocritean verses. Moreover, Theocritus refers to Heracles in contrast to Vergil, who refers to the child, showing that there is yet another analogy between these characters. Heracles has long been described as the universal pacifier whose deeds have rid the world of several dangerous monsters, a feature with which the child has already been associated (pacatumque reget patriis uirtutibus orbem Ecl. 4.17).712 In other words, Vergil’s relation to Idyll 17 is not a way to find the child’s identity, but it constitutes a striking pointer towards the child’s beneficial role throughout the world. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Vergil’s dependence on the earlier tradition is

thorough and evident throughout Eclogue 4. The Greek and Roman sources identified here are various (Hesiod’s Works and Days, the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, Plato’s Politicus, Euripides’ Phoenissae, Aratus’ Phaenomena, Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo and Hymn to Delos,

711

Cf. also Hom. Od. 11.602-603 aÙtÕj d੻ met' ¢qan£toisi qeolsi/ t{rpetai œn qalfVj kai }cei kallfsfuron “Hbhn. 712 Here Call. Hymn 4.160-170 should also be mentioned, where Apollo heralds the birth of a child (Ptolemy), who will also rule in accordance with his father’s valour (Ptolemy I Soter) over East and West. These verses show very close parallels to the Eclogue, further reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence pacatumque reget patriis uirtutibus orbem-Ð d' ehsetai ½qea patrÒj.

Eclogue 4

231

Theocritus’ Idylls 1, 7, 11, 16, 17 and 24, Nicander’s Theriaca, Moschus’ Lament for Bion, the Etruscan tradition, Lucretius, and Catullus 61 and 64), confirming the Vergilian tendency to recall more than one source. However, the way in which these sources are used is unconventional in comparison to the rest of the Eclogues. More specifically, Vergil’s dependence on the Greek and Roman tradition is here without a doubt not based on any thematic or verbal relationship between text and intertext, but deals only with subjects, mythological references, structure, style, metre, language and mostly common elements between the Vergilian text and intertext. As a result, Eclogue 4 does not contain Vergilian quotations from the Greek and Roman tradition but only similarities and analogies, enabling Vergil to draw and conflate encomiastic features from various sources more easily in order to create a Roman pastoral encomium that is to be placed within a humble literary genre. Furthermore, they can lay emphasis on the mysterious child whose significance is not underlined only by its relationship to the Golden Age subject, but also by the many and various sources that are artfully combined, thereby supporting the suggestion that the puer should be read as a real child rather than in a symbolic sense. This is also evidenced by the Eclogue itself that constitutes a Roman pastoral encomium for the puer, which is emphatically absent from the Theocritean and post-Theocritean pastoral, thereby confirming that the Vergilian intention is to broaden the limits of the genre by introducing encomiastic compositions in the first Latin pastoral collection (cf. also Ecl. 10).

CHAPTER 6 ECLOGUE 5* Eclogue 5 begins with a typical dramatic encounter between the herdsmen Mopsus and Menalcas who become engaged in an unconventional singing competition.713 After a conversation to decide on the location and subject of the musical performance, Mopsus begins with a song whose subject refers to Daphnis’ death (Ecl. 5.20-44). This is a topic reflected by Menalcas’ song dealing with Daphnis’ apotheosis (Ecl. 5.5680).714 Modern scholarship has laid special emphasis on Theocritus who also employs the topic of Daphnis’ death, and therefore he is rightly considered as the main model. Coleman argues that Eclogue 5 is quite rich * Berg 1965, 11-23 argues that Eclogue 5 has been influenced by Greek tragedy and especially by Aeschylus’ Prometheus Vinctus. Schmidt 1968, 637-638 suggests that the Vergilian term paliurus (Ecl. 5.39) is based on the corresponding Greek p£liouroj which stems from Leonidas of Tarentum (Epigr. 18 Gow-Page = A.P. 7.656). Du Quesnay 1976-1977, 18-41 analyses Mopsus’ song (Ecl. 5.20-44) in comparison with Thyrsis’ dirge (Id. 1.64-145), claiming that Menalcas’ Daphnis may recall J. Caesar. Mizera 1982, 367-371 is concerned with the Lucretian elements identified in Menalcas’ song. Hubbard 1995-1996, 11-23 suggests that Ecl. 5.64 has been influenced by DRN 5.7-12. Hardie 2006, 276-300 thoroughly examines Lucretius’ influence on Vergil’s Eclogues. Scafoglio 2011, 247-263 argues that Daphnis’ apotheosis is related to Epicurus’ encomium which is employed in DRN 5.1-54. 713 Baumbach 2001, 108. Eclogue 5 takes the form of a modified song contest which includes the invitation to the competition (Ecl. 5.1-3) and the exchange of songs between the herdsmen (Ecl. 5.20-44 and 56-80) without, however, the amoebaean interchange of distiches or more verses, the presence of a referee and an arranged prize for the winner (cf. Ecl. 3). 714 The structural correspondences between Mospus’ and Menalcas’ songs are also noteworthy, given that each song consists of twenty-five verses which are divided in certain sections of 4-5-7-4-5 lines. See also Skutsch 1969, 157-158, Coleman 1977, 172 and Lee 1977, 65-66.

Eclogue 5

233

in quotations from earlier Greek pastoral poetry, suggesting Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus (Idylls 1 and 7), pseudo-Theocritus (Id. 8) and pseudo-Moschus (Lament for Bion).715 Clausen underlines Vergil’s indebtedness to Greek pastoral, specifying the Theocritean influence in Idylls 1, 5, 6 and 7.716 Cucchiarelli suggests that Vergil is based on the Theocritean collection (Id. 1, 6, 7, 8, and 9), stressing that Daphnis may recall J. Caesar.717 Nevertheless, Eclogue 5 combines Greek and Roman sources whose artful and subtle combination creates a Roman pastoral lament-encomium for the archetypical country singer Daphnis.718 [Lines 1-3]

The Eclogue begins with Menalcas’ invitation to Mopsus to sing: Cur non, Mopse, boni quoniam conuenimus ambo, tu calamos inflare leuis, ego dicere uersus, hic corylis mixtas inter consedimus ulmos? (Ecl. 5.1-3)

The term Mopse accords well with the Vergilian technique where the first line of each Eclogue contains a Greek name or a name associated with Greek pastoral poetry; Mopsus is a Greek pastoral name not found in the Theocritean collection.719 However, this suggestion cannot point to the

715

Coleman 1977, 171-174. Clausen 1994, 151-155. 717 Cucchiarelli 2012, 279-283. 718 See also Rosenmeyer 1969, 122, who observes that Eclogue 5 is concerned with lament (death) and encomium (resurrection) which, experienced within a larger setting, are almost the same. 719 Lipka 2001, 183 with n. 84. 716

Chapter 6

234

source from which this term could come, which in all probability is Apollonius Rhodius:720 ¤ma d{ sfisin egpeto MÒyoj 'Ampukfdhj, œsqlÕj m੻n œpiprofan{ntaj œnispeln oewnoÚj, œsqlÕj d੻ sÝn eâ fr£ssasqai eoàsin (Arg. 3.916-918)

Menalcas, on the other hand, is a standard Greek pastoral name (Men£lkaj).721 It recalls Idylls 8 and 9, where Menalcas and Daphnis are the herdsmen who are engaged in a friendly song exchange comparable to Eclogue 5. What is more, these Vergilian verses recall Idyll 8 and especially its beginning, because they share the same structural formula (verbal adjective + infinitive):722 ¥mfw tèg' ½sthn purrotrfcw, ¥mfw ¢n£bw, ¥mfw surfsden dedahm{nw, ¥mfw ¢efden (Id. 8.3-4)

This

suggestion

can

also

be

reinforced

by

certain

structural

correspondences between Vergil and pseudo-Theocritus (boni quoniam conuenimus ambo/ tu calamos inflare leuis, ego dicere uersus-¥mfw surfsden dedahm{nw, ¥mfw ¢efden).723 Nonetheless, the Theocritean Daphnis and Menalcas are equally skilled in music and song, in strong 720

Coleman 1977, 154, Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 95 and Clausen 1994, 155. See also Ap. Rh. Arg. 1.65-66 ”Hluqe d' aâ MÒyoj Titar›sioj, Ön peri p£ntwn/ LhtoǸdhj œdfdaxe qeopropfaj oewnîn. 721 Lipka 2001, 177 with n. 36. 722 Coleman 1977, 154, Clausen 1994, 155 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 284. 723 Cf. TLL s.v. bonus 2098.33-41. For this structural formula see also LeumannHofmann-Szantyr 1965, 350-351.

Eclogue 5

235

contrast to Mopsus who is an expert in piping, while Menalcas is an expert in singing.724 Such a contradiction between the herdsmen is also evidenced in the following verses, which are designed in order to replace the traditional abusive backchat (cf. Ecl. 3.1-65), which frequently comes before the amoebaean singing contests.725 This Vergilian alteration is also consistent with the general character of the Eclogue, which is not a typical song contest but only a song exchange between herdsmen. Moreover, Daphnis is no longer a rustic contestant but the archetypical pastoral hero, and Mopsus’ and Menalcas’ songs respectively deal with his death and apotheosis. Furthermore, the Theocritean country contestant is replaced by Mopsus (MÒyoj) whose name is related to the epic genre, which is in emphatic contrast to the pastoral genre. Nonetheless, Mopsus’ song constitutes a lament for the death of a (here pastoral) hero. In other words, Mopsus constitutes the most appropriate character to sing of Daphnis’ death and vice versa: Daphnis’ death constitutes the most suitable subject to be sung by Mopsus. Menalcas, on the other hand, is based on the Theocritean counterpart (Men£lkaj), but the Vergilian herdsman also sings of Daphnis’ apotheosis, which is not a conventional pastoral subject and contains several encomiastic elements. [Lines 3-7]

Menalcas’ invitation is not only for singing but also suggests the

location where the song exchange must take place (hic corylis mixtas inter consedimus ulmos? Ecl. 5.3). This verse recalls the singing place selected by Thyrsis and the goatherd in Idyll 1, which is also a shady location

724 Hubbard 1998, 197-198. See also Ecl. 7.4-5 ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo,/ et cantare pares et respondere parati, where however, Vergil is closely based on Id. 8.3-4 725 See also Id. 5.1-79, which emphatically exploit this exchange of jests and insults between the rustic contestants before the beginning of the singing match.

Chapter 6

236

(deàr' ØpÕ t¦n ptel{an Œsdèmeqa Id. 1.21).726 Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the idealised place for music and song, which is reinforced by the verbal correspondences consedimus-Œsdèmeqa and ulmos-ptel{an. Nonetheless, Mopsus rejects Menalcas’ suggestion, expressing in a polite way a preference for the cave: siue antro potius succedimus. aspice, ut antrum siluestris raris sparsit labrusca racemis (Ecl. 5.6-7)

This is a typical counter-suggestion which Menalcas eventually accepts before the beginning of the contest (sed tu desine plura, puer: successimus antro Ecl. 5.19). The idea of two suggested places for music-making, the second of which is selected given that it is considered as more attractive, also has its roots in Idyll 1:727 lÍj poti t©n Numf©n, lÍj, aepÒle, telde kaqfxaj, æj tÕ k£tantej toàto geèlofon ag te murlkai, surfsden; (Id. 1.12-14)

deàr' ØpÕ t¦n ptel{an Œsdèmeqa tî te Pri›pw kai t©n kranfdwn katenantfon, •per Ð qîkoj tÁnoj Ð poimenikÕj kai tai drÚej (Id. 1.21-23)

726

Coleman 1977, 155, Clausen 1994, 105 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 284-285. See also Id. 5.31-32 ¤dion sÍ/ teld' ØpÕ t¦n kÒtinon kai t¥lsea taàta kaqfxaj. 727 Clausen 1994, 155. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 285.

Eclogue 5

237

Here, the anonymous goatherd’s counter-suggestion is finally accepted by Thyrsis, given that it actually constitutes a more appropriate singing location for the herdsman, who is traditionally found seated at ease under a tree singing or piping (cf. Ecl. 1.1-5). On the other hand, Mopsus’ countersuggestion is emphatically unusual since, although the cave belongs to the pastoral background, it is not a typical place for singing.728 On the contrary, it is commonly connected with prophecy729 and therefore it could be very consistent with Mopsus, whose literary antecedent is the seer MÒyoj (Arg. 3.916ff.). What is more, its selection is based on the belief that grottoes and caverns constitute inspiration locations730 which are also associated with Dionysus, who shares the role of the god of poetry in Hellenistic and Roman literature with Apollo.731 Dionysus’ presence is implicitly evident in Mopsus’ account of the cave, which is described as being spread with certain Bacchic elements such as vines and wild grapeclusters (aspice, ut antrum/ siluestris raris sparsit labrusca racemis Ecl. 5.6-7). This inspirational place is characteristically consistent with Mopsus’ singing inferiority, thereby explaining why the younger herdsman rejects Menalcas’ suggestion and counter-suggests the cave.732

728 Hubbard 1998, 88. See Theoc. 19 G-P = A.P. 9.338 and 21 G-P = A.P. 9.433, where the cave is related to Pan’s epiphany, and Verg. Ecl. 6.13, where it is Silenus’ capture place. 729 Cf. G. 4.415-52, where Aristaeus’ meeting with the seer Proteus takes place in the residence of the latter, which is an underwater cave. 730 On the cave as a place of poetic inspiration, see Berg 1974, 116-118. See also Karakasis 2011, 155 with n. 8. 731 Kambylis 1965, 167-170 and Berg 1974, 124-125. 732 See also Karakasis 2011, who observes that the cave constitutes a location which is associated with the Nymphs (cf. Hunter 1999, 113) who constitute the basic inspiring divinities in the pastoral pantheon.

Chapter 6

238 [Lines 8-12]

Menalcas requests that Mopsus begins the song contest,

suggesting three different subjects, while Tityrus is left to watch over the grazing animals: Montibus in nostris solus tibi certat Amyntas. Quid, si idem certet Phoebum superare canendo? Incipe, Mopse, prior, si quos aut Phyllidis ignis aut Alconis habes laudes aut iurgia Codri incipe: pascentis seruabit Tityrus haedos (Ecl. 5.8-12)

These verses call to mind Idyll 3, where Tityrus is similarly described as engaged in the same country duty:733 Kwm£sdw poti t¦n 'Amarullfda, tai d{ moi aੇgej bÒskontai kat' Ôroj, kai Ð Tfturoj aÙt¦j œlaÚnei (Id. 3.1-2)

Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Theocritus indicates that Mopsus is a goatherd in strong contrast to Thyrsis, who is actually a shepherd (ð poim›n Id. 1.7). What is more, it lays special emphasis on the nature of those songs, which are musical interludes (otium) during everyday country life (negotium). However, the goatherd gives up the rustic jobs in order to go and serenade Amaryllis; Mopsus does likewise in order to engage in a friendly song exchange. Therefore, the typical reason (love) for the neglect of the usual (here country) jobs is emphatically replaced by Mopsus’ and 733

Coleman 1977, 156-157, Clausen 1994, 156 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 289-290. See also Id. 1.12-14 lÍj poti t©n Numf©n, lÍj, aepÒle, telde kaqfxaj,/ æj tÕ k£tantej toàto geèlofon ag te murlkai,/ surfsden; t¦j d' aੇgaj œgën œn tùde nomeusî.

Eclogue 5

239

Menalcas’ intentions for leisure and song. Most significantly, however, it anticipates that this friendly song exchange is of great importance (cf. also Quid facerem? neque ego Alcippen nec Phyllida habebam/ depulsos a lacte domi quae clauderet agnos; et certamen erat Corydon cum Thyrside, magnum Ecl. 7.14-16 where, however, Meliboeus abandons his country jobs for Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ song contest). [Lines 13-19]

This is first confirmed by Mopsus who rejects Menalcas’

suggested themes, which constitute typical subjects in Greco-Roman pastoral:734 Immo haec, in uiridi nuper quae cortice fagi carmina descripsi et modulans alterna notaui, experiar tu deinde iubeto ut certet Amyntas (Ecl. 5.13-15)

However, the annoyance caused by Menalcas’ failed compliment (Montibus in nostris solus tibi certat Amyntas Ecl. 5.8), which has already become evident (quid, si idem certet Phoebum superare canendo? Ecl. 5.9), still continues to irritate Mopsus. Menalcas realises that and tries to make up the fault through a complimentary simile: Lenta salix quantum pallenti cedit oliuae, puniceis humilis quantum saliunca rosetis, 734

Phyllis’ ignis, Alcon’s laudes and Codrus’ iurgia respectively correspond to love, encomium and quarrel, which constitute typical subjects in Greco-Roman pastoral. On love and encomium, see Coleman 1977, 156 and Clausen 1994, 156. See also Lipka 2001, 184-185 who notices that the phrase iurgia Codri, which is also used by Vergil elsewhere (Aen. 10.94-95 and 11.406-407), cannot signify a singing contest but are insulting words. In this light, iurgia Codri can in fact suggest the herdsmen’s bickering, which is traditionally placed before the beginning of country song contests (cf. Id. 5.1-79 and Ecl. 3.1-27).

Chapter 6

240

iudicio nostro tantum tibi cedit Amyntas Sed tu desine plura, puer; successimus antro (Ecl. 5.16-19)

The structural formula of these verses recalls Idyll 5, where Comatas and Lacon criticise each other through several analogies drawn from the natural environment:735 ¢ll' oÙ sumbl›t' œsti kunÒsbatoj oÙd' ¢nemèna prÕj ૧Òda, tîn ¥ndhra par' admasialsi pefÚkei. oÙd੻ g¦r oÙd' ¢kÚloij Ñromalfdej· aj m੻n }conti leptÕn ¢pÕ prfnoio lepÚrion, aj d੻ melicraf (Id. 5.92-95)

Vergil’s and Theocritus’ relationship is based on the same structure that these Roman and Greek verses employ, containing several country analogies. Nevertheless, the Vergilian and Theocritean content and context are not the same. Theocritus’ analogies allusively refer to Comatas’ and Lacon’s erotic objects;736 in contrast, the Vergilian country examples are designed in order to right Menalcas’ deprecatory estimation concerning Mopsus’ musical capacity. Hence, the structural formula used for intensifying Comatas’ and Lacon’s verbal fight is reformed into a means for ending Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ temporary bickering,737 which

735

See also Id. 12.3-9. Cf. Id. 5.96-99 kºgë m੻n dwsî t´ parq{nJ aÙtfka f£ssan,/ œk t©j ¢rkeÚqw kaqelèn· thnei g¦r œffsdei./ ¢ll' œgë œj clalnan malakÕn pÒkon, ÐppÒka p{xw/ t¦n oੇn t¦n p{llan, Kratfdv dwr›somai aÙtÒj. See also Gow II 1952, 108. 737 Cf. Ecl. 5.19 sed tu desine plura, puer: successimus antro, where Mopsus forgets Menalcas’ insulting behaviour by moving into the arranged singing place (the cave). 736

Eclogue 5

241

constitutes a substantial requirement for the forthcoming friendly song exchange. [Lines 20-23]

Mopsus’ song is a lament for Daphnis and hence calls to mind

Idyll 1 and especially Thyrsis’ dirge (Id. 1.64-145), which is also concerned with Daphnis’ death.738 Nevertheless, Mopsus’ song constitutes a lament for a character who is already dead in contrast to Thyrsis’ dirge, which deals with the last moments of a dying character. This change is stressed by the term exstinctum with which Mopsus’ song begins, thereby displaying from its very beginning Vergil’s departure from Theocritus.739 What is more, a lament for a pastoral character is a typical subject in postTheocritean pastoral (Bion’s Lament for Adonis and [Moschus’] Lament for Bion).740 This is also evidenced by post-Theocritean pastoral elements identified in these verses. Mopsus’ lament begins with the Nymphs who first come to mourn the dead Daphnis, thereby recalling Bion’s Lament for Adonis:741 Exstinctum Nymphae crudeli funere Daphnin flebant uos coryli testes et flumina Nymphis, cum complexa sui corpus miserabile nati atque deos atque astra uocat crudelia mater (Ecl. 5.20-23)742 738

Coleman 1977, 158, Clausen 1994, 152 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 293-294. Coleman 1977, 158. 740 Karakasis 2011, 156. 741 Klingner 1967, 93 and Berg 1974, 124. See also Epit. Bion. 26-29: selo, Bfwn, }klause tacÝn mÒron aÙtÕj 'ApÒllwn,/ kai S£turoi mÚronto mel£gclainof te Prfhpoi·/ kai P©nej stonaceànto tÕ sÕn m{loj, ag te kaq' Ûlan/ Kranfdej çdÚranto, kai Ûdata d£krua g{nto· where, however, the Nymphs are not the first characters who come to lament for the dead. 742 These verses can also recall the Theocritean collection (Id. 1.66 p´ pok' ¥r' Ãsq', Óka D£fnij œt£keto, p´ poka, NÚmfai; and 1.141 tÕn Mofsaij fflon ¥ndra, tÕn oÙ NÚmfaisin ¢pecqÁ) and the epigrammatic tradition (Alc. Mess. 739

242

Chapter 6 tÁnon m੻n peri palda ffloi kÚnej çrÚontai kai NÚmfai klafousin 'Orei£dej (Epit. Adon. 18-19)

Vergil’s and Bion’s relationship has to do with the Nymphs’ lament for the dead, which is further reinforced by the verbal correspondences Nymphae-NÚmfai and flebant-klafousin. Nevertheless, Bion sets the Nymphs in the second place of the catalogue after the lamenting animals, in emphatic contrast to the above Vergilian verses where the same divinities are placed in the foremost position of the mourners’ list. This change can be justified by the fact that, since the dead character is the son of a Nymph,743 it is very natural for Daphnis’ mother to have the first place in the mourners’ list.744 Furthermore, the god who laments for a dead character (here the Nymphs’ mourning for Daphnis) is a traditional and 14.5 G-P = A.P. 7.412.5 Moàsai d' œklaÚsanto). However, the Theocritean Nymphs are not grieving, but are just absent from Daphnis’ final hour or are even expressing their sympathy for the dead, and Alcaeus’ Nymphs are not the first who come to mourn the dead. 743 Cf. Diod. Sic. 4.84 œn taÚtV d੻ tÍ cèrv sunagkefaj d{ndrwn oÜshj qeoprepoàj kai NÚmfaij ¥lsouj ¢neim{nou muqologoàsi gennhqÁnai tÕn ÑnomazÒmenon D£fnin, `Ermoà m੻n kai NÚmfhj udÒn; Ael. VH 10.18 D£fnin tÕn boukÒlon l{gousin oj m੻n œrèmenon `Ermoà, ¥lloi d੻ udÒn· tÕ d੻ Ônoma œk toà sumb£ntoj sceln. gen{sqai m੻n aÙtÕn œk NÚmfhj. 744 Here, it should be mentioned that the weeping mother receives special emphasis, because the natural environment and especially the trees and the rivers are emphatically called to witness the Nymphs’ lament and most significantly the mother’s complaint (Ecl. 5.21-23 uos coryli testes et flumina Nymphis,/ cum complexa sui corpus miserabile nati/ atque deos atque astra uocat crudelia mater). However, Berg 1965, 15-16 with n. 18 argues that Vergil’s source is Aeschylus’ Prometheus, where nature is invoked to witness the hero’s tragedy (Pr. 88-92 and 1091-1093) and not to lament the dead character (cf. Theoc. Id. 1, Bion Epit. Adon. and [Mosch.] Epit. Bion.). Indeed, this is a strong analogy, but Prometheus, in emphatic contrast to Daphnis, is alive and not dead. Furthermore, Rohde 1963, 51 and Schmidt 1972b, 204-205 claim that Vergil may recall Calliope’s lament for the dead Orpheus (Antip. Sid. 10.5-6 G-P = A.P. 7.8.5-6) and finally Hubbard 1998, 89-90 believes that the scene with the mater dolorosa contains certain epic overtones.

Eclogue 5

243

convenient encomiastic element used to stress the stature of and praise for the dead.745 What is more, the mater dolorosa subject746 (Ecl. 5.23-24) seems to be influenced by Bion’s Lament for Adonis, where Venus mourns while holding Adonis’ dead body:747 æj hden, æj œnÒhsen 'Adènidoj ¥sceton Ÿlkoj, æj hde fofnion aƒma marainom{nJ peri mhrù, p£ceaj ¢mpet£sasa kinÚreto, 'melnon ”Adwni, dÚspotme melnon ”Adwni, panÚstaton éj se kicefw, éj se periptÚxw kai ceflea ceflesi mfxw (Epit. Adon. 40-44)

On the other hand, the mater dolorosa subject is also closely associated with the terrible parental situation that constitutes a common subject in ancient epitaphs, thereby confirming that Mopsus’ Daphnis shares divine and human characteristics.748 [Lines 24-26]

Vergil’s close relationship with the post-Theocritean pastoral

tradition is confirmed by the next characters that are found in the mourning catalogue for Daphnis. Daphnis’ death is an event that has a great influence on the flora and fauna of nature. This subject (pathetic fallacy) is the most characteristic mourning element and has already been considered as a convention of post-Theocritean pastoral.749 Mopsus describes the bizarre behaviour of the animals that refuse to eat because of Daphnis’ death: 745

Esteve-Forriol 1962, 147 with examples. Hubbard 1998, 89. 747 Drew 1922, 57-59 and Leach 1974, 185. See also Karakasis 2011, 158. 748 Coleman 1977, 160. 749 On the pathetic fallacy in Greek and Roman pastoral, see Copley 1937, 194209, Dick 1968, 27-44, Rosenmeyer 1969, 248-250, Buller 1981, 35-52 and Reed 1997, 215. 746

244

Chapter 6 non ulli pastos illis egere diebus frigida, Daphni, boues ad flumina; nulla neque amnem libauit quadripes nec graminis attigit herbam (Ecl. 5.24-26)

The animals have a very similar reaction in pseudo-Moschus’ Lament for Bion,750 where they appear to abstain from pasturing because of Bion’s death:751 kai ad bÒej ad poti taÚroij plazÒmenai go£onti kai oÙk œq{lonti n{mesqai (Epit. Bion. 23-24)

Vergil’s dependence on the Lament for Bion is based on the same animal reaction. However, Vergil extends the same idea over the matter of drinking by describing the animals as expressing their grief by abstaining not only from food but also from water. This variation is far from accidental, since it is designed to intensify the pain of the fauna and therefore the importance of the dead person. The very same explanation can also be given for the term bÒej (“bulls”), which is replaced by the more general term quadripes (“four-legged animals”).752 However, quadripes in Latin hexameter poetry is often used to denote horses.753 On the other hand, the horse is one of the more noble beasts in ancient 750

Cf. also Theoc. Id. 4.12-14 tai dam£lai d' aÙtÕn mukèmenai agde poqeànti./ deflaiaf g' aátai, tÕn boukÒlon æj kakÕn eáron./ Ã m¦n deflaiaf ge, kai oÙk{ti lînti n{mesqai where, however, the reason for the reaction of the animals is that the master (Aegon) is absent not dead. 751 Coleman 1977, 160, Clausen 1994, 160 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 295. 752 OLD s.v. quadrupes 1 and 3 with examples. 753 OLD s.v. quadrupes 4a with examples. See also Verg. A. 3.542, 8.596, 10.892, 11.614, 714, 875 with the singular exception of 7.500, where the same term clearly denotes a deer.

Eclogue 5

245

poetry.754 As a result, it explains that, besides its allegorical755 or even epic overtones,756 the lamenting horses, or more generally the four-legged animals, constitute a Vergilian invention that is also used in order to reinforce the status and dignity of the dead Daphnis. [Line 27]

The tame animals, however, are not the only creatures in nature

that are influenced by the death of Daphnis (Daphni, tuum Poenos etiam ingemuisse leones Ecl. 5.27). The wild creatures are also described as grieving, recalling the Theocritean collection where the wild animals mourn for the dead Daphnis:757 tÁnon m¦n qîej, tÁnon lÚkoi çrÚsanto, tÁnon cçk drumolo l{wn }klause qanÒnta (Id. 1.71-72)

Vergil employs the same concept, omitting the jackals and wolves and leaving only the lions, which are no longer described as sylvan (drumolo), but Punic (Poenos). The Vergilian reference to the Punic lions could reflect the analogous Theocritean reference to Sicilian lions. Yet the Theocritean lions are imaginary because they have become extinct in Europe. On the contrary, the Vergilian lions are real and are placed in remote Africa. Hence, they are used to stress the universality of the tragic 754

BNP s.v. horse. Cf. Suet. Jul. 81.2 who relates that the horses, which were consecrated and released at the river Rubicon by Julius Caesar, refused to eat shortly before Caesar’s death and lamented. 756 The horse could hardly be described as a pastoral animal, because its occurrences in the Theocritean and Vergilian pastoral poetry are meagre (Id. 2.48f. and Ecl. 8.27). However, its origin is rather epic, since the picture of horses weeping for a dead person recalls the lament of Achilles’ horses for Patroclus (Hom. Il. 17.426-40) and the subsequent prophecy about Achilles’ death (Hom. Il. 19.404-17). 757 Coleman 1977, 160-161, Clausen 1994, 160-161 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 297. 755

Chapter 6

246

incident by implying that the grief and loss of Daphnis’ death are shared by all nature, even by the Punic lions. Therefore, Daphnis’ death is in fact lamented not just by a simple and unspecified lion but by the most remote wild animals in the natural environment, the Punic lions. [Lines 27-28]

Nonetheless, the Theocritean original is not the source from

which the subject that nature constitutes a witness to the mourning for Daphnis could come: Daphni, tuum Poenos etiam ingemuisse leones interitum montesque feri siluaeque loquuntur (Ecl. 5.27-28)

It has already been noticed that this subject could come from Prometheus Vinctus. On the other hand, it is much more likely to be based on a combination between Theocritus’ Idyll 7 and Bion’s Lament for Adonis:758 Ð d੻ Tfturoj œggÚqen sel éj poka t©j Xen{aj ºr£ssato D£fnij Ð boÚtaj, cçj Ôroj ¢mfeponelto kai æj drÚej aÙtÕn œqr›neun (Id. 7.72-74) êrea p£nta l{gonti, kai ad drÚej “ak tÕn ”Adwnin” (Epit. Adon. 32)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus and Bion is based on the fact that certain constituent elements of the landscape join in the lament for a dead character. This relationship is further reinforced by the following verbal correspondences: montes-Ôroj/êrea, siluae-drÚej and loquuntur-l{gonti. 758

Coleman 1977, 160-161 and Clausen 1994, 160-161.

Eclogue 5

247

Nevertheless, Theocritus and Bion deal with the mountains and the forests, which utter their own grief and sorrow for the dead characters (Daphnis and Adonis respectively). On the other hand, Vergil describes them witnessing the Punic lions’ groaning for Daphnis’ death by referring to the lamenting voices uttered by nature in one single line. Certain landscape features, which are witnesses to an event that happens in it, have already been considered by scholars as a conventional encomiastic topos.759 In addition, the praise of the dead is an eminent element of the traditional ritual lament.760 In other words, the combination of Theocritus and Bion is another mourning element that enhances the pastoral lament for Daphnis. The lamenting lions are the last characters in the mourners’ catalogue for Daphnis, giving way to the lament’s next section where the dead man is praised for his life’s deeds and achievements: Daphnis et Armenias curru subiungere tigris761 instituit, Daphnis thiasos inducere Bacchi et foliis lentas intexere mollibus hastas (Ecl. 5.29-31)

These lines call to mind a sepulchral epigram of Damagetus,762 where the dead Orpheus is praised for the introduction of Bacchic rites and the invention of the pentameter:763

759 Cf. Eur. Heracl. 219; Crin. 29 G-P = A.P. 9.419; Cat. 64.357; Tib. 1.7.10; Hor. Carm. 4.4.38. 760 Alexiou 1974, 56, 122-123, 171-177, 182-184 and 190-191. 761 This is an achievement which is conventionally attributed to Dionysus. See Verg. A. 6.805 Liber, agens celso Nysae de uertice tigris; Hor. Carm. 3.3.13-14 Bacche pater, tuae/ uexere tigres; Ov. Am. 1.2.47-48 talis erat domita Bacchus Gangetide terra;/ tu grauis alitibus, tigribus ille fuit. 762 Berg 1965, 13 with n. 11. See also Du Quesnay 1976-1977, 32-33 with n. 95, Cucchiarelli 2012, 298 and Karakasis 2011, 161 n. 40 with further bibliography.

248

Chapter 6 'Orf{a QrhikfVsi par¦ promolÍsin 'OlÚmpou tÚmboj }cei, MoÚshj ud{a KalliÒphj, ú drÚej oÙk ¢pfqhsan, ÓtJ sun£m' Ÿspeto p{trh ¥yucoj qhrîn q' ØlonÒmwn ¢g{la, Ój pote kai telet¦j musthrfdaj eÛreto B£kcou kai stfcon ¹róJ zeuktÕn }teuxe podf, Öj kai ¢meilfktoio barÝ Klum{noio nÒhma kai tÕn ¢k›lhton qumÕn }qelxe lÚrv. KalliÒphj 'OrfÁa kai Oe£groio qanÒnta }klausan xanqai murfa Bistonfdej, stiktoÝj d' Åm£xanto bracfonaj, ¢mfi melafnV deuÒmenai spodiÍ Qrhfkion plÒkamon· kai d' aÙtai stonaceànti sÝn eÙfÒrmiggi LukefJ }rrhxan Moàsai d£krua Pierfdej murÒmenai tÕn ¢oidÒn· œpwdÚranto d੻ p{trai kai drÚej, §j œratÍ tÕ prin }qelge lÚrV (2 G-P = A.P. 7.9)

Vergil’s relationship with Damagetus is first based on the common funerary context. What is more, they both employ the prîtoj eØret›j/primus inventor motif, which is also evidenced by the striking verbal correspondence instituit-eÛreto. Furthermore, this relationship is strongly reinforced by the introduction of Bacchus’ cult (instituit, Daphnis thiasos inducere Bacchi-Ój pote kai telet¦j musthrfdaj eÛreto B£kcou) and by the “yoking” subject (subiungere-zeuktÕn). However, the orphic features with which Vergil invests Daphnis are more crucial.764

763

The invention of the pentameter verse is not elsewhere ascribed to Orpheus in contrast to the hexameter line, which is one of the main orphic contributions (cf. RE XVIII.I (1939) 1253f.). 764 Cf. Ecl. 5.24-28, 48-49 and 58-64. [Lines 32-34]

Eclogue 5

249

This is absent from the Theocritean Daphnis, whose relation with the tame and wild creatures is based on the pathetic fallacy and not on the orphiclike musical dowry. [Lines 32-34]

Mopsus’ pastoral lament continues by eulogising Daphnis’

beauty, which is expressed by a fivefold country analogy: uitis ut arboribus decori est, ut uitibus uuae, ut gregibus tauri, segetes ut pinguibus aruis, tu decus omne tuis (Ecl. 5.32-34)

This structure finds its model in Idyll 18, where the same formula can also be found:765 piefrv meg£la ¤t' ¢n{drame kÒsmoj ¢roÚrv À k£pJ kup£rissoj, À ¤rmati QessalÕj gppoj, ïde kai ¡ ૧odÒcrwj `El{na Lakedafmoni kÒsmoj (Id. 18.29-31)

Both passages are based on a series of country analogies which follow the structural pattern that (A) is good for (B), (B) for (C), (C) for (D) and therefore (X) for (Y). Moreover, they conclude with a notable example which derives from the human world (Daphnis/Helen) that deals with physical beauty (decus-kÒsmoj).766 Nonetheless, Theocritus refers to a 765

Coleman 1977, 162 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 300. See also Id. 8.79-80 t´ dru૗ tai b£lanoi kÒsmoj, t´ malfdi m©la,/ t´ bo૗ d' ¡ mÒscoj, tù boukÒlJ ad bÒej aÙtaf, where there are also country examples, and a relationship reinforced by the verbal correspondence ut gregibus tauri-t´ bo૗ d' ¡ mÒscoj. However, Vergil seems to be influenced by Idyll 18 because Daphnis’ beauty is emphatically compared with that of Helen. 766 Gow II 1952, 191-192.

250

Chapter 6

living character (Helen) in emphatic contrast to Vergil, who deals with a dead character (Daphnis), which can also explain the reason for which Vergil here avoids a close translation of the Theocritean original. In addition, Helen’s beauty embellishes Lacedaemon’s region, in strong contrast to Daphnis whose beauty influences only his people (tu decus omne tuis, “herdsmen”). Thus, it supplies Daphnis’ beauty with a universal influence on the pastoral world, which can also justify nature’s languishing because of Daphnis’ death. [Lines 34-39]

Daphnis’ life deeds and achievements are counterbalanced in the

following section, which is concerned with the events that follow his death: tu decus omne tuis. postquam te fata tulerunt, ipsa Pales agros atque ipse reliquit Apollo. grandia saepe quibus mandauimus hordea sulcis, infelix lolium et steriles nascuntur auenae; pro molli uiola, pro purpureo narcisso carduus et spinis surgit paliurus acutis (Ecl. 5.34-39)

This is characteristically evidenced by the postquam te fata tulerunt, which recalls Idyll 1 and especially Daphnis’ last moments: t£ ge m¦n lfna p£nta lelofpei œk Moir©n, cç D£fnij }ba ૧Òon. }kluse dfna tÕn Mofsaij fflon ¥ndra, tÕn oÙ NÚmfaisin ¢pecqÁ (Id. 1.139-141)

Ecl. 5.34 and Id.1.140 lay special emphasis on the Fates, who are described cutting Daphnis’ life thread, a suggestion that is reinforced by

Eclogue 5

251

the verbal correspondence fata-Moir©n. However, the Fates are not the only gods who are influenced by Daphnis’ death. Mopsus recounts that Apollo and Pales left the countryside after Daphnis’ death, thereby recalling Meleager, who employs a similar subject:767 OÙk{q' Ðmoà cim£roisin }cein bfon, oÙk{ti nafein Ð tragÒpouj Ñr{wn P¦n œq{lw koruf£j. tf glukÚ moi, tf poqeinÕn œn oÜresin; êleto D£fnij, D£fnij, Öj ¹met{rV pàr }teke kradfV. ¥stu tÒd' oek›sw, qhrîn d{ tij ¥lloj œp' ¥grhn stell{sqw· t¦ p£roiq' oÙk{ti Pani ffla (126 G-P = A.P. 7.535)

Both passages deal with the death of the same person (Daphnis), who is also considered as the reason for which some gods have abandoned the countryside. However, Vergil increases the number of the gods, replacing Pan with Pales-Apollo. This is designed to improve the original and hence the value of the dead character, whose loss is responsible for the departure of not one but two rustic gods. Furthermore, Pan is a Greek Arcadian deity who is associated with Apollo (Nomios),768 in the sense that the latter is also considered as an Arcadian deity.769 However, Pales is a local Roman deity, who, being a goddess of the herdsmen, is the Roman counterpart of the god Pan and the appropriate companion for Apollo Nomios.770 Therefore, these country gods are in fact the Greek and Roman substitutes 767

Coleman 1977, 162-163, Clausen 1994, 163 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 300-301. See also Serv. Ecl. 5.35 pales dea pabulorum, dea pastoralis. apollo hic Apollinem nomium dicit, id est pastoralem: nam Admeto regi pauit armenta. 769 Cf. Cic. ND 3.57 [sc. Apollo] quem Arcades Nomionem appellant quod ab eo se leges ferunt accepisse. 770 Cf. Verg. G. 3.1-2 Te quoque, magna Pales, et te memorande canemus/ pastor ab Amphryso, uos, siluae amnesque Lycaei. 768

252

Chapter 6

for the rustic divine being found in this Meleagrian epigram. Hence, they are used in order to stress the universality of the lament for the dead Daphnis, which has a great influence on the Greek and Roman pantheons. [Lines 36-39]

Nonetheless, the idea that the gods quit the landscape is also

closely associated with the Golden Age subject recalling Justice’s return (cf. Ecl. 4.6), which is the reverse idea of Virgo’s departure from the earth found in Aratus’ Phaenomena.771 Therefore, Daphnis is the natural benefactor whose death causes the departure of gods and the subsequent perversion of the natural process: grandia saepe quibus mandauimus hordea sulcis, infelix lolium et steriles nascuntur auenae; pro molli uiola, pro purpureo narcisso carduus et spinis surgit paliurus acutis (Ecl. 5.36-39)

These verses recall nature’s reaction after Bion’s death in the Lament for Bion.772 What is more, the natural order, which is overturned and also expressed by the adynaton device, calls to mind Idyll 1:773 nàn ha m੻n for{oite b£toi, for{oite d' ¥kanqai, ¡ d੻ kal¦ n£rkissoj œp' ¢rkeÚqoisi kom£sai, p£nta d' ¥nalla g{noito, kai ¡ pftuj Ôcnaj œnefkai,

771

Cf. Arat. Phaen. 133-36 Kai tÒte mis›sasa Dfkh kefnwn g{noj ¢ndrîn/ }ptaq' Øpouranfh, taÚthn d' ¥ra n£ssato cèrhn,/ Âcf per œnnucfh }ti fafnetai ¢nqrèpoisi/ Parq{noj œggÝj œoàsa polusk{ptoio Boètew. 772 Cf. Epit. Bion. 31-35 sù d' œp' Ñl{qrJ/ d{ndrea karpÕn }riye t¦ d' ¥nqea p£nt' œmar£nqh·/ m£lwn oÙk }rreuse kalÕn gl£goj, oÙ m{li sfmblwn,/ k£tqane d' œn khrù lupeÚmenon, oÙk{ti g¦r del/ tî m{litoj tî sî teqnakÒtoj aÙtÕ trug©sqai. 773 Coleman 1977, 163 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 302.

Eclogue 5

253

D£fnij œpei qn£skei, kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi, kºx Ñr{wn toi skîpej ¢hdÒsi garÚsainto (Id. 1.132-136)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is here very close, and is further reinforced by the verbal correspondences uiola-ha, carduus-b£toi, paliurus-¥kanqai and narcisso-n£rkissoj. However, Theocritus only expresses Daphnis’ farewell, in contrast to Vergil who enumerates the physical results on nature after the pastoral hero’s passing. Moreover, the Vergilian violet and narcissus are absent from the natural environment, in strong contrast to Theocritus, where they are found merely to have altered places. In addition, the paliurus reflects rather than translates the Greek term ¥kanqai, which shows that the detail concerning the growth of thistles and sharp thorns instead of purple narcissus774 cannot be explained by this Theocritean passage. The paliurus (shrub of Christ’s thorn)775 is a plant which had long been considered as a substantial menace to farmers and gardeners because of its rapid proliferation.776 The paliurus’ proliferation is employed by Leonidas of Tarentum,777 who is Vergil’s most obvious source:778 774 It should be noticed that there is no equivalent of purpureo narcisso in any Hellenistic epigram. Nonetheless, the ancient grammarian Diomedes read the expression purpurea narcisso (Gram. Lat. 1.453.34-454.2 Keil), accepting the feminine genre for this adjective, which in that sense finds an analogy in a Meleagrian epigram that was extensively imitated by Vergil in Eclogue 2 (Meleag. 46.3f. G-P = A.P. 5.147.3f. Ø£kinqon porfur{hn). 775 OLD s.v. paliurus. 776 Cf. Colum. 11.3.4. 777 Leonidas of Tarentum, whose literary production is placed between the end of the 4th and middle of the 3rd c. BC, is a significant poet of Meleager’s Garland (Meleag. 1.1.15 G-P = A.P. 4.1.15). His work, which largely consists of funerary and votive epigrams (with the singular exception of 92 G-P = A.P. 5.188 that deals with Eros’ assaults), shows a great variety and originality in its subjects; as a result, it offers a reasonable explanation for his great influence on the later

Chapter 6

254

T¾n Ñlfghn bîlon kai toàt' Ñlig›rion, ðner, sÁma potffqegxai tl£monoj 'Alkim{neuj, ee kai p©n k{kruptai Øp' Ñxefhj palioÚrou. kai b£tou Ãn pot' œgë d›ioj 'Alkim{nhj (18 G-P = A.P. 7.656)

Further support for this relationship is offered by the verbal correspondences carduus-b£tou, acutis spinis-Ñxefhj and paliurus, which is the precise equivalent of palioÚrou. Hence, the Vergilian verses are based on Theocritus and Leonidas of Tarentum. However, Theocritus’ adynata are expressed in Daphnis’ last moments and are therefore used to highlight the tragic event, while Meleager’s p£liouroj is overgrown in revenge for the war which the dead character had waged on this plant.779 The Vergilian verses, on the other hand, conflate the Theocritean and Leonidean features in order to underline the extraordinary phenomena that Daphnis’ death has caused to nature. [Lines 40-41]

Mopsus’ song comes to its end with Daphnis’ funeral instructions

in the last section, which are once again based on Leonidas of Tarentum:780 spargite humum foliis, inducite fontibus umbras, pastores mandat fieri sibi talia Daphnis (Ecl. 5.40-41)

epigrammatists and for his reputation in the Roman world. For more on Leonidas of Tarentum see Gow-Page II 1965, 307-309, OCD s.v. Leonidas of Tarentum and BNP s.v. L. of Tarentum with further bibliography. 778 Coleman 1977, 164. 779 Gow II 1965, 327. 780 Coleman 1977, 164 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 304. See also Ecl. 9.19-20 quis humum florentibus herbis/ spargeret aut uiridi fontis induceret umbra?

Eclogue 5

255

Poim{nej, oj taÚthn Ôreoj ૧£cin oeopolelte aੇgaj keÙefrouj œmbot{ontej Ôij, KleitagÒrV, prÕj GÁj, Ñlfghn c£rin, ¢ll¦ proshnÁ tfnoite cqonfhj egneka FersefÒnhj. blhc›saint' Ôi{j moi, œp' ¢x{stoio d੻ poim¾n p{trhj surfzoi prh{a boskom{naij· ehari d੻ prètJ leimènion ¥nqoj ¢m{rxaj cwrfthj stef{tw tÚmbon œmÕn stef£nJ, kaf tij ¢p' eÙ£rnoio katacrafnoito g£lakti oeÒj, ¢molgalon mastÕn ¢nascÒmenoj, krhpld' Øgrafnwn œpitÚmbion. eesi qanÒntwn, eesin ¢moibalai k¢n fqim{noij c£ritej (19 G-P = A.P. 7.657)

Here, Vergil’s dependence on Leonidas is based on the arranged burial instructions for a dead herdsman, which is strongly reinforced by striking verbal correspondences. The term spargite that suggests the act of scattering can also reflect ¢m{rxaj, which comes from ¢m{rdw, whose meaning is the same as “plucking”.781 Moreover, foliis means “flower petals”782 and thus can correspond to ¥nqoj. Nonetheless, Daphnis’ instructions for covering the springs with shade, suggesting the occurrence of springs close to the grave (inducite fontibus umbras Ecl. 5.40), confirms that Leonidas is not the only source of these Vergilian verses. Inducite fontibus umbras calls to mind the country setting that is described by

781

Cf. LSD s.v. ¢m{rdw II. Clausen 1994, 165. See also [Theoc.] Id. 9.4 cok m੻n ¡m´ bÒskointo kai œn fÚlloisi planùnto and 11.26 Ãnqej œm´ sÝn matri q{lois' Øakfnqina fÚlla with Cow II 1952, 186. 782

Chapter 6

256

Nicias, who deals with a tomb which is placed near to a spring or a fountain:783 “Izeu Øp' aegefroisin, œpei k£mej, œnq£d', Ðdlta, kai plq' «sson eën pfdakoj ¡met{raj· mn©sai d੻ kr£nan kai ¢pÒproqi, §n œpi GfllJ Slmoj ¢pofqim{nJ paidi paridrÚetai (3 G-P = A.P. 9.315)

Therefore, Daphnis’ funeral instructions are drawn from the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition. However, these Vergilian verses describe specific funeral instructions that are related to Daphnis’ actual commemoration, as is illustrated by Mopsus’ song (note the past tenses flebant, uocat, libauit, attigit, the expression illis diebus and above all the implication that more than one season has already passed since Daphnis’ death). In fact, they constitute one of the established annual ceremonies in Daphnis’ honour. [Lines 42-44]

Mopsus’ lament ends with Daphnis’ epitaph that is in fact the

verse inscription which the pastoral hero himself had requested to be engraved on the tomb: et tumulum facite, et tumulo superaddite carmen: Daphnis ego in siluis, hinc usque ad sidera notus, formosi pecoris custos, formosior ipse (Ecl. 5.42-44)

These verses resemble Daphnis’ self-identification that is uttered by Thyrsis’ dirge in Idyll 1:784 783 784

Clausen 1994, 165. Coleman 1977, 164-165, Clausen 1994, 165 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 304-305.

Eclogue 5

257

D£fnij œgën Óde tÁnoj Ð t¦j bÒaj ïde nomeÚwn, D£fnij Ð tëj taÚrwj kai pÒrtiaj ïde potfsdwn (Id. 1.120-121)

Here, Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Theocritus is more than evident and is further reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence Daphnis egoD£fnij œgën. Nonetheless, the Vergilian verses deviate from the Theocritean original by summarising Daphnis’ qualities (the pastoral poet and lover par excellence) in contrast to Theocritus, where special emphasis is laid only on Daphnis’ rustic quality. Hence, Daphnis’ country profession, which is here suggested with the expression formosi pecoris custos, can correspond to the aforementioned Theocritean verses. On the other hand, in siluis, which is also associated with the composition of pastoral785 and is therefore suitable to denote Daphnis’ literary quality, is also reflected in Idyll 1:786 Ð boukÒloj Ümmin œgë D£fnij oÙk{t' ¢n' Ûlan, oÙk{t' ¢n¦ drumèj, oÙk ¥lsea (Id. 1.116-117)787

What is more, the phrase formosior ipse refers to Daphnis’ beauty (lover), thereby recalling Idyll 8:788 k½m' œk tî ¥ntrw sÚnofruj kÒra œcq੻j edolsa t¦j dam£laj parel©nta kalÕn kalÕn Ãmen }fasken (Id. 8.72-73)789

785

Cf. Ecl. 1.4-5 tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra/ formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas. See also Rudd 1996, 58. 786 Coleman 1977, 165. 787 See also Id. 6.1-5 and 44. 788 Coleman 1977, 165.

258

Chapter 6

More significant, however, is Daphnis’ apotheosis (hinc usque ad sidera notus), which is a subject that has its roots in Homer’s Odyssey when Odysseus reveals himself to the Phaeacians:790 ehm' 'OduseÝj Laerti£dhj, Öj p©si dÒloisin ¢nqrèpoisi m{lw, kaf meu kl{oj oÙranÕn gkei (Od. 9.19-20)

Here, Vergil and Homer employ exactly the same subject (proclamation of identity). This relationship is further reinforced by the verbal correspondences Daphnis ego-ehm' 'OduseÝj and hinc usque ad sidera notus-kaf meu kl{oj oÙranÕn gkei. Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 1, Idyll 8 and Odyssey 9 is not accidental. It could easily be a combined quotation or a striking hint of the apotheosis that is the subject with which Menalcas’ song is concerned (Ecl. 5.56-57 and 64). However, it is rather more associated with the fact that the Vergilian intention is to stress that the Vergilian Daphnis is not the same character as his earlier literary counterparts; on the contrary, he is a universal pastoral hero who combines Theocritean (pastoral hero), pseudo-Theocritean (pastoral hero) and Homeric (universal epic hero) elements. [Lines 45-47]

Menalcas’ reaction to Mopsus’ song is to praise the song and

singer with several rustic analogies, which reflect those identified earlier in the Eclogue (Ecl. 5.16-18 and 32-34). This is a significant observation, which can confirm that the correspondences between those two songs also extend over the conversational sections of the Eclogue. Menalcas’

789 790

See also Id. 7.72-77. Coleman 1977, 165, Clausen 1994, 165 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 305.

Eclogue 5

259

encomiastic reference is related to the natural comforts found in the countryside: Tale tuum carmen nobis, diuine poeta, quale sopor fessis in gramine, quale per aestum dulcis aquae saliente sitim restinguere riuo (Ecl. 5.45-47)

These lines recall the words of the anonymous goatherd in Idyll 1:791 ¤dion, ð poim›n, tÕ teÕn m{loj À tÕ katac{j tÁn' ¢pÕ t©j p{traj katalefbetai ØyÒqen Ûdwr (Id. 1.7-8)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the common subject that pastoral music is associated with nature, enhanced by the verbal correspondence saliente riuo-ØyÒqen Ûdwr and on the pleasure that the herdsman enjoys by hearing pastoral music and song. However, Thyrsis enjoys the goatherd’s song before he starts singing D£fnidoj ¥lgea in strong contrast to Menalcas, who enjoys Mopsus’ lament for Daphnis’ death. This incongruity can be explained by Menalcas’ subsequent song, whose subject (Daphnis’ apotheosis), unlike that of Thyrsis and Mopsus, is encomiastic. Nonetheless, Theocritus is not the only source which can be traced in these verses, since the country analogies used by Menalcas can also recall Catullus 68:792 791 Coleman 1977, 165, Clausen 1994, 165 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 305. See also Id. 8.78 ¡dÝ d੻ tî q{reoj par' Ûdwr ૧{on aeqriokoiteln where the laying down by the river in the summer constitutes a typical country pleasure for the herdsman but here is not related to the composition of poetry.

260

Chapter 6 qualis in aerii perlucens uertice montis riuus muscoso prosilit a lapide, qui cum de prona praeceps est ualle uolutus, per medium densi transit iter populi, dulce uiatori lasso in sudore leuamen, cum grauis exustos aestus hiulcat agros ac uelut in nigro iactatis turbine nautis lenius aspirans aura secunda uenit iam prece Pollucis, iam Castoris implorata: tale fuit nobis Allius auxilium (Cat. 68.57-66)

Catullus’ first example is almost the same as Menalcas’ first country analogy. Further support for this suggestion is offered by the common double comparison pattern, the tale nobis ... quale ... construction and especially by the verbal correspondences aestum-aestus, dulcis-dulce, riuo-riuus and saliente-prosilit. Nonetheless, Catullus merely expresses gratitude to Allius, whose assistance is emphasised by vivid and picturesque details drawn from the natural environment. Vergil, on the other hand, underlines the real pleasure that Menalcas enjoys by hearing Mopsus’ singing, which is also closely related to certain natural elements. Such a concept recalls the emotional interplay between man and nature, where the herdsman’s song is entirely dependent on the natural environment and vice versa.793 Thus, Mopsus’ song constitutes the inspiration source (Daphnis) on which Menalcas’ singing is also based, 792

Hubbard 1998, 91-92. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 305. Cf. Id. 1.1-11, Ecl. 1.1-5. See also Lucr. DRN 2.29-30 cum tamen inter se prostrati in gramine molli/ propter aquae riuum sub ramis arboris altae which are imitated in Eclogue 1.1-5, where the interplay between man and nature is more emphatically evident without, however, being associated with the composition of poetry. 793

Eclogue 5

261

although its encomiastic content has already been selected (cf. Menalcas’ suggested subjects for singing: Incipe, Mopse, prior, si quos aut Phyllidis ignis/ aut Alconis habes laudes aut iurgia Codri/ incipe). Yet, unlike Mopsus’ song that is exclusively based on the Greek tradition, Menalcas’ intention is certainly not the same; this is first evidenced obliquely by the Greek (Theocritus) and Roman (Catullus) sources, which are here combined for the first time in the Eclogue. [Lines 48-49]

Furthermore, Menalcas’ compliment is extended to Mopsus’

musical dexterity: nec calamis solum aequiperas, sed uoce magistrum: fortunate puer, tu nunc eris alter ab illo (Ecl. 5.48-49)

Menalcas’ encomiastic words recall Idyll 7 where Simichidas compliments Lycidas by praising his piping superiority:794 tÕn d' œgë ¢meffqhn· Lukfda ffle, fantf tu p£ntej Ãmen surikt¦n m{g' Øpefrocon }n te nomeàsin }n t' ¢mat›ressi. tÕ d¾ m£la qumÕn eafnei ¡m{teron· kaftoi kat' œmÕn nÒon esofarfzein }lpomai (Id. 7.27-31)

Here, the thematic relationship is based on the fact that the Vergilian and Theocritean verses constitute replies that lay special emphasis on the herdsman’s musical talent, which is reinforced by the verbal correspondence aequiperas-esofarfzein. However, Simichidas’ ability as

794

Clausen 1994, 166.

262

Chapter 6

a piper is recognised only among the herdsmen and reapers in contrast to Mopsus, who is described as an accomplished piper and singer capable of rivalling even the archetypical pastoral master (Daphnis?).795 This is a substantial difference that stresses that Mopsus constitutes the successor in the pastoral musical tradition,796 which also recalls the Lament for Bion:797 ¢ll' ¤nte did£xao selo maqht£j klaronÒmoj mofsaj t©j Dwrfdoj, • me gerafrwn ¥lloij m੻n teÕn Ôlbon œmoi d' ¢p{leipej ¢oid£n (Epit. Bion. 95-97)

The Vergilian tu nunc eris alter ab illo corresponds to the succession subject, which is evidenced by the above lines from the anonymous Lament for Bion. In other words, Daphnis’ death does not signify that the pastoral music and song are over since their succession is secured by Mopsus, who therefore comes after Daphnis. This is a significant compliment that strongly enhances the value of Menalcas’ song, which in that sense is expected to rival Mopsus’ pastoral lament. [Lines 50-59]

This is illustrated by Menalcas’ song that deals with Daphnis’

apotheosis (Nos tamen haec quocumque modo tibi nostra uicissim/ dicemus, Daphnimque tuom tollemus ad astra;/ Daphnim ad astra

795

Lee 1977, 62-63 argues that Mopsus’ master is Stimichon on the grounds that Vergil underlines Daphnis’ certain features, which are absent from the Theocritean Daphnis. What is more, the Vergilian Daphnis’ musical dexterity becomes only implicitly evident in Ecl. 5.49 fortunate puer, tu nunc eris alter ab illo. 796 Cf. also Ecl. 2.36-38 est mihi disparibus septem compacta cicutis/ fistula, Damoetas dono mihi quam dedit olim,/ et dixit moriens: “te nunc habet ista secundum”. 797 Coleman 1977, 165 and Clausen 1994, 166.

Eclogue 5

263

feremus: amauit nos quoque Daphnis Ecl. 5.50-52).798 Furthermore, it is evident from its very beginning and its encomiastic character, confirmed by the dead Daphnis and nature being in decline, which are replaced by Daphnis’ arrival on Olympus, sending blessings and influencing the countryside: Candidus insuetum miratur limen Olympi sub pedibusque uidet nubes et sidera Daphnis. ergo alacris siluas et cetera rura uoluptas (Ecl. 5.56-59)

It has already been suggested that these verses recall Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura 3 and especially its introduction, where the celestial Epicurus reveals the heavenly glories to men, highlighting that there is nothing to fear:799 at contra nusquam apparent Acherusia templa, nec tellus obstat quin omnia dispiciantur, sub pedibus quae cumque infra per inane geruntur (DRN 3.25-27)

Vergil’s dependence on these Lucretian verses is first based on the common element that Daphnis and Lucretius are gazing down from heaven, and this dependence is further reinforced by the verbal correspondence sub pedibusque-sub pedibus that is also in the same

798

Here, it should be noted that Eclogue 5 must not be read as an allegory of J. Caesar’s death and apotheosis. Nonetheless, it is clear enough that certain elements in Menalcas’ song may recall J. Caesar. See Karakasis 2011, 168-172 and n. 73 with further bibliography on the subject. 799 Martini 1986, 310-312, Hubbard 1998, 95-96, Saunders 2008, 23-24 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 308-309.

[Lines 60-61]

264

Chapter 6

metrical place.800 Nevertheless, Lucretius imagines that he is in heaven in emphatic contrast to Daphnis, who is on Olympus after his death, thereby confirming that Vergil’s intertextual dialogue with Lucretius is based on the language rather than the subject. What is more, Lucretius is the second Roman source identified in the Eclogue and hence constitutes the second case that can illustrate the Roman character that runs through Menalcas’ song. Nature’s reaction is evidenced by certain adynata that contrast the former injurious transformations of the natural environment due to Daphnis’ death (cf. Ecl. 5.36-39). In contrast, Daphnis’ deification guarantees a period of complete harmony: nec lupus insidias pecori, nec retia ceruis ulla dolum meditantur: amat bonus otia Daphnis (Ecl. 5.60-61)

These Vergilian verses call to mind the Theocritean collection and especially Teiresias’ prophetical words in Idyll 24:801 }stai d¾ toàt' «mar Ðphnfka nebrÕn œn eÙn´ karcarÒdwn sfnesqai edën lÚkoj oÙk œqel›sei (Id. 24.86-87)

Leaving aside the uncertain state under which these verses have come down to us,802 the prophetical context, the Golden Age subject and mostly

800

Lipka 2001, 73. Coleman 1977, 166. 802 Gow II 1952, 428-429, although these Theocritean verses may well have been in Vergil’s text. See also Schmidt 1972b, 168-169. 801

Eclogue 5

265

the reference to the wolf, which is a typical adynaton,803 seem to have influenced Menalcas’ song. Theocritus, however, refers to a future period that Heracles’ labours will establish, in contrast to Vergil, where Daphnis’ apotheosis is currently securing the same result. Moreover, by describing how the wolf stops chasing the flock and man the deer, these Vergilian verses introduce the human character into nature’s constituent elements, which are thus also significantly influenced by Daphnis’ deification. These alterations stress the beneficial character of the deification, showing that Daphnis is the universal pacificator and benefactor of the pastoral world. This suggestion is emphatically evidenced by the next verse where Daphnis is heralded as a “god”: ipsi laetitia uoces ad sidera iactant intonsi montes; ipsae iam carmina rupes, ipsa sonant arbusta: 'deus, deus ille, Menalca!' (Ecl. 5.62-64)

It has already been noticed by scholars that Daphnis’ apotheosis is a quotation from Epicurus’ deification found in Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura:804 deus ille fuit, deus, inclyte Memmi (DRN 5.8)

803

Cf. Ar. Pax 1076a-1076b fulÒpidoj lÁxai, prfn ken lÚkoj oੇn Ømenaiol./ Kai pîj, ð kat£rate, lÚkoj pot' ¨n oੇn Ømenaiol;. See also Nisbet-Rudd 2004, 225. 804 Coleman 1977, 167, Clausen 1994, 168 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 310. See also Ecl. 1.6-7 O Meliboee, deus nobis haec otia fecit./ namque erit ille mihi semper deus which are also based on Epicurus’ apotheosis.

Chapter 6

266

The common verbal structure can confirm the intertextual relationship between those verses, given that the Vergilian deus, deus ille, which is emphatically reiterated in order to suggest a ritual cry, corresponds to the Lucretian deus ille fuit deus. However, this Lucretian verse comes from an encomiastic context (DRN 5.1-54) where the apotheosis is only based on Lucretius’ subjective judgment concerning Epicurus’ philosophical findings, which are considered as a task beyond the usual mortal powers (cf. nemo, ut opinor, erit mortali corpore cretus DRN 5.6). Hence, Epicurus’ apotheosis is only Lucretius’ belief based on men considering as divine those whose inventions have benefited them (Dionysus or Ceres).805 Daphnis’ apotheosis, on the other hand, is an actual fact recognised by the whole pastoral world that has already incorporated this subject in its own musical tradition. This suggestion can once again show that Vergil’s intertextual dialogue with Lucretius is not based on his philosophical subjects but rather on his language, reinforced further by the deus ille fuit, deus which is replaced by the deus, deus ille; the second deus in the Vergilian lines can also textually and metrically (i.e. denjs, deǎs)806 reflect the echo of the song that is transmitted in the pastoral world. In addition, Vergil’s

intertextual

relationship

with

Lucretius

strengthens

the

encomiastic tone that runs through Menalcas’ song. Most significantly, it is also the third Roman source traced in Menalcas’ singing whose subject (Daphnis’ apotheosis) in that sense comes from Roman literature, thereby underlining its Roman character.

805 Cf. Lucr. DRN 5.13-15 confer enim diuina aliorum antiqua reperta./ namque Ceres fertur fruges Liberque liquoris/ uitigeni laticem mortalibus instituisse. 806 It should also be noticed that the second deǎs with the short ending -ǎs can create a fading effect, thereby textually symbolising the fading sound of the phrase deus deus while it is transmitting into the pastoral world. For similar echo -effects see also Ecl. 3.79 and 6.44.

Eclogue 5 [Lines 65-66]

267

Daphnis’ consecratio becomes more evident in the following

verses where his celebration is described: sis bonus o felixque tuis! en quattuor aras: ecce duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo (Ecl. 5.65-66)

These verses call to mind the Theocritean collection and especially the religious context in Idyll 26, which deals with the erection of twelve country altars for Dionysus and Semele:807 œn kaqarù leimîni k£mon duokafdeka bwmèj, tëj trelj t´ Sem{lv, tëj œnn{a tù DionÚsJ (Id. 26.5-6)

Vergil is based on the Theocritean original, recalling its subject (the construction of altars for two different divine beings) and its structure (a specific number of altars for each god), but he changes its constituent elements. He reduces the number of the altars (three to Semele and nine to Apollo), which is an indication of each deity’s different value, by granting Daphnis and Apollo two altars each, although still preserving the distinction between the divinities by characterising Apollo’s altars with the term altaria.808 However, Theocritus underlines the preponderance of the Olympian gods in comparison to other minor deities by offering Apollo nine altars and Semele three. Vergil, in contrast, equates Daphnis with Apollo by offering both of them two altars. Thus, Daphnis is no longer a 807

Coleman 1977, 167, Clausen 1994, 168 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 310. Cf. Serv. Ecl. 5.66 nouimus enim, aras et diis esse superis et inferis consecratas, altaria uero esse supernorum tantum deorum, quae ab altitudine constant esse nominata. See also Maltby 1991, s.v. altare.

808

[Lines 67-68]

Chapter 6

268

local country god but a universal divine character, which can explain how he has the power to influence the pastoral world and its inhabitants positively or negatively. [Lines 67-68]

This is further confirmed by the ritual offerings to Daphnis,

which are burnt sacrifices rather than the libations that are regularly offered to a local country god:809 pocula bina nouo spumantia lacte quotannis craterasque duo statuam tibi pinguis oliui (Ecl. 5.67-68)

These lines recall the Theocritean collection and especially Idyll 5, where Lacon announces the offerings set out for the Nymphs:810

stasî d੻ kratÁra m{gan leukolo g£laktoj talj NÚmfaij, stasî d੻ kai ¡d{oj ¥llon œlafw (Id. 5.53-54)

The thematic and verbal relationships of those passages are very close. They deal with the donation of milk (lacte-g£laktoj) and olive oil (oliuiœlafw), which are also placed into the same object (pocula/crateraskratÁra) for a country god (Daphnis-NÚmfaij), further confirmed by the verbal correspondence statuam-stasî. Vergil, however, alters the amount of donations by increasing the number of bowls from one (kratÁra ...

809

Wissowa 1912, 411 with n. 7. Coleman 1977, 167-168, Clausen 1994, 169 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 311. See also Id. 5.58-59 stasî d' Ñktë m੻n gaulëj tù Pani g£laktoj,/ Ñktë d੻ [Lines 69-73] skaffdaj m{litoj pl{a khrf' œcofsaj. 810

Eclogue 5

269

¥llon) to two cups (pocula bina ... craterasque duo).811 What is more, the adverb quotannis is yet another substantial modification that specifies that the donations to Daphnis, in strong contrast to those to the Nymphs, are yearly. Daphnis’ ritual celebration ends with the activities in which the herdsmen are engaged: et multo in primis hilarans conuiuia Baccho ante focum, si frigus erit; si messis, in umbra uina nouum fundam calathis Ariusia nectar. cantabunt mihi Damoetas et Lyctius Aegon; saltantis Satyros imitabitur Alphesiboeus (Ecl. 5.69-73)

These verses call to mind Lycidas’ festivity on the day Aegeanax arrives in Mytilene, which is fully described in Idyll 7:812 kºgë tÁno kat' «mar ¢n›tinon À ૧odÒenta À kai leukoǸwn st{fanon peri krati ful£sswn tÕn PteleatikÕn oੇnon ¢pÕ kratÁroj ¢fuxî p¦r puri keklim{noj, kÚamon d{ tij œn puri fruxel. c¢ stib¦j œsseltai pepukasm{na }st' œpi p©cun knÚzv t' ¢sfod{lJ te polugn£mptJ te selfnJ. kai pfomai malakîj memnam{noj 'Age£naktoj aÙtalj œn kulfkessi kai œj trÚga celloj œrefdwn. aÙlhseànti d{ moi dÚo poim{nej, eƒj m੻n 'AcarneÚj, eƒj d੻ Lukwpftaj (Id. 7.63-72) 811

Cf. TLL s.v. bini 1997.62. Coleman 1977, 168-169, Clausen 1994, 169-170 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 311313. See also Id. 7.72-82.

812

Chapter 6

270

Daphnis’ death, the wine that is consumed before the fire, and the three herdsmen who entertain are the features that confirm the relationship of those passages. This suggestion is further reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence cantabunt mihi-aÙlhseànti d{ moi with the exception of the untranslatable particle d{. Nonetheless, Theocritus describes part of the love remedy (Daphnis’ and Comatas’ mythological stories) for Lycidas’ erotic passion for Aegeanax (cf. Id. 7.69-89) in contrast to Vergil, where the same picture is embodied in Daphnis’ ritual celebration. In other words, the typical scene of the herdsman who is seated at ease, divested of his everyday country duties, is associated with the ritual schedule of a rustic deity. Hence, it strongly enhances Daphnis’ image as an external benefactor who provides and secures the otium for the pastoral community.813 [Lines 74-80]

Daphnis, as a country god, is expected to receive the appropriate

annual honours provided that the boar loves the mountainsides, the fish love the water, the bees feed on thyme and the cicadas live on dew: Haec tibi semper erunt, et cum sollemnia uota reddemus Nymphis, et cum lustrabimus agros. Dum iuga montis aper, fluuios dum piscis amabit, dumque thymo pascentur apes, dum rore cicadae, semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt. ut Baccho Cererique, tibi sic uota quotannis agricolae facient: damnabis tu quoque uotis (Ecl. 5.74-80)

813

Cf. Ecl. 1.6-8 O Meliboee, deus nobis haec otia fecit./ namque erit ille mihi semper deus, illius aram/ saepe tener nostris ab ouilibus imbuet agnus.

Eclogue 5

271

Daphnis will continue to be honoured as long as the natural order of the pastoral world remains undisturbed, thereby recalling nature’s reaction because of Daphnis’ death identified in Mopsus’ song (cf. Ecl. 5.36-39). Moreover, bees and cicadas are closely related to music and poetry, carry Hellenistic-Neoteric connotations814 and are also found in Greek (cf. Theoc. Id. 1.106-107, 146-148, 3.12-14 and 7.78-89 (bees), Id. 1.148, 4.15-16, 5.28-29 and 7.138-139 (cicadas)815) and Roman (cf. Verg. Ecl. 1.54, Calp. Ecl. 2.20, 3.80 (bees)) pastoral. Most importantly, cicadas are used to accompany the herdsmen’s song (cf. Ecl. 2.13) or to be the standard term used to evaluate the pastoral song itself and nature’s sounds,816 and thus they have a metapoetic function, thereby symbolising the Callimachean leptÒthj that runs through the pastoral genre as a metalanguage term.817 As a result, the country god Daphnis will continue to receive suitable offers not only as long as the natural order is maintained but also as long as pastoral poetry along with its HellenisticNeoteric connotations is maintained.818 [Lines 81-84]

The interaction between the pastoral world and poetry is much

more evident in the following verses, which deal with Mopsus’ reception of Menalcas’ song:

814 Cf. Call. Hymn 2.112 Dhol d' oÙk ¢pÕ pantÕj Ûdwr for{ousi m{lissai,/ ¢ll' ¼tij kaqar› te kai ¢cr£antoj ¢n{rpei/ pfdakoj œx derÁj Ñlfgh lib¦j ¥kron ¥wton and Aet. 1.29-30 Pf. tù piqÒmh]n· œni tolj g¦r ¢efdomen oj ligÝn Ãcon/ t{ttigoj, q]Òrubon d' oÙk œfflhsan Ônwn. 815 Cf. Hunter 1999, 106 who argues that cicadas are the singers par excellence. See also Karakasis 2011, 175. 816 Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 144. See also Karakasis 2011, 175. 817 Hubbard 1998, 58 with n. 23. See also Karakasis 2011, 175 who argues that the association of the cicada with a diet consisting of dew drops can be related to the Callimachean poetis since Callimachus describes his poetry as dew drops falling from the divine air (cf. Aet. 1.33-34 Pf.). 818 See also Karakasis 2011, 175-176.

Chapter 6

272

Quae tibi, quae tali reddam pro carmine dona? nam neque me tantum uenientis sibilus Austri nec percussa iuuant fluctu tam litora, nec quae saxosas inter decurrunt flumina uallis (Ecl. 5.81-84)

Menalcas’ song for Daphnis is emphatically considered by Mopsus as superior to the sweet breeze of the south wind, to the wave that pounds on the seashore and to the streams that tumble down from rock-strewn glens. Natural sounds, in other words, bring pleasure, but the joy coming from Menalcas’ performance is much greater. These verses are very similar to Menalcas’ reception of Mopsus’ song (cf. Ecl. 5.45-47), recalling also the Theocritean collection and especially the goatherd’s reply to Thyrsis’ song with which Idyll 1 begins (¤dion, ð poim›n, tÕ teÕn m{loj À tÕ katac{j/ tÁn' ¢pÕ t©j p{traj katalefbetai ØyÒqen Ûdwr Id. 1.78).819 Nonetheless, the emphasis here is on the joy brought by the sound of Menalcas’ song for Daphnis’ apotheosis, thereby confirming that Menalcas’ encomium combines the Theocritean pastoral tradition with Hellenistic (i.e. Callimachean)-Neoteric qualities.820 [Lines 85-90]

The Eclogue closes with the pastoral gifts that the herdsmen give

each other, which is the typical scene that is used to conclude country song contests:821

819

Cucchiarelli 2012, 316. Karakasis 2011, 176 who argues that Ecl. 5.83-84 may also recall Hor. Carm. 4.2, where Horace claims in a similar way (cf. monte decurrens uelut amnis Carm. 4.2.5) that he is unable to imitate Pindar, thus demonstrating his adherence to Callimachean poetics. See also Papanghelis 1995, 227-228 and Schmidt 1972, 220-222. 821 On the pastoral gifts which the herdsmen used to exchange at the end of country song contests, see Rosenmeyer 1969, 161-167. 820

Eclogue 5

273

Hac te nos fragili donabimus ante cicuta; haec nos ‘formosum Corydon ardebat Alexin’, haec eadem docuit ‘cuium pecus? an Meliboei?’ At tu sume pedum, quod, me cum saepe rogaret, non tulit Antigenes et erat tum dignus amari, formosum paribus nodis atque aere, Menalca (Ecl. 5.85-90)

These verses are based on the Theocritean collection and especially on Idyll 6, where Daphnis’ and Damoetas’ songs end with the exchange of pastoral gifts:822 TÒss' eepën tÕn D£fnin Ð Damoftaj œfflhse· cí m੻n tù sÚrigg', Ö d੻ tù kalÕn aÙlÕn }dwken. aÜlei Damoftaj, sÚrisde d੻ D£fnij Ð boÚtaj· çrceànt' œn malak´ tai pÒrtiej aÙtfka pofv. nfkh m੻n oÙd£lloj, ¢n›ssatoi d' œg{nonto (Id. 6.42-46)

Here, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is based on the exchange of country gifts between the herdsmen, reinforced also by the verbal correspondence cicuta-sÚrigga. Yet, Mopsus’ pedum (“shepherd’s crook”)823 cannot recall Damoetas’ aÙlÕj (“flute”). On the contrary, it recalls the object which is offered to Simichidas by Lycidas in Idyll 7:824

822

Coleman 1977, 171, Clausen 1994, 172 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 316. Cf. OLD s.v. pedum. 824 Coleman 1977, 171, Clausen 1994, 153-154 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 316-317. See also Id. 9.23-27 where, however, the gifts are given by the narrator to the country contestants Daphnis and Menalcas. 823

274

Chapter 6 TÒss' œf£man· Ö d{ moi tÕ la agwbÒloon, ¡dÝ gel£ssaj æj p£roj, œk Mois©n xein›ion êpasen Ãmen (Id. 7.128-129)

Idyll 7 is concerned with Lycidas’ and Simichidas’ casual encounter in the country, which traditionally results in the usual song exchange (Id. 7.52-89 and Id. 7.96-127). In view of that, it is similar to Mopsus’ and Menalcas’ casual meeting in the country and the subsequent song exchange, thus showing Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus, which is confirmed by the verbal correspondences Amyntas-'AmÚntaj, Antigenes-k¢ntig{nhj and pedum-lagwbÒlon. However, cicuta is not a mere country instrument but the reed on which the older herdsman played and sung two pastoral songs, which are here referred to through their first lines:825 haec nos formosum Corydon ardebat Alexin, haec eadem docuit cuium pecus? an Meliboei? (Ecl. 5.86-87)

On the other hand, Mopsus’ pedum-lagwbÒlon can also recall the laurel branch given by the Muses to Hesiod:826 ìj }fasan koàrai meg£lou DiÕj ¢rti{peiai, kaf moi skÁptron }don d£fnhj œriqhl{oj Ôzon dr{yasai, qhhtÒn· œn{pneusan d{ moi aÙd¾n q{spin, gna klefoimi t£ t' œssÒmena prÒ t' œÒnta (Theog. 29-32)

825

It was well established in antiquity that a poetic composition could sometimes be identified by its first words. See Van Sickle 1978, 213 and Clausen 1994, 172. 826 Wright 1983, 126.

Eclogue 5

275

In other words, the objects pedum and lagwbÒlon can symbolise the poetic initiation, and their exchange between the herdsmen obliquely shows the songs’ literary value. These are not only country songs but most significantly high poetic compositions concerning Daphnis’ death (pastoral lament) and deification (pastoral encomium), sung by Roman singers-herdsmen. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 5 is an atypical singing contest between two

Roman herdsmen who amicably exchange songs on Daphnis’ death and deification, respectively based on Greek (Mopsus’ lament) and Roman (Menalcas’ encomium) sources, and therefore it is a Roman pastoral lament-encomium for this country singer. Mopsus’ lament, which stands very close to the Greek (Theocritean and post-Theocritean) pastoral tradition, is combined with Menalcas’ encomium that stands away from this tradition and is its Roman (Vergilian) successor. This suggestion is further reinforced by the Greek and Roman sources which are identified in this Eclogue. Homer (Odyssey), Hesiod (Theogony), Leonidas of Tarentum, Apollonius Rhodius, Theocritus (Idylls 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 24 and 26), pseudo-Theocritus (Idylls 8 and 9), Damagetus, pseudo-Moschus (Lament for Bion), Bion (Lament for Adonis), Meleager, Nicias, Lucretius and Catullus (Carm. 68) are all brought together here. Nonetheless, the Roman tradition is emphatically absent from Mopsus’ song, since the Vergilian intention is to stress that this song is a typical pastoral lament that is strongly influenced by the Greek pastoral tradition. Menalcas’ song, on the other hand, is also associated with the same tradition, but it contains Daphnis’ apotheosis that stems from the Roman tradition and especially from Lucretius stressing its encomiastic nature. Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius is concerned with his language rather than his subject, confirming that Menalcas’ encomium and the subject of apotheosis stand

276

Chapter 6

for the Roman pastoral tradition (Vergil’s Eclogues). This is evidenced by the Lucretian language used by Menalcas in order to sing for Daphnis’ apotheosis. Hence, the younger and unexperienced Mopsus stays close to the Greek pastoral tradition, in strong contrast to the older and more experienced Menalcas who believes in its continuation through Roman pastoral.

CHAPTER 7 ECLOGUE 6* Eclogue 6 could be described as the most difficult poem of the collection (perhaps with the exception of Eclogue 4) due to its oddity in terms of pastoral content. The poem begins with an explanation to Varus (presumably P. Alfenus Varus, consul in 39 BC and renowned jurist)827 that Vergil cannot write on great deeds (Ecl. 6.1-12). This is followed by a pastoral episode that narrates Silenus’ capture by two fauns or satyrs with *

Stewart 1959, 179-205 claims that Silenus’ song contains various Hellenistic subjects, stressing also Apollonius Rhodius’ and Lucretius’ influence on Ecl. 6.3140. Wimmel 1960 examines Vergil’s relationship with the Callimachean Aetia. La Penna 1962, 216-223 focuses on Hesiod’s influence on the Eclogue. Clausen 1964, 181-196 is concerned with the Callimachean impact on Vergil’s Eclogues. Spoerri 1970, 144-163 argues that Silenus’ cosmogony is based on Epicurean philosophy. Hubbard 1975, 53-62 deals with the suggestion that Silenus’ capture could stem from Cicero’s Tusculanae Disputationes, rather than from Theopompus’ Thaumasia. Clausen 1976, 245-247 and 1977, 362 argues that the term Cynthius has a Callimachean origin. Segal 1976, 53-56 suggests that there are close similarities between Verg. Ecl. 6.13-30 and two Theocritean epigrams (18 G-P = A.P. 12.135 and 19 G-P = A.P. 9.338). Thomas 1979, 337-339 claims that Theocritus and Calvus can be identified in Ecl. 6.47, whilst suggesting that Calvus’ influence lies behind Ecl. 6.52. Huyck 1987, 217-228 argues that Verg. Ecl. 6.62 could be based on Eur. Hipp. 732ff. Woodman 1991, 92 examines Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius in Silenus’ cosmogony (Ecl. 6.31-40), focusing on Ecl. 39-40 which recall DRN 2.114-115. Paschalis 1995, 617-621 examines the relationship of Eclogue 6 with the Lament for Bion. Manuwald 2002, 150-174 considers Silenus’ song in relation to the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. Gómez Gane 2003, 144-147 suggests that Ecl. 6.66 can be related to Hom. Hymn to Ap. 3-4. Hardie 2005, 287-298 suggests that a Hesiodic structure could be identified in Eclogue 6. Peirano 2009, 187-195 argues that Vergil combines the Homeric Scylla with the daughter of Nisus following Callimachus’ Hecale (fr. 288 Pf.) where there is the same version. Gagliardi 2011 argues that Gallus’ elegiac poetry can be identified in Eclogue 6. 827 On the identity of Varus, see Coleman 1977, 177 and Clausen 1994, 181.

278

Chapter 7

the assistance of a naiad (Ecl. 6.13-30) and culminates with the song of the captured Silenus, which consists of an array of mythological stories (Ecl. 6.31-86). Modern commentators have sought several unifying principles or codes in the Eclogue, laying emphasis on the content of Silenus’ song and the rationale which governs the selection and arrangement of the mythological tales identified in the song.828 However, less attention has been paid to the detailed examination of the sources that strongly influenced the composition of this Eclogue. Coleman focuses on Theocritus’ presence, which he argues that is almost entirely absent, underlining Callimachus’, Hesiod’s and Lucretius’ influence.829 Clausen is more specific, given that he is only concerned with Vergil’s dependence (Ecl. 6.3-8 and 6.31-40) on Callimachus’ prologue of the Aetia (fr. 1.21-24 Pf.) and on Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica (Arg. 1.496-504).830 Finally, Cucchiarelli more cautiously observes Vergil’s relationship with various sources such as Homer, Theocritus, Lucretius, Catullus, Gallus and Calvus.831 What is more, Eclogue 6 constitutes a Hellenistic-Neoteric composition because its Greek and Roman sources and the way they are used by Vergil reflect the Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics that had an eminent role in the literary life in Rome in the 1st c. BC.832 [Lines 1-2]

In other words, the Greek and Roman sources whose influence is

identified in the Eclogue may be expected to be associated with Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics. The first of these sources is obliquely introduced through the first two verses. It actually becomes evident by the 828

On summaries and reviews of the basic interpretations of Silenus’ musical performance, see Stewart 1959, 180-183, Saint-Denis 1963, 23-35 and Coleiro 1979, 198-208. 829 Coleman 1977, 203-206. 830 Clausen 1994, 174-178. 831 Cucchiarelli 2012, 317-372. 832 Wimmel 1960, 132-148 and Clausen 1987, 10-13.

Eclogue 6

279

geographical metonymy used in order to stress Theocritus’ origin and therefore the Theocritean origin of Vergilian pastoral:833 Prima Syracosio dignata est ludere uersu nostra neque erubuit siluas habitare Thalea (Ecl. 6.1-2)

What is more, this couplet reveals Vergil boasting of originality in the sense that he is the first Roman poet (prima dignata est) who takes on the venture of transferring the Theocritean pastoral (Syracosio uersu) into the Latin language (nostra Thalea).834 However, this assertion of primacy is counterbalanced by Vergil’s awareness of the humbleness of the implied literary category (pastoral poetry). The verb ludere is the first indication of this lack of loftiness, since it refers to the composition of light or playful verse,835 further including Neoteric overtones,836 while it is emphatically opposed to the following canerem (Ecl. 6.3), which connotes epic.837 833 Cf. also Ecl. 4.1-3 Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus!/ non omnis arbusta iuuant humilesque myricae;/ si canimus siluas, siluae sint consule dignae. 834 Cf. Lucr. DRN 1.921ff.; Hor. Carm. 3.30.12-14; Prop. 3.1.3-4. Greek poets were fond of claiming the novelty of their compositions (cf. Hom. Od. 1.351f.; Pind. Ol. 9.48f.), but the character of this claim based on the primus-motif is strikingly Roman (cf. Wimmel 1960, 132 with n. 1 and index s.v. primus-Motiv, Nisbet-Hubbard 1970, 307f. and Wright 1983, 152f. with n. 64). Here, it should also be mentioned that Callimachus’ Óte prètiston (Aet. fr. 1.21 Pf.) signals only the beginning of the Greek poet’s career and not the primus-motif of Vergil’s prima (Ecl. 6.1), showing the way in which the Roman poet received the Callimachean prologue. 835 Cf. Ecl. 1.9-10 et ipsum/ ludere quae uellem calamo permisit agresti with Papanghelis 1995, 137. 836 Cf. Cat. 50.1-2 hesterno, Licini, die otiosi/ multum lusimus in tuis tabellis with Papanghelis 1995, 137. 837 Clausen 1994, 179. See also Call. fr. 1.5-6 Pf. À.....].ouj ¼rwaj, }poj d' œpi tutqÕn Œl[fssw/ palj ¤te, tîn d' œt{wn ¹ dek¦s oÙk Ñlfgh, where Callimachus is accused of being engaged in playful poetic compositions, which is an accusation that reflects the meaning of the term ludere.

280

Chapter 7

Similarly, Thalea denotes the Muse Thalia, identified with the genre of comedy and light verse,838 whose occurrence is in strong contrast to Apollo’s epiphany (Ecl. 6.3-5) and completely in accordance with the humorous character of the subsequent pastoral episode (Ecl. 6.13-30).839 [Lines 3-5]

These antitheses accord well with the overall character of the

poem’s introductory section, which takes the form of an epic recusatio (Ecl. 6.1-12).840 Similarly to almost all the examples of this form in the Roman tradition, the poet is expected to denote, either explicitly or implicitly, the rejected poetic composition, which has already been suggested by official pressure (an epic poem); at the same time, he further suggests another genre, which is humbler but equally appropriate for praising the addressee of the poem: nunc ego namque super tibi erunt qui dicere laudes, Uare, tuas cupiant et tristia condere bella agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam (Ecl. 6.6-8)

There are several conventional ways to treat the subject of the recusatio, but they all originate in the famous programmatic prologue of the Callimachean Aetia. The Vergilian passage is actually the first fully developed recusatio in Roman poetry. Indeed, it is based on the Callimachean prologue, with the exception that its reception by Vergil is

838

Roscher 1884-1937, s.v. Thaleia and Thalia. On the humorous character of this pastoral episode, see Paraskeviotis 2014a, 279-293. 840 On the recusatio form of literary composition, see Cairns 1972, index s.v. recusatio. 839

Eclogue 6

281

properly modified in order to be consistent with the pastoral setting of the Eclogue:841 cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit: pastorem, Tityre, pinguis pascere oportet ouis, deductum dicere carmen (Ecl. 6.3-5)

kai g¦r Óte prètiston œmolj œpi d{lton }qhka goÚnasin, 'ApÒllwn eੇpen Ó moi LÚkioj· ¢oid{, tÕ m੻n qÚoj Ótti p£ciston qr{yai, t¾n Moàsan d' çgaq੻ leptal{hn (Aet. fr. 1.21-24 Pf.)

Both these Vergilian and Callimachean verses deal with the poet’s initiation, which takes place in similar literary settings after the encounter with the god of poetry. Further support for this relationship is offered by a series of verbal correspondences which can confirm Vergil’s imitation and modification of the Callimachean original. These verbal correspondences begin with the designation attributed to the intervening deity. Vergil describes Apollo with the term Cynthius (Ecl. 6.3), which is an epithet applied by the Greek poets to the hill sacred to the god but not to the god himself.842 Thus, the adjective is in strong contrast to the corresponding Callimachean passage, where the epithet LÚkioj is used in order to denote the same divinity (Aet. fr. 1.22). Nonetheless, the origin of the term is 841

Coleman 1977, 176-177, Clausen 1994, 174 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 323. Clausen 1994, 179. See also e.g. Hom. Hymn Apoll. 17 keklim{nh prÕj makrÕn Ôroj kai KÚnqion Ôcqon; Eur. IT 1097-99 poqoàs' ”Artemin locfan,/ § par¦ KÚnqion Ôcqon oekel; Ar. Nub. 595-97 ¢mff moi aâte Folb' ¥nax/ D›lie, Kunqfan }cwn/ Øyik{rata p{tran; A.P. 15.25.11-12 Lissalsin ¢mfi deir£sin/ “Ossai n{montai Kunqfaij. 842

Chapter 7

282

strictly Callimachean,843 given that KÚnqioj is a conventional adjective for Apollo found in the Hymn to Apollo and twice in Aetia.844 What is more, in the latter instance, the word also occurs in the same metrical position as the Vergilian term Cynthius (namely the fifth foot of the hexameter line):845 æj ¨n 'ApÒllwn KÚnqioj aen›sV me fflhj ¢l{gonta tiq›nhj (Hymn 4.9-10)

à g£r, ¥nax, Ð m੻n Ãlqen 'Ioulfdoj ¹ d' ¢pÕ N£xou, KÚnqie (Aet. fr. 67.5-6 Pf.)

skaiÍ m੻n }]ceij ceri KÚnqie t[Òxon (Aet. fr. 114.8 Pf.)

This is a structural correspondence that enables Vergil to follow the pattern of the Greek passage (bucolic diaeresis between ceri and KÚnqie)846 by inserting the same feature between proelia and Cynthius,

843

The epithet KÚnqioj also occurs in a poem of Posidippus (fr. 705.9 SH kee sÝ PosefdippÒn pot' œfflao, KÚnqie, Lhtoàj) which excludes the suggestion that the term is uniquely Callimachean. On the other hand, it still remains a Callimachean term and it should have been received by Vergil as such. Besides the possibility that Vergil may not have been aware of Posidippus’ poem, the Callimachean overtones of the above Latin passage, along with Vergil’s avowed dependence on Callimachus, mean that Callimachus tends to be accepted as the most obvious source for Cynthius. 844 Clausen 1994, 179. See also Clausen 1976, 245-247 and 1977, 362. 845 Clausen 1994, 179-180. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 326. 846 Bucolic caesura, given that the term bucolic diaeresis is considered as a modern pedantry (West 1982b, 292), is the preference for word division after the fourth foot of a hexameter verse and an even stronger preference for the fourth foot to be

Eclogue 6

283

which is infrequent in the Eclogues.847 Nonetheless, the introduction of this unusual stylistic feature serves a specific purpose which, in contrast to the Greek passage, is not the indication of the poet’s doctrina.848 On the contrary, it deals with the rejection of epic implied by cum canerem reges et proelia; it is also reinforced by Cynthius which, besides its Callimachean provenance, is given a metrical position that corresponds to the Theocritean dactylic hexameter,849 thereby further explaining the Vergilian selection of KÚnqioj instead of LÚkioj. On the other hand, cum canerem (“singing”) corresponds to the meaning of Óte d{lton }qhka (“writing”) in the sense that these phrases refer to the composition of poetry. However, Vergil substitutes the more conventional act of singing for writing, which as an activity was almost entirely absent from the pastoral world.850 Furthermore, the expression pastorem Tityre reflects the Callimachean ¢oid{, çgaq੻, which is a modified direct address, appropriate for the pastoral setting of the Eclogue. In a similar way, the infinitive pascere reflects but does not translate the corresponding Greek term qr{yai, along with ouis that means “sheep” and thus hardly recalls qÚoj, which denotes an unspecified sacrificial animal. Both terms, however, are better explained by examining the introductory section of Hesiod’s Theogony, which is the source of the above Callimachean dactylic (- ‰ ‰ ||), when it is followed by word division (West 1982a, 192). On the origin of the term, see Schmidt 1972b, 40-45. 847 Weber 1987, 268 with n. 39. 848 Callimachus’ metrical practise is a useful point of reference for the most of the poets whose floruit is situated around the 3rd c. BC, which is due to the fact that the Callimachean hexameter is based on a number of sophisticated rules about the positions in the verse which are occupied by words of a certain shape and the places where the word division could occur (Hunter 1999, 20f.). On these metrical rules, see Hopkinson 1984, 51-55 and Hollis 1990, 15-23. 849 On Theocritus’ preference for dactylic hexameter, see Dover 2000, xxii-xvii. 850 On reading and writing in the Vergilian collection, which constitute activities almost entirely absent from the Theocritean collection, see Breed 2006.

284

Chapter 7

passage;851 at the same time, it also shows very close similarities to the Vergilian passage under consideration:852 cum canerem reges et proelia, Cynthius aurem uellit et admonuit: pastorem, Tityre, pinguis pascere oportet ouis, deductum dicere carmen (Ecl. 6.3-5)

ag nÚ poq' `Hsfodon kal¾n œdfdaxan ¢oid›n, ¥rnaj poimafnonq' `Elikînoj Ûpo zaq{oio (Theog. 22-23)

Here, Hesiod imagines himself as a wandering shepherd, who encounters a divinity from whom he also receives clear instructions that will enable him to compose poetry. In view of that, the term pascere recalls poimafnonq', while the word ouis clearly recalls ¥rnaj, confirming the relationship of those two passages and the technique of the double quotation (Callimachus and Hesiod), which is also applied here by Vergil. On the other hand, the word pinguis finds its exact equivalent in the Callimachean adjective p£ciston, while deductum (tenuis)853 recalls leptal{hn,854 denoting the “slender” and “elegant” style of the Callimachean (Hellenistic) poetry which Vergil is transplanting to Italy (cf. nostra Thalea) through the pastoral genre. 851

Cf. Call. fr. 2.1-5 Pf. with Pfeiffer 1949, ad loc. Coleman 1977, 203 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 326-327. 853 Cf. Macr. Sat. 6.4.12 Deductum pro tenui et subtili eleganter positum est, followed by a list of authors who use the term in the same sense. For a modern examination of the term deductum see Tress 2004, 55-71. 854 The term leptal{oj is a striking derivative of the adjective leptÒj selected due to metrical reasons (Pfeiffer 1949, ad loc). On an extensive discussion on this term, see Tress 2004, 43-55. 852

Eclogue 6 [Lines 6-8]

Vergil’s

allegiance

to

Callimachean

285

aesthetics

is

more

characteristically evidenced by the next lines, where Tityrus shows his adherence to the god’s instructions with a song in honour of Varus: nunc ego namque super tibi erunt qui dicere laudes, Vare, tuas cupiant et tristia condere bella agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam (Ecl. 6.6-8)

Referencing the existence of other writers who are considered as more appropriate for praising Varus with an epic poem is a traditional and convenient encomiastic means. Most significantly, however, it accords well with the Roman version of the recusatio, where Roman poets emphatically show their inability to rise to great subjects. These are the affairs of Roman history in general and the deeds of Octavian in particular, whose enumeration enables the poet to praise the addressee of the poem.855 On the other hand, the occupation in which Vergil is engaged (agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam) is an adaptation of Callimachus’ Moàsan leptal{hn. Vergil modifies the original by attributing the subtlety of the Muse to the pastoral instrument (tenui harundine) in order to show that, similarly to Callimachus’ Moàsa (poetry),856 harundo (panpipe and metonymically pastoral poetry)857 is “delicate”. Undoubtedly, the line under discussion provides a striking quotation from the opening

855

Cf. Prop. 2.1.17ff. where Propertius’ refusal to write for old or new subjects of Greek epic as well as for corresponding Roman subjects results in an enumeration of the affairs of ancient and current Roman history. 856 On the confusion of the meaning between the terms Muse and music, see Eclogue 1 above. 857 On the establishment of a rustic instrument as the symbol of and the metonymic term for the genre of pastoral poetry, see Eclogue 1 above.

286

Chapter 7

section of Eclogue 1 where the same conceit also occurs (cf. siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena Ecl. 1.2),858 strongly enhanced by the verbal correspondences agrestem Musam-siluestrem Musam, meditabor-meditaris and tenui harundine-tenui auena. The Vergilian self-quotation is confirmed by the expression agrestrem Musam (Ecl. 6.8) which, like the corresponding siluestrem Musam (Ecl. 1.2), draws on Lucretius:859 At liquidas auium uoces imitarier ore ante fuit multo quam leuia carmina cantu concelebrare homines possent aurisque iuuare. et zephyri caua per calamorum sibila primum agrestis docuere cauas inflare cicutas. inde minutatim dulcis didicere querellas, tibia quas fundit digitis pulsata canentum, auia per nemora ac siluas saltusque reperta, per loca pastorum deserta atque otia dia. sic unum quicquid paulatim protrahit aetas in medium ratioque in luminis eruit oras. haec animos ollis mulcebant atque iuuabant cum satiate cibi; nam tum sunt omnia cordi. saepe itaque inter se prostrati in gramine molli propter aquae riuom sub ramis arboris altae. non magnis opibus iucunde corpora habebant, praesertim cum tempestas ridebat et anni tempora pingebant uiridantis floribus herbas. tum ioca, tum sermo, tum dulces esse cachinni consuerant; agrestis enim tum musa uigebat (DRN 5.1379-1398) 858 859

Clausen 1994, 175. Coleman 1977, 177-178 and Clausen 1994, 175 and 181.

Eclogue 6

287

The tranquillity of the setting described by Lucretius corresponds to the typical milieu (locus amoenus) that is expressed by the Eclogues and by pastoral poetry generally. Nevertheless, the most striking parallel between the Vergilian and Lucretian passage is agrestrem Musam (Ecl. 6.8), which clearly recalls the agrestis musa (DRN 5.1398). This relationship is further reinforced by the typical metonymy of Muse for music860 used in both passages and by the fact that neither expression occurs elsewhere in either poet. [Lines 9-12]

Vergil’s relationship with Callimachus is further evidenced by the

audience of Tityrus’ song for Varus, which will be Apollo himself: Non iniussa cano. Si quis tamen haec quoque, si quis captus amore leget, te nostrae, Uare, myricae, te nemus omne canet; nec Phoebo gratior ulla est quam sibi quae Uari praescripsit pagina nomen (Ecl. 6.9-12)

Non iniussa cano may recall the Callimachean motto ¢m£rturon oÙd੻n ¢efdw (Aet. fr. 612 Pf.)861 symbolising Callimachus’ claim to the authority afforded by the literary and scholarly tradition on which he is based. Furthermore, the terms leget (“will read”), praescripsit (“written”) and especially pagina (“column”) of text on papyrus that contains the Eclogue headed by its title or dedication “to Varus” point to the physical form of the Vergilian collection as a scroll held in the hands of its reader and their usage is a comment on reading and writing.862 Thus, captus amore can mean either the subject of the Eclogue or the emotion experienced by the 860

Cf. above Eclogue 1. See also Ecl. 1.2 siluestrem tenui Musam meditaris auena. Cucchiarelli 2012, 330. See also Verg. Aen. 8.49 haud incerta cano. 862 Breed 2006, 91. 861

Chapter 7

288

reader,863 and such reading will pay tribute to Varus and will be recognised by the pastoral world (myricae te nemus omne). In other words, Tityrus is not only no longer singing of reges et proelia but is also no longer singing at all;864 on the contrary, he recalls the Callimachean narrator kai g¦r Óte prètiston œmolj œpi d{lton }qhka/ goÚnasin writing in columns on papyrus for a reading audience and especially for Apollo himself following his precepts. So far, it should be clear that Eclogue 6 and its introductory section are complicated and heavily based on a combination between Greek and Roman sources. Hesiod, Callimachus, Theocritus and Lucretius are all brought together here and are all closely related to HellenisticNeoteric aesthetics, recalling also Eclogue 1. Ecl. 1.1-5 programmatically anticipate that Vergilian pastoral is to be a genre written mostly on Theocritean subjects in Lucretian language with Callimachean aesthetics. Ecl. 6.1-12 are also based on the famous programmatic Callimachean prologue with further, either implicit or explicit, Hesiodic, Theocritean and Lucretian overtones. Therefore, these introductory verses could also be considered as programmatic, anticipating that Eclogue 6 is based on Hesiod, Callimachus, Theocritus and Lucretius, thereby confirming that Eclogue 6 is actually based on the Hellenistic tradition865 which is

863

Coleman 1977, 178 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 330. Cf. also G. 3.285 singula dum capti circumuectamur amore with Gale 1999, 48 with n. 41. 864 Breed 2006, 92. 865 Here, it should be mentioned that Hesiod could hardly belong to the Hellenistic tradition. However, the approval which Hesiod enjoyed from the Hellenistic authors (Call. Epigr. 27.1 = A.P. 9.507.1 `HsiÒdou tÒ t' ¥eisma kai Ð trÒpoj) is enough to confirm the abovementioned suggestion. See also Papanghelis 1994, 4142.

Eclogue 6

289

transferred to Rome, where it is expressed in Lucretian (Roman) language.866 [Lines 13-30] Subject

Vergil’s relationship with the Hellenistic tradition is more clearly

evidenced from the following country episode, the subject of which may recall a Theocritean epigram:867 LÍj, poti t©n Numf©n, didÚmoij aÙlolsin ¢elsai ¡dÚ tf moi; kºgë paktfd' ¢eir£menoj ¢rxeàmaf ti kr{kein· Ð d੻ boukÒloj ¥mmiga q{lxei D£fnij khrod{tJ pneÚmati melpÒmenoj· œggÝj d੻ st£ntej lasiaÚcenoj ¥ntrou Ôpisqen P©na tÕn aegib£tan Ñrfanfswmej Ûpnou (21 G-P = A.P. 9.433)

The epigram deals with a musical event that occurs in a place with a leafy oak behind a cave, where the two herdsmen are going to wake up the country god Pan. The legendary background and character (SilenumD£fnij), along with the occurrence of a cave (antro-¥ntrou), enhance the relationship of these two passages. Further support for this inference is offered by several thematic and verbal similarities, such as the close association with the song, the blending of the rustic background and pastoral mythology, the awakening of a rural deity from sleep and most importantly the magical effect which is caused by the main character’s musical performance. Most significant, however, is that the epigram, which has been in circulation at Rome in the 1st c. BC through Meleager’s

866

On Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and its Hellenistic-Neoteric character, see Papaghelis 1995, 143. See also Karakasis 2011, 72. 867 Segal 1976, 53-56.

Chapter 7

290

Garland, constitutes a genre closely related to Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics. [Lines 13-30] Characters

Vergil’s relationship with the Hellenistic tradition is further

reinforced by the characters who are engaged in Silenus’ capture: Chromis et Mnasyllos in antro Silenum pueri somno uidere iacentem (Ecl. 6.13-14)

The name Chromis recalls the Theocritean tradition and nomenclature,868 since it is found in Idyll 1 in the form of a Libyan herdsman (æj Óka tÕn LibÚaqe poti CrÒmin ¶saj œrfsdwn Id. 1.24).869 However, its origin is not Theocritean. On the contrary, it goes back to Homer, where Chromis is the name of the leader of the Mysians (Musîn d੻ CrÒmij Ãrce Il. 2.858) who is identified with a mythical figure, also known to Vergil, given its occurrence in the Aeneid (Chromimque A. 11.675).870 Chromis’ epic origin would also have been known to Theocritus, who deprives it of its epic connotations by the geographical designation LibÚaqe and by placing Chromis in a rustic song contest:871 ae d{ k' ¢efsVj æj Óka tÕn LibÚaqe poti CrÒmin ¶saj œrfsdwn, aੇg£ t{ toi dwsî didumatÒkon œj trij ¢m{lxai (Id. 1.23-25)

868

Lipka 2001, 178. Coleman 1977, 178, Clausen 1994, 182 and Cucchiarelli 2012 333. 870 Clausen 1994, 182. 871 Lipka 2001, 46. 869

Eclogue 6

291

However, the compositional technique of using standard Homeric characters, structural constructions and terms or even mere words placed in a nonelevated context has been considered as a typical Hellenistic trait872 running through the Idylls.873 Chromis, as the name of the main character in a rustic episode, which represents everyday and low material874 as opposed to epic, could not better serve this purpose.875 Nevertheless, Theocritus uses certain stylistic features in order to deprive the name of its epic overtones and to stress the grotesque aspect of standard Homeric terms. On the contrary, Vergil combines pastoral (Theocritus) and epigrammatic (Meleager) features by juxtaposing the name Chromis, borrowed from Theocritus rather than from Homer, with the name Mnasyllos, which is a non-Theocritean pastoral name;876 it is traced in a feminine form in a sepulchral epigram of Perses877 available to Vergil through Meleager’s Garland:878 Deilafa Mn£sulla, tf toi kai œp' ºrfJ oátoj murom{nv koÚran graptÕj }pesti tÚpoj Neutfmaj, ªj d› pok' ¢pÕ yuc¦n œrÚsanto çdlnej; keltai d' oƒa kat¦ blef£rwn ¢clÚi plhmÚrousa fflaj ØpÕ matrÕj ¢gostù, aeal, 'Aristot{lhj d' oÙk ¢p£neuqe pat¾r dexiter´ kefal¦n œpem£ssato. kð m{ga deilof, oÙd੻ qanÒntej Œîn œxel£qesq' ¢c{wn (7 G-P = A.P. 7.730) 872

Zanker 1987, 155-227. Fantuzzi and Hunter 2004, 133-141. 874 Zanker 1987, 158-160. 875 Special emphasis should also be laid on Silenus’ character, whose capture replaces the conventional capture of a superhuman who is compelled to reveal his secrets, such as that of Proteus by Menelaus (cf. Hom. Od. 4.383ff.). 876 Lipka 2001, 188. 877 Clausen 1994, 182-183 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 333-334. 878 Cf. Meleag. 1.26 G-P = A.P. 4.1.26 P{rsou t' eÙèdh scolnon ¢mhs£menoj. 873

Chapter 7

292

It is obvious that Vergil’s and Perses’ texts are not the same in content and context; nonetheless, the characteristic verbal correspondences MnasyllusMn£sulla can reinforce the suggestion that the name comes from the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition, while its female form can be explained by the Vergilian tendency to alter the personal names. What is more, Theocritus (pastoral) and Perses (epigrammatic) constitute sources which are

closely

associated

with

the

Hellenistic-Neoteric

aesthetics

emphatically evidenced throughout Eclogue 6. [Lines 13-19]

The rustic episode focuses on the satyr Silenus, who is captured

by two fauns or satyrs, Chromis and Mnasyllus, with the assistance of the Nymph Aegle (Ecl. 6.13-30). It has been argued, even in antiquity, that the motif of the captured satyr identified with the narrator of cosmological or philosophical subjects stems from the historian Theopompus,879 while modern scholars have also suggested Plato’s or Cicero’s influence.880 However, this section also owes a great deal to the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition.881 Besides the lack of certain evidence for the inclusion of the epigrams ascribed to Theocritus882 in a pastoral collection

879

Serv. Ecl. 6.13 sane hoc de Sileno non dicitur fictum a Vergilio, sed a Theopompo translatum, 6.26 haec autem omnia de Sileno a Theopompo in eo libro, qui Thaumasia appellatur, conscripta sunt. See also e.g. Ael. VH 3.18. 880 Hubbard 1975, 53-62 and Coleman 1977, 179. 881 Segal 1976, 53-56. On a different view about the relationship between the Vergilian section and these Theocritean epigrams, see Rossi 2001, 365-366. 882 On the complicated question of the authenticity of the epigrams which have been transmitted under Theocritus’ name, see Beckby 1975, 529-536, who summarises various views of the main editors. See also more recently Rossi 2001, 355-359, who examines the poems’ authorship and date, considering them as Theocritean and composed in the first half of the 3rd c. BC with the exception of epigrams 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 24 and 25, which she regards as spurious and therefore written at a later date.

Eclogue 6

293

prior to the 1st c. AD,883 two of these epigrams show close parallels with the Vergilian rustic episode:884 EÛdeij fullostrîti p{dJ, D£fni, sîma kekmakÕj ¢mpaÚwn· st£likej d' ¢rtipagelj ¢n' Ôrh. ¢greÚei d{ tu P¦n kai Ð tÕn krokÒenta Prfhpoj kissÕn œf' dmertù krati kaqaptÒmenoj ¥ntron }sw stefcontej ÐmÒrroqoi. ¢ll¦ tÝ feàge, feàge, meqeij Ûpnou kîma katagrÒmenon (19 G-P = A.P. 9.338)

The subject of this epigram resembles that of the Vergilian country episode since it deals with Daphnis, who is chased by Pan and Priapus while he is resting in a cave: Chromis et Mnasyllos in antro Silenum pueri somno uidere iacentem (Ecl. 6.13-14)

The relationship between the Vergilian episode and the Theocritean epigram is quite clear, and is first based on the mythological atmosphere that both passages exploit. This suggestion is further reinforced by the mythological nature of the main character common to both passages (Silenum-D£fnij), the identical setting for the capture (antro-¥ntron), the

883

Wilamowitz 1906, 113ff., Gow I 1952, lxix-lxxii and Smutny 1955, 75ff. For a different interpretation see Rossi 2001, 362 who, based on a recently suggested terminological distinction concerning various types of epigrammatic collections (Argentieri 1998, 1-2), suggests that the Theocritean corpus should be described as a sylloge of epigrams which the editor called Theocritean. 884 Segal 1976, 53-56.

Chapter 7

294

non-human nature (Chromis et Mnasyllos-P¦n kai Prfhpoj)885 and finally the number of assailants (two in each case).886 Moreover, special emphasis is laid on Priapus’ garland, which is also made of ivy. The reference to this plant recalls the god Dionysus, given that ivy had long been described as one of the most dominant elements of the Dionysiac wreath.887 The garland is also found in these Vergilian verses, which underline its significance by identifying it as the material that Chromis and Mnasyllus use to bind Silenus: serta procul tantum capiti delapsa (Ecl. 6.16) adgressi nam saepe senex spe carminis ambo luserat iniciunt ipsis ex uincula sertis (Ecl. 6.18-19)

Moreover, its Dionysiac elements emerge through the cantharus, an object which is associated with the god of wine,888 and through the metonymical

885

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 6.14 pueri nonnulli “pueri” non absurde putant dictum, quia Sileni priusquam senescant, satyri sunt. For modern views on the same question see Segal 1971, 56-61, who argues that the characters Chromis and Mnasyllus could hardly be human herdsmen. 886 Segal 1971, 56-61 observes that, although Aegle’s character increases the number of assailants from two to three, Vergil shows that it is an additional figure (Ecl. 6.20 addit se sociam timidisque superuenit Aegle) used to reinforce the mythical element and to emphasise the erotic overtone which in the epigram is carried by Pan and Priapus. 887 Cf. Hom. Hymn Bacch. 1 KissokÒmhn DiÒnuson œrfbromon ¥rcom' ¢efdein; Eur. Bacch. 81f. kissù te stefanwqeij/ DiÒnuson qerapeÚei; Ar. Th. 987 kissofÒre Bakcele/ d{spot' and 999f. kÚklJ d੻ perf se kissÕj/ eÙp{taloj Ÿliki q£llei. 888 Carpenter 1986, 117-123.

Eclogue 6

295

use of Iaccho (“wine”),889 since it is placed exactly before the garland detail, thereby representing a minor Eleusinian deity or a demon confused with Bacchus:890 inflatum hesterno uenas, ut simper, Iaccho; serta procul tantum capiti delapsa iacebant et grauis attrita pendebat cantharus ansa (Ecl. 6.15-17)

However, most significant is the concept of the garland falling from Silenus’ head. This striking detail is entirely absent from the aforementioned Theocritean epigram, but is in complete accordance with Vergil’s indebtedness to the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition, and that due to the fact that it occurs in an Asclepiadean epigram: Oੇnoj }rwtoj }legcoj· œr©n ¢rneÚmenon ¹mln ½tasan ad pollai NikagÒrhn propÒseij· kai g¦r œd£krusen kai œnÚstase kaf ti kathf੻j }blepe, cç sfigcqeij oÙk }mene st{fanoj (18 G-P = A.P. 12.135)

889

It should also be mentioned that this metonymy (Iacchus = wine) constitutes a Vergilian invention, modelled on the usual metonymy Bacchus = wine, which first occurs in Greek tragedy (cf. Eur. IA 1061 and IT 164) and then in Hellenistic epigrams, where it is employed by Antipater of Sidon twice (cf. Antip. Sid. 15.7 G-P = A.P. 7.27.7 ¢mffbrocoj egmata B£kcJ and 27.5-6 G-P = A.P. 7.353.5-6 Ótti tÕ B£kcou/ ¥rmenon oÙ B£kcou plÁrej }pesti t£fJ). Nonetheless, Vergil’s relationship to the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition and the lack of Euripides’ influence upon the Eclogues favours the Hellenistic provenance of this metonymy, which enhances the alleged influence of the Hellenistic epigram on the Vergilian passage under discussion (Ecl. 6.13-30). 890 Cf. OCD s.v. Iacchus.

296

Chapter 7

In a similar way, Silenus also loses the wreath from his head as the result of drinking too much wine, although his reason for drinking is entirely different: inflatum hesterno uenas, ut semper, Iaccho; serta procul tantum capiti delapsa iacebant (Ecl. 6.15-16)

This relationship is yet another indication of Dionysus’ notable presence behind Vergil’s pastoral episode, a presence whose role is far from accidental. On the contrary, it deals with Bacchus’ twofold quality as a god of wine and of poetry.891 Bacchus as a source of inspiration is well described in the Georgics, where it is he who inspires the Ausonian farmers to sing: nec non Ausonii, Troia gens missa, coloni uersibus incomptis ludunt risuque soluto, oraque corticibus sumunt horrenda cauatis, et te, Bacche, uocant per carmina laeta, tibique oscilla ex alta suspendunt mollia pinu (G. 2.385-389)

In the Eclogue, by sharp contrast, Apollo is the deity who actually offers inspiration. This antithesis is evident by the expression uersibus incomptis (“unkempt verses”) which contrasts with the corresponding deductum carmen (“fine-spun song”). In view of that, the Vergilian pastoral episode implicitly maintains the typical contrast between the verbose and refined 891

On Dionysus’ Roman name (Bacchus) and the double quality of the god, see BNP s.v. Bacchus with further bibliography.

Eclogue 6

297

poetic styles employed in the proem of the Eclogue, which confirms that the Vergilian recusatio cannot be merely a suitable opening device,892 but an actual literary manifesto on Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics. Chromis and Mnasyllus reveal that the reason for attacking

[Lines 25-30]

Silenus is merely a song. However, its significance is stressed at the end of the pastoral episode, where the effect of Silenus’ musical performance on the landscape is fully described: carmina quae uultis cognoscite; carmina uobis, huic aliud mercedis erit.' simul incipit ipse. tum uero in numerum Faunosque ferasque uideres ludere, tum rigidas motare cacumina quercus nec tantum Phoebo gaudet Parnasia rupes, nec tantum Rhodope miratur et Ismarus Orphea (Ecl. 6.25-30)

Such an idea resembles the context in the second half of the Lament for Bion, which deals with the comparison of Bion’s poetic art with other poets:893 p©sa, Bfwn, qrhnel se klut¦ pÒlij, ¥stea p£nta. ”Askra m੻n go£ei se polÝ pl{on `HsiÒdoio· Pfndaron oÙ poq{onti tÒson Boiwtfdej álai· oÙ tÒson 'Alkafw perimÚrato L{sboj œrann£, oÙd੻ tÒson tÕn ¢oidÕn ÑdÚrato T›ion ¥stu· s੻ pl{on 'ArcilÒcoio poqel P£roj, ¢nti d੻ Sapfoàj ees{ti seà tÕ m{lisma kinÚretai ¡ Mitul›na (Epit. Bion. 86-92) 892 893

Thomas 1999, 211. Clausen 1994, 188. See also Paschalis 1995, 618-619.

298

Chapter 7

Despite the different content and contexts, these passages bear a structural similarity. This is based on the priamel device, according to which Silenus/Bion’s poetic quality is the climax to a series of authors whose talents are recognised by their native places, a view which is also enhanced by the repeated opening formula nec tantum-oÙ tÒson. However, Vergil’s dependence on the Lament for Bion cannot be a mere coincidence. He draws on the priamel form, replacing Bion’s lament with the rejoicing that Silenus’ performance supplies for the audience which consists of figures from nature; this is an audience consisted of legendary Greek (Phoebo, Orphea) and Roman (Faunosque) figures, thereby reflecting the conflation of Greek and Roman (mostly mythological) elements on which the following song of Silenus draws. [Lines 31-40] Apollonius

The satyr’s capture signals the beginning of the song, which

begins by describing the world’s creation: Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta semina terrarumque animaeque marisque fuissent et liquidi simul ignis ut his ex omnia primis, omnia et ipse tener mundi concreuerit orbis; tum durare solum et discludere Nerea ponto coeperit et rerum paulatim sumere formas; iamque nouum terrae stupeant lucescere solem, altius atque cadant summotis nubibus imbres, incipiant siluae cum primum surgere cumque rara per ignaros errent animalia montis (Ecl. 6.31-40)

Eclogue 6

299

Silenus’ cosmogony is based on Orpheus’ cosmogonical song found in Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica:894 ”Heiden d' æj gala kai oÙranÕj ºd੻ q£lassa, tÕ prin }t' ¢ll›loisi miÍ sunarhrÒta morfÍ, nefkeoj œx Ñloolo di{kriqen ¢mfij Ÿkasta· ºd' æj }mpedon ae੻n œn aeq{ri t{kmar }cousin ¥stra, selhnafhj te kai ºelfoio k{leuqoi· oÜre£ q' æj ¢n{teile, kai æj potamoi kel£dontej aÙtÍsin nÚmfVsi kai Œrpet¦ p£nt' œg{nonto ½eiden d' æj prîton 'Offwn EÙrunÒmh te 'Wkeanij nifÒentoj }con kr£toj OÙlÚmpoio (Arg. 1.496-504)

This relationship is first confirmed by the structure of the Vergilian passage. Orpheus’ name occupies the position exactly before Silenus’ musical performance (... Orphea./ Namque canebat ...); moreover, it is placed in a context where the musical dexterity of the satyr actually competes with that of the legendary singer (Ecl. 6.27-30). Furthermore, both songs are employed in the third person, which shows that they are reported and not performed.895 In addition, they are also articulated in very similar ways (Namque canebat/ Hinc ... refert/ his adiungit/ tum canit”Heiden d' æj/ ºd' æj/½eiden d' æj), further employing the creation of the world, the emergence of the flora and fauna, while characteristically omitting the birth of mankind. Moreover, Silenus’ narrative is also framed by the corresponding Orphean one, given that its opening and closing lines

894

Coleman 1977, 183, Clausen 1994, 176 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 341. Cf. also Hom. Od. 8.499-520 (Demodocus’ song) and Verg. A. 1.742-46 (Iopas’ song). 895

300

Chapter 7

show strong thematic and verbal correspondences. The first Vergilian distich recalls the initial verse of Orpheus’ song employing the same subject and order, according to which the natural things emerge (earth-airsea). What is more, they use the same tense, verbal structure and introductory formula. The correspondences conclude with the two last lines of Silenus’ cosmogonical description, which is modelled on the corresponding last couplet of Orpheus’ account. This is confirmed by the vague and abrupt reference to the birth of animals and the lack of any specific explanation for the absence of the creation of humankind, which the above Vergilian and Apollonian verses have in common. [Lines 31-40] Lucretian language

Apollonius Rhodius, however, offers only the model for Silenus’

cosmogony. Equally significant is the philosophical school whose creed is here expounded. It has long been suggested that the philosophical doctrine illustrated here in standard Lucretian language is not consistent with that which is described in the De Rerum Natura, due to the fact that it also contains similarities to Empedocles.896 Nonetheless, a detailed examination of this Vergilian passage shows that Silenus’ cosmogonical philosophy and language are heavily influenced by Lucretius. Lucretian verbal influence was already noticed in part even in antiquity,897 and modern scholarship has also very often continued the discussion.898 Nevertheless, their detailed repetition here is in fact necessary in order to show Vergil’s

896

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 6.31 uariae sunt philosophorum opiniones de rerum origine: nam alii dicunt omnia ex igne procreari, ut Anaxagoras; alii ex umore, ut Thales Milesius, unde est “Oceanumque patrem”; alii ex quattuor elementis, ut Empedocles, secundum quem ait Lucretius “ex imbri, terra atque anima nascuntur et igni”. See also Disch 1921, 24-30, Jachmann 1923, 290f., Stewart 1959, 183186 and Knox 1986, 12, although Stewart argues for an Empedoclean cosmogony combined with certain Lucretian elements. 897 Cf. Macr. Sat. 4.11, 5.4 and 6.2.22-24. 898 Cartault 1897, 269-272 and Skutch 1901, 45-46.

Eclogue 6

301

close dependence on Lucretian philosophical vocabulary and doctrine.899 Silenus’ section begins with a typical Lucretian line: Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta semina (Ecl. 6.31-32)

Namque is one of the usual Lucretian connectives, which serves the poet’s preference for the logical arrangement of arguments introduced with the appropriate conjunction.900 Moreover, the occurrence of uti instead of the common ut is in fact noteworthy, in that this is the only instance in the Eclogues where the archaic form is used. Furthermore, it is a conventional Lucretian stylistic feature (DRN 1.134, 2.215, etc.) which accords with the traditional cosmogonical context of Vergil’s passage. Moreover, the expression magnum per inane, always placed in the same line position (DRN 1.1018, 1103, 2.65, 105, 109), also recalls Lucretius. In addition, the remaining terms of the line under discussion are equally significant. Lucretius’ favourite word for “atoms” (semina), along with cogere, usually applied to particles, has long been identified with Lucretian terminology: sponte sua forte offensando semina rerum multimodis temere in cassum frustraque coacta (DRN 2.1059-1060)901

899

Coleman 1977, 183-186, Clausen 1994, 189-192 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 341345. 900 On this Lucretian stylistic feature, see Bailey I 1947, 160-161. 901 Cf. also DRN 1.59, 176, 501 et al.

302

Chapter 7

On the other hand, Vergil’s reference to the elements of earth, air, water and fire, which have been regarded as an Empedoclean feature,902 resembles a Lucretian passage which also recalls Empedocles: semina terrarumque animaeque marisque fuissent et liquidi simul ignis; ut his ex omnia primis, omnia et ipse tener mundi concreuerit orbis (Ecl. 6.32-34) et qui quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri (DRN 1.714-715)

In addition, emphasis should be laid on terrarum which in Lucretius often occurs in the plural, and especially in the genitive, accusative and ablative cases,903 along with anima which, by denoting “air”,904 is a Lucretian linguistic detail.905 Moreover, the same Vergilian lines verbally recall Lucretius, something which has already been noticed by Macrobius:906 deuolet in terram liquidi color aureus ignis, semina quod nubes ipsas permulta necessust (DRN 6.205-206)

902

Stewart 1959, 184 with n. 26. See Munro II 1886, 22. Cf. also DRN 5.446 a terris altum secernere caelum. 904 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 6.32 animaeqve id est aeris, unde etiam uenti sunt. 905 Lucretius, however, is not credited with the invention of this use of the term anima (Enn. fr. 9 Skutsch), which shows that the word anima with that meaning should have been a fixed philosophical term (cf. TLL s.v. anima 70.38-48). 906 Cf. also Serv. Ecl. 6.33 id est aetheris, quem Cicero “ignitum liquorem” dicit; Lucretius “deuolet in terram liquidi color aureus ignis”. ut his exordia ex seminibus, hoc est atomis. primis pro ‘principiis’: quae enim Graeci stoicela, nos principia appellamus. 903

Eclogue 6

303

On the other hand, modern scholarship has also pointed to the word selection and order in the sentence ut his ex omnia primis, omnia, along with the repetition of omnia, because the language, the word order and the epanalepsis device respectively are clear-cut Lucretian features despite the doubtful state of the Vergilian text:907 corpora prima, quod ex illis sunt omnia primis (DRN 1.61) percipe, ne forte haec albis ex alba rearis principiis esse, ante oculos quae candida cernis (DRN 2.731-732 et al)908 reliqui motus uitalis uincere saepe, uincere et ingentis plagae sedare tumultus (DRN 2.955-956)909

Furthermore, the verb concreuerit (Ecl. 6.34) in its literal meaning (“condense”)910 is a word which stems from the De Rerum Natura, where it is particularly common;911 this is in strong contrast to discludere (Ecl.

907

Clausen 1994, 189-190 observes that of the two ancient manuscripts containing the specific line, P has ex omnia and R exordia which is a vulgate reading (cf. DServ. ad loc.), equally conceivable in terms of content and also a frequent Lucretian term for atoms (cf. DRN 2.333, 1062, 3.31, 380, 4.45, 114, 5.430, 471 and 677). Therefore, besides the lack of a consensus on the correct reading of the term under discussion in either case (ex omnia or exordia), Vergil’s dependence on Lucretius is clear. 908 Cf. also DRN 3.10 tuisque ex, inclute, chartis, 4.829 ualidis ex apta lacertis and 6.788 terris ex omnia surgunt. See also Munro II 1886, 99. 909 Cf. also DRN 6.528-530 et quae concrescunt in nubibus, omnia, prorsum/ omnia, nix uenti grando gelidaeque pruinae/ et uis magna geli. 910 Cf. OLD s.v. concresco 1 with examples. 911 Cf. TLL s.v. concresco 95.44-65.

Chapter 7

304

6.35) whose Lucretian provenance is more specific (cf. diffugere inde loci partes coepere paresque/ cum paribus iungi res et discludere mundum DRN 5.437-438) since it is also attested by ancient scholarship. Likewise, the Vergilian rerum ... formas (Ecl. 6.36) reflects the corresponding Lucretian phrase formae rerum (DRN 4.104), although the latter is a conjecture,912 while the adverb paulatim (Ecl. 6.36) can more characteristically recall the De Rerum Natura, since it is classified among Lucretius’ favourite words to use.913 Finally, the construction cum ... cumque (Ecl. 6.39) is an aural if not a thematic correspondence to the Lucretian phrase cum solis lumina cumque (DRN 2.114), which concludes the verbal similarities found in Silenus’ cosmogony. [Lines 31-40] Lucretian philosophy

Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius, however, is not exclusively

confined to the matter of the language that has been adopted in this section of the Eclogue. Instead, it also deals with the Epicurean philosophical creed,914 which Lucretius attempted to deliver to the Roman people by composing the De Rerum Natura. Further support for this view is first found in the general subject employed by Vergil (Ecl. 6.31-40), which is identified

with

Lucretius’

cosmogony

(DRN

5.783-1455).

Most

significant, however, is a series of Lucretian passages (DRN 2.1052-1063, 5.65-70 and 416-431), which should be read in association with the opening lines of Silenus’ cosmogony: Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta semina terrarumque animaeque marisque fuissent

912

Bailey III 1947, 1192. Cf. TLL s.v. paulatim 821.10-30. 914 On Vergil’s relationship with Epicurean philosophy concerning the composition of this section in the Eclogue, see Paratore 1964, 509-537, Spoerri 1970a, 144-163 and 1970b, 265-272. 913

Eclogue 6

305

et liquidi simul ignis (Ecl. 6.31-33)

The captured satyr describes in detail the process of the world’s formation based on the initial grouping of atoms which travel ungovernable through the great void (magnum per inane Ecl. 6.31-spatium … infinitum DRN 2.1053).915 Furthermore, their collisions with one another create conglomerates which recall Vergil’s coacta semina, identified in each of the following Lucretian passages: sponte sua forte offensando semina rerum multimodis temere in cassum frustraque coacta tandem coluerunt ea quae coniecta repente magnarum rerum fierent exordia simper (DRN 2.1059-1062)

congressus materiai (DRN 5.67) sed quia multa modis multis primordia rerum ex infinito iam tempore percita plagis ponderibusque suis consuerunt concita ferri omnimodisque coire atque omnia pertemptare (DRN 5.422-426)

915

The occurrence of the great void is also found in earlier cosmogonical passages (cf. Arist. Phys. 208b), but the phrase under discussion tends to suggest the atomic doctrine (cf. Diog. Laert. 9.31).

306

Chapter 7

Moreover, the coalescence of the particles of earth, air, water and fire is also evoked by these Lucretian passages, where the atoms of earth, sea, air and stars are described as the constituent parts of the world: magnarum rerum fierent exordia semper, terrai maris et caeli generisque animantum (DRN 2.1062-1063) et quibus ille modis congressus materiai fundarit terram caelum mare sidera solem lunaique globum (DRN 5.67-69) sed quibus ille modis coniectus materiai fundarit terram et caelum pontique profunda, solis lunai cursus, ex ordine ponam (DRN 5.416-418)916

Nonetheless, such a suggestion reinforces the Empedoclean interpretation of Silenus’ cosmogony (see above), which still remains unverified not only due to the fact that the Vergilian intention is to blend different philosophical schools in this section of the poem, but also because Lucretius’ philosophy is not entirely alien to that of Empedocles. On the contrary, it shows close parallels in the belief that earth, water, air and fire

916

Here, it should be mentioned that the structural correspondence of the last item is carried over in the following verse of the passage and weighted with an epithet (Ecl. 6.32f. semina terrarumque animaeque marisque fuissent/ et liquidi simul ignis-DRN 5.68f. fundarit terram caelum mare sidera solem/ lunaique globum). See also DRN 6.529-530.

Eclogue 6

307

coalesce in some preliminary formations whence the various components of the universe are formed: Principio quoniam terrai corpus et umor aurarumque leves animae calidique uapores, e quibus haec rerum consistere summa uidetur, omnia nativo ac mortali corpore constant, debet eodem omnis mundi natura putari (DRN 5.235-239)

Therefore, Vergil’s strong relationship with Lucretius is not exclusively a matter of language, but is further concerned with the Lucretian (Epicurean) philosophy. Such a view, however, could not identify Silenus’ cosmogonical passage with a tenet of natural philosophy which is modelled on Apollonius Rhodius and Lucretius. Doctrinal inconsistencies show that the Vergilian intention is not the composition of an Epicurean or Empedoclean doctrine, but of a sample of scientific poetry which is based on the most eminent Roman source (De Rerum Natura) for this type of poetry.917 [Lines 41-44]

The Hellenistic-Neoteric colour of the Eclogue is stressed by

Silenus’ mythological narrative, which begins with Deucalion’s and Pyrrha’s stones,918 Saturn’s Age and Prometheus’ punishment and theft:919

917

See also Baldwin 1991, 102, who observes that Silenus’ song begins with philosophical (cosmological) subjects that may recall Epicurean philosophy, which denies the very existence of legendary creatures (cf. Lucr. DRN 5.888-925) such as the satyr Silenus who is humorously described relating Epicurean doctrines. 918 On Deucalion’s and Pyrrha’s story, see Hes. fr. 234 M-W; Pind. Ol. 9.41ff.; Conon Narr. 27; Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 1.7.2ff.; Luc. De Syr. 12.1ff.; Ov. M. 1.313-415; Hyg. Fab. 153. 919 On Prometheus’ association with this mythological story see Grimal 1951, s.v. Prométhée. Moreover, special attention should be paid to the awkward

Chapter 7

308

hinc lapides Pyrrhae iactos, Saturnia regna, Caucasiasque refert uolucris furtumque Promethei (Ecl. 6.41-42)

The allusive and elliptical narrative that requires the reader’s knowledge of the story constitutes a typical feature closely related to HellenisticNeoteric aesthetics, thereby indicating that the Vergilian intention is to create a Hellenistic-Neoteric Eclogue. Unlike these mythical tales, however, the next story of Hylas is a Hellenistic legend which indeed enjoys great popularity as a subject of poetry920 and art,921 and is most extensively treated by Apollonius Rhodius (Arg. 1.207-1272) and Theocritus (Id. 13). These authors are the most obvious sources for the selection of this mythological subject by Vergil due to their relationship with the Roman poet:922 his adiungit, Hylan nautae quo fonte relictum clamassent, ut litus ‘Hyla, Hyla’ omne sonaret (Ecl. 6.43-44)

Similarly to the previous section, the Vergilian version is also highly allusive, demanding the reader’s prior knowledge of the story for its effectiveness. Nevertheless, certain details of the legend show that the Vergilian intention is to follow and deviate from the corresponding chronological order of the events, given that the Saturnian Age precedes the recreation of the human race, while Prometheus’ theft certainly comes before the punishment. 920 Cf. G. 3.6 cui non dictus Hylas puer. See also Prop. 1.20. Furthermore, there were also Hellenistic treatments of the story by Euphorion (cf. Euph. fr. 76 Powell) and Nicander (cf. Nicand. fr. 48 Schneider). 921 Cf. LIMC V.1 1981-1999, 574-579 and V.2 1981-1999, 396-399. 922 Coleman 1977, 188, Clausen 1994, 193-194 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 347-348.

Eclogue 6

309

Apollonian and Theocritean treatments of this subject. Quo fonte refers to the well whence Hylas was carried off without specifying its name. This follows Theocritus’ account in which the spring is described in detail but not identified with a specific one: peri d੻ qrÚa poll¦ pefÚkei, ku£neÒn te celidÒnion clwrÒn t' ¢dfanton kai q£llonta s{lina kai eeliten¾j ¥grwstij (Id. 13.40-42)

On the other hand, Vergil also diverges from Apollonius, who specifies the pool by calling it “Streams”: aੇya d' Óge kr›nhn metekfaqen ¿n kal{ousin Phg¦j ¢gcfguoi perinai{tai (Arg. 1.221-1222)

Furthermore, searching for and calling the lost boy is a task exclusively credited by Vergil to the Argo’s crew, while in Apollonius the same reaction is ascribed to Polyphemus and Heracles: Toà d' ¼rwj e£contoj œp{kluen oੇoj Œtafrwn Eelatfdhj PolÚfhmoj, eën prot{rwse keleÚqou (Arg. 1.1240-1241)

cwÒmenoj d' œl£thn cam£dij b£len, œj d੻ k{leuqon t¾n q{en Î pÒdej aÙtoi Øp{kferon ¢fssonta (Arg. 1.1263-1264)923

923

Cf. also Arg. 1.1240-1272.

Chapter 7

310

On the other hand, this is similar to Theocritus, where Heracles alone is involved in the quest for Hylas:

'Amfitruwni£daj d੻ tarassÒmenoj peri paidf õceto, Maiwtisti labën eÙkamp{a tÒxa kai ૧Òpalon, tÒ od ae੻n œc£ndane dexiter¦ cefr (Id. 13.55-57)924

Both modifications are used to intensify Hylas’ predicament in being left behind by his comrades, characteristically confirmed by the emphasis on the echo motif (note the fading effect which is also expressed by the metre clamassent, ut litus ‘Hyla (–), Hyla’ (‰) omne sonaret, reflecting the echo produced by the calls for Hyla). In view of that, the abduction place is an idealised one, which generates a contrast between Hylas’ carefree search for water and the next anxious quest for him; at the same time, the increase in the number of people who are searching for Hylas enhances the importance of the abducted figure and thus the misery for Hylas’ loss. Nonetheless, the Vergilian emphasis on the emotional details of the story is not accidental. On the contrary, it is a formal Hellenistic-Neoteric feature, which is also confirmed by the manner in which this myth has already been employed by Greek and Roman sources. [Lines 45-51]

The pathetic tone of Hylas’ story constitutes a suitable transition

to the more pathetic and extensive tale of the Eclogue, that of Pasiphae’s myth: et fortunatam, si numquam armenta fuissent, Pasiphaen niuei solatur amore iuuenci.

924

Cf. also Id. 13.55ff.

Eclogue 6

311

a, uirgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit! Proetides implerunt falsis mugitibus agros, at non tam turpis pecudum tamen ulla secuta concubitus, quamuis collo timuisset aratrum et saepe in leui quaesisset cornua fronte. a! uirgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus erras: ille latus niueum molli fultus hyacintho ilice sub nigra pallentis ruminat herbas aut aliquam in magno sequitur grege. ‘claudite, Nymphae, Dictaeae Nymphae, nemorum iam claudite saltus, si qua forte ferant oculis sese obuia nostris errabunda bouis uestigia; forsitan illum aut herba captum uiridi aut armenta secutum (Ecl. 6.45-60)

Bacchylides’ dithyramb (fr. 26 Schneider) and the fragmentary Euripidean tragedy Cretes (TrGF 5.1 (2004) 502-516) had already employed the story extensively.925 However, it is hard to suggest either Bacchylides’ or Euripides’ influence on the Vergilian version of Pasiphae’s story due to the meagre evidence of the ancient texts and Vergil’s lack of dependence on those authors throughout the Eclogues.926 Modern scholars have frequently observed the relationship between these Vergilian verses and the style of the Neoteric epyllion. This is based on several features that are typical of this literary category: the elliptical narrative that requires the reader’s knowledge of the story (Ecl. 6.45-46), the poet’s sympathetic

925

Cf. also Ap. Rh. Arg. 3.999. See also Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 1.9.1, 3.1.2, 15.1; Diod. Sic. 4.60ff.; Ant. Lib. Met. 41; Ov. Ars Am. 1.289ff.; Hyg. Fab. 40. 926 Vergil’s relationship with Euripides’ Hippolytus in Eclogue 10 is a striking exception because Gallus’ influence (the lost Amores) is also implied there. See Eclogue 10 below.

Chapter 7

312

apostrophe to the heroine (Ecl. 6.47), the embedded myth of Proetus’ daughters (Ecl. 6.48-51),927 the epanalepsis of the address in order to frame the embedded tale (Ecl. 6.52), the poet’s comment on the picturesque details (Ecl. 6.52-55) and the heroine’s happy or distressed disproportioned speech (Ecl. 6.55-60).928 This suggestion can be further reinforced by Silenus’ apostrophe to Pasiphae, which recalls another Neoteric epyllion, that of Calvus’ Io: 929 a, uirgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit! (Ecl. 6.47) a uirgo infelix, herbis pasceris amaris (Calv. fr. 9 Courtney)

On the other hand, the exclamation identified in the second half of the same Vergilian line also reproduces Corydon’s self-address and motif of love as madness, which is modelled on Corydon’s Theocritean counterpart, Polyphemus:930 quae te dementia cepit! (Ecl. 6.47) a, Corydon, Corydon, quae te dementia cepit! (Ecl. 2.69) 927

On the mythological story of Proetus’ daughters, see Bacchyl. Epinic. 11; Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 2.2.2; Ov. M. 15.322. 928 Stewart 1959, 190, Ross 1975, 37-38 and Clausen 1994, 194. See also Karakasis 2012, 83. 929 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 6.47 Caluus in Io “a uirgo infelix, herbis pasceris amaris”. See also Coleman 1977, 189-190, Clausen 1994, 195 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 349-350. 930 Cucchiarelli 2012, 349-350. See also Davis 2012, 103-104.

Eclogue 6

313

ð KÚklwy KÚklwy, p´ t¦j fr{naj œkpepÒtasai; (Id. 11.72)

[Lines 52-60]

Calvus’ presence becomes more evident in the subsequent lines

of the section where the same phrase is repeated (a! uirgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus erras Ecl. 6.52). Here, however, it is followed by a different second half, which recalls the remaining details of the above Calvan line (herbis pasceris amaris Calv. fr. 9 Courtney). The verb erras corresponds to the meaning of pasceris by showing that Pasiphae’s actions could be considered as identical to those of Io.931 However, Corydon’s self-address is not the only Vergilian self-quotation found here. Pasiphae’s first words are indicative of that: claudite, Nymphae, Dictaeae Nymphae, nemorum iam claudite saltus (Ecl. 6.55-56)

These verses recall Palaemon’s final words in Eclogue 3, which are based on the very last stanza of Catullus 61:932 claudite iam riuos, pueri; sat prata biberunt (Ecl. 3.111) claudite ostia, uirgines lusimus satis (Cat. 61.224-225)

931

Thomas 1979, 337-339 also suggests that pallentis ruminat herbas (Ecl. 6.54) is an imitation of the corresponding herbis pasceris amaris (Calv. fr. 9 Courtney). 932 Hubbard 1998, 103.

Chapter 7

314

However, Palaemon’s order is related to these Catullan verses in the sense that a literary piece comes to an end, resulting in a harmonious resolution (drawn contest and marriage). What is more, Vergil’s dependence on the Hellenistic-Neoteric par excellence Catullan collection is once again enough to confirm that Eclogue 6 constitutes a Hellenistic-Neoteric composition. [Line 61]

The extended treatment that Pasiphae’s section receives interrupts

the allusive nature of Silenus’ stories, which is restored by the next two brief mythological tales. The first one deals with Atalanta’s story:933 tum canit Hesperidum miratam mala puellam (Ecl. 6.61)

Atalanta’s race and eventual defeat by Hippomenes are also mentioned in Idyll 3:934 `Ippom{nhj, Óka d¾ t¦n parq{non ½qele g©mai, m©l' œn cersin Œlën drÒmon ¥nuen· ¡ d' 'Atal£nta æj hden, ìj œm£nh, ìj œj baqÝn ¤lat' }rwta (Id. 3.40-42)

The story’s allusive character and the emphasis on the moment when the girl stopped racing to gaze at the golden fruit is the main evidence of this relationship. However, the Vergilian version significantly deviates from the Theocritean original. Besides its metrical necessity,935 the heroine’s

933

On the mythological story of Hippomenes and Atalanta, see Grimal 1951, s.v. Atalante. 934 Coleman 1977, 193, Clausen 1994, 198 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 354-355. 935 Norden 1926, 129-130.

Eclogue 6

315

name (puellam) is omitted as it is in Propertius’ version (ergo uelocem potuit domuisse puellam Prop. 1.1.15),936 which in that sense is a variant feature drawn from a common source (Gallus?). Furthermore, Vergil’s version also specifies the origin of the golden apples (Hesperidum), which is a detail introduced by Vergil but is not a Vergilian innovation. These alterations are respectively related to the reader’s expected familiarity with the legend and to the Vergilian preference for obscure versions of the mythological story, two conventional Hellenistic features frequently employed by the Neoteric poets. Vergil recalls this Theocritean passage, emphasising its sophisticated and learned spirit through characteristic modifications that correspond to Hellenistic learned poetry that is transferred to Rome and followed by the Neoterics. [Lines 62-63]

The next mythological story is concerned with Phaethon and is

introduced by the reference to his metamorphosed sisters: tum Phaethontiadas musco circumdat amarae corticis atque solo proceras erigit alnos (Ecl. 6.62-63)

This story had already been employed by Hesiod937 along with Aeschylus and Euripides in the fragmentary tragedies Heliades and Phaethon respectively.938 Nevertheless, the most obvious source for these Vergilian verses is Apollonius Rhodius:939

936

Cf. also the Hellenistic-Neoteric learned manner, which is used to show Atalanta’s identity by using the patronymic Iasidos (Prop. 1.1.10). See also Ross 1975, 61f. 937 Cf. Hyg. Fab. 154. 938 Cf. TrGF 3 1985, 185-189 and ibid 5.2 2004, 798-826. For Phaethon see Diod. Sic. 5.23; Lucr. DRN 5.392ff.; Ov. M. 2.31ff.; Hyg. Fab. 152a, 156, 250. 939 Coleman 1977, 193-194 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 356-357.

Chapter 7

316 ¢mfi d੻ koàrai

`Hli£dej tanaÍsin œelm{nai aegefroisin mÚrontai kinurÕn m{leai gÒon, œk d੻ faein£j ºl{ktrou lib£daj blef£rwn proc{ousin }raze (Arg. 4.603-606)

Further confirmation for Vergil’s dependence on Apollonius is also offered by the similar way in which these authors introduce the transformation scene, strongly enhanced by the verbal correspondence circumdat-¢mfi d੻ koàrai œelm{nai. Nevertheless, the use of the adelphonymic form Phaethontiadas instead of the ordinary patronymic `Hli£dej, together with the metamorphosis of the girls into alders (alnos) and not into poplars (aegefroisin) as according to tradition, are crucial variations. These are not merely used by Vergil in order to depart from the Apollonian version, but rather to stress the learned and elegant HellenisticNeoteric character of this story. This is expressed by the reader’s knowledge of the tale (Phaethontiadas) and especially by the Vergilian fondness for the obscure versions of the myth (alnos). What is more, Phaethon’s story constitutes the first mythological story of Silenus’ song to explicitly employ the metamorphosis element,940 which has long been considered as a beloved subject of Hellenistic-Neoteric poetry.941 [Lines 64-73]

The mythological narrative of Silenus’ song is abruptly

interrupted by the historical personality of Gallus, who enters the Vergilian pastoral world:

940

Cf. Ecl. 6.41 hinc lapides Pyrrhae iactos, where the stones cast by Pyrrha had been transformed into human beings. 941 Hutchinson 1988, 329.

Eclogue 6

317

tum canit, errantem Permessi ad flumina Gallum Aonas in montis ut duxerit una sororum, utque uiro Phoebi chorus adsurrexerit omnis; ut Linus haec illi diuino carmine pastor floribus atque apio crinis ornatus amaro dixerit: hos tibi dant calamos en accipe Musae, Ascraeo quos ante seni, quibus ille solebat cantando rigidas deducere montibus ornos. his tibi Grynei nemoris dicatur origo, ne quis sit lucus quo se plus iactet Apollo (Ecl. 6.64-73)

Gallus’ entrance into the pastoral world recalls Hesiod’s poetic initiation by the Muses on the mountain Helicon, described in the introduction of the Theogony:942 ag nÚ poq' `Hsfodon kal¾n œdfdaxan ¢oid›n, ¥rnaj poimafnonq' `Elikînoj Ûpo zaq{oio. tÒnde d{ me prètista qeai prÕj màqon }eipon, Moàsai 'Olumpi£dej, koàrai DiÕj aegiÒcoio· "poim{nej ¥grauloi, k£k' œl{gcea, gast{rej oੇon, hdmen yeÚdea poll¦ l{gein œtÚmoisin Ðmola, hdmen d' eât' œq{lwmen ¢lhq{a ghrÚsasqai." ìj }fasan koàrai meg£lou DiÕj ¢rti{peiai, kaf moi skÁptron }don d£fnhj œriqhl{oj Ôzon dr{yasai, qhhtÒn· œn{pneusan d{ moi aÙd¾n q{spin, gna klefoimi t£ t' œssÒmena prÒ t' œÒnta, kaf m' œk{lonq' Ømneln mak£rwn g{noj ae੻n œÒntwn,

942

Coleman 1977, 194-196, Clausen 1994, 199-201 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 357359.

318

Chapter 7 sf©j d' aÙt¦j prîtÒn te kai Ûstaton ae੻n ¢efdein (Theog. 22-34)

These Hesiodic verses are also imitated by Callimachus in the prologue of the Aetia, thereby reflecting the Callimachean/Hesiodic background already found in the introductory section of the Eclogue (Ecl. 6.1-12):943 poim{ni mÁla n{monti par' hcnion Ñx{oj gppou `HsiÒdJ Mous{wn ŒsmÕj Ót' ºntfasen (fr. 2.1-2 Pf.)944

Further support for the Hesiodic-Callimachean conflation, which is clearly reproduced in the Eclogue, is also offered by several thematic and verbal similarities. Despite its erotic overtones,945 Gallus’ wandering by a river is also a typical country occupation, given that the shepherds used to tend their flocks in such places.946 In view of that, it recalls the pastoral activity in which the shepherd Hesiod is engaged. This view is strongly enhanced by the geographical detail Permessi, which is a river already known not only by Hesiod (Permhssolo Theog. 5) but also by Callimachus:947

943

Coleman 1977, 195, Clausen 1994, 199-200 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 359-360. On Hesiod’s and Callimachus’ influence concerning the literary investiture in the Roman literature, see Kambylis 1965. 945 Wandering constitutes a common subject in the Vergilian pastoral and especially in Eclogue 6 (Elder 1961, 118-119), while aimlessly roaming has also been described as a love symptom in the Hellenistic and Roman traditions (cf. Call. Hymn 3.189-191; Verg. Ecl. 2.3-5; Prop. 1.1.11-12). 946 See also Ap. Rh. Arg. 2.502-3 aÙt¦r 'ApÒllwn/ t›ng' ¢nereiy£menoj potamù }pi poimafnousan. 947 Coleman 1977, 195, Clausen 1994, 200 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 359. 944

Eclogue 6

319

Permhsso]à PermhssÕj po]tamÕj tÁj Boiwtfa]j, œx oá }cein t¦j phg]¦j l{getai ¹ proeirh]m{nh 'Aganfpph (fr. 696 Pf. = fr. 2a.20-24 Pf.)948

In other words, Permessus could easily be a term drawn from Hesiod and Callimachus. However, Vergil’s reference to Permessus’ fountain with the name Aganippe (Aonian Aganippe Ecl. 10.12), which is a spring about which nothing is known before Callimachus,949 favours the assumption that Vergil’s Permessi is more likely to come from Callimachus: 'Aganfpph] kr›nh œn `Elikîni] (fr. 696 Pf. = fr. 2a.16 Pf.)

¹ proeirh]m{nh 'Aganfpph (fr. 696 Pf. = fr. 2a.23f. Pf.)950

In a similar way, the phrase Aonas in montis is entirely absent from Hesiod but can be found in Callimachus ('Aonfou B]oiwtfou fr. 572 Pf. = fr. 2a.30 Pf.),951 who first refers to Aones through an identification with a people who were formerly located in Boeotia.952 Moreover, unlike Hesiod (Moàsai), Gallus’ initiator (Linus) is not a divine but a human being named Linus, whose character is based on a conflation of Callimachus and Theocritus:953

948

Pfeiffer 1953, 103. Cf. Alc. Mess. 12.5-6 G-P = A.P. 7.55.5-6 tofhn g¦r kai gÁrun ¢p{pneen œnn{a Mous{wn/ Ð pr{sbuj kaqarîn geus£menoj lib£dwn. 950 Pfeiffer 1953, 102-103. 951 Pfeiffer 1953, 103. 952 Cf. Str. 9.2.3. 953 Ross 1975, 21-23. 949

320

Chapter 7 ¥rnej toi, ffle koàre, sun›likej, ¥rnej Œtalroi }skon, œniauqmoi d' aÙlfa kai bot£nai (fr. 27-28 Pf.)

gr£mmata m੻n tÕn palda g{rwn Lfnoj œxedfdaxen, udÕj 'ApÒllwnoj meledwneÝj ¥grupnoj ¼rwj (Id. 24.105-106)

However, the character of Linus also contains characteristic Hesiodic overtones, given that Hesiod describes Linus as a legendary poet.954 This relationship is also reinforced by the gift which Gallus receives, identified as Hesiod’s pipes, although it is a different item from that which is accepted by the Greek poet (calamos  skÁptron d£fnhj). The conflation of various sources in Gallus’ episode concludes with Parthenius:955 his tibi Grynei nemoris dicatur origo, ne quis sit lucus quo se plus iactet Apollo (Ecl. 6.72-73)

Grynei nemoris translates the Parthenian phrase GrÚneioj 'ApÒllwn (Parth. fr. 620 SH), which is closely associated with Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo:956 D›lioj 'ApÒllwn kekl›setai, oÙd{ tij ¥llh gai£wn tossÒnde qeù pefil›setai ¥llJ (Hymn 2.269-270) 954 Cf. Hes. fr. 305 M-W OÙranfh d' ¥r' }tikte Lfnon polu›raton udÒn·/ Ön d›, Ósoi brotof eesin ¢oidoi kai kiqaristaf,/ p£ntej m੻n qrhneàsin œn eelapfnaij te corolj te,/ ¢rcÒmenoi d੻ Lfnon kai l›gontej kal{ousin. 955 Coleman 1977, 198, Clausen 1994, 203-204 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 364. 956 Clausen 1994, 204 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 364.

Eclogue 6

321

The Parthenian passage ends the sources that run through the Gallus section. Hesiod, Callimachus, Theocritus and Parthenius are conflated in Gallus’ inauguration, thereby reflecting the Hellenistic tradition (Hesiod, Callimachus and Theocritus), which is transferred to Rome through the last Hellenistic author (Parthenius) and is followed by the Neoterics (Gallus). [Lines 74-77]

The return to Silenus’ legendary narrative is evidenced by the

next mythological story. Scylla’s story is a famous Hellenistic subject treated by Callimachus and Parthenius.957 Nonetheless, the popularity of the subject and the fragmentary state in which this myth has come down to us in those sources cannot suggest that Vergil is based either on Callimachus’ or Parthenius’ version: Quid loquar aut Scyllam Nisi, quam fama secuta est candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris Dulichias uexasse rates et gurgite in alto a! timidos nautas canibus lacerasse marinis (Ecl. 6.74-77)

Vergil’s version, on the other hand, identifies the Megarian Scylla with Phorcys’ daughter, the monstrous Scylla, the lower part of whose body is that of a hideous monster.958 The conflation of the two Scyllas is a treatment used to relate one of the Scylla stories while reminding the reader of the other. Such sophisticated poetry is in fact representative of 957

Cf. Call. Hec. fr. 288 Pf.; Parth. Met. fr. 24 Lightfoot along with Coleman 1977, 198-199. See also Aesch. Ch. 612ff.; Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 3.210ff.; [Verg.] Ciris passim; Prop. 3.19.21ff.; Ov. M. 8.1-151; Hyg. Fab. 198. For the popularity of this myth in the Hellenistic period see Hollis 1970, 32-35 and Lyne 1978, 5-14. 958 On the Homeric Scylla, see Hom. Od. 12.73ff.; Ap. Rh. Arg. 4.789f., 825ff.; Ov. M. 7.62ff., 13.730ff. and 13.900ff.; Hyg. Fab. 125, 199.

322

Chapter 7

both Callimachus and Parthenius. This is confirmed by both the metamorphosis element, which has been considered as a favourite subject for Hellenistic authors and especially for Parthenius,959 and by the “Alexandrian footnote” quam fama secuta est, which is a Callimachean technique used to show the complex situation of the material in Scylla’s story. The most significant evidence, however, for the complexity around the material for this myth, is revealed by examining the Vergilian version of Scylla’s story (Ecl. 6.74-77) which recalls the Lucretian language:960 ne forte ex homine et ueterino semine equorum confieri credas Centauros posse neque esse, aut rapidis canibus succinctas semimarinis corporibus Scyllas et cetera de genere horum, inter se quorum discordia membra videmus (DRN 5.890-894)

Vergil is based on these Lucretian verses with an ideologically reversed context,961 imitating its literary expression while borrowing specific linguistic details. This suggestion can be further reinforced by the Lucretian phrase gurgite in alto.962 On the other hand, these Lucretian verses had already been imitated by Catullus 60, which therefore is the most obvious source for these Vergilian verses: candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris (Ecl. 6.75)

959

Lightfoot 1999, 240-245. Coleman 1977, 199-200 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 366-367. 961 On this relationship between Vergil and Lucretius, see Eclogue 1 above. 962 Cf. DRN 5.387 omnia diluviare ex alto gurgite ponti. 960

Eclogue 6

323

aut Scylla latrans infima inguinum parte (Cat. 60.3)

The mythological subject selected here is employed in a Hellenistic manner (the requirement of the reader’s foreknowledge of the legend and Vergil’s preference for obscure versions of the story) and is expressed with Neoteric language (Lucretius-Catullus). As a result, it reflects the transformation of Greek Hellenistic poetry into Roman Neoteric poetry, out of which Scylla’s section emerges. [Lines 78-81]

The metamorphosis element also plays an eminent role in the

next mythological story of Tereus and Philomela, where it is combined with the horrible and morbid feature that constitutes yet another typical Hellenistic-Neoteric hallmark:963 aut ut mutatos Terei narrauerit artus, quas illi Philomela dapes, quae dona pararit, quo cursu deserta petiuerit et quibus ante infelix sua tecta super uolitauerit alis? (Ecl. 6.78-81)

Once again, due to the popularity of the story, which is found in many places in Greek and Roman literature, it is hard to specify a source on which Vergil is based.964 Nonetheless, a disagreement on the original relationships between the characters and on which birds the two women were transformed into existed even in antiquity. The Greek authors make Philomela a nightingale and Procne a swallow, while in the Roman

963

Lightfoot 1999, 244-245. On Procne and Philomela, see Conon Narr. 31; Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 3.193ff.; Ov. M. 6.438-674; Hyg. Fab. 45.

964

324

Chapter 7

tradition these roles are usually reversed. Furthermore, modern scholars support the view that Philomela’s character is Tereus’ wife.965 Vergil’s version of the Tereus and Philomela legend exactly corresponds with this dispute, based on the antiquarian interest in the exact version of the story. Further support for such a view is offered by the distorted chronological order of the narrative sequence (dapes and dona 79, mutatos ... artus 78, ante ... uolitauerit 81, petiuerit 80) along with the indirect questions (quas ... quae ... quo ... quibus ...).966 The precedence of the descriptive over the narrative details in association with the allusive, obscure and repulsive context of these Vergilian verses recalls the elegant and elaborate style typical of the Hellenistic poets Callimachus, Euphorion and Parthenius and, through them, of the Hellenistic poetry that was introduced in Rome in the 1st c. BC and followed by the Neoterics. The Eclogue comes to an end with the next five verses, which refer to a song composed by Apollo: omnia, quae Phoebo quondam meditante beatus audiit Eurotas iussitque ediscere lauros, ille canit, pulsae referunt ad sidera ualles; cogere donec ouis stabulis numerumque referre iussit et inuito processit Vesper Olympo (Ecl. 6.82-86)

It should be noted that the first three lines have received two contrasting interpretations. Some scholars argue that what Silenus has already sung

965

Hudson-Williams 1980, 127 with n. 19. Here, it should be mentioned that Skutsch 1901, 32-33 nicely observes that this successive polyptoton may recall the Callimachean opening (Call. Aet. fr. 3.1, 7.1, 43.87 and 178.23-26 Pf.). 966

Eclogue 6

325

(Eclogue 6.31-81) is not his own creation but a song which had been composed and sung by Apollo, which has been rejected given that Apollo’s song cannot contain Gallus’ initiation.967 On the other hand, there are some scholars who believe that Eclogue 6.82-84 (Apollo’s song) constitute the last subject in a song composed and sung by Silenus; hence, ille canit introduces a new subject (cf. tum canit Eclogue 6.61 and 64).968 However, both explanations stress Apollo’s song, based on an episode which deals with a love affair either with Hyacinthus (cf. Serv. Ecl. 6.83)969 or Daphne.970 The motifs of unhappy love and metamorphosis, which are found in Hyacinthus’ and Daphne’s section, are subjects often employed

in 971

Parthenius

Hellenistic-Neoteric

poetry.

Both

Euphorion

and

had already treated this story, but again there is no specific

quotation from the work of those Hellenistic poets. Vergil ends the Eclogue by showing an allegiance to Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics in imitating the implicit and allusive way in which such mythical stories are employed. He further explicitly introduces the erotic element whose meaning is very significant, since it is Apollo’s inspirational source on which these love stories draws. What is more, Apollo constitutes the god 967

Skutsch 1906, 133-138. Clausen 1994, 207-208. See also Knox 1990, 183-202 and esp. 185 n. 8 and 9 with further bibliography. 969 On the episode of Hyacinthus’ death by Apollo, see Nicand. Ther. 901ff.; Pseudo-Apollod. Bibl. 1.17.1f, 3.116ff.; Luc. D.Deor. 16; Ov. M. 10.162-219; Hyg. Fab. 271. 970 On Daphne, see Parth. Erot. Pathem. 15 Lightfoot; Ov. M. 1.474ff.; Hyg. Fab. 203. On the view that the mythological figure of Daphne is recalled in the lines under discussion, see e.g. Knox 1990, 185-193, who is followed by Clausen 1994, 207-208. 971 Euphorion is the writer of Hyacinthus, of which only one single fragment has been preserved (Euph. fr. 40 Powell), in opposition to Daphne’s myth, whose inclusion in Parthenius’ Erotica Pathemata suggests that the story may have received an analogous treatment in the poetic work of this particular author (Metamorphoses). 968

Chapter 7

326

who supplies the Eclogue with inspiration. Therefore, this is a composition where the subject of love plays a very significant role, thereby recalling Hellenistic-Neoteric poetry, where love has long been described as a beloved subject. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 6 combines Greek and Roman sources that

reflect typical Hellenistic features that were later followed by the Neoterics, and thus constitutes a Hellenistic-Neoteric literary composition. Its Hellenistic-Neoteric character is first evidenced by Hesiod, Perses, Callimachus, Theocritus, Apollonius Rhodius, Asclepiades, PseudoMoschus, and Parthenius along with Lucretius, Catullus, Gallus and Calvus, who are brought together here because they constitute typical exponents of Hellenistic and Neoteric poetry. Moreover, the stories in Silenus’ song are famous myths frequently employed in the HellenisticNeoteric tradition. Most crucial, however, is the way in which these sources and myths are used, recalling Hellenistic-Neoteric traits (the allusive-elliptical narrative, obscure versions of the myths, metamorphosis, horrible myths and elegiac love). Furthermore, the metrical features, the language and especially the genres, which can also be identified throughout the Eclogue and especially in Silenus’ song (pastoral, aetiological poetry, Hesiodic epic, Hellenistic epic, epigram, epyllion, epithalamic and elegy), are all closely related to Hellenistic-Neoteric aesthetics. Hence, the creation of a Hellenistic-Neoteric Eclogue whose outcome is an Eclogue with a non-pastoral character is not a mere coincidence, but is related to the Vergilian intention to expand the limits of the pastoral genre. This is evident from the way in which the sources are handled and used here, which is similar to that in Eclogue 4, thereby confirming that there is not always a thematic or verbal relationship between Vergilian text and intertext. On the contrary, Vergil’s relationship

Eclogue 6

327

with the earlier tradition is mostly concerned with literary subjects, mythological references, structure, style, metre, language and common elements, and therefore Eclogue 6 does not contain Vergil’s quotations from earlier Greek and Roman literature but only similarities and analogies, reaffirming the suggestion that Eclogues 4 and 6 broaden the limits of the genre,972 or in other words that they constitute typical samples of Roman pastoral.

972

Harrison 2007, 44.

CHAPTER 8 ECLOGUE 7* Eclogue 7 signals Vergil’s return to the country singing contests found in Greek (Theoc. Id. 5 and 6; [Theoc.] 8 and 9) and Roman (Verg. Ecl. 3; Calp. Ecl. 2) pastoral. Its subject deals with an encounter between two herdsmen, Corydon and Thyrsis (Ecl. 7.1-20), which introduces the characters and the scene of the singing competition. This is later followed by a singing match in amoebaean form on several traditional subjects (Ecl. 7.21-68), which concludes with Corydon’s victory (Ecl. 7.69-70). Modern scholarship has been preoccupied with the mystery of Corydon’s *

Barigazzi 1949, 29-31, who is later followed by Alfonsi 1960, 315-317 is concerned with Vergil’s (Ecl. 7.25f.) intertextual relationship to Euphorion (fr. 140 Powell = A.P. 6.279). Mackay 1961, 156-158 identifies Corydon with the crested lark, thereby suggesting that the Vergilian line (Ecl. 7.70) could have been modelled on Aristophanes (Av. 471ff.). Della Corte 1967 are concerned with Vergil’s relationship with Euphorion. Garson 1971, 188-203 examines the Theocritean elements found in Vergil’s collection (Ecl. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8). Bettini 1972, 261-276 and Harrison 1998, 310-311 observe that the name Corydon (Ecl. 7.70) corresponds to the bird kÒrudoj. Skutsch 1971, 26-29 is concerned with the way in which the Theocritean material is handled and modified by Vergil in Eclogues 3 and 7. Fantazzi and Querbach 1985, 355-367 argue that Thyrsis’ metrical and thematic selections are inferior to Corydon’s, further identifying certain Greek and Roman sources on which the Eclogue is based. Zucchelli 1995, 355-366 examines Thyrsis’ reference to the Nymph Galateia (Ecl. 7.41-43) in association with the earlier tradition. Papanghelis 1997, 144-157 identifies Callimachean and Euphorian elements in the Eclogue. Petrovitz 2002/2003, 259270 is concerned with Vergil’s dependence on the Theocritean collection on the phonological, morphological, lexical, syntactic, and phrasal levels. MacDonald 2003, 199-207 examines Vergil’s dependence on the pseudo-Theocritean Idyll 8. Magnelli 2010, 167-175 argues that the Vergilian Nymphae Libethrides can also recall Lycophron (Alex. 273-275). Paraskeviotis 2014d, 259-267 argues that Corydon’s victory (Ecl. 7.69-70) is not only based on Comatas’ success (Id. 5.138139), but also on the recognition of Daphnis’ singing superiority (Id. 8.92).

Eclogue 7

329

success973 rather than the Greek and Roman sources identified in the Eclogue. Coleman suggests that Eclogue 7 constitutes a formal singing contest based on the agonistic Idylls 5, 6, 8 and 9 which are employed with confident independence.974 Clausen, on the other hand, mostly insists on the matter of the contest’s verdict without, however, failing to recognise Vergil’s dependence on Idylls 5 and 8.975 Finally, Cucchiarelli also deals with Vergil’s relationship with the Theocritean collection (Idylls 1 (Thyrsis and Daphnis) and 5), focusing on Corydon’s victory over Thyrsis, which he argues reflects analogous “literary battles”.976 However, these commentators tend to overstress the Theocritean influence, leaving aside the strong influence that the Greek tradition has in the Eclogue and which is emphatically evident from the sources identified in it. Therefore, Eclogue 7 is not only yet another singing match in the Vergilian collection, but a song contest between Roman herdsmen who rival each other in order to display their learning on Greek literature. [Lines 1-2]

Ecl. 7.1-2 emphatically confirm this suggestion: Forte sub arguta consederat ilice Daphnis, compulerantque greges Corydon et Thyrsis in unum (Ecl. 7.1-2)

973

The umpire’s verdict has been considered as arbitrary in scholarship (Cartault 1892, 180-209), but this was later rejected by scholars who sought to justify it in terms of form or content. On convenient reviews about the solutions suggested by scholars to explain Corydon’s victory see, Frischer 1975, 17, Briggs 1981, 13301331, Clausen 1994, 210-212 with relevant notes, Zucchelli 1995, 355-356, Papanghelis 1995, 327-328 and more recently Karakasis 2011, 55-56 and Paraskeviotis 2014d, 265-267 with relevant notes. 974 Coleman 1977, 225-227. 975 Clausen 1994, 210-213 with n. 8, 12 and 16. 976 Cucchiarelli 2012, 372-376.

Chapter 8

330

These Vergilian verses recall the Theocritean Idyll 6 and especially its introductory lines:977 Damoftaj kai D£fnij Ð boukÒloj eej Ÿna cîron t¦n ¢g{lan pok',”Arate, sun£gagon (Id. 6.1-2)

These passages introduce the country contestants by the casual meeting of two herdsmen in the countryside, which is also expressed by a third-person narrative. Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is quite clear and is further enhanced by the verbal correspondence compulerantque greges in unumeej Ÿna cîron/ t¦n ¢g{lan pok' sun£gagon. On the other hand, in unum (in unum locum-eej Ÿna cîron) is also a typically Lucretian expression, whose occurrence before the song contest is not accidental.978 On the contrary, it shows that Eclogue 7 will be a singing match between Roman herdsmen, who rival each other in order to display their learning on Greek literature; hence, the sources, which will be identified in the following singing match, will be exclusively Greek and not Roman.979 [Lines 3-5]

This suggestion is further reinforced by the narrator’s

introduction, which describes Corydon and Thyrsis as Arcadian herdsmen in the bloom of life and ready to compete in a country singing contest:

977

Coleman 1977, 206-207, Clausen 1994, 213-214 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 376377. 978 Clausen 1994, 214. See also Lucr. DRN 1.397, 2.686, 3.534, 5.665, 1012, 6.211, 274, 344, 967. 979 This suggestion provides us with yet another argument concerning Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, which is based on its language rather than on its philosophical subjects. See Gel. 1.21.7 non uerba autem sola, sed uersus prope totos et locos/ quoque Lucreti plurimos sectatum esse Vergilium uidemus.

Eclogue 7

331

Thyrsis ouis, Corydon distentas lacte capellas, ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo, et cantare pares et respondere parati (Ecl. 7.3-5)

The different animals that each herdsman pastures (Thyrsis ouis  Corydon capellas) correspond to a detail from Greek pastoral, where the song contests usually take place between herdsmen with different flocks [aੇgej  ¢mnfdej (Id. 5), boukol{onti  mÁla (Id. 8) and boukÒloj  Ôij kaf cimafraj (Id. 9)].980 Furthermore, the names of the two country contestants are repeated in chiastic order with some elaboration: compulerantque greges Corydon et Thyrsis in unum, Thyrsis ouis, Corydon distentas lacte capellas (Ecl. 7.2-3)

This is a striking structure which, although it has its roots in the Homeric tradition,981 is drawn from Idyll 6:982 TÒss' eepën tÕn D£fnin Ð Damoftaj œfflhse· cí m੻n tù sÚrigg', Ö d੻ tù kalÕn aÙlÕn }dwken. aÜlei Damoftaj, sÚrisde d੻ D£fnij Ð boÚtaj (Id. 6.42-44)

980

It should be mentioned that Daphnis and Menalcas are first found to be cowherds (cf. Id. 9.3 mÒscwj bousin Øf{ntej, œpi stefraisi d੻ taÚrwj) in emphatic contrast to their following songs, which describe Daphnis as an oxherd and Menalcas as a shepherd and goatherd. 981 Cf. Hom. Il. 2.870-71 tîn m੻n ¥r' 'Amffmacoj kai N£sthj ¹ghs£sqhn,/ N£sthj 'AmffmacÒj te Nomfonoj ¢gla¦ t{kna. See also Hom. Od. 15.249-53; Ap. Rh. Arg. 1.71-74 and Call. Hymn 6.70-71 with Hopkinson 1984, 138. 982 Clausen 1994, 214 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 377-378.

332

Chapter 8

On the other hand, the construction of a verbal adjective with an infinitive, which is also found in these Vergilian lines (ambo florentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo, et cantare pares et respondere parati),983 corresponds to the introductory verses of Idyll 8:984 ¥mfw tèg' ½sthn purrotrfcw, ¥mfw ¢n£bw, ¥mfw surfsden dedahm{nw, ¥mfw ¢efden (Id. 8.3-4)

Daphnis’ and Menalcas’ random meeting (D£fnidi tù carfenti sun£nteto boukol{onti/ mÁla n{mwn, æj fantf, kat' êrea makr¦ Men£lkaj Id. 8.1-2) and the special emphasis on their equally matched capacities strongly reinforce the relationship of these two passages, which can also be confirmed by verbal correspondences. Ambo florentes aetatibus corresponds to the analogous phrase ¥mfw tèg' ½sthn purrotrfcw, ¥mfw ¢n£bw, in contrast to the phrase Arcades ambo, et cantare pares et respondere parati, which not only reflects but improves on the corresponding ¥mfw surfsden dedahm{nw, ¥mfw ¢efden phrase, with substantial alterations in terms of structure (pares ... parati dedahm{nw) and content (Arcades ambo). [Line 4]

Arcades ambo calls for our attention as it constitutes a crucial

alteration, since it does not have its roots in Greek pastoral but rather in the Hellenistic epigram. The same phrase is found in the epigrammatist Erycius,985 who was available to Vergil through Meleager’s Garland:986

983

Cf. Ecl. 5.1-3 Cur non, Mopse, boni quoniam conuenimus ambo,/ tu calamos inflare leuis, ego dicere uersus,/ hic corylis mixtas inter consedimus ulmos? 984 Coleman 1977, 207-209, Clausen 1994, 213-215 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 376. 985 On Erycius, see Gow-Page 1968, 279. 986 Coleman 1977, 207-208, Clausen 1994, 215-216 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 377.

Eclogue 7

333

GlaÚkwn kai KorÚdwn, od œn oÜresi boukol{ontej, 'Ark£dej ¢mfÒteroi, tÕn keraÕn dam£lhn Pani filwreftv KullhnfJ aÙerÚsantej }rrexan kaf od dwdek£dwra k{ra ¤lJ makrot{nonti poti plat£niston }paxan eÙrelan nomfJ kalÕn ¥galma qeù (1 G-P = A.P. 6.96)

This epigram is concerned with the herdsmen (boukol{ontej) and Arcadians ('Ark£dej ¢mfÒteroi) Glaucon and Corydon, who dedicate country offerings to Pan. Hence, the relationship between the Vergilian and Erycian passages is based on these similar country characters, further reinforced by the verbal correspondences Corydon-KorÚdwn and, most significantly, Arcades ambo-'Ark£dej ¢mfÒteroi. However, the almost contemporary date between Vergil and Erycius cannot confirm such a suggestion, which is still a matter of dispute among modern commentators. Wilamowitz suggested a long time ago that Erycius is following Vergil,987 but three different objections have been made to this suggestion by other scholars. First, the Greek poets rarely show imitation of Roman poetry, while Erycius’ literary prime could hardly allow the existence of some Greek translation of the Eclogues.988 Furthermore, Vergil’s metre imitates the Greek practice and not vice versa, while Erycius’ dependence on Vergil should also include a close translation of the original without certain variations (namely, Arcades ambo is placed at the beginning of the line and Glaucon replaces Thyrsis, although there is

987

Wilamowitz 1906, 111 with n. 1 who is followed by Norden 1922, 306 and Hunter 1983, 76f. 988 Reitzenstein 1893, 131 with n. 2, Jenkyns 1989, 33 with n. 29 and Lipka 2001, 115.

Chapter 8

334

no metrical necessity).989 Such inconsistencies are easily justified if we accept Reitzenstein’s suggestion that Vergil and Erycius are based on some original common source.990 This is likely but unproven, since neither author is shown to have imitated the other. In other words, this argument reinforces the validity of the following suggestion that Vergil follows Erycius, which had been dismissed unduly by Norden.991 However, by examining the expression cantare pares, we can realise that its structure is a striking Graecism992 which, along with the abovementioned Hellenising metrical rhythm, confirm that the narrator Meliboeus is also familiar with the Greek tradition. [Lines 6-17]

This suggestion is also reinforced by the next verses, where the

impersonal narrative mode with which the Eclogue begins is abruptly interrupted by Meliboeus’ intrusion into the narrative, confirmed by the use of the first-person personal or possessive pronouns and the first-person singular verbs: huc mihi, dum teneras defendo a frigore myrtos, uir gregis ipse caper deerrauerat; atque ego Daphnin aspicio. ille ubi me contra uidet, ‘ocius’ inquit ‘huc ades, o Meliboee; caper tibi saluus et haedi; et, si quid cessare potes, requiesce sub umbra. huc ipsi potum uenient per prata iuuenci, hic uiridis tenera praetexit harundine ripas Mincius, eque sacra resonant examina quercu.’ 989

Lipka 2001, 116. Reitzenstein 1909, 565. See also Clausen 1994, 37 who suggests that Ecl. 1.5 could also be explained by a common source on which Vergil and Longus are based. 991 Norden 1922, 306. 992 Hofmann-Szantyr 1965, 350f. See also LSJ s.v. Ðmoloj B4, which is a construction analogous to that of pares + infinitive. 990

Eclogue 7

335

quid facerem? neque ego Alcippen nec Phyllida habebam depulsos a lacte domi quae clauderet agnos, et certamen erat, Corydon cum Thyrside, magnum; posthabui tamen illorum mea seria ludo (Ecl. 7.6-17)

This change of the narrative mode is found in Idyll 9, where the narrator leaves his impersonal position and steps into the contest, also using firstperson personal pronouns and first-person singular verbs or participles:993 Tolj m੻n œpeplat£ghsa kai aÙtfka dîron }dwka, D£fnidi m੻n korÚnan, t£n moi patrÕj }trafen ¢grÒj, aÙtofuÁ, t¦n oÙd' ¨n hswj mwm£sato t{ktwn, t›nJ d੻ strÒmbw kalÕn Ôstrakon, ï kr{aj aÙtÒj sit›qhn p{traisin œn 'Ikarfaisi dokeÚsaj, p{nte tamën p{nt' oâsin· Ö d' œgkanac›sato kÒclJ (Id. 9.22-27)

Nonetheless, these Vergilian verses are also based on Idyll 8, because uir gregis, which refers to the term caper, can also correspond to ð tr£ge, t©n leuk©n aegîn ¥ner (Id. 8.49),994 where, besides the verbal correspondences (caper-tr£ge and uir gregis-aegîn ¥ner), the same syntactical phenomenon (apposition) is also identified; as a result, they can further display Meliboeus’ leaning on Greek literature, thereby confirming that he is also a learned audience (singer-herdsman) who not only watches Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ song contest (Ecl. 7.17) but also announces its winner (cf. Ecl. 7.69-70).

993 994

Coleman 1977, 210. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 379. Coleman 1977, 210, Clausen 1994, 217 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 379.

Chapter 8

336 [Lines 18-20]

What is more, Vergil’s dependence on Idyll 8 extends over the

country song contest and the rules under which the herdsmen will sing: 995 alternis igitur contendere uersibus ambo coepere, alternos Musae meminisse uolebant. hos Corydon, illos referebat in ordine Thyrsis (Ecl. 7.18-20)

These Vergilian verses recall the introductory section of Daphnis’ and Menalcas’ singing match in Idyll 8:996 pr©toj d' ðn ¥eide lacën eukt¦ Men£lkaj, eੇta d' ¢moibafan Øpel£mbane D£fnij ¢oid£n boukolik£n (Id. 8.30-32)

The Vergilian and pseudo-Theocritean verses contain the announcement of the conditions for the singing contest by a third person (namely Meliboeus – the narrator), as well as the orders received by the herdsmen to sing alternately (alternis-¢moibafan). Furthermore, Idyll 8 is a unique example of a song contest in elegiac quatrains, which are used by Vergil in Eclogue 7 in contrast to the couplets used in Eclogue 3; this, due to the fact that they enable each subject of the contest to be developed more extensively, creates a more intense confrontation between the herdsmen. Nonetheless, Daphnis’ and Menalcas’ contest is randomly settled by lot (lacën) in emphatic contrast to that of Corydon and Thyrsis, whose arrangement is

995

Cf. Ecl. 3.58-59 incipe, Damoeta; tu deinde sequere, Menalca./ alternis dicetis; amant alterna Camenae. 996 Coleman 1977, 212, Clausen 1994, 219 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 383.

Eclogue 7

337

based on certain divine instructions (alternos Musae meminisse uolebant). Therefore, the Vergilian song contest is different from its Greek sources. It is a divinely inspired contest which reflects the conventional Callimachean subject, where the Muse is Callimachus’ alter ego (¢m£rturon oÙd੻n ¢efdw Call. fr. 612 Pf.). In view of that, the Vergilian quotation from Theocritean (Id. 5 and 6) and pseudo-Theocritean (Id. 8 and 9) agonistic Idylls are without a doubt far from accidental.997 Ecl. 7.1-20 recall subjects, structure and language from the Greek singing contests in order to establish a suitable agonistic background for the following singing match. Thus, they constitute a narrative introduction that anticipates Eclogue 7, which will be a singing contest between Roman singers/herdsmen (Arcades).998 [Line 21]

Corydon begins the singing match with an uncommon divine

invocation to the Leibithrides Nymphs: Nymphae noster amor Libethrides (Ecl. 7.21)

The Nymphs are divinities analogous to the Muses,999 since they have long been considered as the deities who provide inspiration for the composition of poetry. The invocation, and especially its structure, is the first evidence of its Greek origin because of the Theocritean tendency to place the noun first and the epithet after when referring to Muses or Nymphs (NÚmfai

997

Even though both Idylls 8 and 9 are nowadays generally described as spurious (Gow 1952, 170-171 and 185-186), Vergil considered them as Theocritean. See Klingner 1967, 118. 998 Kraggerud 2006, 38-41. See also Karakasis 2011, 54 with n. 3 and 62. 999 It should be mentioned that the Muses who are based in the countryside are usually called Nymphs. See Berg 1974, 124, Perret 1961, 79, Coleman 1977, 212 and Karakasis 2011, 69 with n. 55. See also Canetta 2008, 209-223.

Chapter 8

338

Kastalfdej Id. 7.148, Molsai Pierfdej Id. 10.24).1000 What is more, the construction of the line, consisting of the noun Nymphae with the epithet Libethrides and enclosing the appositional phrase noster amor (Nymphae noster amor Libethrides), also has its roots in the Roman tradition. It has long been suggested that this stylistic device, which is known by the term parenthetic apposition,1001 had been employed, if not invented, by Gallus.1002 Nonetheless, the origin of this invocation still remains Greek,1003 given that the term Libethrides constitutes an adjective which occurs nowhere else in Roman literature. The rarity of the adjective is further confirmed by an examination of Greek literature, where the term and its variant form are only found in two fragments from Alcaeus of Messene and Philicus:1004 L(e)ibhqrfdej (fr. 988.1 SH)

Leibhqri£dwn (fr. 993.7 SH)

1000

Clausen 1994, 130. See also Ecl. 4.1. Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus!, where Vergil departs from this structural pattern in order to recall the refrain found in the Lament for Bion. 1001 Skutsch 1956, 198-199. For this stylistic effect see Solodow 1986, 129-183, who extensively discusses the scheme, although he refers to this by the term “inserted apposition”. 1002 It is worth noticing that, although Skutsch’s suggestion of calling this stylistic effect “schema Cornelianum” cannot be confirmed, it is evident that this word order had caught Gallus’ attention. See Ecl. 1.57 nec tamen interea raucae, tua cura, palumbes and Prop. 3.3.31 et Veneris dominae uolucres, mea turba, columbae, whose association with Gallus has already been observed by scholars. See Ross 1975, 69 with n. 2. and Clausen 1994, 53-54. 1003 Papanghelis 1997, 147 observes that this scheme should have influenced Gallus, although it is commonly accepted that it had not been invented by him. 1004 Clausen 1994, 219-220. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 384-385.

Eclogue 7

339

On the other hand, the most obvious source is a Euphorian fragment that is concerned with an invocation towards the Muses, employed with exactly the same adjective:1005 gafhj parqenikai L[i]bhqrfdej œntu[n (fr. 416.2 SH)

None of these sources, however, are recalled in the Eclogue by mere accident. Theocritus and Euphorion are brought together in the contest’s first line, which emphatically combines the Theocritean structure with the Euphorian content, thereby enabling Corydon to begin the contest by displaying great learning on the Greek tradition.1006 [Lines 21-24]

This suggestion is further reinforced by Corydon’s following

verses, which are also based on the Greek tradition: Nymphae noster amor Libethrides, aut mihi carmen, quale meo Codro, concedite proxima Phoebi uersibus ille facit aut, si non possumus omnes, hic arguta sacra pendebit fistula pinu (Ecl. 7.21-24)

The first two verses focus on the herdsman’s musical dexterity that emerges from a comparison with the god of poetry and music (proxima Phoebi/ uersibus ille facit). In that sense, they recall Idyll 1, where the 1005

Groningen 1977, ad loc. See also Coleman 1977, 212-213, Clausen 1994, 219220 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 384-385. 1006 Papanghelis 1995, 121-122 observes that the schema Cornelianum provides this verse with profound Hellenising learning. See also Karakasis 2011, 69-70 with n. 57 and 77. Moreover, Magnelli 2010, 167-175 argues that the Vergilian Nymphae Libethrides can also recall Lycophron Alex. 273-275, which further reinforces Corydon’s learning on Greek literature.

Chapter 8

340

same subject is found, although it is expressed in an entirely different way:1007 met¦ P©na tÕ deÚteron «qlon ¢poisÍ (Id. 1.3)

Vergil deviates from the Theocritean original by omitting the idea of the contest prize and by replacing the country god P©na with the god of poetry and music, Apollo. However, the Eclogue is not the typical friendly song exchange found in Idyll 1. It is a magnum certamen (Ecl. 7.16), whose superior quality is strongly reinforced by the divinities with whom the country contestants are compared. Moreover, the second two lines find their model in Theocritus but not in the Idylls. This couplet reveals the modesty of Corydon’s character, given that, in the event of failure, he feels compelled to give up music by offering the pipe to Pan. It is customary for any character resigning from any occupation to devote some of the instruments that are closely associated with it to an appropriate divine being. Therefore, the herdsman Corydon donates the pastoral pipe to the rustic god Pan as a sign of giving up the pastoral life (hic arguta sacra pendebit fistula pinu Ecl. 7.24). The same situation occurs in a Theocritean epigram that is concerned with an offering of rustic equipment by a herdsman named Daphnis:1008 TÕn kÚna t¦n p›ran te kai ¢gkulÒdonta sigÚnan Panf te kai NÚmfaij ¢ntfqemai Dru£sin· tÕn kÚna d੻ zèonta p£lin poti twÜlion ¥xw xhr¦j eej ¢kÒlouj xunÕn }cein Ÿtaron. 1007 1008

Coleman 1977, 220, Clausen 1994, 213 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 385-386. Cf. Coleman 1977, 221, Clausen 1994, 213-214 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 386.

Eclogue 7

341

D£fnij Ð leukÒcrwj, Ð kal´ sÚriggi melfsdwn boukolikoÝj Ûmnouj, ¥nqeto Pani t£de· toÝj trhtoÝj dÒnakaj, tÕ lagwbÒlon, ÑxÝn ¥konta, nebrfda, t¦n p›ran, • pot' œmalofÒrei (6 G-P = A.P. 6.177)

The country setting, the dedicatory content, the rustic instruments, the purpose of the offering and the addressee all show close affinities with the Vergilian passage. However, while the Theocritean epigram deals with Daphnis’ actual resignation, Corydon’s statement is a conditional action associated with a possible poetic failure. In other words, the real retirement of Daphnis is replaced by the poetic retirement of Corydon, whose learning on Greek literature is evident from the Greek sources that are identified in his first quatrain. [Lines 25-28]

The learning on the Greek tradition indicated by Corydon’s first

quatrain continues with Thyrsis’ reply: Pastores, hedera crescentem ornate poetam, Arcades, inuidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro aut, si ultra placitum laudarit, baccare frontem cingite, ne uati noceat mala lingua futuro (Ecl. 7.25-28)

Its first line resembles the last line in a Euphorian epigram:1009 Prètaj ÐppÒt' }pexe kal¦j EÜdoxoj œqefraj, FofbJ paidefhn êpasen ¢glaǸhn. ¢nti d{ od plokamldoj, `EkhbÒle, k£lloj œpefh 1009

Cucchiarelli 2012, 387.

Chapter 8

342

æcarnÁqen ¢ei kissÕj ¢exÒmenoj (1 G-P = A.P. 6.279)

Vergil’s dependence on Euphorion is based on the common context that is concerned with Corydon’s and Eudoxus’ requests to be crowned with ivy for their poetic success. Moreover, it is confirmed by linguistic figures such as the hyperbaton (Pastores ... Arcades-od ... ¢exom{nJ) and the ivypoetic

achievement

metaphor,1010

which

along

with

the

verbal

correspondence hedera-kissÕj enhances the relationship of those two passages. This is a relationship which deals with Thyrsis’ aim to conform to the rules of the contest, because this herdsman’s reply is not a free improvised composition but rather a rejoinder to the original subject, which has already been set by the opponent. Thus, the quotation from Euphorion is explained by Thyrsis’ effort to cap Corydon’s earlier Euphorian quotation (Libethrides) with a more elaborate and subtle one. Therefore, Thyrsis succeeds in showing his learning on Greek tradition, but he fails to outshine Corydon, whose learning on Greek literature is far greater since it is based on Theocritus and Euphorion. [Lines 29-32]

Corydon’s second quatrain continues to display great learning on

Greek literature: Saetosi caput hoc apri tibi, Delia, paruus et ramosa Micon uiuacis cornua cerui si proprium hoc fuerit, leui de marmore tota puniceo stabis suras euincta coturno (Ecl. 7.29-32)

1010

On this metaphor, see Hor. Carm. 1.1.29 with Nisbet-Hubbard 1970, ad loc.

Eclogue 7

343

Here, the herdsman talks in the character of Micon,1011 which is a conceit finding its precedent in an epigram composed by Rhianus, whose floruit is dated to the second half of the 3rd c. BC and was available to Vergil through Meleager’s Garland:1012 TÕ ૧Òpalon tù Pani kai eobÒlon PolÚainoj tÒxon kai k£prou toÚsde kaq©ye pÒdaj kai taÚtan gwrutÕn œpauc{niÒn te kunakt¦n qÁken Ñrei£rcv dîra suagresfhj. ¢ll', ð P¦n skopiÁta, kai eej Ñpfsw PolÚainon eÜagron p{mpoij, ud{a ShmÚlew (6 G-P = A.P. 6.34)

Rhianus’ influence is not only clear in the fact that Corydon adopts Micon’s persona, but is further reinforced by a detailed examination of Micon’s donations, because one of them has its roots in the tradition of the Hellenistic epigram. The boar (apri) and the stag (cerui) are fitting symbols of the huntress goddess and are therefore suitable for dedication to the deity of Diana. However, the details of the branching antlers (ramosa corna) and the stag’s proverbial longevity (uiuacis cerui)1013 are found in an epigram of Leonidas of Tarentum:1014

1011 Cf. Ecl. 3.78 Phyllida amo ante alias; nam me discedere fleuit/ et longum ‘formose, uale, uale,’ inquit, ‘Iolla’. See also Coleman 1977. 1012 Cf. Meleag. 1.11 G-P = A.P. 4.11 tÍ d' ¤ma kai s£myucon ¢f' ¹dupnÒoio `Rianoà with Gow-Page 1965, 503-504. See also Coleman 1977, 215, Clausen 1994, 222-224 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 389-391. 1013 Cf. Hes. fr. 304.1-2 M-W œnn{a toi zèei gene¦j lak{ruza korènh/ ¢ndrîn ¹bèntwn· }lafoj d{ te tetrakÒrwnoj. 1014 Coleman 1977, 215 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 389-390. See also Eryc. 1 G-P = A.P. 6.96 where, however, the dedicatory horns derive from a calf, not a stag.

Chapter 8

344

T¦n }lafon KleÒlaoj ØpÕ knamolsi loc›saj }ktane Mai£ndrou p¦r tri{likton Ûdwr qhktù saurwtÁri· t¦ d' Ñkt£rriza metèpwn fr£gmaq' Øp੻r krana¦n ªloj }paxe pftun (96 G-P = A.P. 6.110)

This suggestion is further supported by Ñkt£rriza, showing the branching of the horns, which is picked up by Vergil in the corresponding expression ramosa corna. None of these sources could merely be a selection without a specific reason. The context inevitably played its part, since the composition of a votive offering, replete with reverent and religious details, could not find a better source than the dedicatory epigrams, mostly found in the sixth book of the Greek Anthology. Moreover, these epigrams employ the activity of hunting, which is almost unknown in the Theocritean Idylls1015 in contrast to the Vergilian Eclogues.1016 What is more, these sources are associated with the song contest; thus, they create Corydon’s answerback, whose learning on Greek literature (Rhianus’ and Leonidas’ epigrams)1017 succeeds in overshadowing Thyrsis’ earlier reply (Euphorion’s epigram).1018

1015

The deer hunting activity occurs only once in Theocritean pastoral through the adynaton form in Id. 1.135 kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi. Cf. also e.g. Dover 2000. lviii. 1016 Cf. Ecl. 3.12-13, 75, 2.28-30, 5.60-61, 8.28 and 10.55-60. 1017 See also Ecl. 7. 29-30 saetosi caput hoc apri tibi, Delia, paruus/ et ramosa Micon uiuacis cornua cerui, where the dedicatory verb is omitted (dedicat), thus recalling the Greek epigrammatic style. See Camilloni 1979-1980, 308, FantazziQuerbach 1985, 360, Petrovitz 2002-2003, 268 Kraggerud 2006, 42-43 and Karakasis 2011, 82 wth n. 100. 1018 See also Karakasis 2011, 77, who observes that the hidden etymological play between parous and Micon coming from the Greek mikkÕj (“small”) can also display Corydon’s Hellenising learning. For further bibliography on this etymological wordplay see Karakasis 2011, 77 with 84.

Eclogue 7 [Lines 33-36]

345

Thyrsis’ reply aims to outdo the subject earlier set by Corydon,

conforming once again to the singing contest’s rules: Sinum lactis et haec te liba, Priape, quotannis exspectare sat est: custos es pauperis horti nunc te marmoreum pro tempore fecimus; at tu, si fetura gregem suppleuerit, aureus esto (Ecl. 7.33-36)

The first two Vergilian verses recall the Theocritean collection and especially Idyll 5:1019 stasî d' Ñktë m੻n gaulëj tù Pani g£laktoj, Ñktë d੻ skaffdaj m{litoj pl{a khrf' œcofsaj (Id. 5.58-59)

The similar Vergilian and Theocritean contexts, which is the country donations offered by some country character to a rustic god, can confirm the intertextual relationship. This is further reinforced by the verbal correspondences sinum-gaulëj, lactis-g£laktoj and most significantly liba, which corresponds to m{litoj in the sense that this cake, mixed or coated with honey, constitutes a typical sacrificial offering.1020 Nonetheless, the Theocritean promise of a future donation, given that the devotee hopes to receive the reward from the divinity, is not found in Ecl.

1019

MacDonald 2003, 199-207. Cf. Ov. F. 3.375-376 liba deo fiunt, sucis quia dulcibus idem/ gaudet, et a Baccho mella reperta ferunt and 3.761-762 melle pater fruitur, liboque infusa calenti/ iure repertori splendida mella damus. 1020

346

Chapter 8

7.33-34. On the contrary, it is transferred to the next two verses (at tu si fetura gregem suppleuerit), which are based on Idyll 10:1021 ahqe moi Ãj Óssa KrolsÒn poka fanti pep©sqai· crÚseoi ¢mfÒterof k' ¢nekefmeqa t´ 'Afrodftv (Id. 10.32-33)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the votive setting and gifts to a certain divinity and is further confirmed by the emphatic verbal correspondence aureus-crÚseoi. However, Vergil characteristically changes the recipient of those country donations by replacing the more credible deities of Pan and Aphrodite with the god Priapus, who is neither primitive nor indigenous and is without an official cult (quotannis). In other words, Thyrsis’ answer follows the contest’s agonistic character in trying to rival Corydon by parodying the religious tone that was employed in Ecl. 7.29-32.1022 However, Thyrsis once again fails to surpass Corydon, given that the way in which he replies here in fact devalues the subject suggested by his country opponent rather than develops it. [Lines 37-40]

Corydon picks up the quotations from the Theocritean collection

identified in Thyrsis’ reply, extending them over the next exchange, where the rustic contestants compete over their invitations to the Nymph Galateia, who is traditionally found in Theocritus. Corydon assumes Polyphemus’ role, inviting the love object Galateia through various positive country comparisons that recall Idyll 11:1023

1021

MacDonald 2003, 199-207. On the parodic and antithetical element in Thyrsis’ quatrains, see Pöschl 1964, 118-119 and Fantazzi and Querbach 1985, 355-367. 1023 Coleman 1977, 217-218, Clausen 1994, 226-227 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 392393. 1022

Eclogue 7

347

Nerine Galatea, thymo mihi dulcior Hyblae, candidior cycnis, hedera formosior alba cum primum pasti repetent praesepia tauri, si qua tui Corydonis habet te cura, uenito (Ecl. 7.37-40)

’W leuk¦ Gal£teia, tf tÕn fil{ont' ¢pob£llV, leukot{ra pakt©j potideln, ¡palwt{ra ¢rnÒj, mÒscw gaurot{ra, fiarwt{ra Ômfakoj çm©j; (Id. 11.19-21)

Vergil’s close dependence on these Theocritean verses is quite clear, based on the addressee figure (Galatea/Gal£teia), the structure (country analogies) and most significantly the same metrical cadence (   ‰ ‰  ‰ ‰  ‰ ‰  ‰ ‰  ). However, the content is entirely different, which is strongly emphasised by the striking substitution of the Catullan adjective Nerine1024 (cf. tene Thetis tenuit pulcherrima Nereine Cat. 64.28)1025 for the respective Theocritean epithet leuk¦.1026 This change omits the etymological wordplay that is found in the Greek original, because it does not fit in with the erotic subject on which the herdsmen compete. This preference for the form of the Theocritean original rather than its content is confirmed by the last line of the quatrain (si qua tui Corydonis habet te cura, uenito). There, the structure used by Corydon to 1024

On the Hellenistic origin of this patronymic (Euphorion?), see Papanghelis 1997, 152-155. 1025 Fordyce 1961, 282 observes that the term Nereine constitutes Haupt’s emendation of the manuscript reading nectine. See also Coleman 1977, 217, Clausen 1994, 226 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 392. 1026 However, the swan-colour suggested through candidior and alma can also recall leukot{ra pakt©j potideln, thereby stressing Galateia’s white skin, which is a typical feature of female beauty. See Petrovitz 2002-2003, 262.

348

Chapter 8

invite Galateia follows Polyphemus’ invitation to the same figure in Idyll 11:1027 ¢ll' ¢ffkeuso poq' ¡m{, kai Œxelj oÙd੻n }lasson, t¦n glauk¦n d੻ q£lassan }a poti c{rson Ñrecqeln· ¤dion œn têntrJ par' œmin t¦n nÚkta diaxelj (Id. 11.42-44)

Corydon’s and Polyphemus’ invitations are made to the same recipient (Galateia). However, the intertextual relationship is once again based only on the form, given the so-called future imperative uenito (ueni (“come”) + to (“after that”) being the ablative of an old demonstrative pronoun),1028 which is used to render the meaning of Theocritus’ moderate invitation expressed with the expression ¢ffkeuso poq' ¡m{. The Theocritean original is appropriately manipulated to be related to the singing contest. The herdsman is not intent on reproducing Polyphemus’ wooing for Galateia, confirmed by the Roman Nerine, which is strikingly conflated with the Greek source. Corydon is engaged in a country singing match, victory in which requires singing on various, predominantly country, subjects which could hardly be outdone by Thyrsis. Therefore, Polyphemus’ and Galateia’s love story,1029 which is particularly prominent in Greek pastoral, is a tough subject that is hard for any opponent to overshadow. What is more, Ecl. 7.37-40 confirm Corydon’s great learning on Greek literature, which is here emphatically evident from the

1027

Coleman 1977, 218. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 393. Coleman 1977, 218. 1029 Cf. Theoc. Id. 6, 11; Bion fr. 2 Gow. 1028

Eclogue 7

349

herdsman’s capacity to use Theocritean characters, form, subject, structure and metre rather than content.1030 [Lines 41-44]

This suggestion is also reinforced by Thyrsis’ retort, which

recalls the same love story through the herdsman, who assumes the role of the Nymph Galateia: Immo ego Sardoniis uidear tibi amarior herbis horridior rusco, proiecta uilior alga, si mihi non haec lux toto iam longior anno est. Ite domum pasti, si quis pudor, ite, iuuenci (Ecl. 7.41-44)

The impersonation of another character recalls the Theocritean collection, especially Idyll 6, where Damoetas sings in the persona of Polyphemus (Id. 6.21-40).1031 Thyrsis’ answer is concerned with negative country comparisons that are in strong contrast with Corydon’s positive comparisons of Galateia (Ecl. 7.37-40).1032 What is more, it stresses the herdsman’s impatience for a love meeting, accompanied by the peremptory command to the flock and expressed by the repeated imperative ite. Such a reply contrasts with Corydon’s earlier quatrain, creating an emphatic antithesis that is also confirmed by the different 1030

See also Papanghelis 1995, 126-127, who observes that the uncommon epithet (minus usitatum) used by Corydon (Nereine Galateia) can also indicate the herdsman’s great Hellenising learning. See also Karakasis 2011, 74 and 77 with n. 85, who suggests that the caesura after the trochee in the third foot in Ecl. 7.37 (GalateaŇthymo) and 40 (CorydonisŇhabet) creates a Greek metrical rhythm, which in that sense can also demonstrate Corydon’s learning on the Greek tradition. See also Fantazzi-Querbach 1985, 361-362. 1031 Clausen 1994, 227. See also Ecl. 3.78-79 Phyllida amo ante alias; nam me discedere fleuit/ et longum “formose, uale, uale,” inquit, “Iolla”. 1032 On a brief reference concerning the contrasting details between Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ third exchange (Ecl. 7.37-40  Ecl. 7.41-44), see Klingner 1967, 122.

Chapter 8

350

source on which it draws. Ecl. 7.41-44 recall Idyll 12, especially the traditional conceit of the lover’s impatience1033 (od d੻ poqeàntej œn ½mati ghr£skousin Id. 12.2), which can only reflect Thyrsis’ statement (si mihi non haec lux toto iam longior anno est Ecl. 7.43).1034 However, the narrator’s actual longing and impatience to see the absent erotic object in Idyll 12 are here transformed into an unreal agonistic element that ends the country analogies in the singing contest between the Roman herdsmen Corydon and Thyrsis. In other words, Ecl. 7.41-44 can also display Thyrsis’ learning on Greek literature; however, it is not enough to overshadow Corydon’s pastoral love story par excellence (Polyphemus’ and Galateia’s erotic relationship) and the outstanding way in which he handles the Greek sources (cf. Ecl. 7.37-40). [Lines 45-48]

The strong contrast between Corydon and Thyrsis is underlined

in the next quatrains, where the singing match is concerned with the natural environment. Corydon sings of the beauties and pleasures of the countryside: Muscosi fontes et somno mollior herba, et quae uos rara uiridis tegit arbutus umbra, solstitium pecori defendite: (Ecl. 7.45-47)

This subject is employed in the pseudo-Theocritean Idyll 8:1035

1033 Cf. Diosc. 11.3-4 G-P = A.P. 12.171.3-4 eej Ñlfgwn tefnaj mhnîn m{tron, æj kai Ð mikrÕj/ muri{thj k{kritai tù fil{onti crÒnoj. 1034 Coleman 1977, 218-219, Clausen 1994, 227 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 394. 1035 Clausen 1994, 228 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 395.

Eclogue 7

351

¥gkea kai potamof, qelon g{noj, ah ti Men£lkaj p›poc' Ð surikt¦j prosfil੻j ¶se m{loj, bÒskoit' œk yuc©j t¦j ¢mn£daj· Àn d{ pok' }nqV D£fnij }cwn dam£laj, mhd੻n }lasson }coi (Id. 8.33-36)

kr©nai kai bot£nai, glukerÕn futÒn, ahper Ðmolon mousfsdei D£fnij talsin ¢hdonfsi, toàto tÕ boukÒlion piafnete· k½n ti Men£lkaj teld' ¢g£gV, cafrwn ¥fqona p£nta n{moi (Id. 8.37-40)

However, pseudo-Theocritus employs the typical interplay between man and nature. This is closely associated with the composition of poetry by describing the singers requesting nature to fatten the pasturing animals in acknowledgement of their song. On the other hand, the above Vergilian passage lacks any such boasting. On the contrary, it is merely a friendly plea to the natural landscape for assistance (shade) with the main need of the pasturing flock to avoid the intense midday heat.1036 Vergil alters the vaunting tone of the original by replacing it with a moderate address to the natural environment, which is more appropriate for the character of Corydon. Moreover, this is in accordance with the goal of this quatrain to describe an idealised place, which is also confirmed by the image that deals with the advent of summer:

1036

Cf. Ecl. 3.98-99 Cogite ouis, pueri: si lac praeceperit aestus,/ ut nuper, frustra pressabimus ubera palmis.

Chapter 8

352 iam uenit aestas

torrida, iam lento turgent in palmite gemmae (Ecl. 7.47-48)

Further support for this suggestion is offered by the expression somno mollior herba, which is clearly used in order to indicate a very high degree of softness. Moreover, despite its Homeric origin (malakù dedmhm{noi ÛpnJ Hom. Il. 10.2)1037 or its occurrence in Antipater1038 (¹ takeralj leÚssousa kÒraij malakèteron Ûpnou 61.3 G-P = A.P. 9.567.3), it stems from Theocritus who uses it similarly, regardless of Lacon’s suggestion of the place for the upcoming singing competition (Id. 5.3134), the setting of which accords well with the milieu described in the Vergilian verses:1039 Ã m¦n ¢rnakfdaj te kai ehria telde pathselj, ah k' }nqVj, Ûpnw malakètera (Id. 5.50-51)1040

In other words, Corydon’s words display great learning on the Greek tradition, because they are based on the Theocritean collection (Idylls 5 and 8) and also contain a subject that has its roots in Homer, Antipater, and, most significantly, Theocritus.

1037

On the same subject in Roman literature see Lucr. DRN 3.112 Praeterea molli cum somno dedita membra; Verg. G. 2.470 mugitusque boum mollesque sub arbore somni; Tib. 1.2.76 Mollis et inculta sit mihi somnus humo with Maltby 2002, ad loc. 1038 On Vergil’s relationship with Antipater of Sidon through Meleager’s Garland, cf. Meleag. 1.42 G-P = A.P. 4.1.42 fofniss£n te n{hn kÚpron ¢p' 'Antip£trou. On this epigrammatist in general, see DNP s.v. Antipatros. 1039 Cucchiarelli 2012, 395-396. 1040 Cf. also Id. 15.125 porfÚreoi d੻ t£phtej ¥nw malakèteroi Ûpnw.

Eclogue 7 [Lines 49-52]

353

Thyrsis replies by reversing the subject (contratium)1041 that has

been set by Corydon. However, the answer lacks the mocking tone traced in the earlier lines (Ecl. 7.33-36), since the subject on which the country contestants vie (nature) is entirely inappropriate for parody:1042 Hic focus et taedae pingues, hic plurimus ignis semper, et adsidua postes fuligine nigri hic tantum Boreae curamus frigora quantum aut numerum lupus aut torrentia flumina ripas (Ecl. 7.49-52)

The antithesis between summer and winter comforts employed in these verses constitutes a subject that is also found in Idyll 9:1043 }sti d{ moi par' Ûdwr yucrÕn stib£j, œn d੻ n{nastai leuk©n œk damal©n kal¦ d{rmata, t£j moi ¡p£saj liy kÒmaron trwgofsaj ¢pÕ skopi©j œtfnaxe. tî d੻ q{reuj frÚgontoj œgë tÒsson meledafnw, Ósson œrîn tÕ patrÕj mÚqwn kai matrÕj ¢koÚein (Id. 9.9-13) œn puri d੻ dru nJ cÒria zel, œn puri d' aâai fagoi ceimafnontoj· }cw d{ toi oÙd' Óson êran 1041

Cf. Serv. Ecl. 3.28 et ita se habet ipsa responsio, ut aut maius aut contrarium aliquid dicant. 1042 Hubbard 1998, 109 with n. 32 observes that Thyrsis’ reply (Ecl. 7.49-52) also owes something to Theocritus and especially to the account of comforts stemming from the indoor fire which Polyphemus enjoys in the cave (cf. Id. 11.51 œnti druÕj xÚla moi kai ØpÕ spodù ¢k£maton pàr). However, Polyphemus’ ¢k£maton pàr denotes both physical and emotional “fire”, which is entirely different from the Vergilian context that is concerned with the antithesis between summer and winter. 1043 Coleman 1977, 220-221, Clausen 1994, 228-229 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 396397.

Chapter 8

354

cefmatoj À nwdÕj karÚwn ¢mÚloio parÒntoj (Id. 9.19-21)

There, Menalcas, extolling the luxuries which he enjoys in a cave during the winter, is presented as unworried by this season, an indifference expressed by a notable country simile:1044 }cw d{ toi oÙd' Óson êran cefmatoj À nwdÕj karÚwn ¢mÚloio parÒntoj (Id. 9.20-21)

The

common

summer

and

winter

comforts

employed

in

the

abovementioned Vergilian and Theocritean verses is the subject on which the intertextual relation is based; the reason is once again associated with the agonistic character of the Eclogue. Thyrsis’ effort to develop the converse subject in comparison to that set by Corydon could hardly find a better source than the set of exchanges found in Idyll 9 (countryside  cave, praise of the cowherd life and resources  compliments about the shepherd life and resources, hot weather  cold winter, strong  weak rustic simile). However, the antithesis between summer and winter comforts begins the pseudo-Theocritean song contest and is closely associated with the herdsmen’s country tasks. On the other hand, the Vergilian singing match has the same subject almost at its end, where it is connected with the idealised pastoral place (locus amoenus). What is more, Thyrsis’ reply demonstrates his learning on Greek literature. 1044

Gow II 1952, 189 has noticed the imperfectness of the simile, based on the fact that while Menalcas is protected against the cold, nuts are a pleasure that the toothless clearly cannot enjoy anymore. This observation and the different literary purposes are additional reasons for which the Vergilian verses recall the form, but not the content of this source.

Eclogue 7

355

Nonetheless, it is also limited only to pseudo-Theocritus and thus cannot overshadow Corydon, whose learning on the Greek tradition is in fact much greater (Homer, Theocritus, pseudo-Theocritus and Antipater of Sidon). [Lines 53-56]

The natural environment continues to be the subject on which the

herdsmen compete. However, it is now combined with the love object, whose presence secures prosperity in the lover’s world, while its absence or reluctance also results in desolation. Corydon observes natural fertility and fruitfulness in the presence of Alexis, whose departure would cause the landscape to decline: Stant et iuniperi et castaneae hirsutae, strata iacent passim sua quaeque sub arbore poma, omnia nunc rident: at si formosus Alexis montibus his abeat, uideas et flumina sicca (Ecl. 7.53-56)1045

This subject is also employed in the pseudo-Theocritean Idyll 8:1046 pant´ }ar, pant´ d੻ nomof, pant´ d੻ g£laktoj oÜqata pidîsin, kai t¦ n{a tr£fetai, }nqa kal¦ Na૗j œpinfssetai· ae d' ¨n ¢f{rpV, cç t¦j bîj bÒskwn cae bÒej aÙÒterai (Id. 8.41-43 and 48)

1045

It is generally accepted that Ecl. 7.53-56 and 57-60 are respectively uttered by Corydon and Thyrsis and not vice versa, according to Perret 1961, 82-83, Fuchs 1966, 218-223 and Kraggerud 2008, 105-110. 1046 Coleman 1977, 221-222. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 397-399.

Chapter 8

356

In view of that, Vergil’s dependence on these pseudo-Theocritean verses is based only on this subject, because the line strata iacent passim sua quaeque sub arbore poma recalls Idyll 7:1047

Ôcnai m੻n p¦r possf, par¦ pleuralsi d੻ m©la dayil{wj ¡mln œkulfndeto (Id. 7.144-145)

These Theocritean verses come from the idealised description of Phrasidamus’ farm, which is here associated with nature’s fruitfulness because of Alexis’ presence. Nonetheless, special emphasis is also given to the devastating effects because of Alexis’ absence (at si formosus Alexis/ montibus his abeat, uideas et flumina sicca), recalling the natural decline due to Apollo’s and Pales’ departure after Daphnis’ death (cf. Ecl. 5.34-35) and thereby supplying the love object with certain divine qualities. What is more, Corydon’s reply shows his learning on Greek literature, which is not only confirmed by the Greek sources that can be traced in Ecl. 7.53-56, but is also evident from the way in which these are handled and combined in Corydon’s quatrain (pseudo-Theocritean formsubject and Theocritean content).1048 [Lines 57-60]

Thyrsis’ answer completely reverses the subject that has already

been set by Corydon: Aret ager, uitio moriens sitit aeris herba, Liber pampineas inuidit collibus umbras: 1047

Coleman 1977, 221. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 398. See also Papanghelis 1995, 121-122 and 126-127, who observes that the phrase iuniperi et castaneae hirsutae, with two hiatus without correption and a spondaic ending (Coleman 1977, 221), can display Corydon’s Hellenising learning. On the metre in Ecl. 7.53-54, see Berthet 2013, 505-509.

1048

Eclogue 7

357

Phyllidis aduentu nostrae nemus omne uirebit, Iuppiter et laeto descendet plurimus imbri (Ecl. 7.57-60)

This suggestion is strongly reinforced by the last word of Corydon’s quatrain (sicca Ecl. 7.56), which is replaced by Thyrsis with its semasiological opposite aret ager. Aret ager, uitio moriens sitit aeris herba may recall Lucretian science and language, since the uitio aeris corresponds to the morbidus aer which is identified in Lucretius’ reference to the plague:1049 ea cum casu sunt forte coorta et perturbarunt caelum, fit morbidus aer (DRN 6.1096-1097)1050

Moreover, the rain’s coming is uttered in Lucretian language, since it is based on Lucretius’ account for rain (omnis uti uideatur in imbrem uertier aether DRN 6.291). Nonetheless, Lucretius’ reference to the withered state of nature merely deals with the seasonal drought, which is caused by the imbalance between hot and cold or wet and dry elements, not the absence or reluctance of a beloved character. Similarly, the phenomenon of rain is only part of a long process (DRN 6.269-294), based on the interaction between wind and fire and not on the erotic object’s coming. In other words, Ecl. 7.57-60 are based on Lucretius’ natural philosophy in order to

1049

Coleman 1977, 222-223, Clausen 1994, 230-231 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 399400. 1050 Here, it should be mentioned that my interpretation is exclusively concerned with the source on which Thyrsis’ words are based, not with the herdsman’s language and style (Lucretian), which Karakasis 2011, 72-72 suggests can explain Corydon’s victory over Thyrsis.

Chapter 8

358

reverse or even deny it by relating nature’s rejoicing to love. What is more, Thyrsis’ reply is exclusively based on Roman literature, and it thereby emphatically fails to display his learning on Greek literature, which is what Corydon is successfully doing in the singing contest. [Lines 61-64]

Corydon’s final entry is the only quatrain whose subject is picked

up by Thyrsis,1051 since it is also concerned with a striking compliment to the natural environment, which is associated with the love object and is articulated through several country examples: Populus Alcidae gratissima, uitis Iaccho, formosae myrtus Veneri, sua laurea Phoebo; Phyllis amat corylos: illas dum Phyllis amabit, nec myrtus uincet corylos, nec laurea Phoebi (Ecl. 7.61-64)

Corydon’s country analogies for uttering the compliment constitute a subject that is extensively employed in Idyll 8, which in that sense is the most obvious source:1052 m› moi g©n P{lopoj, m› moi Krofseia t£lanta ehh }cein, mhd੻ prÒsqe q{ein ¢n{mwn· ¢ll' ØpÕ t´ p{trv t´d' °somai ¢gk¦j }cwn tu, sÚnnoma mÁl' œsorîn Sikelik£n t' œj ¤la (Id. 8.53-56)

d{ndresi m੻n ceimën foberÕn kakÒn, Ûdasi d' aÙcmÒj, Ôrnisin d' Ûsplagx, ¢grot{roij d੻ lfna, 1051

Cf. Ecl. 3.78 Phyllida amo ante alias; nam me discedere fleuit/ et longum ‘formose, uale, uale,’ inquit, ‘Iolla’. See also Coleman 1977, ad loc. 1052 MacDonald 2003, 199-207.

Eclogue 7

359

¢ndri d੻ parqenik©j ¡pal©j pÒqoj. ð p£ter, ð Zeà, oÙ mÒnoj ºr£sqhn· kai tÝ gunaikofflaj (Id. 8.57-60)

¡del' ¡ fwn¦ t©j pÒrtioj, ¡dÝ tÕ pneàma, ¡dÝ d੻ cç mÒscoj garÚetai, ¡dÝ d੻ c¢ bîj, ¡dÝ d੻ tî q{reoj par' Ûdwr ૧{on aeqriokoiteln. t´ dru૗ tai b£lanoi kÒsmoj, t´ malfdi m©la, t´ bo૗ d' ¡ mÒscoj, tù boukÒlJ ad bÒej aÙtaf (Id. 8.76-80)

The Vergilian country analogies are not modelled on the corresponding pseudo-Theocritean ones, given that they do not recall their content or language. On the contrary, pseudo-Theocritus is only the source which employs various country analogies whose form and structure have a great influence on Corydon’s last quatrain. In other words, Corydon’s last words confirm that he has already displayed great learning on Greek literature throughout the song contest by successfully handling the Greek tradition, recalling form, subjects, structure, metre and language.1053 [Lines 65-68]

On the other hand, Thyrsis’ last response can display the

opposite:

1053 See also Karakasis 2011, 79-80 with n. 91, who observes that the patronymic minus usitatum Alcidae, which is first found in Callimachus (H. 3.145), can also display Corydon’s Hellenising learning. On the other hand, Camilloni 1979-1980, 311-312 suggests that the phrase Populus Alcidae may recall epic poetry, in strong contrast to the phrase uitis Iaccho, which corresponds to the tragic genre. What is more, Egan 1996, 235-236 argues that there is an etymological wordplay between Phyllis (Fullij and its Greek root fil-) with amat (amo and its Latin root am-), which can further reinforce Corydon’s Hellenising learning. See also Karakasis 2011, 80 with n. 93.

Chapter 8

360

Fraxinus in siluis pulcherrima, pinus in hortis, populus in fluuiis, abies in montibus altis: saepius at si me, Lycida formose, reuisas, fraxinus in siluis cedat tibi, pinus in hortis (Ecl. 7.65-68)

These verses are structurally based on Idyll 8, but their content shows verbal and metrical correspondences with a passage which comes from Ennius’ Annales,1054 whose influence on Vergil had already been observed even in antiquity:1055 Fraxinus frangitur atque abies consternitur alta, pinus proceras peruortunt: omne sonabat arbustum fremitu siluai frondosai (Ann. 177-179 Skutsch)

The verbal correspondences fraxinus-fraxinus, abies-abies and pinus-pinus and the same metrical position of fraxinus (first foot) confirm the intertextual relationship. Moreover, fraxinus (i.e. “ash”) may stem from Ennius, since it occurs with pinus in three of Vergil’s four references to this tree, the last of which has an Ennian origin.1056 On the other hand, abies (“fir”) is never found in Greek or Roman pastoral, with the exception of these lines, since it has long been identified with a nonpastoral tree. On the contrary, the Vergilian phrase abies in montibus altis 1054

Lipka 2001, 118-119. See also Clausen 1994, 231-232 and Karakasis 2011, 80. Cf. Macr. Sat. 6.2.27, who argues that these Ennian verses are also Vergil’s source in A. 6.179-182 (the felling down of trees used for the preparation of Misenus’ cremation) and presumably in A. 11.135-38 (the cutting of timber for the crematory fire set for the slain Trojans and Italians). See also Lipka 2001, 118. 1056 Cf. Ecl. 7.65, 68 and A. 11.136, which may stem from Ennius. See also the striking exception which is found in G. 2.66 fraxinus Herculeaeque arbos umbrosa coronae. 1055

Eclogue 7

361

finds its verbal and metrical counterpart in the corresponding Ennian expression abies consternitur alta. Nonetheless, Ennius’ account describes that nature’s beauty exists independently, whereas in the Vergilian verses it is based on Lycidas’ potential presence. Therefore, nature’s condition is entirely dependent on the love object’s emotions, which here are meant to be strikingly unclear (saepius at si me reuisas Ecl. 7.67). What is more, Thyrsis’ reply is mostly based on the Roman tradition, thereby failing to outshine Corydon’s learning on Greek literature. [Lines 69-70]

The singing match comes to an end with the verdict, which,

strangely, is not announced by the arbiter but by the narrator-figure Meliboeus: Haec memini, et uictum frustra contendere Thyrsin. ex illo Corydon Corydon est tempore nobis (Ecl. 7.69-70)

It has already been observed that these Vergilian verses recall the Theocritean Idyll 5 and especially the verdict announced concerning Comatas’ and Lacon’s song contest:1057 paÚsasqai k{lomai tÕn poim{na. tin d{, Kom©ta, dwreltai MÒrswn t¦n ¢mnfda (Id. 5.138-139)

Both winners of the rustic song contests, Corydon (Corydon distentas lacte capellas Ecl. 7.3) and Comatas (Aੇgej œmaf Id. 5.1), are described as

1057

Cucchiarelli 2012, 404.

Chapter 8

362

goatherds.1058 Moreover, the herdsman who wins, whether it is the Roman or the Greek singing competition, is the character who begins the contest (cf. Ecl. 7.21-Id. 5.80).1059 Both Corydon’s and Comatas’ victories are emphatically announced by a third character who unexpectedly breaks into the singing match before it comes to an end. Furthermore, both Corydon and Comatas are described as being awarded a prize. Finally, Corydon’s and Comatas’ victories are unexpected, and therefore they can be considered as arbitrary, without any specific reason that can satisfactorily justify the herdsman’s success. These similarities between the Roman and Greek passages show that Corydon’s victory is entirely based on that of Comatas. Yet two crucial differences remain. First, while Comatas’ win is announced by the umpire of the contest (Id. 5.138-139), Corydon’s victory is announced by the narrative figure Meliboeus (Ecl. 7.69-70).1060 Meliboeus’ substitution for Morson enables Vergil to describe Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ singing contest as an episode that Meliboeus now recalls (haec memini).1061 In

1058

See also Ecl. 7.3 Thyrsis ouis, Corydon distentas lacte capellas, where Thyrsis is only described as herding sheep, in contrast to Corydon who herds goats which are described as inflamed with milk. 1059 It should be mentioned that the victory awarded to the rustic character that begins the contest is a conventional feature of the amoebaean song contests, where the herdsman who begins the contest has the slight advantage of being able to select the subject of each exchange. See also Skutsch 1971, 28 and Schultz 2003, 200 with n. 3, who stress the negative position of the second contestant in those contests. Gow 1952, 92 argues that the rules of those contests are nowhere described as quoting Servius, who refers to the conditions under which an amoebaean song contest takes place. Nevertheless, there were also song contests where this rule is clearly broken (cf. [Theoc.] Id. 8). On the form of those contests, see Sistakou 1998, 93-94. 1060 Meliboeus recalls the judgment of Daphnis, who is considered the referee of the song contest. See Corte 1984, 563, Clausen 1994, 212 with n. 11 and Egan 1996, 233 and Schäfer 2011, 117. 1061 For the narrative character of Meliboeus who relates Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ song contests see Thomas 1998, 185 and Breed 2006, 153.

Eclogue 7

363

other words, Meliboeus underlines that Corydon’s singing omnipotence among Roman herdsmen (nobis) had already been well established a long time previously (ex illo tempore). On the other hand, haec memini shows that Meliboeus remembers only specific exchanges (i.e. Ecl. 7.21-68) and that therefore there are others which he cannot recall and which could show Corydon’s victory more emphatically.1062 Second, while Comatas only gets a goat (¢mnfda Id. 5.139), Corydon receives the recognition of his singing superiority among Roman herdsmen, which initially confirms that Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ singing competition is actually a magnum certamen;1063 after that, it also shows that the Vergilian intention is to deviate from Idyll 5 in order to avoid the Theocritean realism which is most characteristically found throughout this Idyll.1064 Yet Corydon’s singing superiority is announced through the triumphant exclamation ex illo Corydon Corydon est tempore nobis, which recalls Daphnis’ analogous singing superiority in Idyll 8 (kºk toÚtw pr©toj par¦ poim{si D£fnij }gento Id. 8.92).1065 Further support for this relationship is found in the verbal correspondences ex illo temporekºk (k¡k = kai œk) toÚtJ (crÒnJ), nobis (pastoribus)-par¦ poim{si 1066

1062 The loss of memory constitutes a significant subject in Vergil’s Eclogues and especially in Eclogue 9. See Ecl. 9.37-38 Id quidem ago et tacitus, Lycida, mecum ipse uoluto,/ si ualeam meminisse, Ecl. 9.45 numeros memini, si uerba tenerem and Ecl. 9.51-53 Omnia fert aetas, animum quoque. saepe ego longos/ cantando puerum memini me condere soles./ nunc oblita mihi tot carmina, uox quoque Moerim. 1063 Cf. Ecl. 7.14-16 neque ego Alcippen nec Phyllida habebam/ depulsos a lacte domi quae clauderet agnos,/ et certamen erat, Corydon cum Thyrside, magnum. 1064 Crane 1988, 107-122. See also Gow 1952, 76. 1065 Coleman 1977, 225. See also Breed 2006, 70. 1066 Gow 1952, 184 observes that since Daphnis is an oxherd (cf. Id. 8.1. D£fnidi tù carfenti sun£nteto boukol{onti), par¦ poim{si seems to mean }n nomeàsin, but the adjective poimenikÕj (cf. poimenikÕj qîkoj Id. 1.22f.) can confirm that Theocritus uses it in its broader sense in order to denote a herdsman.

Chapter 8

364

and, most importantly, in the name Corydon, which obliquely recalls the adjective pr©toj.1067 The name Corydon is identified with the Theocritean tradition and nomenclature;1068 hence, it recalls KorÚdwn,1069 which is a variant form of the Greek term for the crested lark (korudÕj or kÒrudoj or korÚdwn),1070 which is a bird1071 found in the Idylls (œpitumbfdioi korudallfdej Id. 7.23, kÒrudoi 7.141 and korudallî 10.50). Moreover, the singing inferiority of the bird and its use as a stock example for the poor singer, which are well established in antiquity from Aristophanes to Eustathius,1072 show that here the name Corydon is not used to recall those contexts. However, its selection can be explained by the origin of the bird, given that the lark is described as kai prîtoj tîn

1067

On the name Corydon, which is used by Meliboeus to announce the winner of the singing contest, see Mackay 1961, 156-158, Bettini 1972, 261-276, Caviglia 1984, 887, Egan 1996, 234 and Harrison 1998, 310-311. 1068 Lipka 2001, 177 with n. 36. 1069 Cf. Id. 4.1, 50, 58 and 5.6. See also Gow II 1952, 77 who argues that the name KorÚdwn certainly comes from the bird korudallÕj because of the common technique of borrowing names from birds. See also Serv. Ecl. 2.1 Corydona a Vergilio ficto nomine nuncupari ex eo genere auis, quae corydalis dicitur, dulce canens. 1070 Cf. LSJ s.v. korudÕj. See also Arnott 2007, s.v. korydos. 1071 It should be mentioned that there is also some controversy between experts in ancient ornithology concerning which bird is referred to with the term korudÕj or kÒrudoj. See Thompson 1936, 164-168, Capponi 1979, 47-50 and Arnott 2007, 172. 1072 Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1295, Diosc. 36 G-P = A.P. 11.195, an. A.P. 9.380 and Eusth. ad Iliad. 16.492. On the other hand, Harrison 1998, 310-311 stresses the bird’s singing superiority, suggesting that its occurrence in Id. 7.135-142 (locus amoenus) can confirm that it is a songbird. Nonetheless, it should be noticed that this locus amoenus also contains a frog (cf. Gow II 1952, 165), whose croaking could hardly be described as a melodious sound (cf. Gow II 1952, 166). On a thorough discussion concerning the evidence for the lark’s singing inferiority or superiority, see Lipka 2001, 178-181 with relevant notes.

Eclogue 7

365

Ñrn{wn (“early bird”),1073 while its primacy has also been observed by Aristophanes, who refers to korudÕj as the “first of all birds”.1074 Thus, Aristophanes’ definition of korudÕj reflects the exact meaning expressed through the name Corydon, which can obliquely recall the epithet pr©toj (Id. 8.92).1075 Therefore, the narrator-figure Meliboeus ends Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ contest by displaying, similarly to the narrative introduction, great learning on Greek literature. This creates a narrative frame (Ecl. 7.120 and 69-70), which can structurally confirm that Eclogue 7 is a song contest between Roman singers/herdsmen who rival each other to show their learning on the Greek tradition. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Vergil’s concern with typical singing matches ends

with Eclogue 7, which is a contest between two Roman herdsmen who rival each other to show their learning on Greek literature. Hence, Eclogue 7 is a song contest where Vergil’s dependence on Greek literature is almost exhaustive. Aristophanes, Theocritus (Id. 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12), pseudo-Theocritus (Id. 8 and 9) and several Hellenistic epigrammatists (Leonidas of Tarentum, Euphorion, Rhianus, Theocritus and Erycius) are brought together and constitute the Greek sources on which Eclogue 7 and especially Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ contest are based. These sources supply the Vergilian text with literary characters, motifs, subjects, structure, language and metre, thereby confirming their strong influence on the Eclogue, and that Corydon and Thyrsis, whose exchanges demonstrate 1073

Cf. schol. Theoc. Id. 10.48-51g Ð korudallÕj kai prîtoj tîn Ñrn{wn eej t¦j nom¦j }rcetai kai teleutaloj œpi kofthn }peisin. 1074 Cf. Ar. Av. 471ff. 1075 See also Ecl. 7.63f. Phyllis amat corylos: illas dum Phyllis amabit,/ nec myrtus uincet corylos, nec laurea Phoebi where the rustic analogies, which stress that the hazel-tree is far better than myrtle or laurel for Phyllis, contain the term corylus, which Corydon in all probability uses in order to imply a (par)etymological association with his name (Corydon-corylos). See also Micahlopoulos 2001, s.v. korydos and Lipka 2001, 178 with n. 47.

366

Chapter 8

profound Hellenising learning, constitute singers-herdsmen rather than herdsmen-singers. Most importantly, however, these sources can explain Corydon’s victory in the contest, since Thyrsis, who fails to display analogous Hellenising learning to Corydon, is actually “cheating”, as two of his quatrains are clearly based on the Roman tradition (Ennius and Lucretius). In other words, the way in which Vergil uses the Greek and Roman traditions not only indicates the contrast between Greek and Roman herdsmen and song contests that is also evident from the narrative characters who frame the contest, but, most significantly, it is also the central agonistic element which defines the winner, thereby reaffirming that Corydon’s and Thyrsis’ singing match constitutes a “literary battle”.

CHAPTER 9 ECLOGUE 8* Eclogue 8 leaves the initial impression that it constitutes a typical singing contest.1076 It consists of an introduction (Ecl. 8.1-5 and 14-16), which is interrupted by a dedicatory passage (Ecl. 8.6-13), and two different pastoral songs delivered by the herdsmen Damon (Ecl. 8.17-63) and Alphesiboeus (Ecl. 8.64-109), not in the form of an amoebaean song contest (Ecl. 3 and 7) but of set songs (Ecl. 5) dealing with love. Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ songs show references to earlier poems in the collection that may be a crucial element in establishing the chronology of the Eclogues.1077 Besides the introductory verses, however, most * Braun 1969, 292-297 examines the Theocritean adynata and the way in which Vergil transforms them in the Eclogue. Richter 1970 exhaustively analyses the Eclogue. Garson 1971, 188-203 deals with the Theocritean elements which are found in the Eclogue. Segal 1987, 167-185 focuses on the similarities and differences between Alphesiboeus’ song (Verg. Ecl. 8.64-109) and Simaetha’s magical incantation (Theoc. Id. 2.1-63). Kenney 1983, 44-59 examines the Callimachean influence (fr. 67.1-49) on Eclogue 8. Perutelli 2000, 27-62 considers Vergil’s dependence on Varius’ De Morte fr. 4 Courtney. Bernardi Perini 2002, 24-33 argues that Ecl. 8.85-89 may be based on DRN. 2.352-366. Clauss 20022003, 165-173 argues that Callimachean aesthetics can be identified behind the terms Timauus and Illyricum aequor in the introductory verses (Ecl. 8. 6-13). MacDonald 2005, 12-31 deals with Theocritus’ influence on Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ songs. Katz and Volk 2006, 169-174 argue that the phrase limus durescit (Ecl. 8.80-81) refers to Daphnis’ erection whose origin is identified in Roman comedy (Plaut. Truc. 914-916). Lebek 2008, 205-220 re-examines Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Varius’ De Morte. Vox 2009, 305-330 examines the intertextual relationship between Idyll 1 and Eclogue 8. Gagliardi 2012, 52-73 argues that Ecl. 8.62-63 may be based on Gallus (fr. 2.6-7 Courtney). 1076 Cf. Ecl. 8.3 certantis. 1077 The chronology and the identity of the addressee are matters under discussion among scholars. Bowersock 1971, 73-80 challenged the traditional identification

368

Chapter 9

commentators agree on the sources and the way in which they are used by Vergil in order to create Eclogue 8. Coleman argues that Damon’s song combines elements drawn from Idylls 1, 3 and 11, while also emphasising the fact that Alphesiboeus’ song is entirely based on Idyll 2.1078 Clausen’s suggestion is very similar, since this scholar claims that Idylls 3 and 2 constitute the chief sources for Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ songs respectively.1079 Finally, Cucchiarelli observes Vergil’s dependence on the Theocritean collection (Idylls 2, 3 and 23), claiming also that Damon’s epithalamic song could have its roots in Catullus (Cat. 61) and in the postTheocritean pastoral tradition (Bion fr. 2 Gow).1080 These critics lay emphasis on Vergil’s knowledge of the non-pastoral Idyll 2, which they explain by its Catullan translation being attested in antiquity but unknown to us.1081 Nonetheless, less attention has been paid to the fact that the Greek and Roman sources identified here combine pastoral and nonpastoral elements, which are used in such a way as to create an urban pastoral composition.

about the addressee of Eclogue 8 by suggesting that the unnamed honorand is Octavian and not Pollio (see also Bowersock 1978, 201-202). Bowersock’s suggestion was followed by Van Sickle 1981, 17-34, Köhnken 1984, 77-90, Schmidt 1987, 197-237, Mankin 1988, 63-76 and Clausen 1994, 233-237. On the other hand, Pollio’s candidacy has been supported by Coleman 1977, 253, NisbetHubbard 1978, 17-18, Tarrant 1978, 197-99, Mayer 1983a, 17-30, Farrell 1991b, 204-211, Green 1996, 232-235, Seng 1999, 64-75 and Thibodeau 2006, 618-623. For more bibliography on this subject see also Karakasis 2011, 126-127 with n. 8 and 9. 1078 Coleman 1977, 253-255. 1079 Clausen 1994, 233-239. 1080 Cucchiarelli 2012, 405-409. 1081 Cf. Plin. NH 28.19 hinc Theocriti apud Graecos, Catulli apud nos proximeque Vergilii incantamentorum amatoria imitatio, cited by both Coleman 1977, 253 and Clausen 1994, 238-39.

Eclogue 8 [Lines 1-5]

369

This suggestion is emphatically confirmed by the Eclogue’s

introductory verses, which resemble those of Eclogue 7:1082 Pastorum Musam Damonis et Alphesiboei, immemor herbarum quos est mirata iuuenca certantis, quorum stupefactae carmine lynces, et mutata suos requierunt flumina cursus, Damonis Musam dicemus et Alphesiboei (Ecl. 8.1-5) Frigida uix caelo noctis decesserat umbra, cum ros in tenera pecori gratissimus herba: incumbens tereti Damon sic coepit oliuae (Ecl. 8.14-16)

However, whereas the first lines in Eclogue 7 are based on the Greek tradition, here the Eclogue’s introduction is heavily dependent on the Roman tradition. The phrase immemor herbarum ... iuuenca is displaced in order to highlight a condition in the cattle, which in pastoral is usually a symptom of grief.1083 This stylistic effect is traced in the phrase ceruus ... graminis inmemor (Hor. Carm. 1.15.29-30), which Horace also placed in an odd line position for the same reason. While the usual interpretation is that Horace was actually influenced by Vergil,1084 the thematic and structural relationship between the phrases shows that both poets could have drawn on a common source, now lost to us, which in all probability

1082

Cf. Ecl. 7.1-20. See also Id. 6.1-5, 8.1-10 and 9.1-6. Coleman 1977, 227. See also Theoc. Id. 4.14 Ã m¦n deflaiaf ge, kai oÙk{ti lînti n{mesqai; [Mosch.] Epit. Bion. 23-24 kai ad bÒej ad poti taÚroij/ plazÒmenai go£onti kai oÙk œq{lonti n{mesqai. 1084 Nisbet-Hubbard 1970, 200. 1083

370

Chapter 9

is Calvus’ Io.1085 Both expressions refer to animals by using the adjective immemor, whose application to animals constitutes a substantial detail that was originally used by Vergil.1086 Moreover, the fact that the Vergilian line deals with an animal which is a “young cow” (iuuenca) further enhances Vergil’s dependence on Calvus’ Io, which recounts the fate of the priestess Io who has been transformed by Zeus into a heifer. Further support for this intertextual relationship is also offered by the following verse of the introductory section (et mutata suos requierunt flumina cursus Ecl. 8.4). Once again, Calvus’ epyllion is considered as the most obvious source (Sol quoque perpetuos meminit requiescere cursus Calv. fr. 13.1 Courtney), confirmed by the transitive use of requiesco1087 and strongly supported by the ancient commentary.1088 Certainly, there are other sources from which these Vergilian lines could be drawn.1089 However, the selection of the Calvan line is also based on its literary context, which underlines the inability of Io, metamorphosed into a cow, to find peace and rest. Vergil’s passage, on the other hand, describes a peaceful landscape, each of whose constituent parts is resting at the sight of Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ 1085

Nisbet-Hubbard 1970, 199f., Clausen 1994, 240-241 and Lipka 2001, 122. Cf. TLL s.v. immemor 448.48-55. See also Verg. G. 3.498f. labitur infelix studiorum atque immemor herbae/ uictor equus with Mynors 1990, ad loc. 1087 See also [Verg.] Ciris 233 quo rapidos etiam requiescunt flumina cursus?; Prop. 2.22a.25 Iuppiter Alcmenae geminas requieverat Arctos. On this use of requiesco, see Taliercio 1986, 117-129. Lipka 2001, 122 observes that Lucretius had already employed the transitive use of the inchoative verbs (DRN 4.1282 and 6.397), which is a frequent construction in later Latin literature. He adds, however, that the same structure had been restricted to poetry during the 1st c. BC, which could explain the reference of suos cursus to mutata, since it is a construction occasionally attested in the Elcogues. 1088 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 8.4 Caluus in “Io sol quoque perpetuos meminit requiescere cursus”. See also Coleman 1977, 228, Clausen 1994, and Cucchiarelli 2012, 410411. 1089 See Eur. Med. 410 ¥nw potamîn derîn cwroàsi pagaf; Ap. Rh. Arg. 1.2627 aÙt¦r tÒng' œn{pousin ¢teir{aj oÜresi p{traj/ q{lxai ¢oid£wn œnopÍ potamîn te ૧{eqra. 1086

Eclogue 8

371

singing contest. In other words, Io’s anxious predicament is replaced by nature’s tranquillity before the competing herdsmen, whose musical performance is thus invested with orphic-like powers.1090 [Lines 6-13]

Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ encounter, however, is abruptly

interrupted by a dedicatory passage that is later resumed as if nothing had intervened:1091 tu mihi, seu magni superas iam saxa Timaui siue oram Illyrici legis aequoris,-en erit umquam ille dies, mihi cum liceat tua dicere facta? en erit ut liceat totum mihi ferre per orbem sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna coturno? a te principium, tibi desinam: accipe iussis carmina coepta tuis, atque hanc sine tempora circum inter uictricis hederam tibi serpere lauros (Ecl. 8.6-13)

The dedication leaves the identity of the addressee vague while including a considerable complimentary formula which expresses that the Vergilian intention is to begin and end with a clear-cut reference to the honorand (a te principium, tibi desinam Ecl. 8.11). This formula is a typical example of the polar expression “first and last” which means “throughout”, underlining the importance which is attached to the person referred to. It is based on the old view that poetic compositions should begin with Zeus.1092 1090

Cf. Ecl. 6.27-30 tum uero in numerum Faunosque ferasque uideres/ ludere, tum rigidas motare cacumina quercus;/ nec tantum Phoebo gaudet Parnasia rupes,/ nec tantum Rhodope miratur et Ismarus Orphea. See also Karakasis 2011, 126. 1091 Levi 1966, 73-79 argues that all or at least most of those verses should be removed as spurious. See also Karakasis 2011, 127 with n. 10. 1092 See also Ecl. 3.60 Ab Ioue principium Musae: Iovis omnia plena.

372

Chapter 9

However, on this occasion, it is more associated with the Theocritean suggestion that Zeus should occupy the end of the poem1093 and Ptolemy the beginning, middle and end:1094 'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa kai œj Dfa l›gete Molsai, ¢qan£twn tÕn ¥riston, œp¾n ¢efdwmen ¢oidalj ¢ndrîn d' aâ Ptolemaloj œni prètoisi leg{sqw kai pÚmatoj kai m{ssoj (Id. 17.3-4)

The above Vergilian line (a te principium, tibi desinam Ecl. 8.11) is based on this tradition, conflating Theocritus and Homer:1095 'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa kai œj Dfa l›gete Molsai (Id. 17.1)

'AtreǸdh kÚdiste ¥nax ¢ndrîn 'Ag£memnon œn soi m੻n l›xw, s{o d' ¥rxomai, oÛneka pollîn laîn œssi ¥nax (Il. 9.96-98)

Further support for Vergil’s dependence on Homer is offered by some verbal correspondences. The prepositional expression a te may recall the analogous œn soi, tibi corresponds to s{o and finally desinam constitutes 1093

Cf. Arat. Phaen. 14 tù min ¢ei prîtÒn te kai Ûstaton dl£skontai. Cf. Theogn. 1-4’W ¥na, Lhtoàj ud{, DiÕj t{koj, oÜpote selo/ l›somai ¢rcÒmenoj oÙd' ¢popauÒmenoj,/ ¢ll' aeei prîtÒn te kai Ûstaton }n te m{soisin/ ¢efsw; Hes. Theog. 47-49 deÚteron aâte ZÁna qeîn pat{r' ºd੻ kai ¢ndrîn,/ ¢rcÒmenaf q' Ømneàsi qeai l›gousaf t' ¢oidÁj,/ Ósson f{rtatÒj œsti qeîn k£rtei te m{gistoj. 1095 Coleman 1977, 229-230, Clausen 1994, 243 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 413-414. See also Karakasis 2011, 130 and n. 20 with further bibliography. 1094

Eclogue 8

373

the exact equivalent of the main verb l›xw. The selection and combination of those sources could hardly be accidental. Idyll 17 is an encomiastic composition which, along with the explicit complimentary character of the Homeric verses, serves the encomiastic context of Vergil’s dedication. Furthermore, the honorand is described as being an amalgam figure, combining Zeus’ (divine) and Agamemnon’s (cosmic) authority (Octavian Augustus?). What is more, Vergil’s combined dependence on Homer and Theocritus lays emphasis on the fact that these verses constitute non-pastoral sources. Thus, Homer, Theocritus and Calvus are the Greco-Roman non-pastoral sources whose conflation creates an introductory section that not only reflects the blending of the Greek and Roman traditions that runs through the Eclogue, but also shows that Eclogue 8 constitutes an urban-pastoral composition.1096 This suggestion can be confirmed by the fact that Ecl. 8.6-13 constitute a recusatio1097 whose main constituent element is the fundamental contrast between “higher” and “lower” literature (epic (siue oram Illyrici legis aequoris, -en erit umquam/ ille dies, mihi cum liceat tua dicere facta? Ecl. 8.7-8) and tragedy (sola Sophocleo tua carmina digna coturno?) vs. pastoral (dƝsƱnăm ƗccƱpƟ, namely the prosodic hiatus in the bucolic diaeresis, which constitutes a notable Theocritean metrical marker)1098). [Lines 14-16]

The non-pastoral dedication is replaced by an idealised pastoral

setting, which contains a flock that enjoys tender grass and the herdsman Damon, who is about to sing:

1096 On a different interpretation of the introductory section, see Clauss 2002-2003, 165-173, who reads the passage in metaliterary terms, suggesting that the Illyricum aequor (Ecl. 8.7) contains “not lyrical” (epic) overtones. 1097 Karakasis 2011, 128-129 and n. 12 with further bibliography. 1098 Clausen 1994, 243-244. See also Karakasis 2011, 130.

374

Chapter 9 Frigida uix caelo noctis decesserat umbra, cum ros in tenera pecori gratissimus herba: incumbens tereti Damon sic coepit oliuae (Ecl. 8.14-16)

Nonetheless, the herdsman, who is standing rather than seated or lying either on the grass or under a shady tree, recalls the epic and certainly not the pastoral genre;1099 what is more, the singing time (before dawn) is unfamiliar to pastoral poetry.1100 In other words, the landscape setting that is related to the pastoral genre is juxtaposed with the standing herdsman, who is associated with the epic genre. [Damon’s song] structure

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus more clearly emerges in

Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ songs, whose dependence on the Theocritean collection has been noticed by scholars. Damon delivers an erotic monologue,1101 which is divided into unequal stanzas marked by a refrain and deals with a rejected lover who laments his erotic misfortune, while he also recollects the happy moments of the past (Ecl. 8.17-63). The subject of Damon’s song is based on that of the second part of Idyll 2, where Simaetha grieves for her lost love relationship and recalls its past pleasures (Id. 2.64-166).1102 On the other hand, its structure is modelled on Thyrsis’ dirge, describing Daphnis’ death through several stanzas of unequal length divided by a refrain (Id. 1.64-142). Such a view is confirmed by an

1099 Van Sickle 1986, 156. See also Karakasis 2011, 130 n. 23 with further bibliography. 1100 Kegel-Brinkgreve 1990, 109. See also Karakasis 2011, 131. 1101 It should be mentioned that Damon’s love song is not unlike that of the lovesick goatherd in Idyll 3. See also Clausen 1994, 237 and 245. 1102 Coleman 1977, Clausen 1994, and Cucchiarelli 2012.

Eclogue 8

375

examination of the refrain, which recalls the Theocritean refrain of Idyll 1:1103 incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, uersus (Ecl. 8.21 et al.)

”Arcete boukolik©j, Molsai fflai, ¥rcet' ¢oid©j (Id. 1.64 et al.)

This relationship is further reinforced by the verbal correspondence incipe¥rcete and the same metrical pattern that both refrains exhibit ( ‰ ‰  ‰ ‰    ‰ ‰  ‰ ‰  ).1104 Further support for this idea is offered by the last stanza of Damon’s song (Ecl. 8.61). There, the lovesick herdsman alters the refrain by imitating the variation of the Theocritean epodeverse:1105 desine Maenalios, iam desine, tibia, uersus (Ecl. 8.61 et al.) l›gete boukolik©j, Molsai, hte l›get' ¢oid©j (Id. 1.134 et al.)

This variation receives further confirmation from the repetition of the same main verb (desine ... desine-l›gete ... l›get') and the metrical correspondence of the bucolic diaeresis (desine, ¨¨ tibia-hte ¨¨ l›get'). 1103

Coleman 1977, 232, Clausen 1994, 246 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 415-416. Cf. also [Mosch.] Epit. Bion. 8 ¥rcete Sikelikaf, tî p{nqeoj ¥rcete, Molsai which has already been considered by scholars as an imitation of the Theocritean refrain under consideration. See Mumprecht 1964, 67-68. 1105 Coleman 1977, 243, Clausen 1994, 255 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 431. 1104

376 [Alphesiboeus’song structure]

Chapter 9

On the other hand, Alphesiboeus’ musical performance is

actually less complicated. The song describes the attempt of a jealous unnamed countrywoman to call back her absent lover through uneven units of lines accompanied by a refrain (Ecl. 8.64-109). In view of that, it depends on the first part of Idyll 2, which also describes Simaetha’s song to recover Delphis (Id. 2.1-63), not only in terms of form (both songs consist of nine stanzas, which amount to 36 lines without the refrains)1106 but also of content.1107 Once again, the Vergilian refrain finds its model in the corresponding Theocritean one, which is also confirmed by the verbal correspondences ducite-Ÿlke and domum-dîma:1108 ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin (Ecl. 8.68) ੇugx, Ÿlke tÝ tÁnon œmÕn poti dîma tÕn ¥ndra (Id. 2.17)

Vergil draws on Idyll 2 for the subjects of incantation, lament and recollection, but places them in reverse order in the pastoral framework of a song contest with refrains. The refrain is a considerable element of Alphesiboeus’ musical performance because of its dependence on Simaetha’s magical chant1109 in emphatic opposition to Damon’s song, where some have

1106

Such a verse calculation presupposes that lines 73-78 of the Eclogue are a single unit. Otherwise, Alphesiboeus’ musical performance includes an additional stanza in comparison to Simaetha’s incantation. See Skutsch 1969, 156, Skutsch 1971, 26-29 and Salmann 1995, 289-290. 1107 Coleman 1977, 253, Clausen 1994, 255-256 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 432-433. 1108 Coleman 1977, 244-245, Clausen 1994, 257 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 434-435. 1109 Dover 2000, 94 argues that the use of refrains, though not a typical feature in the magical rites, was not unknown in ancient magic. Moreover, he observes that

Eclogue 8

377

considered it as an inappropriate or even unnecessary feature.1110 Nevertheless, it also lays special emphasis on the tragic atmosphere of Damon’s song, given that it stems from Thyrsis’ lament, which thereby creates a pointed contrast with the happy situation described in Alphesiboeus’ musical performance.1111 In other words, this stylistic device is a literary linchpin that relates the songs of the competing herdsmen, thereby reflecting, at least in terms of structure, the conflation of pastoral and urban features. [Lines 17-20]

Damon’s song begins with the anonymous rejected goatherd

complaining of his erotic situation: Nascere praeque diem ueniens age, Lucifer, almum, coniugis indigno Nysae deceptus amore dum queror et diuos, quamquam nil testibus illis profeci, extrema moriens tamen adloquor hora (Ecl. 8.17-20)

These lines, employing the request of a deserted lover for divine punishment of the perjured love object, may recall Catullus 64, where Ariadne laments herself because Theseus left her:1112 quam iustam a diuis exposcam prodita multam, caelestumque fidem postrema comprecer hora (Cat. 64.190-191)

its use in Idyll 2 is the artistic equivalent of the monotonous repetitions of words and phrases which describe the magical spells. See also Dover 2000, l. 1110 See Bethe 1892, 595-596, who is followed by Clausen 1994, 238 and 245f. 1111 On the significant structural correspondences between the two songs which sustain the contrast running through Damon’s and Alphesiboeus’ musical performances see Otis 1963, 131-133, Richter 1970, 21-23, Coleman 1977, 254255 and Hubbard 1998, 116. 1112 Coleman 1977, 232, Clausen 1994, 246 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 417.

378

Chapter 9

Vergil’s relationship to Catullus is first confirmed by the common subject of fides.1113 Furthermore, the Vergilian extrema hora constitutes a striking indication of the lover’s intention to die, recalling the corresponding Catullan postrema hora, something that is further reinforced by the same line position of the term hora. However, the desertion in Ariadne’s case is by her husband (conubia nostra Cat. 64.158) while the goatherd’s rejection is due to Nysa’s false promise to marry him (cf. coniugis).1114 Hence, it may recall the Callimachean erotic story of Acontius and Cydippe where Cydippe swears to marry Acontius despite already being engaged to another suitor. This corresponds to the situation described in the above Vergilian verses, thereby confirming that Callimachus has also been an influence on Damon’s song.1115 In other words, Damon’s song characteristically begins with a combined quotation from the Callimachean erotic story of Acontius and Cydippe and the Catullan epyllion, i.e. it is heavily based on two non-pastoral sources. [Lines 22-24]

This suggestion is reinforced by the non-pastoral request to the

rising day (nascere praeque diem ueniens age, Lucifer, almum) that is usually found in epic narratives.1116 Moreover, it is formulated by an oldfashioned tmesis (prae…ueniens), which constitutes a typical feature that is closely associated with a loftier style of prayers.1117 In addition, the term coniunx that means “wife” (cf. OLD s.v. coniunx) is emphatically alien

1113

On the word fides, which is a key term in Roman love poetry, see Pichon 1966, 147f. 1114 On the term coniugis and its meaning (“wife”), which has troubled modern commentators, see below. 1115 Kennedy 1983, 54-55. 1116 Tandoi 1981, 274. See also Karakasis 2011, 134. 1117 Coleman 1977, 231 and Tandoi 1981, 274. See also Karakasis 2011, 134.

Eclogue 8

379

(non-pastoral) to the pastoral world,1118 which is unaware of solemn unions.1119 What is more, the phrase used in order to refer to the anonymous goatherd’s love for Nysa is indigno amore, which in that sense may recall Gallus’ elegiac love for Lycoris (cf. Naides, indigno cum Gallus amore peribat? Ecl. 10.10).1120 Furthermore, the verb used by the rejected goatherd has clear-cut elegiac overtones, since querella and queror signify an elegiac genre and composition (cf. Prop. 1.7.8).1121 On the contrary, the subject of fides (Ecl. 8.19-20) employed by Catullus and Vergil may recall the ¢frodfsioj Ôrkoj (a lover’s false oath constitutes empty words that are usually unheard by the gods because they are carried away by winds or waves), which is an uncommon pastoral feature, or in other words, a non-pastoral subject.1122 Nonetheless, these non-pastoral features are placed into a typical pastoral setting that is responsive to the goatherd’s love song:1123 Maenalus argutumque nemus pinusque loquentis semper habet, semper pastorum ille audit amores Panaque, qui primus calamos non passus inertis (Ecl. 8.22-24)

1118

Cf. also Ecl. 1.30-32 postquam os Amaryllis habet, Galatea reliquit./ namque fatebor enim dum me Galatea tenebat,/ nec spes libertatis erat nec cura peculi. See also Karakasis 2011, 134-135, who observes that Galateia constitutes an “unpastoral wife-figure”. 1119 On the many difficulties that this term has caused for modern scholars, see Karakasis 2011 134 with n. 36. 1120 Putnam 1970, 260. See also Karakasis 2011, 133. 1121 Tandoi 1981, 275 and Kennedy 1993, 32 and 51. See also Karakasis 2011, 133. 1122 Karakasis 2011, 135. See also Karakasis 2011, 115. 1123 Papanghelis 1995, 90-91. See also Karakasis 2011, 136 with n. 46 and Paraskeviotis 2016, 60-62.

Chapter 9

380

The “Arcadian” mountain Maenalus shows that the anonymous goatherd’s love song is heard in the fictional setting where the Vergilian herdsmen are found (“Arcadia”); however, it also shows that this song is heard by the “Arcadian” woods (Maenalus…nemus) that are resonant (argutum)1124 and are the recipients of the herdsmen’s loves (pastorum ille audit amores) or of their erotic songs.1125 This context recalls the echoic context with which the Vergilian collection begins, where the woods echo the love story, which can be heard from the singing rustic (Ecl. 1.1-5). Hence, the anonymous goatherd sings of his love for Nysa to the “Arcadian” forest,1126 which is an erotic story reproduced by the trees through the echo (pinus loquentis), which is also associated with the country god Pan, whose music is also resounded by the “Arcadian” trees (Panaque, qui primus calamos non passus inertis). These Vergilian lines can constitute a quotation from Idyll 1,1127 where nature generates the music on which the anonymous goatherd’s song is based and where Pan is also summoned by the singing herdsman Thyrsis:

`AdÚ ti tÕ yiqÚrisma kai ¡ pftuj, aepÒle, t›na, ¡ poti talj pagalsi, melfsdetai, ¡dÝ d kai tÚ 1124

Cf. OLD s.v. argutus 1b. Cf. Serv. Ecl. 8.24 ‘amores’ uero cantica de amoribus. See also e.g. Eclogue 1.4-5 tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra/ formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas where Tityrus is singing his love for Amaryllis. Tityrus’ song is associated with love, given that the song deals with the visual counterpart of the impersonal siluestrem Musam which is formosam Amaryllida (“beautiful Amaryllis”). Furthermore, this love scene programmatically establishes love as one of the dominant subjects in Vergilian pastoral (Eclogue 2, 8 and 10), whereas it had already been considered as a typical subject throughout Greek pastoral (cf. Theoc. Id. 3 and 11; Moschus, fr. 2 and 4 Gow; Bion. fr. 3 and 9 Gow). 1126 Cf. Ecl. 8.58-60 omnia uel medium fiat mare. uiuite siluae:/ praeceps aerii specula de montis in undas/ deferar; extremum hoc munus morientis habeto where the goatherd’s love song for Nysa also ends with an address to the woods. 1127 Breed 2006, 46. 1125

Eclogue 8

381

surfsdej (Id. 1.1-3)

ð P¦n P£n, eht' œssi kat' êrea makr¦ Lukafw, ehte tÚg' ¢mfipolelj m{ga Mafnalon, }nq' œpi n©son t¦n Sikel£n, `Elfkaj d lfpe ·fon aepÚ te s©ma tÁno Lukaonfdao, tÕ kai mak£ressin ¢ghtÒn (Id. 1.123-126)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the pastoral metaphor, according to which nature is the inspiration source for the goatherd’s song through the creation of music.1128 But Vergil reverses its concept by transferring the action of singing to the herdsman and to Pan, whom they hear through the echo of what they have already sung to the woods. Therefore, the Arcadian forest resounds the love story of an anonymous goatherd along with the music which comes from the syrinx of Pan, who has long been recognised as the first inventor of pastoral music and hence of the pastoral genre.1129 In other words, the “Arcadian” woods re-sing the goatherd’s erotic song and Pan’s music through the echo, which are recurrent subjects in the Vergilian collection;1130 hence, they in fact generate pastoral poetry and especially Vergilian pastoral poetry (incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, uersus),1131 whose creation is based on a 1128

Here, Vergil’s exclusive dependence on Theocritus and not on Lucretius (DRN 5.1379-1383), who deals with the same idea, is also based on the whispering tree (i.e. pinus-pftuj) and Pan’s invocation, which are absent from the Lucretian account that considers the origins of human music (cf. DRN 5.1379-1383). 1129 Cf. Ecl.2.32-33 Pan primum calamos cera coniungere pluris/ instituit. 1130 Cf. Ecl. 2, 8 and 10, where the love subject has an eminent role, along with Eclogue 2.31-33, 4.58-59, 5.56-60 and 10.26-27, where the country god Pan is also found. 1131 This Vergilian line (Ecl. 8.21 incipe Maenalios mecum, mea tibia, uersus) is based on the corresponding Theocritean refrain (cf. Id. 1.64 ”Arcete boukolik©j,

382

Chapter 9

continuous (semper ... semper) amoebaean song between humans and nature. Most significant, however, is the fact that this conventional pastoral landscape constitutes the literary setting where we have already come across the abovementioned non-pastoral elements. [Lines 26-30]

This is also evidenced by the subject that Damon chooses to sing

about, according to which the anonymous goatherd is in love with the erotic object Nysa who is about to marry another man called Mopsus: Mopso Nysa datur: quid non speremus amantes? iungentur iam grypes equis, aeuoque sequenti cum canibus timidi uenient ad pocula dammae. Mopse, nouas incide faces: tibi ducitur uxor. sparge, marite, nuces: tibi deserit Hesperus Oetam (Ecl. 8.26-30)

In other words, Damon’s song is concerned with unrequited love, which is a typical elegiac subject and which is in strong contrast with the pastoral values and lifestyle.1132 This suggestion is further enhanced by the term datur (sc. nuptum) that denotes a legal marriage, which is emphatically alien (non-pastoral) to the pastoral world. Moreover, the anonymous goatherd focuses on Nysa’s wedding ceremony (deductio), which constitutes yet another non-pastoral or urban feature, since it is usually found in the urban world and its genres (elegy and lyric erotic poetry).1133

Molsai fflai, ¥rcet' ¢oid©j) with the difference that Vergil alters the conventional invocation to Molsai with tibia and boukolik©j…¢oid©j, which can suggest “bucolic singing” (see Hunter 1999, 5-12 and esp. 7-8), with Maenalios…uersus. 1132 Karakasis 2011, 19, 31-32, 101-102 and 133. 1133 Cf. Cat. 61.77-78, 114-115, 134-141 and 62.20-24 with Karakasis 2011, 135 with n. 42, who observes that the Eclogue is here related to an epithalamion that

Eclogue 8

383

In addition, the anonymous goatherd, the love object Nysa and the erotic rival Mopsus create an erotic triangle that is a theme that is usually found in Roman comedy and elegy.1134 However, these non-pastoral features are again set against a typical pastoral background, exemplified by several adynata which come from the Theocritean collection and especially from Idyll 1, where Daphnis’ death causes unnatural sexual unions:1135 iungentur iam grypes equis, aeuoque sequenti cum canibus timidi uenient ad pocula dammae (Ecl. 8.27-28) nàn ha m{n for{oite b£toi, for{oite d' ¥kanqai, ¡ d{ kal¦ n£rkissoj œp' ¢rkeÚqoisi kom£sai, p£nta d' ¥nalla g{noito, kai ¡ pftuj Ôcnaj œnefkai, D£fnij œpei qn£skei, kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi, kºx Ñr{wn toi skîpej ¢hdÒsi garÚsainto (Id. 1.132-136)

Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the same adynaton that is concerned with the unnatural situation of the stag attacking the hounds, though the reason is not the same (Nysa’s marriage to Mopsus vs. Daphnis’ death). [Lines 32-35]

This blending of pastoral and non-pastoral elements continues in

the next verses, where the reasons for Nysa’s treachery are described:

flourished in Latin literature mostly through lyric poetry. See also Fordyce 1961, 235-236. 1134 Kennedy 1983, 53-54, Papanghelis 1999, 89-90 and Karakasis 2011, 116 and 133. 1135 Clausen 1994, 247 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 420-421. See also Saunders 2008, 54 and Karakasis 2011, 136.

384

Chapter 9 o digno coniuncta uiro, dum despicis omnis, dumque tibi est odio mea fistula dumque capellae hirsutumque supercilium promissaque barba, nec curare deum credis mortalia quemquam (Ecl. 8.32-35)

These verses find their counterparts in Idylls 3 and 11:1136 Ã ૧£ g{ toi simÕj katafafnomai œggÚqen Ãmen, nÚmfa, kai prog{neioj; (Id. 3.8-9)

ginèskw, carfessa kÒra, tfnoj oÛneka feÚgeij· oÛnek£ moi lasfa m੻n ÑfrÝj œpi panti metèpJ (Id. 11.30-31)

Vergil brings together these Theocritean texts, which are variations on the same formula (outward appearance as a barrier to love), combining the features of the anonymous goatherd and Polyphemus (promissa barbaprog{neioj and hirsutumque supercilium-lasfa ÑfrÝj), out of which the country singer’s appearance emerges. However, the way Vergil uses the herdsman’s country appearance is not the same, since it is not a means of highlighting the grotesque and humorous side of the rejected lover, as is the case with the anonymous goatherd or Polyphemus. On the contrary, the country appearance along with the unattractive goats and fistula constitute the reasons for which Nysa is eager to reject the goatherd and marry another man. Nysa’s scorn for the fistula, which usually stands

1136

Coleman 1977, 236, Clausen 1994, 249 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 423.

Eclogue 8

385

metonymically for pastoral song,1137 shows that the love object scorns not only the anonymous goatherd and the country activities but also the pastoral activity par excellence (pastoral music and song);1138 hence, she constitutes a non-pastoral character who is situated in a pastoral setting. [Lines 37-40]

Vergil’s

relationship

with

Theocritus

becomes

more

characteristically evident in the anonymous goatherd’s and Nysa’s first meeting: saepibus in nostris paruam te roscida mala dux ego uester eram uidi cum matre legentem. alter ab undecimo tum me iam acceperat annus, iam fragilis poteram a terra contingere ramos (Ecl. 8.37-40)

Once again, these Vergilian verses come from the Theocritean collection and especially from Idyll 11:1139 ºr£sqhn m੻n }gwge teoàj, kÒra, ¡nfka pr©ton Ãnqej œm´ sÝn matri q{lois' Øakfnqina fÚlla œx Ôreoj dr{yasqai, œgë d' ÐdÕn ¡gemÒneuon (Id. 11.25-27)

Vergil’s intertextual relationship with Theocritus is based on the fact that they deal with the same subject, which is the remembering of the lovers’ first meeting. Nonetheless, Vergil alters the setting by replacing the mountain (œx Ôreoj) with the more domestic orchard (saepibus in),

1137

Papanghelis 1995, 90. See also Hunter 2006, 116 and Karakasis 2011, 137. Karakasis 2011, 137. 1139 Coleman 1977, 236, Clausen 1994, 249 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 423. 1138

386

Chapter 9

emphasised by the personal pronoun nostris.1140 This change shows that the unspecified phrase cum matre refers to the mother of the girl and not of the boy as in the Theocritean passage (œm´ sÝn matri);1141 this is also a detail that can explain the Vergilian omission of the possessive pronoun (œm´), since the boy’s mother would hardly need a guide in the family enclosure.1142 Moreover, the gathered item is also modified, since the Theocritean hyacinth flowers (Øakfnqina fÚlla)1143 are transformed into dewy apples (roscida mala), a change associated with the erotic overtones that are linked with this fruit (love token).1144 Polyphemus’ and Galateia’s casual encounter is not chronologically placed in the distant past, while there is also no indication that either is still a child when they meet. Vergil, on the other hand, emphasises the age of the characters (paruam and alter ab undecimo tum me iam acceperat annus, iam fragilis poteram a terra contingere ramos), further identifying this meeting with a happy moment of the past childhood. The Vergilian intention is to intensify the joy and pleasure that this past happy episode brings, in emphatic contrast to the current desperate situation of the rejected herdsman. In other words, Damon’s song about the anonymous goatherd’s and Nysa’s love story is

1140

Coleman 1977, 236. On a brief discussion on this matter, see Karakasis 2011, 138 n. 55 with further bibliography. 1142 See Cartault 1897, 305f. who is also followed by Coleman 1977, 236f., Lee 1981, 12 and Clausen 1994, 249f. 1143 On the translation of the term fÚlla (“leaves”) with the meaning of ¥nqh (“flowers”), see Eclogue 5 above. 1144 Gow II 1952, 107. See also Eclogue 3 above. On the occurrences of Callimachean elements in this Vergilian passage, see Kenney 1983, 53-57. 1141

Eclogue 8

387

based on an emphatic antithesis between the pastoral past and non-pastoral present.1145 [Line 41]

This meeting turns out to be fatal for the young unnamed

goatherd, who falls in love at first sight: ut uidi, ut perii, ut me malus abstulit error! (Ecl. 8.41)

The lover’s feelings may recall Simaetha’s lament for the loss of the beloved Delphis, which is also conflated with Atalanta’s frenzied love for Hippomenes:1146 cçj hdon, ìj œm£nhn, éj moi puri qumÕj e£fqh deilafaj (Id. 2.82f.) æj hden, ìj œm£nh, ìj œj baqÝn ¤lat' }rwta (Id. 3.42)

The suggestion of the combined quotation is enhanced by structural and verbal correspondences. The construction ut ... ut ... ut is based on the triple repetition of the æj ... æj ... æj which, despite the syntactical function of each conjunction (temporal-exclamatory-exclamatory or temporal-demonstrative-demonstrative),1147 comes from Idylls 2 and 3. Furthermore, Vergil recalls the hiatus after the penthemimeres caesura 1145

See also Karakasis 2011, 139 who, however, refers to a “cornerstone antithesis between pastoral past of Neoteric kind vs. unpastoral present or rather antiCallimachean principles”. 1146 Coleman 1977, 237, Clausen 1994, 250-251 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 424-425. 1147 On a thorough guide on this subject, see Timpanaro 1978, 219-287 and especially 270-287. See also Gow II 1952, 51-52.

388

Chapter 9

(perii, ¨ ut-ìj œm£nh hn ¨ éj and œm£nh h, ¨ ìj),1148 strongly reinforcing the suggestion that this structural pattern also has its roots in those Theocritean passages. Moreover, the term uidi recalls hdon/ hden, the verb perii corresponds to œm£nhn/ œm£nh, while the expression malus error respectively recalls deilafaj and }rwta,1149 which with that meaning fairly corresponds to the sense of the ill-fated love. Nonetheless, Vergil introduces the concept of blighted love (malus error) in order to create a past episode whose recollection causes not only pleasure by the subject of love at first sight, but also misery by the current situation between the two lovers. Therefore, Damon’s song once again refers to a happy moment of the past erotic pastoral relationship, setting it in contrast to its terrible present non-pastoral condition; this is further evidenced by the combination of pastoral (Idyll 3) and non-pastoral (Idyll 2) sources. [Lines 43-45]

The anonymous goatherd now begins to realise the true nature of

love by expressing its relentlessness through various accusations on Eros’ origin: nunc scio quid sit Amor: nudis in cautibus illum aut Tmaros aut Rhodope aut extremi Garamantes nec generis nostri puerum nec sanguinis edunt (Ecl. 8.43-45)

1148

Garson 1971, 202 with n. 1 and Wills 1996, 354f. On the peculiar use of the word error, which means either “mistake” or “passion”, see Serv. Ecl. 8.41 definitio amoris. See also Ov. Am. 1.10.9-10 nunc timor omnis abest, animique resanuit error,/ nec facies oculos iam capit ista meos with McKeown 1989, ad loc.

1149

Eclogue 8

389

These lines deal with a typical pastoral and elegiac theme1150 stemming from Homer.1151 Here, however, the most obvious source is Idyll 3:1152 nàn }gnwn tÕn ”Erwta· barÝj qeÒj· à ૧a leafnaj mazÕn œq›lazen, drumù t{ nin }trafe m£thr (Id. 3.15-16)

Vergil’s dependence on these Theocritean verses is based on the same context, reinforced also by the verbal correspondence nunc scio quid sit Amor-nàn }gnwn tÕn ”Erwta. Nonetheless, the next Vergilian verses are not modelled on the same source, even though they in fact employ the same idea of Eros’ hard and cruel character. Vergil replaces the reference to the bestial nature of Eros’ mother (à ૧a leafnaj/ mazÕn œq›lazen) with the god’s inhuman nature (nec generis nostri puerum nec sanguinis edunt) and Eros’ nurture place (drumù t{ nin }trafe m£thr) with the enumeration of his birthplaces (aut Tmaros aut Rhodope aut extremi Garamantes). This alteration may recall the Catullan collection, where the reference to the lioness is followed by a mountain location, reflecting the commonplace way in which the Romans received this:1153 num te leaena montibus Libystinis (Cat. 60.1)

1150

Cf. Theoc. Id. 2.55-56; Meleag. 6 G-P = A.P. 5.176, 8 G-P = A.P. 180; Prop. 1.12.16. 1151 Cf. Hom. Il. 16.33-34 oÙd੻ Q{tij m›thr· glauk¾ d{ se tfkte q£lassa/ p{trai t' ºlfbatoi, Óti toi nÒoj œstin ¢phn›j. 1152 Coleman 1977, 238, Clausen 1994, 251 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 425-426. 1153 Hubbard 1998, 203 n. 93.

Chapter 9

390

quod mare conceptum spumantibus exspuit undis (Cat. 64.154)

Nevertheless, the mountain setting is not based on Catullus but on Theocritus, and especially on Idyll 7:1154 eâte ciën éj tij katet£keto makrÕn Øf' Aƒmon À ”Aqw À `RodÒpan À KaÚkason œscatÒwnta (Id. 7.76-77)

This relationship is enhanced by the structural formula aut ... aut ... aut, which is based on the À ... À ... À and the verbal correspondences Rhodope-RodÒpan and extremi-œscatÒwnta. On the other hand, Tmaros replaces both Aƒmon and”Aqw, while Garamantes, which also recalls the Catullan montibus Libystinis, alters the Theocritean KaÚkason. However, the conflation traced in those complex Vergilian verses is not accidental. On the contrary, it characteristically reflects the conflation of Greek and Roman sources on which the unnamed country character, who is rejected by the love object, is based. Hence, he is an amalgam character whose erotic feelings combine elements of and balance between the rejection of the Theocritean goatherd (pastoral character) and the desertion of the Catullan Ariadne (non-pastoral character). [Lines 47-50]

The anonymous goatherd stresses that love is cruel through a

mythological reference to Medea, whose rejection by Jason had the result of her murder of her sons: saeuus Amor docuit natorum sanguine matrem

1154

Coleman 1977, 238, Clausen 1994, 251 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 425-426.

Eclogue 8

391

commaculare manus; crudelis tu quoque, mater. crudelis mater magis, an puer improbus ille? improbus ille puer; crudelis tu quoque, mater (Ecl. 8.47-50)

The cruel mother Medea is contrasted with the tender mother who followed her young daughter in the idealised world, in the anonymous goatherd’s orchard.1155 In other words, the earlier pastoral love story which began with the lovers’ meeting changes into a cruel erotic relationship with epic (Apollonius Rhodius’ Argonautica) and tragic, or in other words non-pastoral, quotations (Euripides’ and Ennius’ Medea).1156 Therefore, this mythological heroic exemplum is alien to the literary world created by pastoral poetry1157 (the exempla of Achilles and Tiphys in Ecl. 4), and they thus constitute non-pastoral elements situated in a typical pastoral setting. [Lines 52-56]

For the anonymous goatherd, Mopsus’ and Nysa’s marriage

constitutes an unnatural union, whose grotesqueness is articulated in the Eclogue by various adynata:1158 nunc et ouis ultro fugiat lupus, aurea durae mala ferant quercus, narcisso floreat alnus, pinguia corticibus sudent electra myricae, certent et cycnis ululae, sit Tityrus Orpheus, Orpheus in siluis, inter delphinas Arion (Ecl. 8.52-56)

1155

Karakasis 2011, 140. Hubbard 1998, 112 with n. 136 and Papanghelis 1999, 52-53. See also Karakasis 2011, 140-141 n. 66 with further bibliography. 1157 Fantuzzi-Hunter 2004, 162. See also Karakasis 2011, 141. 1158 See also Ecl. 8.27-28. 1156

392

Chapter 9

Here, the rejected herdsman lives in an unnatural world where several bizarre unions happen, even the anomalous (for him) relation of Mopsus and Nysa. These verses recall the Theocritean collection, especially Daphnis’ dying words, which employ the same adynata, although the context is not the same (Daphnis’ death):1159 nàn ha m੻n for{oite b£toi, for{oite d' ¥kanqai, ¡ d੻ kal¦ n£rkissoj œp' ¢rkeÚqoisi kom£sai, p£nta d' ¥nalla g{noito, kai ¡ pftuj Ôcnaj œnefkai, D£fnij œpei qn£skei, kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi, kºx Ñr{wn toi skîpej ¢hdÒsi garÚsainto (Id. 1.132-136)

In other words, while Theocritus uses the adynaton form to illustrate the unnatural physical phenomena that follow Daphnis’ death, in Vergil the same device is closely associated with the incongruity of Mopsus’ and Nysa’s erotic relationship. Therefore, Vergil’s version could hardly be a translation of the Theocritean original. On the contrary, it begins with the adynaton mating between griffins and mares (iungentur iam grypes equis, aeuoque sequenti), which, while not found in the Theocritean model, reflects Mopsus’ and Nysa’s unnatural union, illustrated by the hybrid form of the griffins (namely the lion’s body along with the eagle’s head and wings).1160 Moreover, the relationship between hounds and deer (cum canibus timidi uenient ad pocula dammae) is yet another example which stresses the idea of an unlikely union, even though it reflects without recalling the corresponding Theocritean adynaton where the stags are also 1159

Coleman 1977, 240-241, Clausen 1994, 253-254 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 427428. 1160 Cf. BNP s.v. griffins with further bibliographical references.

Eclogue 8

393

described chasing hounds (kai t¦j kÚnaj élafoj Ÿlkoi). What is more, the paradigm of the wolf fleeing before the sheep (nunc et ouis ultro fugiat lupus), which has long been considered as a conventional example of the adynaton figure, is once again completely absent from the Theocritean original. On the other hand, the pine blooming with pears (kai ¡ pftuj Ôcnaj

œnefkai) is a substantial Theocritean example which is

significantly improved by Vergil, who further describes oaks bearing golden apples (aurea durae mala ferant quercus). Furthermore, the narcissus is transferred to the alder (narcisso floreat alnus), which is an idea drawn from Theocritus (¡ d੻ kal¦ n£rkissoj œp' ¢rkeÚqoisi kom£sai);1161 although it is once again amplified, given that the location of the narcissus in the Vergilian version becomes more elaborate and specific (alnus).1162 Finally, the paradoxical singing contest described in the expression certent et cycnis ululae finds almost its equivalent in the phrase

toi

skîpej

¢hdÒsi

garÚsainto,

except

for

¢hdÒsi

(“nightingale”), which is replaced by the melodious cycnis (“swan”). This detail derives from the concluding couplet of Comatas and Lacon’s song contest carried out in Idyll 5:1163 oÙ qemitÒn, L£kwn, pot' ¢hdÒna kfssaj œrfsdein, oÙd' }popaj kÚknoisi (Id. 5.136-137) 1161 Cf. also Id. 1.132-133 nàn ha m੻n for{oite b£toi, for{oite d' ¥kanqai,/ ¡ d੻ kal¦ n£rkissoj œp' ¢rkeÚqoisi kom£sai, which constitute two examples whose adynaton form is based on the changing of the original places of narcissus and violet. 1162 Cf. Lucr. DRN 5.911-912 aurea tum dicat per terras flumina vulgo/ fluxisse et gemmis florere arbusta suesse, which Vergil could also have had in mind, because of the combination of gold with an unexpected object and the concept that a tree produces unusual fruits. 1163 Coleman 1977, 241, Clausen 1994, 253-254 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 428-429.

Chapter 9

394

There, however, it is used metaphorically to award the victory to one of the herdsmen. In other words, it represents the efficacy of pastoral music, whose power is doubtful in the song of Damon, where owls intend to compete with nightingales and Tityrus to take the place of Orpheus (certent et cycnis ululae, sit Tityrus Orpheus). Thus, the example of Tityrus is an additional adynaton, no longer closely associated with the inconsistency between Mopsus’ and Nysa’s erotic relationship. On the contrary, it deals with the inadequacy of pastoral music and song (poetry),1164 which is indeed an insufficient way to prevent the suicide of the lovesick herdsman. In view of that, the Vergilian adynata are designed to generate a climax moving from the grotesqueness of Mopsus’ and Nysa’s marriage to the realisation of the pastoral song’s failure, which is the main reason for the subsequent suicide of the herdsman. Most significantly, however, these adynata constitute the traditional pastoral setting where the non-pastoral elements (Mopsus’ and Nysa’s relationship) are situated. [Lines 58-59]

This is strongly reinforced by the next line Orpheus in siluis,

inter delphinas Arion, given that it metonymically implies the conflation of sea and land, which is characteristically exemplified by the suicidal leap of the herdsman into the sea.1165 Moreover, the expression omnia uel medium

fiat

mare

1166

paronomasia”

is

a

“mistranslation”

or

“translation

with

of the Theocritean p£nta d' }nalla g{noito. Vergil

uses the phrase medium mare by translating }nalla (“changed”) as if it was œn£lia (“in the sea”), evoking the desperate situation of the 1164

On Tityrus’ identification with an adynaton which reflects the inefficacy of pastoral poetry, see Braun 1969, 293-294. 1165 Otis 1963, 117. 1166 On the term “mistranslation” or “translation with paronomasia”, see O’Hara 1996, 63 with further bibliographical references on this verse.

Eclogue 8

395

herdsman. Thus, he also manages to anticipate the terrible suicide scene that follows. As a result, this expression can reflect the anonymous goatherd’s hopeless situation, while Vergil’s dependence on these Theocritean verses confirms that the climactic finale of the adynata section is transferred to the suicide scene. [Lines 58-60]

The suicide scene brings Damon’s song to its end, focusing on

the anonymous goatherd who commits suicide:1167 uiuite siluae: praeceps aerii specula de montis in undas deferar; extremum hoc munus morientis habeto (Ecl. 8.58-60)

The reaction is based on Idyll 3, where the anonymous goatherd also threatens to commit suicide:1168 t¦n baftan ¢podÝj œj kÚmata thnî ¡leàmai, ïper tëj qÚnnwj skopi£zetai ”Olpij Ð gripeÚj· kah ka d¾ 'poq£nw, tÒ ge m੻n teÕn ¡dÝ t{tuktai (Id. 3.25-27)

Both lovers are in exactly the same desperate situation and utter a similar threat (“drowning” in undas deferar-œj kÚmata thnî ¡leàmai) to the heartless love object. Further support for this relationship is offered by the extremum hoc munus morientis habeto, which paraphrases the Theocritean tÒ ge m੻n teÕn ¡dÝ t{tuktai, thereby laying emphasis on the pleasure that the suicide will give to the beloved. However, the Vergilian line 1167 1168

Karakasis 2011, 143 n. 77 with further bibliography. Coleman 1977, 242, Clausen 1994, 254-255 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 430-431.

396

Chapter 9

underlines the idea that the suicide is the last gift of the lovesick herdsman to the beloved Nysa (extremum hoc munus morientis habeto). This can confirm that this Vergilian verse is also associated closely with Idyll 23, which is further reinforced by the striking verbal quotation munusdîr£:1169 extremum hoc munus morientis habeto (Ecl. 8.60)

dîr£ toi Ãnqon lofsqia taàta f{rwn, tÕn œmÕn brÒcon (Id. 23.20-21)

Therefore, the anonymous Vergilian goatherd is built on the characteristic conflation of the anonymous goatherd of Idyll 3 and the rejected lover of Idyll 23. Unlike the Theocritean goatherd, whose threat constitutes a conventional way used by the komast in order to win over the love object,1170 the Vergilian goatherd’s threat is only the introduction to a real suicide which ends his erotic monologue and lament; thus, it can also resemble the erotic situation of the rejected lover in Idyll 23. On the other hand, unlike this rejected lover who hangs himself in the country, the anonymous Vergilian goatherd commits suicide by drowning himself in the sea, exactly recalling the anonymous goatherd who threatens to commit suicide in Idyll 3. Nonetheless, suicide is a non-pastoral action which is related to the tragic1171 or the elegiac lover;1172 also, it is

1169

Coleman 1977, 242 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 431. Du Quesnay 1979, 45 with n. 101. See also Otis 1963, 111, Richter 1970, 6163, Papanghelis 1995, 95 and MacDonald 2005, 26. 1171 Cf. Haemon’s in Sophocles’ Antigone. 1170

Eclogue 8

397

emphatically situated in the pastoral world (uiuite siluae),1173 thereby confirming the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral elements, which is evident from Vergil’s simultaneous dependence on a pastoral (Idyll 3) and a non-pastoral (Idyll 23) source. [Lines 62-63]

Damon’s song has now come to an end, but before the other

contestant begins singing, there are two verses uttered by Vergil, who calls on the Muses in order to sing Alphesiboeus’ song: Haec Damon; uos, quae responderit Alphesiboeus, dicite, Pierides: non omnia possumus omnes (Ecl. 8.62-63)

However, this is not the traditional prayer to the Muses for inspiration (cf. Ecl. 4.1-3) because Vergil calls on the Muses to sing Alphesiboeus’ song (dicite Pierides), laying emphasis on the fact that he is unable to do this and on its literary novelty.1174 Alphesiboeus’ song is concerned with an urban subject (a jealous woman uses magic to win back her lover),1175 which has incongruously unfolded in the countryside; hence, it corresponds to the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral elements that runs through Damon’s song and the whole Eclogue. [Lines 64-67]

Damon’s song is followed by that of Alphesiboeus, which begins

with the magical ceremony that is carried out by an anonymous countrywoman:

1172 Cf. Parth. Erot. Path. 4, 5, 10 etc., Tib. 2.6.19-20, Prop. 1.6.27-28, 2.8.17ff., Ov. Rem. 17ff. and 601ff. 1173 Karakasis 2011, 142-143. 1174 Coleman 1977, 243. 1175 Karakasis 2011, 145 who observes that magic constitutes an urban subject which has its roots in Mime (Sophron) and New Comedy (Menander).

Chapter 9

398

Effer aquam et molli cinge haec altaria uitta uerbenasque adole pinguis et mascula tura, coniugis ut magicis sanos auertere sacris experiar sensus; nihil hic nisi carmina desunt (Ecl. 8.64-67)

These verses recall the Theocritean collection and especially the first lines of Idyll 2, where Simaetha and the country assistant Thestylis also perform a magical rite:1176 P´ moi tai d£fnai; f{re, Qestulf. p´ d੻ t¦ ffltra; st{yon t¦n kel{ban foinik{J oeÕj ¢ètJ, æj tÕn œmÕn barÝn eânta fflon katad›somai ¥ndra (Id. 2.1-3)

Vergil and Theocritus deal with a spell performed by a country girl with the assistance of an associate, who is called in an imperative way (Effer aquam-f{re, Qestulf). Further correspondences are also found in the notion of wreathing wool (molli cinge haec altaria uitta-st{yon t¦n kel{ban foinik{J oeÕj ¢ètJ) and the request to the beloved to return home, expressed by the repeated refrain (ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin-ੇugx, Ÿlke tÝ tÁnon œmÕn poti dîma tÕn ¥ndra). However, these Vergilian and Theocritean verses are not the same. First of all, the anonymous Vergilian enchantress is situated in the countryside, thereby replacing Simaetha’s urban setting and explaining the substitution of the pastoral names Amaryllis and Daphnis1177 for the urban

1176 1177

Coleman 1977, 243-244, Clausen 1994, 256-257 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 433. Lipka 2001, 177 with n. 36.

Eclogue 8

399

Thestylis and Delphis.1178 Furthermore, Vergil alters the item requested by substituting aquam for d£fnai which, despite its apotropaic qualities,1179 is never associated with the love charms.1180 Moreover, the wreathed object is also not the same, since altaria replaces kel{ban. On the other hand, the wreathing material remains the same (molli uitta-foinik{J oeÕj ¢ètJ) except for molli, which alters the apotropaic foinik{J 1181 and is associated with the idea of burning herbs and incense (uerbenasque adole pinguis et mascula tura). Finally, the Vergilian epode-verse significantly underlines the potentiality of the pastoral music/poetry (mea carmina) in strong contrast to the Theocritean refrain, where special emphasis is laid on the power of the magical love wheel (ੇugx).1182 These alterations deprive the original of its emphasis on realistic magical details (d£fnai, ffltra, kel{ban and foinik{J oeÕj ¢ètJ), creating a typical incantation. Vergil, on the other hand, underlines the efficacy of Alphesiboeus’ performance, which contains the magical song and not the incantation itself or its magical power. The Vergilian enchantress is Simaetha’s counterpart in terms of the tragic situation of the desertion which they endure, but they certainly do not share the same reaction. The magical experience is the reason for which Vergil draws on Idyll 2, but the anonymous enchantress’s words reveal that her rite is an experiment (experiar).1183 This is in sharp contrast to Simaetha, who gives the 1178

Gow II 1952, 36 and 42. Cf. Theophr. Ch. 16.2; Plin. NH 15.135. See also P.M.G. 7.842-45, where the celebrants are told to wear garlands of bay or bay leaves, which, in association with a magic formula, are used as a fulakt›rion. 1180 See Gow II 1952, 36, who observes that the laurel is not relevant to love spells except in Verg. Ecl. 8.82 and Prop. 2.28.36, which are based on Idyll 2. 1181 On the apotropaic force of the wool and crimson, see Gow II 1952, 37 with further references. 1182 Cf. Ecl. 8.1-5. 1183 OLD s.v. experior. 1179

400

Chapter 9

impression of being an accomplished witch (note the confidence that is evidenced from Simaetha’s magical instructions to Thestylis (Id. 2.1-3), the invocations to the archetypical enchantresses (Id. 2.14-16) and her wide knowledge of magical herbs and potions (Id. 2.18ff.)). What is more, Vergil’s intertextual relationship with the urban Idyll 2, which is transplanted into a typical pastoral setting (countryside), reflects the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral elements. [Lines 69-71]

The magic rite continues through certain references to the

music’s magical power, which Amaryllis uses in order get Daphnis back: carmina uel caelo possunt deducere lunam, carminibus Circe socios mutauit Vlixi, frigidus in pratis cantando rumpitur anguis (Ecl. 8.69-71)

Vergil underlines this by using the story of Circe, who first entices Odysseus’ companions into her palace with music and song before transforming them into pigs. The archetypical enchantress Circe is coupled with Medea in the Theocritean Idyll 2, but without any reference to Odysseus or the metamorphosis story:1184

f£rmaka taàt' }rdoisa cerefona m›te ti Kfrkaj m›te ti Mhdefaj m›te xanq©j Perim›daj. (Id. 2.15-16)

Here, Simaetha calls on Circe, expecting her magical formulas to equal those of the mythical sorceress, which in that sense recalls Amaryllis’

1184

Coleman 1977, 245, Clausen 1994, 258 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 436.

Eclogue 8

401

reference to Circe. Ultimately Circe’s spell fails, given that a year later Odysseus leaves Circe’s island, taking with him his comrades who had already been restored to their human form.1185 On the contrary, Amaryllis’ charms are more powerful and effective, since at the end of Alphesiboeus’ song there is strong evidence that Daphnis is returning to Amaryllis.1186 In other words, the reference to Circe is not merely yet another way (mythological exemplum) to lay special emphasis on the power of Amaryllis’ magical formulas, it is also one that employs a contrast between Simaetha’s and Amaryllis’ magical formulas to stress the success of Amaryllis’ rite and of the triumph of pastoral music. Therefore, the mythological exemplum of Circe shows that the mythical character’s actions are in contrast with the precept that is enunciated in Ecl. 8.69-71, an alternative use of the mythological exemplum later found in Ovid1187 and in all probability used by Vergil through a common source now lost to us (Gallus?). What is more, the heroic mythological character (Circe) and the “elegiac” way in which Vergil manipulates the mythological exemplum constitute non-pastoral features which are incongruously situated in a typical pastoral setting. [Lines 73-78]

The anonymous witch begins to cast magical spells that are

concerned with the lovers’ binding and contain a repetition of the number three: terna tibi haec primum triplici diuersa colore licia circumdo, terque haec altaria circum effigiem duco; numero deus impare gaudet (Ecl. 8.73-75)

1185

Cf. Hom. Od. 10.382-405. Cf. Ecl. 8.109 parcite, ab urbe uenit, iam parcite carmina, Daphnis with Coleman 1977, 253. 1187 Cf. Ov. Ars Am. 1.53-54, 3.107-112 and see Watson 1983, 119. 1186

Chapter 9

402

necte tribus nodis ternos, Amarylli, colores; necte, Amarylli, modo et ‘Veneris’ dic ‘uincula necto’ (Ecl. 8.77-78)

These verses recall the Theocritean sorceress Simaetha, who uses the same number and its epanalepsis along with the lovers’ binding, which is also repeated three times:1188 œj trij ¢posp{ndw kai trij t£de, pÒtnia, fwnî (Id. 2.43)

æj tÕn œmÕn barÝn eânta fflon katad›somai ¥ndra (Id. 2.3)

nàn d{ nin œk qu{wn katad›somai. ¢ll£, Sel£na (Id. 2.10)

nàn m{n tolj ffltroij katad›somai· ae d' }ti k£ me (Id. 2.159)

Nevertheless, Vergil’s relationship with the Theocritean original is most emphatically evident from the instructions that the witch’s assistant receives:1189 necte tribus nodis ternos, Amarylli, colores; necte, Amarylli, modo et ‘Veneris’ dic ‘uincula necto’ (Ecl. 8.77-78)

1188 1189

Coleman 1977, 245, Clausen 1994, 258 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 436. Clausen 1994, 259, MacDonald 2005, 19 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 438-439.

Eclogue 8

403

¥lfit£ toi pr©ton puri t£ketai. ¢ll' œpfpasse, Qestulf. deilafa, p´ t¦j fr{naj œkpepÒtasai; Ã £ g{ qhn, musar£, kai tin œpfcarma t{tugmai; p£ss' ¤ma kai l{ge taàta· ‘t¦ D{lfidoj Ñstfa p£ssw’ (Id. 2.18-21)

These verses employ the same subject, which is the magical instructions that the unnamed witch and Simaetha give to the assistant, which, however, are not the same. Simaetha verbally abuses Thestylis for slowness and stupidity in the execution of the magical spell, while such detail is absent in the case of the anonymous enchantress. Vergil borrows the structure but not the content of the Theocritean original (necte, Amarylli, modo et ‘Veneris’ dic ‘uincula necto’- p£ss' ¤ma kai l{ge taàta· ‘t¦ D{lfidoj Ñstfa p£ssw’),1190 thereby employing an entirely different magical spell. In other words, Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus is based on the structure, exemplified first by the repeated imperative of the main verb (necte-p£ss'), which is then followed by the same verb in the first person singular (necte ... necto-p£ss' ... p£ssw). Nevertheless, the magical spells used by Simaetha or Thestylis can confirm that the Theocritean witch experiences a tormented erotic passion for the strayed Delphis. This is natural for an urban character (the typical elegiac subject of morbus amoris), but it is emphatically unnatural for the anonymous countrywoman who is also situated in the pastoral world with similar erotic feelings for the strayed Daphnis, reflecting in that way the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral elements. [Lines 80-81]

Vergil’s relationship with Simaetha’s incantation is most evident

in the second love charm executed by the anonymous enchantress: 1190

Putnam 1970, 282-284.

Chapter 9

404

limus ut hic durescit, et haec ut cera liquescit uno eodemque igni, sic nostro Daphnis amore (Ecl. 8.80-81)

These Vergilian verses have long been identified with a common magical formula. This is the similia similibus formula, in which the practitioner ventures through a persuasive analogy to transfer the specific status or action from some particular material at hand (for example clay and wax)1191 to some other material or person.1192 The second action of this formula (namely the melting of the wax) recalls Idyll 2, where the same love charm is found:1193 æj toàton tÕn khrÕn œgë sÝn dafmoni t£kw, ìj t£koiq' Øp' }rwtoj Ð MÚndioj aÙtfka D{lfij (Id. 2.28-29)

This relationship between Vergil and Theocritus is reinforced by several verbal correspondences such as haec cera-toàton tÕn khrÕn, liquescitt£kw and amore-}rwtoj. However, Vergil replaces the vague Øp' }rwtoj with the more specific nostro amore. Moreover, he introduces the phrase uno eodemque igni, emphasising the fire’s occurrence, which is only implied in the original by aÙtfka (“immediately”). Nonetheless, the most notable difference is the aspect of the hardening clay (limus ut hic durescit), whose meaning is still a matter of discussion among scholars.1194

1191

On the question of whether or not both items refer either to pieces of clay and wax or, more likely, to Daphnis’ images made from clay and wax, see Coleman 1977, 246-247 and Clausen 1994, 260-261 with further references. 1192 On this magical formula, see Faraone 1991, 5ff. 1193 Coleman 1977, 246-247, Clausen 1994, 260-261 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 439. 1194 Clausen 1994, 260-261.

Eclogue 8

405

The generally accepted interpretation is that the wax and clay refer to Daphnis, who is supposed to melt because of his erotic passion for the anonymous enchantress, while, on the other hand, Daphnis’ heart hardens towards the seductions of other women. There is yet another interpretation where the wax refers to Daphnis with the meaning that Daphnis softens due to his erotic desire, while the clay is concerned with the anonymous enchantress who “hardens” through having a dominant role over Daphnis.1195 However, this dominant role that the anonymous witch plays here may recall the autarchic female figures who come from comedy, elegy and satire rather than pastoral.1196 [Lines 82-83]

The first suggestion can be reinforced by the subsequent lines,

which are also related to the same love charm: sparge molam et fragilis incende bitumine lauros: Daphnis me malus urit, ego hanc in Daphnide laurum (Ecl. 8.82-83)

These verses refer to Daphnis and constitute a translation of Simaetha’s magical spell for Delphis’ return:1197 D{lfij }m' ¢nfasen· œgë d' œpi D{lfidi d£fnan ahqw· cçj aÛta lakel m{ga kappurfsasa (Id. 2.23-24)

1195 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 8.80 se de limo facit, Daphnidem de cera, whose interpretation is followed by Rose 1942, 157, Faraone 1989, 294-300 and MacDonald 2005, 20. 1196 See also Karakasis 2011, 148, who observes that a hardhearted and unyielding female character (dura) and a lovesick male character who is running after her constitutes a typical elegiac subject. 1197 Coleman 1977, 247, Clausen 1994, 261 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 439-440.

406

Chapter 9

The Theocritean influence is enhanced by several structural (urere in aliquo-ahqw œpi tinf) and verbal correspondences such as Daphnis meD{lfij }m', ego-œgë, laurum-d£fnan and urit, whose ambiguous use in Latin renders the sense of ¢nfasen and ahqw.1198 More crucial, however, is the substitution of Daphnis for D{lfij, explained by the etymological wordplay Daphnis-d£fnh,1199 which enhances Daphnis’ presence not only behind these lines (Ecl. 8.82-83) but also behind the previous ones (Ecl. 8.80-81), which strongly confirms that both clay and wax refer to Daphnis. Nonetheless, this suggestion is not enough to explain the aspect of the hardening clay, which is an equal component of the abovementioned love charm (limus ut hic durescit). The answer comes from the fact that Daphnis is the only character who is subjected to softening and hardening, and in that sense the hardening should be connected with an erection stimulated by Daphnis’ sexual desire for the anonymous enchantress.1200 Such a suggestion also presupposes the obscene use of the term durescere, which is the main verb in the aforementioned Vergilian verse (limus ut hic durescit).1201 Nonetheless, durus (“hard”) is not the conventional term used for the erect penis,1202 but there is one case in which a derivative of

1198

Cf. OLD s.v. uro 1 and 6 respectively with examples. Cf. Serv. Ecl. 8.83 aut intellegamus supra Daphnidis effigiem eam laurum incendere propter nominis similitudinem. On this etymology, see also O’Hara 1996, 82 with n. 338 and 250 with further references. 1200 Katz and Volk 2006, 171ff. 1201 It should be mentioned that the obscene action of the verb is indirectly transferred to Daphnis by the expression sic nostro Daphnis amore, where amore is the cause for Daphnis’ durescit and liquescit. 1202 Cf. OLD s.v. durus. By contrast, the suitable term is rigidus (OLD s.v. rigidus 3b with examples). For the Latin vocabulary for the erection see Adams 1982, 46 and 103. 1199

Eclogue 8

407

this epithet refers to sexual excitement. Plautus’ Truculentus employs a scene with a similar meaning, and this could be Vergil’s source:1203 ubi mea amicast gentium? neque ruri neque hic operis quicquam facio, corrumpor situ, ita miser cubando in lecto hic expectando obdurui (Truc. 914-916)

In regular terms, expectando obdurui means “I am waiting until I am numb”.1204 However, the erotic context and the explicit sexual implication of neque ruri neque hic operis quicquam facio1205 suggest the sense of “I am waiting sexually aroused”.1206 In that sense, Vergil’s spell is entirely modified in comparison to that of Theocritus. Simaetha employs eroticattraction as well as erotic-separation magical formulas in order to recover Delphis as well as to protect the love object from any female rival. On the other hand, the anonymous enchantress composes a love charm designed to stimulate Daphnis emotionally and sexually, which characteristically underlines the different erotic passions that each of those enchantresses feels for the strayed love object. What is more, the magical formula used here and the non-pastoral sources (Idyll 2 and Truculentus) on which it is based reaffirm the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral sources that runs through the Eclogue.1207

1203

Katz and Volk 2006, 170-171. Ernout 1961, 161 and Hofmann 2001, 121. 1205 On use of the term opus in contexts which deals with sexual desire, see OLD s.v. opus 1d with examples. See also Adams 1982, 156-157. 1206 Cf. Cat. 32.11 nam pransus iaceo et satur supinus/ pertundo tunicamque palliumque with Tromaras 2004, 95. See also Adams 1982, 148 and Tatum 1983, 204. 1207 Pace Karakasis 2011, 148 n. 97, who observes that the word obdurescere in the Plautine verse under consideration is given the meaning “to become hardened, insensitive or callous” rather than “to be sexually aroused”. 1204

408 [Lines 85-89]

Chapter 9

This non-pastoral erotic behaviour continues in the next verses,

where the anonymous sorceress wishes that Daphnis experience the wandering of a cow through the groves searching for her mate: talis amor Daphnin qualis cum fessa iuuencum per nemora atque altos quaerendo bucula lucos propter aquae riuum uiridi procumbit in ulua perdita, nec serae meminit decedere nocti, talis amor teneat, nec sit mihi cura mederi (Ecl. 8.85-89)

These verses recall an analogous simile which comes from Lucretius, who also describes a cow looking for her lost calf in the woods:1208 nam saepe ante deum uitulus delubra decora turicremas propter mactatus concidit aras sanguinis expirans calidum de pectore flumen; at mater uiridis saltus orbata peragrans nouit humi pedibus uestigia pressa bisulcis, omnia conuisens oculis loca, si queat usquam conspicere amissum fetum, completque querellis

1208

Coleman 1977, 248, Clausen 1994, 261-262, Bernardi-Perini 2002, 24-33 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 441. It should be mentioned that the subject of these Vergilian verses can also recall a fragment which comes from Varius’ De Morte (Varius fr. 4 Courtney). Lipka 2001, 120-121 discusses the relationship of those two passages, which is mostly based on the verbal correspondence perdita, nec serae meminit decedere nocti (Ecl. 8.88)-perdita nec serae meminit decedere nocti (Varius fr. 4.6 Courtney); however, he lays also special emphasis on the unclear chronological relationship between the Eclogues and De Morte, which tends to favour Vergil’s dependence on Lucretius. See also Courtney 1993, 274. Nevertheless, the fact that Vergil may also recall Varius’ De Morte (which is a non-pastoral source) can confirm the combination of non-pastoral sources used in order to create an urban pastoral Eclogue.

Eclogue 8

409

frondiferum nemus adsistens et crebra reuisit ad stabulum desiderio perfixa iuuenci, nec tenerae salices atque herbae rore uigentes fluminaque ulla queunt summis labentia ripis oblectare animum subitamque auertere curam, nec uitulorum aliae species per pabula laeta deriuare queunt animum curaque leuare; usque adeo quiddam proprium notumque requirit (DRN 2.352-366)

The Vergilian cow is worn out and unable to enjoy the pastoral setting, and its delights are because she experiences a miserable erotic passion of a rather elegiac character;1209 the anonymous witch wishes that the same longing will seize the strayed Daphnis in order to be able to show him an erotic coldness, which is alien to pastoral values. Vergil’s relationship with Lucretius is further reinforced by the phrase propter aquae riuum, which has a clear-cut Lucretian origin (DRN 2.30 and 5.1393). However, Vergil omits the Lucretian scene of the animal sacrifice (DRN 2.352-354) and replaces the desperate quest of a mother-cow (mater) for its offspring (fetum) with the erotic searching of a young heifer (iuuencum) for its love object (bucula). Hence, the Lucretian simile is used to stimulate human sympathy about the biological unity between all the living creatures created by human superstition (sacrifice).1210 On the contrary, the Vergilian simile is part of a magical spell used in order to show the type of 1209

See also Karakasis 2011, 149, who also observes that this situation may recall the famous elegiac Waldeinsamkeit subject, which has already been identified in Pasiphae’s wandering (Ecl. 6.45-50). 1210 Here, it should be mentioned that Lucretius’ opposition to the human folly of animal sacrifice is evident throughout the De Rerum Natura (DRN 1.84-101, 2.414-417, 3.51-54 and 4.1233-1239). See also Ov. F. 1.383-456 with Green 2004, ad loc. For more about the Roman animal sacrifices see Green 2004, 164ff.

Chapter 9

410

erotic passion that the anonymous sorceress wishes for the love object. This is a strong erotic passion which is emphatically alien to the pastoral community or, in other words, it is a non-pastoral erotic passion situated in the pastoral world. [Lines 91-93]

Nonetheless, the anonymous witch is still in love with her strayed

lover Daphnis, which is evidenced by the way in which she treats the clothes he left behind: has olim exuuias mihi perfidus ille reliquit, pignora cara sui, quae nunc ego limine in ipso, Terra, tibi mando; debent haec pignora Daphnin (Ecl. 8.91-93)

These verses recall the Theocritean collection and especially the similar way in which Simaetha uses Delphis’ clothes:1211 toàt' ¢pÕ t©j clafnaj tÕ kr£spedon êlese D{lfij, ægë nàn tflloisa kat' ¢grfJ œn puri b£llw (Id. 2.53-54)

However, the Theocritean Simaetha burns a fringe of Delphis’ cloak, trying in that way either to revive the erotic passion in the strayed love object or to destroy him1212 in contrast to the Vergilian witch, who buries her lover’s clothes in the earth (the pastoral setting to which Daphnis must return) in order to bring him back. Nevertheless, the language here used by the unnamed witch contains clear legalistic overtones (pignora, mandare and debere),1213 which are alien to the pastoral setting.

1211

Coleman 1977, 249-250, Clausen 1994, 262 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 443. Coleman 1977, 249. 1213 Coleman 1977, 249-250. See also Karakasis 2011, 150 with n. 105. 1212

Eclogue 8 [Lines 95-99]

411

The anonymous enchantress is uncertain about the magical rite’s

outcome, turning thus to herbas and uenena gathered in Pontus and given to her by Moeris: has herbas atque haec Ponto mihi lecta uenena ipse dedit Moeris nascuntur plurima Ponto; his ego saepe lupum fieri et se condere siluis Moerim, saepe animas imis excire sepulcris, atque satas alio uidi traducere messis (Ecl. 8.95-99)

The Vergilian witch’s behaviour can call to mind the Theocritean Simaetha, who is similarly not confident about the efficacy of her magic:1214 nàn m n tolj ffltroij katad›somai· ae d' }ti k£ me lupÍ, t¦n 'Afdao pÚlan, nai Mofraj, ¢raxel· tol£ od œn kfstv kak¦ f£rmaka fami ful£ssein (Id. 2.159-161)

Both female figures refer to magical ingredients (herbas-uenena and kak¦ f£rmaka) because they are not certain about the magical ceremony’s outcome (cf. nihil ille deos, nil carmina curat Ecl. 8.103 and ae d' }ti k£ me lupÍ Id. 2.160). However, there is no suggestion that these Vergilian herbas and uenena are used to destroy the strayed lover Daphnis, in contrast to the Theocritean kak¦ f£rmaka. Most significantly, however, these Vergilian herbal spells have already been used with great success by 1214

Putnam 1970, 289-290, Coleman 1977, 250-251 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 443444.

Chapter 9

412

Moeris, who is a strikingly non-pastoral character1215 and whose ability to transform into a wolf and to call the spirits back from the grave are also non-pastoral elements that are incongruously situated in the pastoral world. [Lines 101-109]

The magical ceremony comes to an end with the orders of the

enchantress for Amaryllis: fer cineres, Amarylli, foras riuoque fluenti transque caput iace, nec respexeris. his ego Daphnin adgrediar; nihil ille deos, nil carmina curat (Ecl. 8.101-103)

These verses are based on Teiresias’ similar instructions to Alcmene in Idyll 24:1216 Ãri d੻ sull{xasa kÒnin purÕj ¢mfipÒlwn tij ૧iy£tw, eâ m£la p©san Øp੻r potamolo f{rousa ૧wg£daj œj p{traj, ØperoÚrion, ¨y d੻ ne{sqw ¥streptoj (Id. 24.93-96)

Both the Vergilian and Theocritean verses refer to the carriage and disposition of ashes (cineres-kÒnin purÕj) in a river (riuo-potamolo) beyond the place of the magical rite expressed by the term foras, which recalls the corresponding ØperoÚrion. This ritual act should be performed by the assistant (Amarylli-¢mfipÒlwn tij) before the ceremony ends, including the warning that the assistant should not look back (nec 1215

Lipka 2001, 188. See also Karakasis 2011, 150 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 444. Coleman 1977, 251-252, Clausen 1994, 263-264 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 444445.

1216

Eclogue 8

413

respexeris-¥streptoj). Nonetheless, Vergil omits the gathering of the ashes (sull{xasa kÒnin) and other details (Ãri, ૧wg£daj œj p{traj, ¨y d੻ ne{sqw), reversing the order of the act’s components, a fact which is evident by the priority given to the carriage of the ceremonial item (ashes), which is later followed by its discharge (fer ... iace-૧iy£tw ... f{rousa). Most significant, however, is the different context in which each passage is placed. The Theocritean ritual is one of the requisite actions for the purification of the place in opposition to the Vergilian ceremony, which is the concluding section of a long magical performance used by the enchantress to call the strayed love object back. The antithesis is quite strong, and thus it shows that the Vergilian relationship with Idyll 24 is only based on the magical details identified in Teiresias and Alcmene’s scene. What is more, this relationship is significant because Idyll 24 and Heracles’ labour reflect a note of efficacy, which can, in that sense, correspond to the efficacy of the Vergilian magical ceremony (carmina):1217 'aspice: corripuit tremulis altaria flammis sponte sua, dum ferre moror, cinis ipse. bonum sit!' nescio quid certe est, et Hylax in limine latrat. credimus? an, qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia fingunt? parcite, ab urbe uenit, iam parcite carmina, Daphnis (Ecl. 8.105-109)

1217

Here, it should be mentioned that it is not clear whether or not Daphnis has finally returned home. For this matter see Karakasis 2011, 150 and n. 108 with further bibliography.

414

Chapter 9

This is also evidenced by the source on which these Vergilian verses are based, that is, Lucretius’ reference to the fantasies invented by the seers:1218 Tutemet a nobis iam quouis tempore uatum terriloquis uictus dictis desciscere quaeres. quippe etenim quam multa tibi iam fingere possunt somnia, quae uitae rationes uertere possint fortunasque tuas omnis turbare timore! (DRN 1.102-106)

These Vergilian and Lucretian verses deal with the fantasies created in the human minds (ipsi sibi somnia fingunt-multa tibi iam fingere possunt/ somnia) by others, who, however, are not the same in Vergil (qui amant) and Lucretius (uatum dictis). This indicates that the Vergilian intention is to recall the Lucretian language rather than the subject and, most significantly, that the Eclogue comes to its climax with the combination of pastoral and non-pastoral elements through the combined quotation from two non-pastoral sources that are incongruously situated in the pastoral setting. [Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 8 is an atypical song contest in which the

Greek and Roman sources identified combine pastoral and non-pastoral elements that are used in such a way as to create an urban pastoral composition. As a result, it can rival the Theocritean collection, where there is nothing similar among the pastoral Idylls,1219 and it also lays special emphasis on Vergil’s originality and expansion of the boundaries 1218

Hardie 2002, 21 and n. 48. See also Karakasis 2011, 150. Here, it is also worth mentioning the suggestion made by Krevans 2006, 119146, who considers that Idyll 15 constitutes an urban pastoral composition.

1219

Eclogue 8

415

of the pastoral genre. Nevertheless, Vergil’s relationship with the Theocritean collection (Idylls 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 17, 23 and 24) is once again close, but it mostly focuses on the so-called non-pastoral Idylls, while Plautus’ Truculentus, Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura, Calvus’ Io and Catullus (Cat. 60, 61 and 64) are also brought together and combined here. Furthermore, the Theocritean collection is the only Greek source identified in the Eclogue and is combined not only with these Roman sources, but, most importantly, with typical pastoral or non-pastoral elements. This creates a blending of elements drawn from various genres that runs through the Vergilian collection and is emphatically evident in Eclogue 8 in terms of characters, subjects, setting, structure, metre, style, language and vocabulary.

CHAPTER 10 ECLOGUE 9* Eclogue 9 is usually read or examined in association with its companion, Eclogue 1. This is easily justified by their common historical background, which deals with the land confiscations that took place in Italy after the battle of Philippi in 42 BC. Vergil re-employs the subject of the land confiscations, but it is no longer extended over the whole Eclogue, as with Tityrus’ and Meliboeus’ contrasting futures (Eclogue 1). Here, the land confiscations continue to threaten the Italian pastoral landscape, and therefore Menalcas and Moeris are described having already lost their land property. Hence, the typical casual meeting of two Roman herdsmen is concerned with the human relationships between two war victims. The herdsmen Lycidas and Moeris are associated with the absent country singer Menalcas (Ecl. 9.1-25), whose singing is recreated by their

* Tugwell 1963, 132-133 suggests that the Vergilian expression sepulchrum Bianoris (Ecl. 9.59-60) has its roots in a Hellenistic epigram of Diotimus (4.3 G-P = A.P. 7.261.3). Berg 1974, 132-142 claims that Eclogue 9 is a reversed Thalysia (Idyll 7). Neumeister 1975, 177-185 examines Vergil’s Eclogue 9 in comparison with Theocritus’ Idyll 7. Tugwell’s suggestion has been rejected by Brenk 1981, 427-430 and Tracy 1982, 328-330, who argue that the sepulchrum Bianoris (Ecl. 9.59-60) may recall Homer’s Iliad (Il. 18.333). Segal 1965, 237-266 lays special emphasis on Vergil’s indebtedness to Theocritus, thoroughly analysing each section of the Eclogue in relation to its Theocritean source. Zanker 1985, 235-237 suggests that Ecl. 9.11-13 are associated with Hes. Op. 202-212. Baudy 1993, 282318 focuses on the archetypical singer Daphnis in Eclogues 5 and 9. Merli 1997, deals with Vergil’s relationship with Callimachus (Call. 34 G-P = A.P. 7.80). Paraskeviotis 2012, 77-82 takes Berg’s view one step further by suggesting that Eclogue 9 is not only Idyll 7 in reverse but also Eclogue 1 in reverse.

Eclogue 9

417

dialogue (Ecl. 9.26-67). However, there is a scholarly agreement on the sources on which Eclogue 9 draws. Coleman suggests that Eclogue 9 contains several substantial elements which come from Idyll 7, and also lays special emphasis on its biographical character.1220 Clausen is among those scholars who have examined the chronological arrangement of Eclogues 1 and 91221 and stresses Vergil’s dependence on the Theocritean Idyll 7.1222 Cucchiarelli claims that Eclogue 9 is largely based on the Theocritean Idyll 7, stressing, however, its relation to the Vergilian collection (Ecl. 1, 5 and 8).1223 These scholars highlight the way in which Theocritus’ Thalysia is transformed into its ideological reverse without, however, focusing on Vergil’s relationship with the Roman literature. In other words, Eclogue 9 is based on the earlier Greek and Roman tradition, but the Roman source used throughout the Eclogue comes from the Vergilian collection itself through certain self-quotations, which thus create a Roman Thalysia. [Lines 1-6]

Vergil’s dependence on the earlier tradition is first evident from

Lycidas, which recalls the mysterious character found in Theocritus (Lukfdan Id. 7.13).1224 What is more, Lycidas is very similar to Tityrus 1220

Coleman 1977, 272-275. On a thorough discussion about the relationship and chronology of Eclogues 1 and 9, see Waltz 1927, 31-58, Oppermann 1932, 197-219, Hanslik 1955, 5-19, Otis 1963, 131-134 and Segal 1965, 237-266. 1222 Clausen 1994, 266-269. 1223 Cucchiarelli 2012, 448-453. 1224 On the mysterious identity of Lycidas see Dover 2000, 148-150, who suggests that Lycidas is i) a real Coan goatherd with a genius for poetry, ii) a real poet who amused himself (or dropped out of urban life) by dressing and behaving like a goatherd, iii) a real poet whom Theocritus has chosen to portray as a goatherd, and iv) a wholly imaginary character. Furthermore, the character of Lycidas has long been recognised as a disguised divine being, identified with the figure of a satyr (Lawall 1967, 79-82), Apollo (Williams 1971, 137-145) and the rustic divinity Pan (Brown 1981, 59-100). Finally, see also Bowie 1985, 67-91, esp. 68-80, who argues that Lycidas is connected to Philetas. 1221

418

Chapter 10

(Ecl. 1), given that these two herdsmen have found a way to remain on their farm and avoid the land confiscations; Moeris is also similar to Meliboeus (Ecl. 1) because they have lost both their land. In other words, the characters in Eclogue 9 come from Greco-Roman literature, but the Roman source used here by Vergil is Eclogue 1. Vergil’s dependence on his own collection continues with the verse with which the Eclogue begins: Quo te, Moeri, pedes [sc. ducunt]? an, quo uia ducit, in urbem? (Ecl. 9.1)

This verse recalls Lycidas’ similar question to Simichidas in Idyll 7:1225 Simicfda, p´ d¾ tÝ mesam{rion pÒdaj Ÿlkeij (Id. 7.21)

This relationship is also confirmed by the structural correspondences of the successive questions (Quo ... pedes? and an ... urbem?-Simicfda ... ºlafnonti; and à met¦ dalt' … qróskeij;) and the striking verbal correspondences quo te-p´ tÝ and pedes-pÒdaj. This Theocritean verse has already caught Vergil’s interest because it constitutes the source on which Corydon’s erotic wandering is based (cf. Ecl. 2.8-9).1226 Here, however, what surprises the herdsman is not the meeting time (midday) but the destination (town), which explains the omission of the temporal detail mesam{rion. Furthermore, the general situations in Theocritus and Vergil are not the same. Moeris abandons the country for the city (in

1225 1226

Coleman 1977, 255, Clausen 1994, 269 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 453. See Eclogue 2 above.

Eclogue 9

419

urbem) in contrast to Simichidas, who travels from the urban setting to the countryside:1227 ’Hj crÒnoj ¡nfk' œgèn te kai EÜkritoj eej tÕn “Alenta egrpomej œk pÒlioj, sÝn kai trftoj ¥mmin 'AmÚntaj (Id. 7.1-2)

What is more, Moeris’ journey to the city is the reverse of Daphnis’ trip from the city to the country:1228 ducite ab urbe domum, mea carmina, ducite Daphnin (Ecl. 8.68 et al.)

This strong antithesis is further reinforced by the verbal formulation, since Moeris’ course is compulsory, enforced by his own feet (Quo te, Moeri, pedes),1229 recalling Daphnis who is also forced by the unnamed countrywoman’s magic refrain; in contrast, Simichidas’ journey is a personal choice (tÝ pÒdaj Ÿlkeij).1230 Therefore, Eclogue 9 begins with a verse which combines Greek and Roman literature, but the Roman source used here by Vergil comes from Eclogue 8. This view can also be confirmed by examining the language used in Moeris’ reply to Lycidas: 1227

Coleman 1977, 255, Clausen 1994, 269 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 453. Karakasis 2011, 186 with and n. 8 with further bibliography. 1229 Cf. Ap. Rh. Arg. 4.66 ‘Wj ¥r' }fh. t¾n d' aੇya pÒdej f{ron œgkon{ousan with Vian III 1981, 73 with n. 2. See also Putnam 1970, 294 with n. 1, who underscores the phrase uia ducit which, along with the omission of the main verb in the preceding question, indicates that Moeris is unwillingly undertaking this journey due to aduena. For the negative overtones of the term aduena see Gibson 2006, 191-192. 1230 See also Gow II 1952, 137, who observes that the use of this verb denotes vigorous rather than laboured movement. 1228

Chapter 10

420

O Lycida, uiui peruenimus, aduena nostri quod numquam ueriti sumus ut possessor agelli diceret: 'haec mea sunt; ueteres migrate coloni.' nunc uicti, tristes, quoniam fors omnia uersat, hos illi quod nec uertat bene mittimus haedos (Ecl. 9.2-6)

These verses contain conventional legal terminology such the terms aduena possessor (cf. Cic. Agr. 2.98), agelli, coloni (cf. Dig. 19.2.14, 25) and the expression haec mea sunt (cf. Gaius Inst. 4.16), which are distant from the pastoral otium.1231 Moreover, Menalcas is evicted from his land by an aduena possessor who is closely associated with the impius miles who seized Meliboeus’ land (impius haec tam culta noualia miles habebit,/ barbarus has segetes. en quo discordia ciuis Ecl. 1.70-71).1232 Thus, it constitutes a rival who may recall the Roman comedy and elegy where the soldier has the same role,1233 stressing that the language used here comes from the Roman tradition and especially from Eclogue 1. [Lines 7-10]

The soldier’s arrival into the pastoral world created the belief that

Menalcas’ singing could have saved the idyllic landscape, which is vividly described by Lycidas: Certe equidem audieram, qua se subducere colles incipiunt mollique iugum demittere cliuo, usque ad aquam et ueteres, iam fracta cacumina, fagos,

1231

Coleman 1977, 256-257. See also Karakasis 2011, 186-187 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 454-455. 1232 Coleman 1977, 256 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 454. See also Karakasis 2011, 187 who observes that similar legalistic terms are found in Eclogue 1 (cf. peculium, libertas, responsum, etc.). 1233 Karakasis 2011, 187.

Eclogue 9

421

omnia carminibus uestrum seruasse Menalcan (Ecl. 9.7-10)

These verses underline that Moeris is going to lose the traditional locus amoenus, which is evidenced by certain constituent elements such as aquam and ueteres fagos. The ueteres fagos recall sub tegmine patulae fagi (Ecl. 1.1) and densas umbrosa cacumina (Ecl. 2.3), highlighting the shade that these trees provide to the herdsman. Here, however, the same trees are emphatically described as iam fracta cacumina, indicating that their shade and therefore the idyllic scenery have been destroyed by the soldier’s arrival (land confiscations) and confirming that Vergil is recalling Eclogues 1 and 2.1234 [Lines 11-13]

Moeris answers and confirms that what Lycidas has heard is only

a rumour, further underlining the incapacity of the pastoral song against the omnipotence of war with a country simile: audieras, et fama fuit; sed carmina tantum nostra ualent, Lycida, tela inter Martia quantum Chaonias dicunt aquila ueniente columbas (Ecl. 9.11-13)

This country analogy is very old and has its roots in Hesiod’s Works and Days:1235 Nàn d' aੇnon basileàsin œr{w fron{ousi kai aÙtolj· ïd' hrhx pros{eipen ¢hdÒna poikilÒdeiron

1234

On the location where beeches should or should not grow (near water) and whether or not it should be a boundary tree see Clausen 1994, 271. 1235 Zanker 1985, 235-237. See also Clausen 1994, 271.

422

Chapter 10 Ûyi m£l' œn nef{essi f{rwn ÑnÚcessi memarpèj· ¿ d' œleÒn, gnamptolsi peparm{nh ¢mf' ÑnÚcessi, mÚreto· t¾n Ó g' œpikrat{wj prÕj màqon }eipen· “daimonfh, tf l{lhkaj; }cei nÚ se pollÕn ¢refwn· tÍ d' eੇj Î੻ s' ¨n œgè per ¥gw kai ¢oidÕn œoàsan· delpnon d', ah k' œq{lw, poi›somai º meq›sw. ¥frwn d', Ój k' œq{lV prÕj krefssonaj ¢ntiferfzein (Op. 202-212)

What is more, it is very frequent in Roman poetry, where it is used in order to stress the tenderness or the fearfulness of the dove and the violence or the physical superiority of the eagle/hawk.1236 However, the Vergilian version is very innovative. It deviates from such treatment, showing closer similarities to these Hesiodic lines. The Hesiodic fable is a mythological exemplum that deals with the power of the political authority over the helplessness of a literary man. This is expressed by the simile of the nightingale seized by an attacking hawk. The characterisation “singer” (¢oidÕj), which is attributed to the nightingale along with the fact that the hawk is a typical representative of the class of kings,1237 confirms that these two birds are mentioned in order to refer to specific persons (poets

1236

Cf. Hor. Carm. 1.37.17f. accipiter uelut/ mollis columbas, 4.4.31-32 neque inbellem feroces/ progenerant aquilae columbam. It should be noted that here Vergil’s structure is influenced by Lucretius (Luc. DRN 3.751-552 tremeretque per auras/ aeris accipiter fugiens ueniente columba). Lucretius similarly refers to a chase between the same birds uttered by the adynaton form, which thus describes the reversed concept, namely the fear of an eagle in the face of a dove. Nevertheless, the manner in which this simile is handled tends to favour Vergil’s dependence on Hesiod rather than on Lucretius. 1237 Arnott 2007, s.v. aetos.

Eclogue 9

423

and kings).1238 In a similar way, Vergil stresses the impotence of poetry to challenge the brutal force of war by comparing it to the situation of a dove in the presence of a violent eagle. In other words, the Vergilian and Hesiodic passages employ a protest against the cruel way in which those wielding political authority behave with common folk. However, Vergil alters the attacked bird by replacing ¢hdÒna with columba in order to improve the Hesiodic original, since the dove is the normal prey of the hawk;1239 however, he also decides that the columba is seized by an aquila and not by an accipiter, recalling the standard of the legions that have already entered the pastoral world, thereby underlining the Roman character of the Eclogue that is evidenced by Vergil’s dependence on his own collection and by traditional Roman elements. However, the term Chaonias, which refers to the doves, is more crucial. The adjective comes from Hellenistic poetry and especially from Euphorion, which is further reinforced by the verbal correspondence Chaonias-Caonfoio:1240 ZhnÕj Caonfoio prom£ntiej hÙd£xanto (fr. 48.1 Powell)

Vergil shows that not only the nightingales (¢hdÒna), but even the prophetic Dodonian doves (Chaonias columbas) are also impotent in the face of armed force. Thus, he lays special emphasis on the power of the historical-political world, while also intensifying the desperate situation in

1238

See West 1978, 204, who cites various references from archaic and classical Greek literature, where the fable is a certain literary way used to address a specific person and comment on the behaviour or the situation in which he is engaged. 1239 See West 1978, 206 with further references. 1240 Clausen 1994, 271-272 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 457-458.

Chapter 10

424

which the pastoral world finds itself. Moreover, the Greek epithet Chaonias and its noun columbas are in contrast with the Roman noun aquila,1241 thereby underscoring the difference between Greek (Theocritean) and Roman (Vergilian) pastoral and, moreover, the way in which the Greek (Theocritean) pastoral tradition is transformed into the Roman (Vergilian) text.1242 [Lines 14-16]

Moeris continues by mentioning a hazardous argument with the

newcomer soldier, which would end with Moeris’ and Menalcas’ deaths: quod nisi me quacumque nouas incidere lites ante sinistra caua monuisset ab ilice cornix, nec tuus hic Moeris nec uiueret ipse Menalcas (Ecl. 9.14-16)

Quarrels and verbal fights between herdsmen come before or end with the song contests and are found in the Theocritean (Id. 5) and Vergilian collections (Ecl. 3). But this verbal fight is interrupted, remains unresolved and is described as lites. Thus, it recalls Palaemon’s verdict concerning Damoetas’ and Menalcas’ singing contest in Eclogue 3 (cf. Non nostrum inter uos tantas componere lites Ecl. 3.108),1243 which was also interrupted by Meliboeus and remained unresolved without a winner. [Lines 17-20]

Lycidas sympathises with Moeris concerning Menalcas’ eviction

from the country, stressing that he is also nostalgic for Menalcian poetry:

1241

Hunter 2006, 123. See also Karakasis 2011, 192. See also Karakasis 2011, 192, who argues that the Greek term Chaonias used in contrast to the Roman term aquila stresses the “generic” difference of Greek and Roman pastoral tradition. 1243 Saunders 2008, 90-91. See also Karakasis 2011, 193. 1242

Eclogue 9

425

Heu, cadit in quemquam tantum scelus? heu, tua nobis paene simul tecum solacia rapta, Menalca! quis caneret Nymphas? quis humum florentibus herbis spargeret aut uiridi fontis induceret umbra? (Ecl. 9.17-20)

Here, Menalcas is a poeta creator,1244 whose singing generates an idyllic landscape in which the constituent elements (florentibus herbis, fontis and uiridi…umbra) resemble Daphnis’ funeral instructions, which also contain flowering herbs, springs and shade:1245 spargite humum foliis, inducite fontibus umbras, pastores mandat fieri sibi talia Daphnis (Ecl. 5.40-41)

Both Ecl. 9.17-22 and 5.40-41 are concerned with an archetypical pastoral singer (Menalcas and Daphnis) whose singing can no longer soothe the herdsmen’s grief, although the reason for the herdsmen’s grief and for the singer’s absence is emphatically not the same (Menalcas’ eviction from the country and Daphnis’ death). [Lines 21-25]

Lycidas begins the song exchange by recalling a Menalcian song

recently sung by Moeris when he was going off to serenade Amaryllis: uel quae sublegi tacitus tibi carmina nuper, cum te ad delicias ferres Amaryllida nostras? ‘Tityre, dum redeo breuis est uia, pasce capellas, et potum pastas age, Tityre, et inter agendum

1244 1245

Henderson 1998b, 153. See also Karakasis 2011, 193. Coleman 1977, 260, Clausen 1994, 273 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 459.

Chapter 10

426

occursare capro cornu ferit ille caueto’ (Ecl. 9.21-25)

Moeris’ visit to Amaryllis justifies why the herdsman chose this Menalcian song, which is a translation of the guidelines given by an anonymous goatherd to Tityrus before he visits a country girl with the same name in Idyll 3:1246 Tftur', œmin tÕ kalÕn pefilhm{ne, bÒske t¦j aੇgaj, kai poti t¦n kr£nan ¥ge, Tfture· kai tÕn œnÒrcan, tÕn LibukÕn kn£kwna, ful£sseo m› tu korÚyV (Id. 3.3-5)

Vergil borrows not only the vocative Tityre, which recalls the corresponding Tfture, but also its repetition (Tityre ... Tityre-Tftur' ... Tfture). This constitutes a stylistic characteristic, which is also extended over the remaining parts of the abovementioned Vergilian verses (pascepastas and age-agendum). Moreover, the expression pasce capellas finds its equivalent in the bÒske t¦j aੇgaj, similarly to the expression et potum pastas age, Tityre, which renders the meaning of the Theocritean command kai poti t¦n kr£nan ¥ge, Tfture. Furthermore, the warning occursare capro cornu ferit ille caueto recalls kai tÕn œnÒrcan,/ tÕn LibukÕn kn£kwna, ful£sseo m› tu korÚyV with the singular exception of the expression tÕn LibukÕn kn£kwna, omitted by Vergil, because his pastoral poetry is deprived of such grotesque and realistic details. The most significant variation, however, is the expression dum redeo breuis est uia. This is entirely absent from Theocritus, thereby

1246

Coleman 1977, 260-261, Clausen 1994, 274-275 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 460.

Eclogue 9

427

laying emphasis on the very different situation that the Vergilian pastoral world faces compared to the Theocritean one. The anonymous goatherd abandons the shepherding of the animals to Tityrus in order to go and serenade a country girl, unconcerned about the time of the return: Kwm£sdw poti t¦n 'Amarullfda, tai d{ moi aੇgej bÒskontai kat' Ôroj, kai Ð Tfturoj aÙt¦j œlaÚnei (Id. 3.1-2)

Menalcas, on the other hand, while announcing exactly the same intention (cum te ad delicias ferres Amaryllida nostras? Ecl. 9.22), also informs Tityrus that the journey is short (dum redeo breuis est uia), implying that his absence is not expected to last long. The Theocritean pastoral world, protected from the realities of the present, enables its inhabitants to leave their usual tasks for trivial activities such as love, music and song. In contrast, the Vergilian pastoral world, whose existence is threatened by the historical reality (land confiscations), establishes a very different role for its rustics, because they are now obliged to focus mostly on practical issues and leave aside music and song.1247 [Lines 26-29]

Moeris’ response constitutes a recent Menalcian song which

praises P. Alfenus Varus in order to convince the land commissioner to save Mantua from the land confiscations: Immo haec, quae Varo necdum perfecta canebat: 'Vare, tuum nomen, superet modo Mantua nobis,

1247

See also Karakasis 2011, 195, who observes that Lycidas’ eavesdropping on Moeris constitutes a striking generic feature which is absent from the Greek (Theocritean) pastoral world, thereby recalling Roman comedy (Plaut. Mil. 1090 clam nostrum hunc sermonem sublegerunt).

Chapter 10

428

Mantua uae miserae nimium uicina Cremonae, cantantes sublime ferent ad sidera cycni' (Ecl. 9.26-29)

In other words, Moeris’ reply to Lycidas is Menalcas’ encomium to Varus1248 that is also evident from the phrase immo haec, which recalls Mopsus, who used the same phrase in Eclogue 5.13, which is also a pastoral lament-encomium. However, immo haec is used by Mopsus to reject Menalcas’ suggested themes for a song, which constitute conventional subjects in Greco-Roman pastoral (cf. Ecl. 5.10-12) in order to sing of a greater pastoral subject, namely the archetypical singer’s death. In contrast, Moeris uses the same phrase to begin singing an encomiastic song for a historical character, which runs through the Vergilian collection1249 and is evident only in the non-pastoral Theocritean Idylls (Id. 16 and 17). [Lines 30-36]

Nonetheless, Lycidas is not satisfied with Moeris’ Menalcian

encomium to Varus, longing for a typical pastoral theme on the condition sic tua Cyrneas fugiant examina taxos,/ sic cytiso pastae distendant ubera uaccae,/ incipe, si quid habes (Ecl. 9.30-31). In other words, Lycidas longs for typical pastoral songs sung in an idyllic landscape, free from any external threat (Theocritus), and Moeris consents (Ecl. 9.37-43); however, the condition set by Lycidas is not met since Moeris has already lost his farm, hence the exiled herdsman recalls only a Menalcian fragment (Ecl. 9.37-38). What is more, Lycidas urges Moeris to begin, because he feels

1248

Papanghelis 1995, 210-212. On the historical characters who are praised by Vergil in the Eclogues, see Nauta 2006, 301-332.

1249

Eclogue 9

429

inferior before recognised poets such as L. Varius Rufus and C. Helvius Cinna:1250 incipe, si quid habes. et me fecere poetam Pierides, sunt et mihi carmina, me quoque dicunt uatem pastores; sed non ego credulus illis. nam neque adhuc Vario uideor nec dicere Cinna digna, sed argutos inter strepere anser olores (Ecl. 9.32-36)

These verses begin with the phrase incipe, si quid habes, which has already been used by Menalcas in order to urge Mopsus to sing (incipe…, si quos habes Ecl. 5.10f.),1251 confirming that the Roman source used by Vergil is his own collection (Eclogue 5). Moreover, these verses are related to Idyll 7, where Simichidas lays emphasis on his singing ability, comparing himself with Asclepiades1252 and Philetas:1253 kai g¦r œgë Mois©n kapurÕn stÒma, kºm੻ l{gonti p£ntej ¢oidÕn ¥riston· œgë d{ tij oÙ tacupeiq›j, oÙ D©n· oÙ g£r pw kat' œmÕn nÒon oÜte tÕn œsqlÒn Sikelfdan nfkhmi tÕn œk S£mw oÜte Filftan ¢efdwn, b£tracoj d੻ pot' ¢krfdaj éj tij œrfsdw (Id. 7.37-41)

1250

On the political and literary overtones which are identified behind the references to Varius and Cinna, see Schmidt 1972a, 112-114, Thill 1979, 53-55 and D’ Anna 1987, 427-438, especially 427-431. 1251 Coleman 1977, 263, Clausen 1994, 277 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 463-464. 1252 For the identity of Asclepiades behind the character of Sicelidas of Samos see Gow-Page II 1965, 114-118, Fraser I 1972, 556-561 and Hunter 1996, 19-21. 1253 Coleman 1977, 263-264, Clausen 1994, 277-278 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 463464.

430

Chapter 10

These Vergilian and Theocritean verses are concerned with a singerherdsman whose musical dexterity is underlined by a comparison to recognised literary characters. Both Lycidas and Simichidas receive recognition from the Muses (et me fecere poetam/ Pierides-kai g¦r œgë Mois©n kapurÕn stÒma) and from their colleagues (me quoque dicunt/ uatem pastores-kºm੻ l{gonti/ p£ntej ¢oidÕn ¥riston). Furthermore, the suspicion with which these singers-herdsmen hear such views is yet another thematic similarity (sed non ego credulus illis-œgë d{ tij oÙ tacupeiq›j). Moreover, both Lycidas and Simichidas are compared with a modern (Varius-Asclepiades) and an older (Cinna-Philetas) exemplary character.1254 Finally, the country analogy sed argutos inter strepere anser olores once again recalls the corresponding simile ¢efdwn, b£tracoj d੻ pot' ¢krfdaj éj tij œrfsdw, although the animals involved are altered (anser  b£tracoj and olores  ¢krfdaj) because Vergil puns on the term Anser, who is another modern character.1255 However, this is not the only difference in the Vergilian and Theocritean texts. The Theocritean Simichidas succeeds in receiving the wished-for literary recognition in antithesis to the Vergilian Lycidas, who never enjoys it: Ð d' aepÒloj ¡dÝ gel£ssaj, ‘t£n toi’, }fa, ‘korÚnan dwrÚttomai, oÛneken œssf p©n œp' ¢laqefv peplasm{non œk DiÕj }rnoj (Id. 7.42-44)

1254

Pace Hinds 1984, 45-46, who suggests that Vergil may also be based on the similar juxtaposition of names in Gallus’ allusion to the literary characters and critics Viscus and Valerius Cato (Gall. fr. 2.8-9 Courtney with Courtney 1993, 267-268). 1255 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 9.36 et alludit ad Anserem quendam, Antonii poetam, qui eius laudes scribebat: quem ob hoc per transitum carpsit.

Eclogue 9

431

Such a contrast could easily be explained by the superiority of Simichidas’ singing (cf. Id. 7.30-31 and 91-95) compared to that of the young and musically inexperienced Lycidas (cf. puer Ecl. 9.66), but it is based on the altered literary background. Simichidas’ initiation occurs in the unambiguous richness and exuberant fertility of the protected Theocritean setting, which evokes both music and song (Id. 7.31-34). On the contrary, Lycidas is placed in a completely different literary setting. Here, the bounty is not established, but a hoped-for condition for the remote and uncertain future (Ecl. 9.30-32), since the current circumstances (land confiscations) preclude not only Lycidas’ singing but also the production of pastoral music and song. [Lines 37-43]

Moeris consents to Lycidas’ earlier suggestion by trying to

recollect (Ecl. 7.37-38) another Menalcian fragmentary song with a typical pastoral theme: Id quidem ago et tacitus, Lycida, mecum ipse uoluto, si ualeam meminisse; neque est ignobile carmen. huc ades, o Galatea; quis est nam ludus in undis? (Ecl. 9.37-39)

This verse is almost the same as the verse with which Polyphemus begins his erotic song to Galateia and is also conflated with the Cyclops’ subsequent invitation to the Sea Nymph:1256 ’W leuk¦ Gal£teia, tf tÕn fil{ont' ¢pob£llV (Id. 11.19)

1256

Coleman 1977, 265-266, Clausen 1994, 281-282 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 467468.

432

Chapter 10 ¢ll' ¢ffkeuso poq' ¡m{, kai Œxelj oÙd੻n }lasson, t¦n glauk¦n d੻ q£lassan }a poti c{rson Ñrecqeln (Id. 11.42-43)

These Vergilian and Theocritean verses underline the lover’s attempt to persuade the erotic object in order to join them in an entirely different world. This suggestion is enhanced by the verbal correspondences Galatea-Gal£teia, huc ades-¢ll' ¢ffkeuso poq' ¡m{ and finally the question quis est nam ludus in undis? (Ecl. 9.39), which reflects tfj ka tînde q£lassan }cein kai kÚmaq' Ÿloito; (Id. 11.49). What is more, this relationship is confirmed by the country delights, which are equally enumerated in these Vergilian and Theocritean passages (water, flowers, trees and shade), though their content is very different: hic uer purpureum, uarios hic flumina circum fundit humus flores, hic candida populus antro imminet et lentae texunt umbracula uites. huc ades; insani feriant sine litora fluctus (Ecl. 9.40-43) œnti d£fnai thnef, œnti ૧adinai kup£rissoi, }sti m{laj kissÒj, }st' ¥mpeloj ¡ glukÚkarpoj, }sti yucrÕn Ûdwr, tÒ moi ¡ polud{ndreoj Ahtna leuk©j œk ciÒnoj potÕn ¢mbrÒsion proǸhti tfj ka tînde q£lassan }cein kai kÚmaq' Ÿloito; (Id. 11.45-49)

However, Polyphemus’ song is also recalled for yet another, more significant reason. It is the song which the Cyclops used to find relief from

Eclogue 9

433

his love for Galateia. Polyphemus could not win over the Sea Nymph, but he could eventually find solace: OÛtw toi PolÚfamoj œpofmainen tÕn }rwta mousfsdwn, ૧´on d੻ di©g' À ee crusÕn }dwken (Id. 11.80-81)

In view of that, Moeris’ recollection of this song is also based on the search for relief, with the difference, however, that the object is no longer solace from erotic passion, but solace from the political turmoil that is occurring throughout the Roman pastoral world (land confiscations). [Lines 44-50]

Lycidas continues by referring to a song which he had heard

Moeris singing alone in the night: Quid, quae te pura solum sub nocte canentem audieram? numeros memini, si uerba tenerem: 'Daphni, quid antiquos signorum suspicis ortus? ecce Dionaei processit Caesaris astrum, astrum quo segetes gauderent frugibus et quo duceret apricis in collibus uua colorem. insere, Daphni, piros: carpent tua poma nepotes' (Ecl. 9.44-50)1257

Moeris’ solo singing in the night is emphatically alien to the Greek pastoral tradition, according to which the herdsman is traditionally found singing in the daylight along with other herdsmen within an agonistic background or in a friendly song exchange. Moreover, the song is

1257

On Ecl. 9.46-50 and their textual problem, because they can be attributed either to Moeris or to Lycidas, see Karakasis 2011, 201 n. 76 with further bibliography.

Chapter 10

434

concerned with Caesaris astrum (sidus Iulium),1258 which is the comet that appeared in the games organised by Octavian for Caesar’s memorial.1259 Hence, its subject may recall Daphnis’-Caesar’s apotheosis sung by Menalcas in Eclogue 5 (cf. Ecl. 5.56-66) and, most significantly, the iuuenis deus in Eclogue 1 (cf. Ecl. 1.42), in the sense that the Caesaris astrum secures the prosperity of the pastoral world similarly to the way in which it is provided by the extra-pastoral benefactor. This suggestion can also be reinforced by the expression insere, Daphni, piros: carpent tua poma nepotes, which reverses the content of the ironic self-address uttered by the exiled Meliboeus insere nunc, Meliboee, piros, pone ordine uitis).1260 Nonetheless, it is quite clear that Moeris’ singing habits and the subject of his song stand away from the earlier Greek (Theocritean) pastoral tradition and represent the new Roman (Vergilian) pastoral tradition, which Vergil now establishes.1261 However, Moeris complains that he cannot sing anymore because he has lost his memory, underscoring the significance of youthful memory: Omnia fert aetas, animum quoque. saepe ego longos cantando puerum memini me condere soles. nunc oblita mihi tot carmina, uox quoque Moerim iam fugit ipsa: lupi Moerim uidere priores

1258 On the alternative name which is usually given to this comet (sidus Iulium vs Caesaris astrum), see Nauta 2006, 324. 1259 Cf. Suet. Iul. 88. See also Ramsey-Licht 1997. 1260 On the oppositio in imitando technique used by Vergil to reverse Meliboeus’ ironical self-address, see Paraskeviotis 2012, 77-82. 1261 See also Karakasis 2011, 203, who argues that the antithesis of the Greek and Roman pastoral traditions is also evident from the contrast between ancient stars (antiquos signorum…ortus) and the new Caesarian star (Dionaei Caesaris…astrum).

Eclogue 9

435

sed tamen ista satis referet tibi saepe Menalcas (Ecl. 9.51-55)

Moeris’ complaint is closely associated with the Hellenistic epigrammatic tradition,1262 especially with a Callimachean epigram:1263 Eੇp{ tij, `Hr£kleite, teÕn mÒron, œj d{ me d£kru ½gagen· œmn›sqhn d', Ðss£kij ¢mfÒteroi ¼lion œn l{scV katedÚsamen. ¢ll¦ sÝ m{n pou, xeln' `Alikarnhseà, tetr£palai spodi›· ad d੻ teai zèousin ¢hdÒnej, Îsin Ð p£ntwn ¡rpakt¾j 'Afdhj oÙk œpi celra balel (Call. 34 G-P = A.P. 7.80)

Vergil and Callimachus stress the power of youthful memory, which is responsible for the length of a song (cantando) or a philosophical conversation (œn l{scV). This relationship is further reinforced by several verbal correspondences such as memini-œmn›sqhn, saepe-Ðss£kij and condere soles-¼lion katedÚsamen. Nonetheless, Vergil deals with the pastoral songs that are performed by herdsmen, thereby also recalling Polyphemus’ boasting of long musical performances: surfsden d' æj oÜtij œpfstamai ïde Kuklèpwn, tfn, tÕ fflon glukÚmalon, ¡m´ kºmautÕn ¢efdwn poll£ki nuktÕj ¢wrf (Id. 11.39-40) 1262

Coleman 1977, 269, Clausen 1994, 284, Hunter 2006, 132-134 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 474. See also Breed 2006, 1ff. 1263 Despite the relationship between Vergil and Callimachus, this epigram was available to Vergil through Meleager’s Garland. Cf. Meleag. 1.22 G-P = A.P. 4.1.22 Kallim£cou, stufeloà mestÕn ¢ei m{litoj.

Chapter 10

436

Vergil draws on the character of Polyphemus for the typical scene of a herdsman who is seated at ease, playing music and singing, further recalling Callimachus’ epigram, whose sepulchral context describes the conversation as a past and lost activity. Both sources are brought together with characteristic complexity in these Vergilian verses, where the production of pastoral poetry is also placed in the remote past. Therefore, timelessness runs through the Greek (Theocritean) pastoral tradition in contrast to Roman (Vergilian) pastoral which has lost this feature, which constitutes a natural consequence of the invasion of reality into its idyllic existence. [Lines 56-58]

Nevertheless, Lycidas ignores Moeris’ forgetfulness, trying to

urge the older herdsman to sing by stressing the ideal singing landscape: causando nostros in longum ducis amores. et nunc omne tibi stratum silet aequor, et omnes, aspice, uentosi ceciderunt murmuris aurae (Ecl. 9.56-58)

Lycidas’ words recall Simaetha’s emotional turmoil, which is fully described in Idyll 2:1264 ºnfde sigÍ men pÒntoj, sigînti d' ¢Átai· ¡ d' œm¦ oÙ sigÍ st{rnwn }ntosqen ¢nfa, ¢ll' œpi t›nJ p©sa katafqomai Ój me t£lainan (Id. 2.38-40)

1264

Coleman 1977, 270, Clausen 1994, 274 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 475. See also Segal 1965, 237-266, who argues that these verses can also recall Lycidas’ erotic song for Aegeanax in Id. 7.56-60 qermÕj g¦r }rwj aÙtî me katafqei./ c¢lkuÒnej storeseànti t¦ kÚmata t£n te q£lassan/ tÒn te nÒton tÒn t' eâron, Öj }scata fukfa kinel,/ ¡lkuÒnej, glaukalj Nhrhfsi taf te m£lista/ Ñrnfcwn œfflhqen, Ósoij t{ per œx ¡lÕj ¥gra.

Eclogue 9

437

Here, Vergil’s intertextual relationship with these Theocritean verses is based on the very similar reaction of the natural environment and is strongly reinforced by several verbal correspondences such as silet-sigÍ, aequor-pÒntoj and aurae-¢Átai. Nonetheless, nature’s reaction is clearly not associated with the erotic element and is instead related to the herdsman’s creative process of pastoral song in the making of music and singing, while nature listens and is taught by Lycidas’ song; thus, it may recall Tityrus’ archetypal stance in Eclogue 1 (cf. Ecl. 1.1-5), where the natural environment listens and is taught by the herdsman’s music and song. Unlike its echoing reaction in Eclogue 1,1265 however, here nature remains completely silent (silet), not responding to the song composed by Lycidas and Moeris’ conversation. Historical reality (war, violence and land confiscations) not only has a great influence on the singers-herdsmen, but is also closely associated with the pastoral landscape, which degenerates into a mouthpiece, echoing the herdsmen’s troubles and anxieties. The nighttime or the weather signs stressed in these verses are characteristically alien to the typical time and weather conditions in which the herdsman is often found.1266 [Lines 59-60]

This sombre atmosphere that encloses the singing place is

stressed in the next verses, which deal with the location of Bianor’s tomb:

1265

Cf. Ecl. 1.3-4 tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra/ formosam resonare doces Amaryllida siluas, 8.22-23 Maenalus argutumque nemus pinusque loquentis/ semper habet, semper pastorum ille audit amores and 10.8 non canimus surdis, respondent omnia siluae. 1266 See Corydon’s wandering at the noontide (Ecl. 2.1-5), which is the time when animals and people in the country used to retreat to a cool place to avoid the scorching sun and when herdsmen are normally to be found under shady trees because of the flock’s need to stay away from the midday heat.

Chapter 10

438

hinc adeo media est nobis uia; namque sepulcrum incipit apparere Bianoris (Ecl. 9.59-60)

Memorials and votive shrines are typical features in the Greco-Roman landscape; however, Bianor’s tomb may recall the Theocritean collection, especially Idyll 7, where the travelling characters approach Brasilas’ burial place:1267 koÜpw t¦n mes£tan ÐdÕn ¥numej, oÙd੻ tÕ s©ma ¡mln tÕ Brasfla katefafneto, kaf tin' Ðdftan (Id. 7.10-11)

The Vergilian and Theocritean tombs are at the halfway point of the herdsmen’s trips. The expression media est nobis uia corresponds to t¦n mes£tan ÐdÕn, and, in particular, sepulcrum incipit apparere Bianoris finds its equivalent in the sentence oÙd੻ tÕ s©ma ¡mln tÕ Brasfla katefafneto. Nevertheless, while the Theocritean travellers have not yet reached Brasilas’ grave, Bianor’s tomb has already begun to come into the view of the Vergilian herdsmen. Furthermore, the temporal period is also different, given that the Vergilian episode occurs late in the day (aut si nox pluuiam ne colligat ante ueremur Ecl. 9.63), whereas, in emphatic contrast, the corresponding Theocritean incident takes place during the noontime (Simicfda, p´ d¾ tÝ mesam{rion pÒdaj Ÿlkeij Id. 7.21). Vergil speeds up Moeris’ course, because his journey is not merely a joyful visit to a harvest festival, which would enable herdsmen to break off from the trip for the sake of singing. On the contrary, Moeris’ course is a

1267

Coleman 1977, 271, Clausen 1994, 286 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 476.

Eclogue 9

439

violent and enforced eviction, and therefore his journey should not be interrupted for any reason, thereby explaining Moeris’ failure to recall the songs and his final decision to suspend his singing, at least for now (Desine plura, puer, et quod nunc instat agamus;/ carmina tum melius, cum uenerit ipse, canemus Ecl. 9.66-67). What is more, the proper name Bianor does not come from Theocritus, although it is clear enough that it reflects the corresponding obscure term Brasilas.1268 Ancient scholars identified Bianor with Ocnus, the mythical founder of Mantua, embellishing the imaginary landscape with a realistic detail (a real burial place).1269 Modern scholars, however, have also attributed a particular literary origin to this detail. The grave of a person with the exactly same name is found in a Diotimean sepulchral epigram,1270 a suggestion that is also reinforced by the verbal correspondence sepulcrum Bianor-sÁma Bi£nori:1271 Tf pl{on eej çdlna poneln, tf d੻ t{kna tek{sqai, ¿ t{koi ee m{llei paidÕj Ðr©n q£naton; ºiq{J g¦r sÁma Bi£nori ceÚato m›thr }prepe d' œk paidÕj mht{ra toàde tuceln (4 G-P = A.P. 7.261)

1268 On the obscurity of Brasilas’ name, see Gow II 1952, 135 and Hunter 1999, 155. 1269 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 9.60 hic est, qui et Ocnus dictus est de quo ait in decimo “fatidicae Mantus et Tusci filius amnis”, conditor Mantuae. It should be mentioned that the epigrammatist Bianor, who is a late contemporary or successor of Vergil, is equally irrelevant (cf. BNP s.v. Bianor [2]). 1270 Coleman 1977, 271, Clausen 1994, 286 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 476. This epigram was available to Vergil through Meleager’s Garland (Meleag. 1.27 G-P = A.P. 4.1.27 sÝn d' ¤ma kai glukÚmhlon ¢p' ¢kremÒnwn Diotfmou). For Diotimus see Gow-Page II 1965, 270ff. 1271 Tugwell 1963, 132-133.

440

Chapter 10

Hence, Ecl. 9.59-61 are based on Theocritus (Id. 7.10-11) and Diotimus (4 G-P = A.P. 7.261), which is designed to underscore the melancholic atmosphere and sorrow that runs through the Vergilian pastoral landscape (Ecl. 9.56-61). However, Theocritus and Diotimus are not the only sources behind this line. Homer narrates a typical battle scene, where a Trojan named Bianor or Bienor1272 is slaughtered in a Greek counterattack:1273 œn d' 'Agam{mnwn prîtoj Ôrous', Ÿle d' ¥ndra Bi£nora poim{na laîn aÙtÒn, }peita d' Œtalron 'OȧlÁa pl›xippon (Il. 11.91-93)

Both the fact that Bianor belongs to the class of herdsmen (poim{na laîn) and the metrical correspondence between Bianor and Bi£nora, each of whom is placed before the bucolic diaeresis, enhance this relationship (incipit apparere Bianoris.¨¨hic, ubi densas-prîtoj Ôrous', Ÿle d' ¥ndra Bi£nora ¨¨poim{na laîn). What is more, the name Bianor is once again associated with the notion of death and consequently supplies the Vergilian passage with a gloomy and sad tone. Moreover, it contains further symbolic significance by representing the violence of war, which has an influence on the class of herdsmen, except that here it is not just any war, but a civil war, which strongly emphasises the tragic situation of the Roman herdsmen. [Lines 60-65]

Nonetheless, Lycidas continues to urge Moeris to sing by

suggesting setting down the kids in order to be free for singing and by alleviating his burden in order to sing whilst they leave the countryside: 1272

West 1998, ad loc. with apparatus criticus 92 Bi›nora (nov. Did) 601191 ȍ: Bi£nora Ar 1196 r, prob. Wack KS767. 1273 Brenk 1981, 427-430 and Tracy 1982, 328-330.

Eclogue 9

441

hic, ubi densas agricolae stringunt frondes, hic, Moeri, canamus hic haedos depone, tamen ueniemus in urbem. aut si nox pluuiam ne colligat ante ueremur, cantantes licet usque minus uia laedet eamus; cantantes ut eamus, ego hoc te fasce leuabo (Ecl. 9.60-65)

These verses recall the Theocritean collection and especially Idyll 7, where Simichidas suggests that Lycidas sing, since they have the road and the day to share together:1274 ¢ll' ¥ge d›, xun¦ g¦r ÐdÕj xun¦ d੻ kai ¢èj, boukoliasdèmesqa (Id. 7.35-36)

These Vergilian and Theocritean lines stress the fact that the journey will be happier through the song exchange between the travelling herdsmen. However, Simichidas’ and Lycidas’ trip is a joyful trip from the town to the country in strong contrast to Lycidas and Moeris, who are brutally forced to leave the country. What is more, the suggested singing location (densas frondes) is very similar to the traditionally idyllic scenery that contains water, flowers, trees and shade. Thus, it can signify a frondatio that may recall the frondator’s song on Tityrus’ farm (Ecl. 1.56),1275 which constitutes a typical Vergilian locus amoenus (cf. Ecl. 1.51-58). [Lines 66-67]

Despite Lycidas’ insistent entreaties, Moeris requests his

colleague to refrain from further invitations to sing: 1274 1275

Coleman 1977, 271 and Clausen 1994, 286. Coleman 1977, 271.

442

Chapter 10 desine plura, puer, et quod nunc instat agamus; carmina tum melius, cum uenerit ipse, canemus (Ecl. 9.66-67)

The source for this reply is also found in Idyll 7, where Simichidas invites Lycidas to an exchange of pastoral songs:1276 ¢ll' ¥ge d›, xun¦ g¦r ÐdÕj xun¦ d੻ kai ¢èj, boukoliasdèmesqa (Id. 7.35-36)

However, Vergil entirely alters the situation by reversing the proposal, which is no longer an invitation to sing, but a direct command to end the singing performance. Thus, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus is exclusively based on the immediate way (imperatives) in which Moeris suggests to Lycidas that they stop singing (desine), reflecting the way in which Simichidas suggests to Lycidas that he begin singing (¥ge). Once again, this strong contrast also has its roots in different literary backgrounds. The Theocritean pastoral world is happy, peaceful and immune to any external threat; thus, it has no place for orders that cease the production of music and song. On the contrary, such commands fit in with the threatened and disordered Vergilian pastoral world of Eclogues 1 and 9 from which the herdsmen are brutally exiled. What is more, the language used by Moeris is certainly not Theocritean. Desine plura, puer constitutes the colloquial phrase that was used by Mopsus to end the verbal fight with Menalcas and to begin the song exchange (Ecl. 5.19).1277

1276 1277

Coleman 1977, 271 and Clausen 1994, 286. Coleman 1977, 272, Clausen 1994, 287 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 477-478.

Eclogue 9 [Conclusions]

443

To sum up, Eclogue 9 deals with the threatened Vergilian

(Roman) pastoral world in emphatic contrast with its main source, namely the Theocritean Thalysia (Idyll 7) that is concerned with the secure Theocritean (Greek) pastoral world; as a result, Eclogue 9 could rightly be considered as the Roman Thalysia. This is also evidenced by the Greek sources identified here (Homer, Hesiod, Callimachus, Euphorion, Diotimus and Theocritus (Id. 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11)), which are combined with self-quotations from the Vergilian collection (Ecl. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8) that in other words constitutes the main Roman source traced in Eclogue 9. These Vergilian self-quotations stress the Roman character of the Eclogue, reinforcing the uncustomary suggestion that Eclogue 1 was written first1278 and thus suggesting a new chronological relationship between Eclogues 1 and 9. What is more, this is the first time in the Vergilian collection that so many various and systematic self-quotations have been identified, and this can hardly be an accident. In other words, the Vergilian self-quotation is not only a mere instrument for a highly allusive statement, especially when it functions within a single literary text;1279 on the contrary, it also has a substantial role and significantly contributes to the creation of Eclogue 9,1280 thereby confirming that the Greek and Roman sources constitute intrinsic features of the poetic composition rather than mere artistic devices.

1278

It should be noted that there have been many attempts to establish the chronological relation between Eclogues 1 and 9 without any of them being entirely satisfactory and convincing (Rudd 1976, 119-144), even though there is also a strong tendency which favours the priority of Eclogue 9. 1279 Thomas 1986, 182-183. 1280 See also Ecl. 5. 85-87 Hac te nos fragili donabimus ante cicuta;/ haec nos ‘formosum Corydon ardebat Alexin’,/ haec eadem docuit ‘cuium pecus? an Meliboei?’, where Vergil quotes the first lines of Eclogues 2 and 3.

CHAPTER 11 ECLOGUE 10* Eclogue 10 constitutes a literary cȠmposition written for the elegist and Vergil’s intimate friend, Caius Cornelius Gallus1281 (cf. sollicitos Galli dicamus amores Ecl. 10.6).1282 It contains an introduction that deals with a divine invocation (Ecl. 10.1-8), followed by nature’s grief

* Skutsch 1901 and 1906, later followed by Ross 1975, 85-106, argues for Vergil’s dependence on Gallus, which is confirmed by elegiac themes found in the Eclogue. Kidd 1964, 54-64 focuses on the Greek and Roman influences traced in the Eclogue. Gaisser 1977, 131-146 examines the strong similarities between Tib. 2.3 and Eclogue 10, thereby arguing that the elegiac subject identified in the Eclogue may come from Gallus. Kelley 1977, 17-20 claims that Ecl. 10.46-49 show that Vergil is based on Gallus’ elegies. Pasoli 1977, 585-596 deals with Vergil’s relationship to Gallus through Prop. 1.8. Hinds 1984, 43-54 examines the strong similarities between Ecl. 10.2-3 and P. Qasr Ibrîm. Conte 1986, 100-129 is much more careful whilst dealing with the Gallan influence on Vergil, thereby identifying several generic elegiac subjects which run through the Eclogue. Rosen and Farrell 1986, 241-254 focus on the Gallan allusions found in the Eclogue. Kennedy 1987,47-59 stresses the relationship between pastoral and elegy, claiming also that Gallus’ entrance in Arcadia is based on the elegiac rather than the pastoral tradition. Arkins 1990, 66 claims that Vergil recalls Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo in Ecl. 10.4-6. Edwards 1990, 203-208 argues that the Chalcidico uersu shows Hesiod’s influence on Gallus. Rumpf 1996 thoroughly examines the Eclogue, while also surveying earlier interpretations. Gagliardi 2011a, 56-73 is concerned with Gallus’ relationship with Daphnis (Id. 1 and 7), and later 2012, 147-163 re-examines Vergil’s relationship with Gallus through Prop. 1.8. 1281 Here, it should be mentioned that the elegiac lover, persona or speaker, who is acting in the elegies, is not Gallus, even if he often calls himself “Gallus”. Harrison 1994, 18 nicely uses the convenient terms ‘auctor’ (Gallus) and “actor” (the elegiac lover, persona or speaker) in order to lay special emphasis on this fundamental difference. See also Manuwald 2006, 219 with n. 2 and 3. 1282 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 10.1 [Gallus] transtulit in latinum sermonem, et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quattuor and fuit autem amicus Vergilii adeo. For Gallus in general see BNP s.v. Cornelius [II 18] with further bibliographical references.

Eclogue 10

445

for the elegiac lover who is dying of unrequited love (Ecl. 10.9-69); after that, the poem ends with an epilogue (Ecl. 10.70-77), which concludes not only the Eclogue itself but also the entire pastoral collection. The introduction of a contemporary elegiac poet into the idealised pastoral world has been the subject of several exegetical interpretations suggested by modern scholars. The discussion on this topic has been so extensive that most commentators have neglected the rest of the Eclogue by stressing the reconstruction of Gallus’ lost work, largely based on the detection of Vergil’s possible quotations from Gallus’ elegies.1283 However, Coleman and Clausen argue that Eclogue 10 is heavily dependent on Idyll 1 and, especially, that it is also based on Thyrsis’ dirge for Daphnis (Id. 1.64-142),1284 containing quotations from Idyll 71285 and probable quotations from Gallan love poetry (Amores).1286 Cucchiarelli claims that Eclogue 10 recalls the Theocritean Idylls 1 and 11, stressing that strong similarities to Eclogues 1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 can be identified.1287 Nonetheless, the Greek and Roman sources identified in the Eclogue are equally significant in the sense that they are brought together and combined in such a way as to create Vergil’s encomium for Gallus. [Lines 1-3]

Eclogue 10 is the second one in the collection that begins with a

typical invocation of a deity for poetic inspiration (Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus! Ecl. 4.1). Here, however, the invocation is not addressed to the Sicilian Muses but to the Syracusan fountain Arethusa:

1283

Skutsch 1901, 2-27, idem 1906, 155-190, Klingner 1967, 166ff. and Ross 1975, 85-106. 1284 Coleman 1977, 294-295 and Clausen 1994, 290. 1285 Coleman 1977, 295. 1286 Coleman 1977, 295-297 and Clausen 1994, 290-292. 1287 Cucchiarelli 2012, 478-481.

446

Chapter 11 Extremum hunc, Arethusa, mihi concede laborem (Ecl. 10.1)

The structure of the invocation is equally unusual, in that the character from whom inspiration is sought is enclosed by the phrase “extremum ... laborem”. The characterisation of a literary work as “labour” is a typical Hellenistic subject.1288 Moreover, it suggests a highly elegant work, reflecting Vergil’s expectations for the Eclogue, which is labor in the sense that it is going to be the climax of the collection and not in the sense of an obligation that Vergil is anxious to conclude.1289 This suggestion is further reinforced by the next two verses, the subject of which is based on Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo:1290 pauca meo Gallo, sed quae legat ipsa Lycoris, carmina sunt dicenda; neget quis carmina Gallo? (Ecl. 10.2-3) oÙd' Ð corÕj tÕn Folbon œf' ਨn mÒnon Ãmar ¢efsei, }sti g¦r eÜumnoj· tfj ¨n oÙ૧{a Folbon ¢efdoi; (Hymn 2.30-31)

The structural correspondence articulated by the repetition of the addressee’s name (Gallo ... Gallo-Folbon ... Folbon) along with the rhetorical question 1288

Clausen 1994, 293 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 482-483. See Call. 55.1f. G-P = Epigr. 6.1f. toà Samfou pÒnoj eemi dÒmJ pot੻ qelon ¢oidÒn/ dexam{nou; Asclep. 28.1. G-P = A.P. 7.11.1`O glukÝj 'Hrfnnhj oátoj pÒnoj; Herod. 8.71-72 t¦ m{lea polloi k£rta, toÝj œmoÝj mÒcqouj,/ tileàsin œn MoÚshisin and Theoc. Id. 7.50-51 kºgë m{nÓrh, ffloj, eh toi ¢r{skei/ toàq' Óti pr©n œn Ôrei tÕ melÚdrion œxepÒnasa with Gow 1952, ad loc and Van Sickle 1978, 189 with n. 81. 1289 Putnam 1970, 342. 1290 Clausen 1994, 293-294.

Eclogue 10

447

neget quis carmina Gallo?, which recalls the corresponding tfj ¨n oÙ૧{a Folbon ¢efdoi;, confirms the intertextual relationship of those Greek and Roman passages. Furthermore, this relationship is enhanced by the common context, since Callimachus and Vergil refer to the addressee who constitutes inexhaustible literary material, though Apollo’s thematic profusion1291 is replaced by Gallus’ elegiac production.1292 In other words, Vergil compliments Gallus through a comparison with Apollo, which is also evidenced by the abovementioned Vergilian verses that can also recall the famous Gallan fragment (PQaৢr Ibrîm):1293 pauca meo Gallo, sed quae legat ipsa Lycoris, carmina sunt dicenda; neget quis carmina Gallo? (Ecl. 10.2-3) tandem fecerunt carmina Musae quae possem domina deicere digna mea (fr. 2.6-7 Courtney)

These verses are concerned with the poetic production of songs (carminacarmina) that are emphatically supplied by some divine contribution (Arethusa-Musae).1294 This relationship is reinforced by the fact that the songs are performed as a last task (extremum laborem Ecl. 10.1) or something that finally happens (tandem fr. 2.6). The closest analogy, however, is the common way in which Vergil and Gallus describe the

1291

Cf. Hymn. Hom. Apol. 19 Pîj t£r s' Ømn›sw p£ntwj eÜumnon œÒnta; Cf. Serv. Ecl. 10.1 [Gallus] transtulit in latinum sermonem, et amorum suorum de Cytheride scripsit libros quattuor. For the title of Gallus’ love elegies see Boucher 1966, 72-73. 1293 Hinds 1984, 46. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 484. 1294 Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet 1979, 125-155. 1292

448

Chapter 11

recipient of the songs, even though they are different (meo Gallo-domina mea). What is more, the phrase sed quae legat ipsa Lycoris corresponds to deicere digna in the sense that these phrases refer to songs that are “worthy of Lycoris”.1295 On the other hand, the fragmentary state of the Gallan text fails to provide enough evidence of its context for us to infer the significance of this Vergilian quotation. Whatever the context, however, Vergil draws on Callimachus’ encomiastic hymn in order to borrow a complimentary structure where the honouree Gallus, who is praised by a striking reference to his elegiac poetry, is placed. [Lines 4-8]

Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Callimachus is not confined

to these two verses. It also extends over the next lines, where it becomes clear that this Eclogue for Gallus will be created on a certain condition: sic tibi, cum fluctus subterlabere Sicanos, Doris amara suam non intermisceat undam, incipe: sollicitos Galli dicamus amores, dum tenera attondent simae uirgulta capellae. non canimus surdis, respondent omnia siluae (Ecl. 10.4-8) 1295

Courtney 1993, 267. Vergil’s dependence on the Gallan fragment is confirmed by Hinds 1984, 46-47, who cites Propertius 4.7.83-84 which show close analogies with the Gallan and Vergilian passage, thereby suggesting not only Vergil’s indebtedness to Gallus but also that Vergil and Propertius draw on the lost Gallan elegy. tandem fecerunt carmina Musae quae possem domina deicere digna mea (fr. 2.6-7 Courtney) hic carmen media dignum me scribe columna (Prop. 4.7.83) sed quae legat ipsa Lycoris, carmina sunt dicenda (Ecl. 10.2f.) sed breue, quod currens uector ab urbe legat (Prop. 4.7.84)

Eclogue 10

449

Arethusa’s introduction into the genre of pastoral poetry owes much to Theocritus, who describes Daphnis expressing farewell to her (calr', 'Ar{qoisa Id. 1.117).1296 This verse is the source for the anonymous Lament for Bion1297 where the same Nymph is the inspirational spring of pastoral song: Pagasfdoj kr£naj, Ö d' }cen pÒma t©j 'Areqofsaj. cí m੻n Tundar{oio kal¦n ¥eise qÚgatra (Epit. Bion. 76-77)

Nevertheless, the context in the above Vergilian verses is not the same, and in that sense they may recall Moschus:1298 kai baqÝj œmbafnei tolj kÚmasi t¦n d੻ q£lassan n{rqen Øpotroc£ei, koÙ mfgnutai Ûdasin Ûdwr, ¡ d' oÙk oੇde q£lassa diercom{nw potamolo (fr. 3.4-5)

This suggestion is reinforced by the striking verbal correspondence non intermisceat undam-koÙ

mfgnutai

Ûdasin

Ûdwr, which stresses

Arethusa’s non-contamination with sea water. What is more, the context and the eminent presence of water, long considered as a symbol for poetry,1299

1296

characteristically

contain

a

particular

allegorical

Coleman 1977, 275, Clausen 1994, 293 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 483. See also Id. 16.102 tolj p©si m{loi Sikel¾n 'Ar{qoisan. 1297 Clausen 1994, 293. 1298 Coleman 1977, 276, Clausen 1994, 295-296 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 484. 1299 On the water as a symbol for poetry see Kambylis 1965, 23-30 and especially Crowther 1979, 1-11.

Chapter 11

450

significance;1300 hence, they may recall the concluding section of the Callimachean Hymn to Apollo: 'Assurfou potamolo m{gaj ૧Òoj, ¢ll¦ t¦ poll£ lÚmata gÁj kai pollÕn œf' Ûdati surfetÕn Ÿlkei. Dhol d' oÙk ¢pÕ pantÕj Ûdwr for{ousi m{lissai, ¢ll' ¼tij kaqar› te kai ¢cr£antoj ¢n{rpei pfdakoj œx derÁj Ñlfgh lib¦j ¥kron ¥wton (Hymn 2.108-112)

In view of that, these Vergilian lines may be considered as a striking variation of the famous Callimachean image, where the Dorian sea, identified with the heroic/martial epic, should not spoil the purity of Arethusa’s stream, symbolising pastoral poetry.1301 This quotation concludes the sources on which the Eclogue’s first verses draw. Moschus, Callimachus and Gallus are all brought together and combined in order to create an introduction that programmatically reflects the nature of this Eclogue. Thus, Eclogue 10 will praise Gallus through its Callimachean structure and style but within a strikingly pastoral framework (Arethusa ... sollicitos Galli amores ... dum tenera attondent simae uirgulta capellae). Nonetheless, the phrase Galli amores calls for our attention. The term amores refers either to love affairs or to a love object,1302 but it can also refer to love songs or love poetry (cf. Quaeritis, unde mihi totiens

1300

Arkins 1990, 66. For a different interpretation see Kennedy 1987, 48-49, who believes that Sicanos fluctus and Doris amara symbolise pastoral poetry written in the Doric dialect, which would not contaminate Arethusa’s fountain (the Gallan elegy), despite its underwater passage through Sicanos fluctus. 1302 See respectively OLD s.v. amor 2 and 1c. 1301

Eclogue 10

451

scribantur amores,/ unde meus ueniat mollis in ora libe Prop. 2.1.1.).1303 As a result, Vergil may literally be referring here to Gallus’ erotic adventures or metapoetically to Gallus’ Amores, which in any case constitutes an oblique encomiastic reference to the famous elegist.1304 [Lines 9-12]

This is the country setting where Gallus is situated to receive the

natural world’s solace, which begins with several questions addressed to the Naiads: Quae nemora aut qui uos saltus habuere, puellae Naides, indigno cum Gallus amore peribat? nam neque Parnasi uobis iuga, nam neque Pindi ulla moram fecere, neque Aonie Aganippe (Ecl. 10.9-12)

It has been well recognised that these verses are based on Thyrsis’ lament for Daphnis, which is also articulated by successive questions to the Nymphs:1305 p´ pok' ¥r' Ãsq', Óka D£fnij œt£keto, p´ poka, NÚmfai; Ã kat¦ Phneiî kal¦ t{mpea, À kat¦ Pfndw; oÙ g¦r d¾ potamolo m{gan ૧Òon ehcet' 'An£pw, oÙd' Ahtnaj skopi£n, oÙd' ”Akidoj derÕn Ûdwr (Id. 1.66-69)

1303

Cf. Ecl. 8.22 semper pastorum ille audit amores with Serv. Ecl. 8.22 “amores” uero cantica de amoribus. 1304 See also Cairns 2006, 224, who notices a close metrical, verbal and sound correspondence between incipe: sollicitos Galli dicamus amores (Ecl. 10.6) and Hoc pro continuo te, Galle, monemus amore (Prop. 1.20.1), suggesting that Gallus’ Amores lie behind these two verses. 1305 Coleman 1977, 277-278, Clausen 1994, 296-297 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 486487.

Chapter 11

452

Vergil

and

Theocritus

lay

special

emphasis

on

the

Naiads/Nymphs’ absence, suggesting in that way that this divine presence could have saved the lovesick figure. This relationship is further reinforced by verbal (cum-Óka, nam-g¦r, Pindi-Pfndw) and structural (nam neque ... nam neque ... neque-oÙ g¦r d¾ ... oÙd’ ... oÙd’) correspondences. Furthermore, these passages are structured on a question concerning the places where the Naiads/Nymphs were, followed by an explanatory comment in negative form for the locations where the Naiads/Nymphs were not when Gallus/Daphnis was dying. However, the Theocritean Nymphs are attached to certain places (PhneiÒj or Pfndoj), while the Vergilian Naiads are vaguely somewhere in the country (nemora or saltus). Moreover, the Sicilian toponyms '”Anapoj, Ahtna and”Akij, which are properly associated with the Sicilian Daphnis, are here replaced by the Greek Parnasus, Pindus and Aonia Aganippe in order to portray a different background (“Arcadia”),1306 while they also underline the relationship with Theocritus by the verbal correspondence PindiPfndw.1307

1306

The term “Arcadia” refers to the imaginary setting where Vergil places Gallus in the Eclogue and not to the real place (OCD s.v. Arcadia) or the pastoral locus par excellence developed in the Renaissance (cf. Schmidt 1972b, 172-185 and Leach 1978, 539-560) and the utopian landscape which is symbolic of the values also associated with pastoral poetry (cf. Schmidt 1975, 36-57). The Vergilian Arcadia is rightly described as the Roman substitute for the Theocritean Sicily. Unlike Theocritus, who laid special emphasis on a realistic portrayal of the Sicilian pastoral life, however, Vergil created an imaginary place, unrelated to the Greek pastoral and, most significantly, distant from the gloomy atmosphere of the Italian reality of the 1st c. BC (political upheavals). In view of that, Vergil selected Arcadia, a place whose country population, mythological past and musical tradition could not serve the creation of a typical Roman idealised landscape better. For more on Vergil’s Arcadia, see also Snell 1980, 281-309. 1307 Coleman 1977, 277f. suggests that the structure of the Vergilian negatives (Ecl. 10.11-12 nam neque Parnasi uobis iuga, nam neque Pindi/ ulla moram fecere, neque Aonie Aganippe) is based on Callimachus (Aet. fr. 75.23-26 Pf.

Eclogue 10 [Lines 13-15]

453

However, the pastoral scenery cannot remain untouched by the

wretched situation in which Gallus finds himself (non canimus surdis, respondent omnia siluae Ecl. 10.8) and the natural environment begins to lament his predicament: illum etiam lauri, etiam fleuere myricae, pinifer illum etiam sola sub rupe iacentem Maenalus et gelidi fleuerunt saxa Lycaei (Ecl. 10.13-15)

These lines describe the sympathy which nature expresses for a human being, recalling Thyrsis’ dirge where Daphnis’ erotic misfortune is also wept over by the natural world:1308 tÁnon m¦n qîej, tÁnon lÚkoi çrÚsanto, tÁnon cçk drumolo l{wn }klause qanÒnta (Id. 1.71-72)

These Theocritean verses have already been used by Vergil in Eclogue 5, where the lament of the wild beasts for Daphnis’ death is described.1309 Nonetheless, Vergil’s dependence on Theocritus here is based on the construction illum ... illum whose anaphora recalls the triple epanalepsis tÁnon ... tÁnon ... tÁnon. This suggestion is enhanced by the repetitions LÚgdamin oÙ g¦r œm¾ tÁmoj }khde k£sij/ oÙd' œn 'AmuklafJ qrÚon }pleken oÙd' ¢pÕ q›rhj/ }kluzen potamù lÚmata ParqenfJ,/ D›lJ d' Ãn œpfdhmoj). Indeed, this is plausible because of the strong Callimachean influence on the Eclogue’s introduction, but the encomiastic character of the Eclogue tends to favour the relationship with Theocritus. 1308 Coleman 1977, 279-280, Clausen 1994, 160-161 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 488489. 1309 Cf. Ecl. 5.27 Daphni, tuum Poenos etiam ingemuisse leones with Clausen 1994, 160-161.

Chapter 11

454

etiam ... etiam ... etiam and fleuere ... fleuerunt, which are used not only to surpass the original but also to stress its emotional context. Further support for this suggestion is offered by Vergil’s thematic model, which is found in Idyll 7:1310 éj poka t©j Xen{aj ºr£ssato D£fnij Ð boÚtaj, cçj Ôroj ¢mfeponelto kai æj drÚej aÙtÕn œqr›neun Im{ra agte fÚonti par' Ôcqaisin potamolo, eâte ciën éj tij katet£keto makrÕn Øf' Aƒmon À ”Aqw À `RodÒpan À KaÚkason œscatÒwnta (Id. 7.73-77)

The weeping of the flora and the rugged setting in which Gallus finds himself display Vergil’s dependence on these Theocritean verses. However, the crucial detail is that Daphnis is not dying but languishing (katet£keto) out of love for Xeneas (Xen{aj ºr£ssato), thereby recalling the erotic situation of Gallus. Therefore, his predicament is based on Idylls 1 and 7, which are conflated in order to generate a lovesick character whose emotional condition combines the emotions caused by two different situations, namely death (Idyll 1) and strong pain (Idyll 7), because of unrequited erotic passion. [Lines 16-18]

The sympathy of the natural environment for the predicament of

Gallus continues with the animals’ reaction, which recalls the mournful moaning of Daphnis’ cattle in Idyll 1:1311

1310

Coleman 1977, 279-280, Clausen 1994, 160-161 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 488489. 1311 Coleman 1977, 280. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 490.

Eclogue 10

455

stant et oues circum (Ecl. 10.16)

pollaf od p¦r possi bÒej, polloi d{ te taàroi, pollai d੻ dam£lai kai pÒrtiej çdÚranto (Id. 1.74-75)

Nonetheless, the Theocritean bulls, heifers and calves are replaced by the Vergilian sheep (oues), which constitute the property of the Arcadian herdsmen. This change justifies the reaction of the animals, which are mere spectators without participating in the lament of Gallus, who, in contrast to Daphnis, receives further sympathy from creatures that are not his own property. However, the urban lover Gallus is so unused to the presence of sheep that he is requested not to scorn them: nostri nec paenitet illas, nec te paeniteat pecoris, diuine poeta: et formosus ouis ad flumina pauit Adonis (Ecl. 10.17-18)

These lines come from Idyll 8, where Milon is similarly advised not to despise a goatherd lover:1312 hq', ð kÒle, kai l{ge, ‘Mflwn, Ð PrwteÝj fèkaj kai qeÕj ín }nemen (Id. 8.51-52)

1312

Clausen 1994, 298-299. See also Cucchiarelli 2012, 491.

456

Chapter 11

Theocritus and Vergil offer advice to a person whose behaviour is contemptuous towards rustic occupations, followed by a mythological paradigm in order to remove the scorn. However, Menalcas’ advice to Milon is an erotic invitation (ae d' ¨n ¢f{rpV,/ cç poim¾n xhrÕj thnÒqi cae bot£nai Id. 8.47 and 44), while Vergil’s advice to Gallus is an invitation to enter the pastoral world (paenitet ... paeniteat Ecl. 10.1718).1313 Furthermore, the mythological exemplum is also not the same, since the example of Proteus is replaced with that of Adonis, whose erotic overtones1314 accord with Gallus. [Lines 19-30]

Nature’s sympathy for the erotic torment of Gallus is further

extended to its human and divine inhabitants who come to console him: uenit et upilio, tardi uenere subulci, uuidus hiberna uenit de glande Menalcas. omnes ‘unde amor iste’ rogant ‘tibi?’ uenit Apollo: ‘Galle, quid insanis?’ inquit. ‘tua cura Lycoris perque niues alium perque horrida castra secuta est’ uenit et agresti capitis Siluanus honore, florentis ferulas et grandia lilia quassans. Pan deus Arcadiae uenit, quem uidimus ipsi sanguineis ebuli bacis minioque rubentem. 'ecquis erit modus?' inquit. 'Amor non talia curat, nec lacrimis crudelis Amor nec gramina riuis

1313 Cf. also Ecl. 2.32-34 Pan primum calamos cera coniungere pluris/ instituit, Pan curat ouis ouiumque magistros,/ nec te paeniteat calamo triuisse labellum, which is part of Corydon’s invitation to the urban Alexis to enter the pastoral world. 1314 On Adonis’ associations with love, see Bion’s Lament for Adonis with Reed 1997, ad loc.

Eclogue 10

457

nec cytiso saturantur apes nec fronde capellae' (Ecl. 10.19-30)1315

These Vergilian verses are again based on Thyrsis’ dirge, where human and

divine

beings

gather

around

the

dying

Daphnis

offering

1316

consolation:

Ãnqon toi boàtai, toi poim{nej, ñpÒloi Ãnqon· p£ntej ¢nhrèteun tf p£qoi kakÒn. Ãnq' Ð Prfhpoj k½fa 'D£fni t£lan, tf tÝ t£keai; ¡ d{ tu kèra p£saj ¢n¦ kr£naj, p£nt' ¥lsea possi foreltai ¥rcete boukolik©j, Molsai fflai, ¥rcet' ¢oid©j z£teis' (Id. 1.80-85)

Besides the common subject of those two passages, there is also a significant number of structural and verbal correspondences which reinforce their relationship. The Vergilian uenit ... uenit ... uenit is based on the Theocritean Ãnqon ... Ãnqon ... Ãnqon by which the human and divine figures are summoned. Moreover, the interrogative formula omnes rogant reproduces the p£ntej ¢nhrèteun, after which the question of a divine being is introduced (Apollo/Prfhpoj). Lycoris is found in the same line position as kèra, enabling Vergil to use cura with the meaning of “mistress”, which is found here for the first time in Roman literature.1317

1315

It should be noticed that Gallus’ emotional situation described by the term insanis (Fantham 1972, 96) reflects the typical elegiac motif according to which love is described as madness (cf. Tib. 1.2.11f., 1.6.45-46, 2.6.17-18; Prop. 1.1.7-8, 1.6.16-18, 2.34.25), which could also have its roots in Gallan love poetry. 1316 Coleman 1977, 280-281, Clausen 1994, 299 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 491. 1317 Cf. TLL s.v. cura 1475.43f.

Chapter 11

458

Thus, he creates a significant sound correspondence from the Greek word kèra.1318 On the other hand, the attending divinities of Hermes (Id. 1.77), Priapus (Id. 1.21) and Aphrodite (Id. 1.95), which are closely associated with the mythological stories related to Daphnis,1319 are replaced by Apollo (Ecl. 10.21), who is the god of poetry and thus appropriate for addressing Gallus, Silvanus (Ecl. 10.24), whose Roman origin accords well with this Roman setting, and Pan (Ecl. 10.26), whose presence reinforces the pastoral character of the scene. Furthermore, the human exponents of the Greek pastoral world boàtai, poim{nej and ñpÒloi, whose order is based on the Theocritean pastoral hierarchy, are also altered, since they are replaced by upilio and subulci and the normal swine food1320 hiberna de glande (“winter mast”) ,1321 which is related to the Roman country.1322 In addition, the Theocritean Priapus inquires about Daphnis’ reason for dying in contrast to the Vergilian Apollo, whose inquiry after Gallus’ behaviour described it as madness, which constitutes a typical elegiac subject:1323 Ð Prfhpoj k½fa 'D£fni t£lan, tf tÝ t£keai; Apollo: ‘Galle, quid insanis?’ inquit1324

1318

O’Hara 1996, 63 and 251-252. See also Ross 1975, 68-69 followed by Cairns 2006, 115, who argue that this etymological wordplay has its roots in Gallus. 1319 On the versions of the mythological tales which are associated with Daphnis, see Gow II 1952, 1-2 and Hunter 1999, 63-66. 1320 Mynors 1990, 70. 1321 Clausen 1994, ad loc. 1322 White 1970, 316-321 highlights the importance of swine-breeding for Roman country life. 1323 Cf. Tib. 2.6.18, Prop. 2.14.18, 2.34.25 and 3.17.3, Ov. Ars 1.372 and 2.563 and Her. 12.193 with Cucchiarelli 2012, 493-494. See also Cairns 2006, 111. 1324 Cf. also Ecl. 10.44-45 nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis/ tela inter media atque aduersos detinet hostis where the love as madness subject is also found. See also Cairns 2006, 111.

Eclogue 10

459

Priapus’ consternation stems from the fact that while a girl longs to be united with the pastoral hero, Daphnis prefers to suffer by rejecting the pleasures of love. Apollo is the god of music and poetry and a famous lover in Roman love elegy;1325 thus, his words concerning the subjection of Gallus to Amor are related to the elegiac genre, where the exclusive devotion that the elegiac puella demands justifies the lover’s misery when the love object comes after a wealthy military man. The erotic triangle (Gallus-Lycoris-military man) and its features, such as snow, sharp cold, dreadful army camps, hardships and footprints, are typical elegiac, if not Gallan, scenarios.1326 Hence, Apollo faces the subjection of Gallus to Amor (seruitium amoris)1327 in strictly elegiac terms, failing to realise the pastoral setting in which he is situated.1328 On the contrary, the country god Pan, whose presence reinforces the pastoral character of the scene,1329 sees the erotic situation of Gallus in strictly pastoral terms.1330 The sexual freedom, either heterosexual or homosexual, that the pastoral world

1325

Cf. Tib. 2.3.11-32 (Apollo’s love for Admetus) and Prop. 3.3.13ff. (Apollo as the god of poetry). 1326 Cf. Tib. 1.5.47-8 Nec te paeniteat duros subiisse labores/ aut opera insuetas adteruisse manus and especially Prop. 1.8ǹ.78 tu pedibus teneris positas fulcire pruinas,/ tu potes insolitas, Cynthia, ferre niues?, which is closely associated with Ecl. 10.22-23 ‘Galle, quid insanis?’ inquit. ‘tua cura Lycoris/ perque niues alium perque horrida castra secuta est’ in the sense that they derive from Gallus’ Amores. See Cairns 2006, 115. 1327 On the motif of seruitium amoris, see Copley 1947, 285-300 and Lyne 1979, 117-130. 1328 Cf. Ecl. 10.13-15 illum etiam lauri, etiam fleuere myricae,/ pinifer illum etiam sola sub rupe iacentem/ Maenalus et gelidi fleuerunt saxa Lycaei. See also Clausen 1994, 288. 1329 Cf. also Ecl. 10.16, stant et oues circum, where the et is emphatically used to underline the transition from the foregoing non-pastoral (Ecl. 10.1-15) to the following pastoral setting where Gallus is found. See Ross 1975, 98. 1330 See also Cairns 2006, 119 and 123, who suggests that Pan in Ecl. 10.26-27 and Prop. 1.18.20 could reflect Gallus since Pan constitutes a country god who certainly appeared somewhere in the Gallan Amores.

460

Chapter 11

secures for its inhabitants1331 enables Pan to reproach the constant erotic misery of Gallus, suggesting through three pastoral analogies (nec lacrimis crudelis Amor nec gramina riuis/ nec cytiso saturantur apes nec fronde capellae) that his cure is in the pastoral world where Gallus is now considering living for ever (cf. Ecl. 10.33-43). In other words, the close relationship of Gallus to the archetypical country singer Daphnis is associated with the Vergilian1332 intention to compliment the elegiac poet, which is also evident from the traditional elegiac subjects employed here (the erotic triangle and love as madness). [Lines 31-34]

The attractions that the country life supplies to Gallus become

evident more characteristically from his reply: tristis at ille ‘tamen cantabitis, Arcades,’ inquit montibus haec uestris; soli cantare periti Arcades. o mihi tum quam molliter ossa quiescant, uestra meos olim si fistula dicat amores! (Ecl. 10.31-34)

This reaction recalls the formal elegiac motif where the lover imagines his own death. This elegiac subject was extensively employed by subsequent Roman elegists,1333 but its provenance could also have its roots in the lost Gallan love poetry. This suggestion can be confirmed by Propertius, whose treatment of this subject contains close verbal correspondences to 1331

Cf. Ecl. 10.38-40 seu quicumque furor quid tum, si fuscus Amyntas?/ et nigrae uiolae sunt et uaccinia nigra,/ mecum inter salices lenta sub uite iaceret. 1332 See also Cairns 2006, 112, who argues that the lover who is dying of love while others attempt to offer words of comfort that eventually fail (Ecl. 10.9-30) constitutes an elegiac subject employed later in Prop. 1.1.25 (see also Ross 1975, 68) and thus suggests that it may stem from Gallus’ Amores. 1333 Cf. Tib. 1.1.59-68, 1.3.53-66; Prop. 2.13b.17ff. For the significance of the subject of death in Roman love elegy see also Boucher 1965, 65-68.

Eclogue 10

461

these Vergilian verses, strongly enhancing the assumption of a common lost source (Gallus):1334 illic si qua meum sepelissent fata dolorem, ultimus et posito staret amore lapis, illa meo caros donasset funere crines, molliter et tenera poneret ossa rosa; illa meum extremo clamasset pulvere nomen, ut mihi non ullo pondere terra foret (Prop. 1.17.19-24)

Nonetheless, the pleasure which this elegiac lover (Propertius) enjoys comes from the mistress’ response after the lover’s death, whereas Vergil’s main concern is the transmission of Gallus’ erotic adventures or, more importantly, of Gallus’ love poetry (amores) throughout the pastoral world. This concern obliquely shows the transposition of elegy into pastoral, which is fully exploited in the next lines. [Lines 35-36]

This elegiac behaviour is directly followed by a pastoral reaction,

confirmed by Gallus’ wish to become one of the Arcadians: atque utinam ex uobis unus uestrique fuissem aut custos gregis aut maturae uinitor uuae! (Ecl. 10.35-36) 1335

This desire is analogous to that of Lycidas in Idyll 7:

ahq' œp' œmeà zwolj œnarfqmioj êfelej Ãmen, éj toi œgën œnÒmeuon ¢n' êrea t¦j kal¦j aੇgaj 1334

Cairns 2006, 210-212. See also Clausen 1994, 302 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 498499. 1335 Coleman 1977, 285, Clausen 1994, 302 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 499.

Chapter 11

462

fwn©j eesaǸwn, tÝ d' ØpÕ drusin À ØpÕ peÚkaij ¡dÝ melisdÒmenoj katek{kliso, qele Kom©ta (Id. 7.86-89)

Gallus and Lycidas utter a wish (utinam-ahq') to share the pastoral life with another person by also executing similar country tasks such as shepherding, which is articulated by the verbal correspondence custos gregis-œnÒmeuon t¦j kal¦j aੇgaj. Nonetheless, Lycidas is a herdsman whose longing is merely the recollection of an impossible situation that belongs to the irretrievable past (œp' œmeà). On the contrary, Gallus is never more than a guest in the Roman pastoral world, and his desire is only the regret for a life and its pleasures that he could never enjoy. What is more, Lycidas constitutes a mysterious character in Idyll 7, whose associations with poetry have already been noticed by modern scholarship, and thus the relationship of Gallus with Lycidas can also show that the Vergilian intention is to praise the elegiac poet. [Lines 37-41]

Love is one of the central pleasures of the pastoral world, which

Gallus is eager to enjoy: certe siue mihi Phyllis siue esset Amyntas seu quicumque furor (Ecl. 10.37-38)

This pastoral sexual freedom is diametrically opposed to the exclusive devotion that the elegiac mistress demands, and this difference can explain Gallus’ preference for it. What is more, the urban lover Gallus is even prepared to ignore Amyntas’ swarthy appearance, exemplified by a country simile:

Eclogue 10

463

seu quicumque furor quid tum, si fuscus Amyntas? et nigrae uiolae sunt et uaccinia nigra, mecum inter salices lenta sub uite iaceret serta mihi Phyllis legeret, cantaret Amyntas (Ecl. 10.38-41)

This subject has already been employed by Theocritus in Idyll 10,1336 but it is also found in an Asclepiadean epigram:1337 BombÚka carfessa, SÚran kal{ontf tu p£ntej, escn£n, ¡liÒkauston, œgë d੻ mÒnoj melfclwron ai tÕ hon m{lan œstf, kai ¡ grapt¦ Ø£kinqoj· ¢ll' }mpaj œn tolj stef£noij t¦ pr©ta l{gontai (Id. 10.26-29)

Tù qallù DidÚmh me sun›rpasen· êmoi, œgë d੻ t›komai æj khrÕj p¦r purf, k£lloj Ðrîn. ee d੻ m{laina, tf toàto; kai ¥nqrakej· ¢ll' Óte kefnouj q£lywmen, l£mpous' æj ૧Òdeai k£lukej (5 G-P = A.P. 5.210)1338

1336

Coleman 1977, 285-286, Clausen 1994, 303 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 499-500. See also Ecl. 2.14-18 nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidis iras/ atque superba pati fastidia? nonne Menalcan,/ quamuis ille niger, quamuis tu candidus esses?/ o formose puer, nimium ne crede colori:/ alba ligustra cadunt, uaccinia nigra leguntur. 1337 Coleman 1977, 285-286, Clausen 1994, 303 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 499-500. 1338 It should also be mentioned that the antithesis between the natural physical appearance and the artificial complexion embellished with cosmetics had been considered as a typical elegiac subject (cf. Tib. 1.8.9-16; Prop. 1.2.5-8, 2.18.2330). On more about this subject, see Maltby 2002, 305 with further bibliographical references.

Chapter 11

464

Vergil’s simile is based on Theocritus and Asclepiades, who exploit the same conceit that deals with the swarthiness of the love object (fuscus¡liÒkauston/m{laina). The Vergilian structure is based on the Asclepiadean epigram (quid tum, si fuscus ... ?-ee d੻ m{laina, tf toàto;), further combined with the comparison between the beloved’s rustic appearance and a plant drawn from Theocritus (et nigrae uiolae sunt et uaccinia nigra-kai tÕ hon m{lan œstf, kai ¡ grapt¦ Ø£kinqoj). Both Bucaeus and the anonymous speaker of the epigram refer to reality, dealing with factual erotic relationships, in contrast to Gallus, whose effort to find a cure and relief from Lycoris’ love through Phyllis or Amyntas is part of a dream. Gallus is an elegiac character who becomes alienated from the urban world and tries to find solace in pastoral sexual freedom which, however, he is unable to obtain. What stands in his way is that pastoral life and its sexual freedom are mere illusions. This is emphatically illustrated by his intention to be engaged promiscuously with any other pastoral beloved besides Phyllis or Amyntas (cf. seu quicumque furor),1339 although Gallus finally enters the pastoral world, trying to escape from Lycoris’ love through roaming alone in the country and hunting (Ecl. 10.52-60), which shows that he, albeit temporarily (cf. Ecl. 10.60-69), followed Pan’s suggestion.1340 [Lines 42-45]

The fantasy of an idyllic existence is strongly emphasised by

Gallus’ appeal to Lycoris to come to share the country paradise and its natural delights: 1339

See also Ecl. 10.44-45 nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis/ tela inter media atque aduersos detinet hostis, where nunc signals Gallus’ return from the longing reverie for the elegiac way of life. 1340 Cf. Ecl. 10.31-33 tristis at ille 'tamen cantabitis, Arcades,' inquit/ 'montibus haec uestris; soli cantare periti/ Arcades where Gallus’ reply to Pan shows that his love story will be a pastoral song which anticipates that Gallus will enter, albeit temporarily (cf. Ecl. 10.60-69), the pastoral world.

Eclogue 10

465

hic gelidi fontes, hic mollia prata, Lycori, hic nemus; hic ipso tecum consumerer aeuo (Ecl. 10.42-43)

This invitation to the beloved recalls Polyphemus’ account of the country scenery to which Galateia is invited, though the content is emphatically not the same:1341 ¤dion œn têntrJ par' œmin t¦n nÚkta diaxelj. œnti d£fnai thnef, œnti ૧adinai kup£rissoi, }sti m{laj kissÒj, }st' ¥mpeloj ¡ glukÚkarpoj, }sti yucrÕn Ûdwr, tÒ moi ¡ polud{ndreoj Ahtna leuk©j œk ciÒnoj potÕn ¢mbrÒsion proǸhti (Id. 11.44-48)1342

Nonetheless, Gallus and Polyphemus refer to typical locus amoenus versions, which are also articulated by the rhetorical device of anaphora (hic ... hic ... hic ... hic-œnti ... œnti ... œnti ... œnti)1343 and are used in order to seduce the erotic object. This relationship can be reinforced by the effect of the request, because neither Lycoris nor Galateia accept the invitation to join the lover in the country setting. However, Polyphemus

1341

Cucchiarelli 2012, 501. See also Id. 5.31-34 ¤dion sÍ/ teld' ØpÕ t¦n kÒtinon kai t¥lsea taàta kaqfxaj./ yucrÕn Ûdwr toutei katalefbetai· ïde pefÚkei/ pofa, c¢ stib¦j ¤de, kai ¢krfdej ïde laleànti and 45-49 toutei drÚej, ïde kÚpeiroj,/ ïde kalÕn bombeànti poti sm£nessi m{lissai,/ }nq' Ûdatoj yucrî kr©nai dÚo, tai d' œpi d{ndrei/ Ôrnicej lalageànti, kai ¡ ski¦ oÙd੻n Ðmofa/ t´ par¦ tfn· b£llei d੻ kai ¡ pftuj ØyÒqe kènoij, which constitute two more characteristic locus amoenus. Posch 1969, 59 and especially 73-85 argues that Id. 5.31-34 are the source on which the Vergilian verses under consideration draw. 1343 See also Wills 1996, 358-361, who suggests that the fourfold repetition is a typical Gallan feature. 1342

466

Chapter 11

sings a real love song, including an erotic appeal to Galateia, whose refusal is due to the physically incongruent relationship (Cyclops  Nymph). On the other hand, the negative response which Gallus receives is based on Lycoris’ treachery, as she pursues another rival lover on a military campaign (Ecl. 10.46-49). This strongly suggests that the invitation is illusory and unreal, also evidenced by the next two verses that are introduced by the adverb nunc that signals Gallus’ return from his longing reverie to the present plight:1344 nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis tela inter media atque aduersos detinet hostis (Ecl. 10.44-45)

In this respect, Gallus displays close analogies with another elegiac lover, Tibullus. He similarly imagines enjoying his past idyllic existence with Delia before the dream collapses under the harsh reality of war, a relationship also reinforced by the temporal function of the term nunc which, here, is emphatically placed in contrast with tunc:1345 Diuitis hoc uitium est auri, nec bella fuerunt, faginus adstabat cum scyphus ante dapes. Non arces, non uallus erat, somnumque petebat securus sparsas dux gregis inter oues. Tunc mihi uita foret, Valgi, nec tristia nossem arma nec audissem corde micante tubam; nunc ad bella trahor, et iam quis forsitan hostis 1344

Coleman 1977, 286 and Clausen 1994, 304. On a summary of the various interpretations which these two verses have already received, see Coleman 1977, 286-288. 1345 Coleman 1977, 286, Clausen 1994, 304 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 501.

Eclogue 10

467

haesura in nostro tela gerit latere (Tib. 1.10.7-14)1346

Tibullus’ dependence on Vergil can explain the similarities of these passages. On the other hand, the same analogies can indicate that these Vergilian verses employ a subject which Gallus may have employed, thereby supplying Tibullus with Gallan material.1347 [Lines 46-51]

The restoration of reality, however, is accompanied by Lycoris’

infidelity that is fully described by Gallus, who reports the route that the mistress follows to meet her new lover:1348 tu procul a patria nec sit mihi credere tantum Alpinas, a! dura niues et frigora Rheni me sine sola uides. a, te ne frigora laedant! a, tibi ne teneras glacies secet aspera plantas! (Ecl. 10.46-49)

Lycoris’ treachery resembles Cynthia’s quest for a soldier that is reported by the rejected elegiac lover Propertius:1349 1346

See also Tib. 1.3.35-50, which also employs the realisation that the ideal life for which the elegiac lover Tibullus longs belongs to the irretrievable past before the invention of war. On the dream of the elegiac lover Tibullus of the idealised life in the countryside with Delia, see Tib. 1.1 and 1.2.73-76. 1347 Here, it should also be mentioned that the phrase insanus amor can also recall the typical elegiac subject “love as madness”, which may also have been employed by Gallus (Cairns 2006, 111), and therefore it constitutes yet another way used by Vergil in order to compliment the elegiac poet. See also Davis 2011, 35-54. 1348 Cf. also Ecl. 10.22-23 “Galle, quid insanis?” inquit. “tua cura Lycoris/ perque niues alium perque horrida castra secuta est”. 1349 Coleman 1977, 288, Clausen 1994, 291-292, Cairns 2006, 115 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 500-501. See also Prop. 2.19, where the mistress also deserts the lover, though the distress caused by Cynthia’s departure is counterbalanced by the satisfaction of the elegiac lover Propertius that her country residence will keep her away from the temptations of the city life (cf. Prop. 2.19.1-4).

468

Chapter 11 tune audire potes uesani murmura ponti fortis, et in dura naue iacere potes? tu pedibus teneris positas fulcire pruinas, tu potes insolitas, Cynthia, ferre niues? (Prop. 1.8a.5-8)

Both passages deal with the lover’s desertion by the beloved, stressing the common concept of the girl walking on frozen ground (teneras plantaspedibus teneris).1350 This subject, however, is elegiac, confirming that its origin is not found in Vergil. Both Vergil and Propertius may have drawn on a common source which, taken with the fact that he is considered as the precursor of Roman love elegy, should be Gallus.1351 Nonetheless, the absence of the Gallan original (Amores) does not permit certain conclusions for the way in which Vergil could have employed this elegiac motif. Whatever the context, however, it is legitimate to assume that the Gallan rejected lover is situated in an urban setting that is the typical milieu for the elegiac lover.1352 On the other hand, the Vergilian rejected lover (Gallus in Eclogue 10) is situated in a pastoral environment in which he tries to get relief from the erotic distress, rejecting the elegiac by adopting a rather more pastoral stance towards love and life (ibo et

1350

On further parallels between Ecl. 10.46-49 and Prop. 1.8a.1-8, see Papanghelis 1987, 96f. 1351 Cf. Serv. Ecl. 10.46 hi autem omnes uersus Galli sunt, de ipsius translati carminibus. See also Skutsch 1901, 12-13, idem 1906, 18-19 and Ross 1975, 85. 1352 Further support for the urban setting is also offered by the fact that both Prop. 1.8 and 2.19 are propemptica poems (Cairns 1972, s.v. propemptikon), which are based on a propempticon of Gallus to Lycoris which is believed to have existed (Fedeli 1980, 204).

Eclogue 10

469

Chalcidico quae sunt mihi condita uersu/ carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor auena Ecl. 10.50-51).1353 [Lines 52-54]

Despite this announcement, however, Gallus continues to follow

an elegiac stance, which is evidenced by his decision to live in the country: certum est in siluis inter spelaea ferarum malle pati tenerisque meos incidere amores arboribus: crescent illae, crescetis, amores (Ecl. 10.52-54)

The elegiac lover Propertius reacts in the same way, since he imagines himself in a sylvan setting inscribing Cynthia’s name on tender trees: uos eritis testes, si quos habet arbor amores, fagus et Arcadio pinus amica deo. ah quotiens uestras resonant mea uerba sub umbras, scribitur et teneris Cynthia corticibus! (Prop. 1.18.19-22)

Gallus’ Amores are the common source on which Vergil and Propertius are based.1354 This suggestion has already been reinforced by various speculative attempts that tried to identify Gallan stylistic features in these

1353 Whether or not the phrase Chalcidico uersu refers to Euphorion of Chalcis (cf. Quint. 10.1.56) or to the inventor of the elegiac verse-form, Theocles of Naxos or Eretria (Suda s.v. œlegefnein) which is a city near Chalcis, is less important in association with the dramatic situation of the Eclogue. What matters is the expression Siculi auena, which shows Gallus’ decision to resort to the pastoral world to find solace from Lycoris’ erotic passion by following the life of the herdsmen, where music and song are of high importance. 1354 Ross 1975, 71-74 and 88 with n. 2 argues that these passages reproduce the Callimachean love story of Acontius and Cydippe, already employed by Gallus. See also Rosen and Farrell 1986, 241-254 and Cairns 2006, 161.

470

Chapter 11

Vergilian and Propertian verses.1355 However, the elegiac lover Propertius can also recall another rejected elegiac lover, Acontius:1356 ¥grade tù p£sVsin œpi proc£nVsin œfofta (Aet. fr. 72 Pf.)

¢ll' œni d¾ floiolsi kekomm{na tÒssa f{roite gr£mmata, Kudfpphn Óss' œr{ousi kal›n (Aet. fr. 73.1-2 Pf.)1357

Scholars have already noticed that Callimachus’ love story supplies the Propertian elegy with the material that is also the source of the Vergilian fagus. On the other hand, the characteristic coincidences between these elegiac lovers (Gallus, Propertius and Acontius) also suggest that Gallus could have anticipated the role of Acontius which is assumed by Propertius (cf. Prop. 1.18.19-22). However, the lack of the Gallan text suggests that Gallus’ reaction is based on that of Acontius, thereby indicating that his effort to cure his passion for Lycoris is heavily dependent on typical elegiac means (the mythological paradigm of

1355

Skutsch 1901, 13 considers the Vergilian passage as a table of contents (Inhaltsangabe) drawn from Propertius 1.18, Norden 1926, 119 suggests that the hapax legomenon spelaea (Ecl. 10.52) could be a new coined term invented by Gallus, and Ross 1975, 73 believes that the threefold exclamation a found in Ecl. 10.46-49, along with its eminent place in Prop. 1.18.19-24, is a typical Gallan feature (see also Ross 1969, 51-53). See also Cairns 2006, 232, who argues that there is a close relationship between Ecl. 10.53-54 (malle pati tenerisque meos incidere amores/ arboribus: crescent illae, crescetis, amores) and Prop. 1.20.52 (his, o Galle, tuos monitus seruabis amores), based on the place of the term amores in the penultimate verse of Prop. 1.20, suggesting that this could be either a “source-citation” or a reminiscence of its use (as a “source-citation”) in Ecl. 10.54. 1356 Cairns 2006, 110. 1357 Cf. also Aristaen. Epist. 1.10.51-54 and 56-61.

Eclogue 10

471

Acontius).1358 In other words, Gallus’ reaction resembles that of the elegiac lover (Acontius) rather than that of the pastoral lover (Polyphemus or Corydon). [Lines 55-61]

The breaking of Gallus’ original promise to inhabit the pastoral

world is also confirmed by the next verses, where he becomes a hunter: interea mixtis lustrabo Maenala Nymphis aut acris uenabor apros. non me ulla uetabunt frigora Parthenios canibus circumdare saltus. iam mihi per rupes uideor lucosque sonantis ire, libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu spicula tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris, aut deus ille malis hominum mitescere discat (Ecl. 10.55-61)

Hunting has long been considered as a conventional remedy for love passion,1359 and is first identified in Euripides’ Hippolytus:1360 p{mpet{ m' eej Ôroj· eੇmi prÕj Ûlan kai par¦ peÚkaj, gna qhrofÒnoi stefbousi kÚnej balialj œl£foij œgcrimptÒmenai· prÕj qeîn, }ramai kusi qwäxai kai par¦ caftan xanq¦n ૧lyai QessalÕn Órpak', œpflogcon }cous' 1358

On the mythological paradigm in Greek and Roman poetry, see Canter 1933, 201-224. 1359 Cf. Ov. Rem. 199-204 Vel tu uenandi studium cole: saepe recessit/ turpiter a Phoebi uicta sorore Venus./ Nunc leporem pronum catulo sectare sagaci,/ nunc tua frondosis retia tende iugis,/ aut pauidos terre uaria formidine ceruos,/ aut cadat aduersa cuspide fossus aper. See also Cairns 2006, 140 with n. 116. 1360 Clausen 1994, 291 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 505.

Chapter 11

472 œn ceiri b{loj

(Hipp. 215-222)

Phaedra’s behaviour is later adopted by the elegiac lover Propertius,1361 who also takes up hunting, having moved from the town to the countryside in order to be near Cynthia:1362 ipse ego uenabor: iam nunc me sacra Dianae suscipere et Ueneris ponere uota iuuat. incipiam captare feras et reddere pinu cornua et audacis ipse monere canes; non tamen ut uastos ausim temptare leones aut celer agrestis comminus ire sues. haec igitur mihi sit lepores audacia mollis excipere et structo fallere auem calamo, qua formosa suo Clitumnus flumina luco integit, et niueos abluit unda boues (Prop. 2.19.17-26)1363

Both Euripides and Gallus (through Propertius)1364 deal with a sylvan setting, stressing the activity of hunting as a possible means of alleviating their erotic suffering. In view of that, they show close analogies with the 1361

Cairns 2006, 140-142. See also Ov. Her. 4.37-52, where Phaedra’s new hunting pursuits show analogies with a similar account of her hunting ravings in Eur. Hipp. 207-249. See Michalopoulos 2006, ad loc. 1362 Coleman 1977, 290, Clausen 1994, 291 with n. 12 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 505. 1363 See also Tib. 1.4.49-50 Nec, uelit insidiis altas si claudere ualles,/ dum placeas, umeri retia ferre negent; it is pointed out by Skutsch 1901, 15-16 that this reinforces the assumption that hunting is a Gallan subject. See also Maltby 2002, ad loc. and Cairns 2006, 140-142. 1364 Similarly to the earlier references, the strong analogies between Vergil and Propertius here suggest that they have drawn on some common source, now lost to us, which should be Gallus’ Amores.

Eclogue 10

473

Vergilian verses, reinforced by the verbal correspondences uenaboruenabor, acris apros-agrestis sues, canibus-kÚnej/ canes, saltus-prÕj Ûlan/ kai par¦ peÚkaj, lucosque-luco and libet torquere-}ramai ૧lyai. However, Phaedra and the elegiac lover Propertius turn to the countryside and engage in hunting to find solace by being together or near the beloved in contrast to Gallus, who moves to the mountains to escape from the erotic torment of Lycoris.1365 This contradiction can show that Gallus’ reaction is based on that of the Arcadian hunter Milanion, who finds solace from his passion for Atalanta by wandering alone in the countryside,1366 hunting wild creatures:1367 Milanion nullos fugiendo, Tulle, labores saeuitiam durae contudit Iasidos. nam modo Partheniis amens errabat in antris, rursus in hirsutas ibat et ille feras; ille etiam Hylaei percussus uulnere rami saucius Arcadiis rupibus ingemuit. ergo uelocem potuit domuisse puellam: tantum in amore fides et benefacta ualent (Prop. 1.1.9-16)

Gallus and Milanion are found roaming (lustrabo-errabat) and hunting (acris uenabor apros-rursus in hirsutas ibat et ille feras), and are further

1365

See also Fedeli 2005, 560-561, who emphasises the playing down of the Propertian hunting self-presentation, in strong contrast to the vigorous Gallan hunting image laid out in the Vergilian collection. 1366 Cairns 2006, 112 argues that there is a close relationship between Ecl. 10.5859 and Prop. 1.1.29-30, 1.18, 1.20.13-14 based on the natural solitude that reflects in its desolation the situation of the unhappy lover, which constitutes a Gallan subject. 1367 Cairns 2006, 140.

Chapter 11

474

placed in exactly the same sylvan background (Parthenios saltus-in Partheniis antris).1368 Furthermore, the mountain Parthenius is here found for the first time in Roman poetry; if we leave aside the usual suggestion that Propertius draws on Vergil, we may further speculate that this certain reference could also come from Gallus.1369 Gallus and Propertius play the role of Milanion, presumably based on some elegy where Gallus analogised himself to Milanion.1370 Nonetheless, Milanion’s reaction was successful in contrast to the elegiac lover Propertius, whose effort had an entirely negative outcome:1371 in me tardus Amor non ullas cogitat artes, nec meminit notas, ut prius, ire uias (Prop. 1.1.17-18)

Gallus fails to overcome the obsequium amoris (iam neque Hamadryades rursus nec carmina nobis/ ipsa placent; ipsae rursus concedite siluae Ecl. 10.62-63), and his journey concludes with his return to the elegiac way of life (Ecl. 10.64-69). Nonetheless, the way in which Vergil uses hunting can confirm that this constitutes a typical elegiac subject, which also has its roots in the Gallan Amores.

1368

Hubaux 1930, 95-96 with n. 1 suggests that the Vergilian epithet Parthenios reflects the sophisticated compliment paid by Gallus to Parthenius, who is a striking source for this Roman elegist. See also Cairns 2006, 110. 1369 Skutsch 1901, 15, Ross 1975, 85 and Du Quesnay 1979, 62 with n. 214. See also Cairns 2006, 140. 1370 See also Cairns 2006, 110, who argues that Gallus may have analogised himself with Parthenius’ Milanion. 1371 Cf. also Ov. AA 2.185-96, where the mythological exemplum of Milanion and Atalanta is also applied to Ovid’s amatory situation with positive results.

Eclogue 10 [Lines 61-68]

475

Gallus’ decision to give up the pastoral world definitively is the

natural outcome of his realisation that there is no remedy for his erotic suffering:1372 aut deus ille malis hominum mitescere discat. iam neque Hamadryades rursus nec carmina nobis ipsa placent; ipsae rursus concedite siluae. non illum nostri possunt mutare labores (Ecl. 10.61-64)

Nonetheless, this statement is paradoxically expressed by a country analogy referring to Thrace and Africa, which are identified with extreme climatic zones: nec si frigoribus mediis Hebrumque bibamus Sithoniasque niues hiemis subeamus aquosae, nec si, cum moriens alta liber aret in ulmo, Aethiopum uersemus ouis sub sidere Cancri (Ecl. 10.65-68)

These Vergilian verses recall the Theocritean collection and especially Simichidas’ song, which is concerned with a prayer to Pan:1373

1372

Here, it is worth noting that Gallus’ search for medicina furoris and his realisation that there is no remedy for love in Ecl. 10.51-60 are closely related to Prop. 1.1.19-30, which may derive from Gallus’ Amores. See Cairns 2006, 111. Moreover, Cairns 2006, 100-101 claims that medicina on the basis that is identified in Prop. 1.2.7-8, 1.5.27-28, 1.10.17-18, 2.1.57-58 and 3.17.3-4 is a term that came to Propertius from Gallus, suggesting also that Ecl. 10.61 is so close to many of these Propertian verses that it must Gallan in content. 1373 Coleman 1977, 292, Clausen 1994, 309-310 and Cucchiarelli 2012, 508-509.

476

Chapter 11 ehhj d' 'Hdwnîn m੻n œn êresi cefmati m{ssJ “Ebron p¦r potamÕn tetramm{noj œggÚqen ”Arktw, œn d੻ q{rei pum£toisi par' AeqiÒpessi nomeÚoij p{trv Ûpo BlemÚwn, Óqen oÙk{ti Nelloj ÐratÒj (Id. 7.111-13)

Vergil and Theocritus stress the extreme Thracian cold and African heat which Gallus and Pan may have to confront, articulated by certain toponymic and anthroponymic terms (Hebrumque-“Ebron and Aethiopum ouis-par' AeqiÒpessi). Nevertheless, Theocritus uses this analogy to underline the harshness of the penalty imposed on Pan, which is to roam continually at the ends of the inhabited world. In contrast, Vergil identifies the same regions with the wild and remote places in which Gallus will seek cure and relief from the erotic passion of Lycoris.1374 The lack of a remedy strengthens Gallus’ decision to leave the country. This renunciation is characteristically expressed in pastoral terms (country analogies), but then comes the recognition of Eros’ invincibility (Ecl. 10.69), which signifies the impending returns of Gallus to elegy1375 and of Vergil to pastoral (Ecl. 10.70-77): 1374

See also Cairns 2006, 112, who observes that Ecl. 10.65-68 are related to Prop. 1.1.29 in employing the ends of the earth topos, which constitutes a Gallan subject. 1375 The elegiac origin of the line was noticed by Grondona 1977, 26-29, who argues that the phrase omnia uincit Amor would accord with a Gallan pentameter (cf. Tib. 1.4.40 cedas: obsequio plurima vincet amor), laying emphasis also on the anaphora Amor ... Amori which is a typical Tibullan closural device possibly originating with Gallus (Maltby 2002, 150f. with further examples). Furthermore, Maltby 2002, 227 suggests that this Tibullan phrase may be based on the etymological play Venus-uincere (Cairns 1996, 27 and 35 with n. 16), which could also be applied to the Vergilian verse omnia uincit Amor, implying Aphrodite’s final victory over Diana (Ecl. 10.55-60) or more generally over Gallus. See also Cairns 2006, 107-108, who examines in detail the phraseology of the line in comparison to similar verses drawn from the Aeneid, the Ciris, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid, suggesting that Gallus wrote something similar in some of his elegies.

Eclogue 10

477

omnia uincit Amor: et nos cedamus Amori Haec sat erit, diuae, uestrum cecinisse poetam, dum sedet et gracili fiscellam texit hibisco, Pierides: uos haec facietis maxima Gallo, Gallo, cuius amor tantum mihi crescit in horas, quantum uere nouo uiridis se subicit alnus. Surgamus: solet esse grauis cantantibus umbra, iuniperi grauis umbra; nocent et frugibus umbrae. Ite domum saturae, uenit Hesperus, ite, capellae (Ecl. 10.69-77)

[Conclusions]

To sum up, Eclogue 10 constitutes Vergil’s encomium for the

elegist Caius Cornelius Gallus, and therefore it may recall the other encomiastic references to literary characters that run through the collection.1376 The Eclogue’s encomiastic nature is evident from the Greek and Roman sources and the way in which they are used. Callimachus’ Hymn to Apollo, Theocritus (Idylls 1, 7, 10 and 11), pseudo-Theocritus (Idyll 8), Asclepiades, Moschus and Gallus (the main Roman source) are all brought together here to create an encomium for Gallus. This is first achieved through the notable encomiastic sources that are used in order to strengthen the Eclogue’s encomiastic character such as Callimachus, but most significantly, it is also achieved through the way in which Vergil handles the other sources, equating Gallus to typical country characters such as Daphnis and Adonis. Moreover, Vergil’s encomium for Gallus emerges through traditional elegiac subjects and themes, which can easily be identified throughout the Eclogue. The lover’s pleasure in imagining his own death, the lover’s dream shattered by the harsh reality of war, the 1376

Cf. Ecl. 3.84-91 (Pollio), 4.11-12 (Pollio), 6.64-73 (Gallus), 8.6-13 (Octavian/Pollio?) and 9.35-36 (Varius and Cinna).

478

Chapter 11

lover’s desertion by his mistress for a rival, the erotic triangle, the lover’s quest for a cure by resorting to the countryside, love as madness and hunting as a remedy for love constitute subjects employed by subsequent elegists. Most importantly, however, they are subjects that could be merely implied or extensively treated in Gallus’ Amores, thereby confirming that this was another indirect way used by Vergil to honour the elegist by spreading the Gallan elegies out in the Eclogues or, in other words, among the readers of Roman pastoral (ibo et Chalcidico quae sunt mihi condita uersu/ carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor auena Ecl. 10.50-51).1377

1377 Here, it should be mentioned that the conclusions about Vergil’s dependence on Gallus’ love poetry are suggestive and not conclusive, though some of them have received significant support from scholars. Whatever Vergil’s relationship with Gallus is, however, it is based on the grounds that Gallus is the precursor of Roman love elegy which recalls the question –which was unanswered even in antiquity – of whether or not Latin love elegy existed before Gallus. The literary “canon”, which had been set down by Ovid and later confirmed by Quintilian, certainly contains the names of Gallus, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid (cf. Ov. Tr. 4.10.51-54, AA 3.333-34. See also Quint. 10.1.93). On the other hand, its validity remains unclear given the evidence quoted by the elegists, who further classify Catullus among the Roman elegiac or love poets (cf. Prop. 2.34.87-88; Ov. Am. 3.9.61-62 and Tr. 2.1.427-28). Thus, it is much more likely that this “canon” is a list of Roman poets who dealt mostly or only with the elegiac genre rather than a catalogue of Roman elegists. The first Roman elegiac poems have their roots in the Catullan collection (Cat. 65, 66, 67 and 68), but none of them is recalled in Eclogue 10. Moreover, it is clearly certain that Catullus is not the originator of Roman elegy; nonetheless, the feature of personal emotion, which is typical of the later Augustan subjective elegy, is an element which is also found in the Catullan corpus as well as in earlier Latin epigram writers such as Catulus, Valerius Aedituus and Porcius Licinus. This would also introduce these authors into the literary background of the Eclogue, complicating even more the conflation between Greek and Roman sources identified in the Eclogue, but reinforcing further the suggestion that Eclogue 10 is an encomium for an elegiac poet.

CHAPTER 12 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS The primary subject of exploration in this study has been Vergil’s use of Greek and Roman sources in the Eclogues and, although most of these sources were already known before, it should be noted that no systematic treatment of them existed previously. Vergil’s intertextual dialogue with the earlier Greek and Roman traditions is not only the conventional way in which Roman literature was written in the 1st c. BC; most importantly, it is also a dynamic literary method used by Vergil in order to affect and define the character of each Eclogue, shedding new light on the way in which we can read and interpret each Eclogue separately and the entire collection generally. The Greek and Roman sources identified in this study and the ways in which they are handled by Vergil create a programmatic poetic composition (Eclogue 1), a Roman country komos (Eclogue 2), two singing contests between Roman herdsmen (Eclogues 3 and 7), a Roman pastoral encomium (Eclogue 4), a Roman pastoral lament-encomium (Eclogue 5), a Hellenistic-Neoteric composition (Eclogue 6), an urban pastoral composition (Eclogue 8), a Roman Thalysia (Eclogue 9) and an encomium for the elegist Gallus (Eclogue 10). In other words, the Vergilian collection is largely based on various intertextual levels, which are the “conventional quotations” or “direct quotations” that can be further divided into other subcategories such as: i) “thematic” quotations; ii) “linguistic” quotations; iii) “oppositio in imitando”; iv) “double

Chapter 12

480

quotations”; v) “multiple” quotations; vi) “self-quotations”; and vii) “unconventional quotations” or “indirect quotations”. The “conventional quotations” or “direct quotations” are associated with sources that Vergil recalls and which even the unfamiliar reader can easily identify. Here, Vergil’s relationship with the Greek and Roman traditions is mostly based on thematic and linguistic (structural, metrical and verbal) correspondences between the Vergilian text and its sources (Eclogues 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10). What is more, there is the Vergilian tendency to refer to or recall his own work (intratextuality), which constitutes a critical literary technique that has a dominant role in the creation of the Vergilian collection (Eclogue 9). On the other hand, the “unconventional quotations” or “indirect quotations” are exclusively related to sources that are treated “unorthodoxically” by Vergil. Vergil’s dialogue with the earlier Greek and Roman traditions is here not based in a strict sense on specific thematic or verbal relationships between text and intertext. On the contrary, it deals mostly (or sometimes only) with literary subjects, mythological references, structure, style, metre, language and common elements between the Vergilian text and its sources (Eclogues 4 and 6); hence, it becomes evident that Eclogues 4 and 6 do not contain Vergil’s quotations from the Greek and Roman traditions but only characteristic similarities and analogies, thereby confirming the suggestion that these Eclogues expand the limits of the pastoral genre. Vergil’s indebtedness to the Theocritean collection is thorough and conclusive; however, most modern commentators and scholars restrict the number of Idylls that were used by Vergil during the composition of the Eclogues exclusively to the so-called Artemidorus collection (Idylls 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). Nonetheless, having examined each Eclogue,

General Conclusions

481

it should be clear by now that Vergil’s knowledge of the Theocritean collection in the form that has come down to us is much greater than this. Certain quotations from Idylls 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 increases this number and consequently our knowledge about Vergil’s relationship with Theocritus. On the other hand, we cannot specify the literary pieces that Artemidorus’ corpus included, or under what title Vergil knew Theocritus’ creations, or what Vergil called his own. Most importantly, Vergil was not aware of the later development that the pastoral genre had or of the definitions which have been established by modern scholars. As a result, by the term “pastoral”, Vergil may consider literary pieces written in the manner of Theocritus and his successors, but not “pastoral” in the strict sense. This view explains Vergil’s dependence on the so-called non-pastoral Idylls (Idylls 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26, which this study has indicated); it also justifies Vergil’s indebtedness to Bion, Moschus and the anonymous author of the Lament for Bion, whose influence on the Eclogues has long been questioned on the grounds that, with the sole exceptions of the Doric dialect and the dactylic hexameter, the works of those authors could hardly be considered as “pastoral”. Lucretius’ influence on the Eclogues is based on structure and language rather than on subject, thereby stressing that Vergil’s relationship with the De Rerum Natura is not a relationship with a Roman philosophical source, but with a Roman literary source. Vergil tends to cancel out the scientific explanation given in the De Rerum Natura by reversing the Lucretian ideas identified in the collection through the oppositio in imitando technique, which is thus almost exclusively used with this antecedent. In view of that, though Vergil’s association with Epicurean philosophy was very close (Siro), we may argue that the

Chapter 12

482

Eclogues are unfertile ground for philosophical disputationes,1378 and when this happens, laughter and humour arises (Corydon’s Epicurean theory on mirrors (Ecl. 2.25-27) and Silenus’ cosmogony (Ecl. 6.31-40)). This book comes to its end with the hopeful thought that this is not a conclusive study on the Greek and Roman sources and the ways in which they are used by Vergil. No doubt new sources can be traced as well as further parallels with known sources, and more subtle and thorough interpretations can be provided by future scholars. However, the most fertile field of inquiry for future research could be the Greco-Roman sources in Greek and Latin pastoral, from Theocritus to Nemesianus. This would produce a deeper and perhaps clearer understanding of the sources and the ways in which they are used by each author within the GrecoRoman tradition.

1378

Pace Davis 2012.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbreviations of standard works of reference BNP Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (eds.) (2002-). Brill’s New Pauly: encyclopaedia of the ancient world, Leiden. DNP Cancik, H. and Schneider, H. (1996-). Der neue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, Stuttgart. EM Gaisford, T. (1967). Etymologicon Magnum, seu verius lexicon saepissime vocabulorum originem indagans ex pluribus lexicisscholiastis et grammaticis anonymi cuisdam opera concinnatum, Amsterdam. LSJ Liddell, H.J. and Scott, R. (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon revised and augmented throughout by H.S. Jones, 9th edition, Oxford. M-W Merkelbach, R. and West. M.L. (eds.) (1967). Fragmenta Hesiodea, Oxford. OCD Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds.) (1996). The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 3rd edition, Oxford. OLD Glare, P.G.W. et al. (eds.) (1968-1982). Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford. LIMC Ackermann, H.C. and Gisler, J.R. (eds.) (1981-1999). Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae, Zurich.

484

Bibliography

LGPN Fraser, P.M. and Matthews, E. (eds.) (1987-). Lexicon of Greek personal names, Oxford. L-P Lobel, E. and Page, D. (1955). Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, Oxford. P.M.G. Preisendanz, K. (1973-1974). Papyri Graecae Magicae. Die griechischen Zauberpapyri I-II, Stuttgart. RE Wissova, G.-Kroll, W.-Mittelhaus K. and Ziegler, K. (eds.) (1893-1978). Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumwissenschaft, Stuttgart. SH Lloyd-Jones, H. and Parsons, P. (1983). Supplementum Hellenisticum, Berlin and New York. TrGF Snell, B.R.-Kannicht, R.-Radt, S. (eds.) (1971-2004). Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta vols. I-V, Gottingen. TLG Stephanus, H. et al. (1831-1965). Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, 3rd edition, Paris. TLL Wölffin et al. (1900-). Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig.

Books and articles Acél, Z. (2007). “Der Orpheus des Epitaphios Bionos in den Werken von Vergil und Ovid,” AAntHung 47: 349-368. Adams, J.N. (1981). “A type of sexual euphemism in Latin,” Phoenix 35: 120-128. —. (1982). The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London. Adams, J.N. and Mayer, R.G. (1999). Aspects of the Language of Latin Poetry, Oxford. Alexiou, M. (1974). The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition, Cambridge. Alfonsi, L. (1960). “Codro Euforioneo,” Aegyptus 40: 315-317.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

485

Allen, G. (2000). Intertextuality, London. Alpers, P. (1979). The Singer of the Eclogues: A Study of Virgilian Pastoral with a New Translation of the Eclogues, Berkeley/Los Angeles/London. —. “Theocritean bucolic and Virgilian pastoral,” Arethusa 23: 19-47. —. (1996). What is Pastoral, Chicago, London. Anderson, R.D.-Parsons, P.J.-Nisbet, R.G.M. (1979). “Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrîm,” JRS 69: 125-155. Argentieri, L. (1998). “Epigramma e libro. Morfologia delle raccolte epigrammatiche premeleagree,” ZPE 121: 1-20. Arkins, B. (1990). “A note on Virgil, Eclogues 10.4-6,” LCM 15: 66. Arnold, B. (1994-1995). “The literary experience of Vergil’s fourth Eclogue,” CJ 90: 143-160. Arnott, G.W. (2007). Birds in the Ancient World from A to Z, London. Axelson, B. (1945). Unpoetische Wörter. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache, Lund. Babiþ, M. (2008). “Statistische Bemerkungen zur Sprache Vergils,” in S. Freund & M. Vielberg (edd.). Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Stuttgart: 259-266. Bailey, C. (1947). Titi Lucreti Cari. De Rerum Natura Libri Sex edited with Prolegomena, Critical Apparatus, Translation and Commentary Vols. I-III, Oxford. Baines, A. (1967). Woodwind Instruments and their History with a Foreword by Sir Adrian Boult, London. Bakhtin, M.M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics translated and edited by C. Emerson, Minneapolis. Baldry, H.C. (1952). “Who invented the Golden age?,” CQ 46: 83-92. Baldwin, B. (1991). “Eclogue 6: the simple explanation,” SO 66: 97-107. Barber, E.A. (1960). Sexti Propertii Carmina, 2nd edition, Oxford. Barchiesi, A. (1997). “Virgilian narrative: Ecphrasis,” in C. Martindale (ed.) The Cambridge companion to Virgil, Cambridge: 271-281. Barigazzi, A. (1949). “Ad Verg. Ecl. VII, 25 et Euphor. 140 P. (A.P. VI, 279),” SIFC 24: 29-31. —. (1975). “Per l’ interpretazione dell’ Id. 5 di Teocrito e dell’ Ecl. 3 di Virgilio,” AC 44: 54-78. Barker, D. (1996). “The Golden age is proclaimed? The Carmen saeculare and the renascence of the Golden race,” CQ 46: 434-446. Barra, G. (1952). “Le bucoliche e la formazione spirituale e poetica di Virgilio,” RAAN 27: 7-31.

486

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1968). “La mort de l’auteur” Manteia 5: 61-67 = Barthes, R. (2002). “The death of the author,” in W. Irwin (ed.) The Death and Resurrection of the Author?, Westport. —. (1977). Image Music Text. London. Barwick, C. (1964). Flavii Sosipatri Charisii Artis Grammaticae Libri V, Leipzig. Baudy, G.J. (1993). “Hirtenmythos und Hirtenlied. Zu den rituellen Aspekten der bu-kolischen Dichtung,” Poetica 25: 282-318. Beare, W. (1968). The Roman Stage: a Short History of Latin Drama in the Time of the Republic, London. Beckby, H. (1957-1958). Anthologia Graeca I-IV, Munich. —. (1975). Die griechischen Bukoliker. Theokrit, Moschos, Bion, Meisenheim. Becker, A.S. (1999). “Poetry as equipment for living,” CI 6: 1-22. Benedetto, A.S.J. (1938). “Shade and coolness in Vergil’s pastorals,” CB 14: 69-70. Berg, W. (1965). “Daphnis and Prometheus,” TAPhA 96: 11-23. —. (1974). Early Virgil, London. Berkowitz, L. (1972). “Pollio and the date of the fourth Eclogue,” CSCA 5: 21-38. Bernardi Perini, G. (2002). “La ‘bucula’ disperata (Verg. Ecl. 8, 85-89),” Paideia 57: 24-33. Bernsdorff, H. (2011). “Der Schluss von Theokrits Herakliskos und Vergils vierter Ekloge,” ARF 57: 187-194. Betensky, A. (1976). “A Lucretian version of pastoral,” Ramus 5: 45-58. Bethe, E. (1892). “Zur ersten, neunten und achten Ecloge,” RhM 47: 575596. Bettini, M. (1972). “Corydon, Corydon,” SCO 21: 261-276. Beyers, E.E. (1962). “Vergil: Eclogue 7-A theory of poetry,” AClass 5: 38-47. Bignone, E. (1945). Storia della Letteratura Latina II: la Prosa Romana sino all’Età di Cesare. Lucilio. Lucrezio. Catullo, Florence. Bloom, H. (1973). The Anxiety of Influence, New York. —. (1975). A Map of Misreading, New York. —. (1976). Poetry and Repression: Revisionism from Blake to Stevens, New York. —. (1982). Agon: Towards a Theory of Revisionism, New York. Blundell, S. (1986). The Origins of Civilization in Greek and Roman Thought, London, Sydney. Bollack, M. (1967). “Le retour de Saturne (une étude de la IVe Églogue),” REL 45: 304-324.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

487

Boneschanscher, E.J. (1982). “Procne’s absence again,” CQ 32: 148-151. Boucher, J.P. (1965). Études sur Properce: problèmes d’inspiration et d’art, Paris. —. (1966). Caius Cornelius Gallus, Paris. Bowie, E.L. (1985). “Theocritus’ seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus,” CQ 35: 67-91. Bowersock, G.W. (1971). “A date in the eighth Eclogue,” HSPh 75: 7380. —. (1978). “The addressee of the eighth Eclogue: a response,” HSPh 82: 201-202. Brandt, R. (2005). Arkadien in Kunst, Philosophie und Dichtung, Freiburg. Braun, L. (1969). “Adynata und versus intercalaris im Lied Damons (Vergil, Ecl. 8),” Philologus 113: 292-297. Breed, B.W. (2000a). “Silenus and the ‘imago uocis’ in Eclogue 6,” HSPh 100: 327-339. —. (2000b). “Imitations of originality: Theocritus and Lucretius at the start of the Eclogues,” Vergilius 46: 3-20. —. (2006). Pastoral Inscriptions: Reading and Writing Virgil’s Eclogues, London. —. (2006b). “Time and Textuality in the Book of the Eclogues,” in M. Fantuzzi & T.D. Papanghelis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden: 333-367. Brenk, F.E. (1981). “War and the shepherd: the tomb of Bianor in Vergil’s ninth Eclogue,” AJPh 102: 427-430. Briggs, Jr.W.W. (1981). “A bibliography of Virgil’s ‘Eclogues’ (19271977),” ANRW II 31.2: 1267-1357. Brink, C.O. (1971). Horace on Poetry. The Ars Poetica, Cambridge. Broich, U. (1985). “Formen der Markierung von Intersexualität,” in U. Broich and M. Pfister (eds.) Intersexualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien, Tübingen: 31-47. Brown, E.L. (1963). Numeri Vergiliani: Studies in Eclogues and Georgics, Bruxelles. Brown, E.L. (1981). “The Lycidas of Theocritus’ Idyll 7,” HSPh 85: 59100. Brown, M.K. (2002). The Narratives of Konon. Text, Translation and Commentary of the Diegeseis, Leipzig. Buchheit, V. (1986a). “Frühling in den Eklogen. Vergil und Lukrez,” RhM 129: 123-141. —. (1986b). “Tierfriede in der Antike,” WJA 12: 143-167. Büchner, K. (1982). Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et Lyricorum, Leipzig.

488

Bibliography

Bühler, W. (1960). Die Europa des Moschos. Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Wiesbaden. Buller, J.L. (1981). “The pathetic fallacy in Hellenistic pastoral,” Ramus 10: 35-52. Butler, H.E. (1912). Propertius with an English Translation, London. Cairns, F. (1969). “Propertius I.18 and Callimachus, Acontius and Cydippe,” CR 19: 131-134. —. (1972). Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry, Edinburgh. —. (1977). “Two unidentified komoi of Propertius I 3 and II 29,” Emerita 45.2: 325-353. —. (1984). “Theocritus’ first Idyll. The literary programme,” WS 18: 89113. —. (1992). “Theocritus, Idyll 26,” PCPhS 38: 1-38. —. (1996). “Ancient ‘etymology’ and Tibullus”: on the classification of ‘etymologies’ and on ‘etymological markers,’” PCPhS 42: 24-59. —. (1999). “Virgil’s Eclogue 1.1-2: a literary programme?,” HSPh 99: 289-293. —. (2006). Sextus Propertius. The Augustan Elegist, Cambridge. —. (2008a). “Two further reminiscences of Callimachus Aetia frr. 67-75 in Eclogue 2?,” SO 83.1: 45-51. —. (2008b). “C. Asinius Pollio and the Eclogues,” CCJ 54: 49-79. —. (2015). “‘Fat victim and fat cheese (Vergil Eclogue 1.33-5),’” in H-C. Günther (ed.), Virgilian Studies: A Miscellany dedicated to the Memory of Mario Geymonat (Studia Classica et Mediaevalia 10), Nordhausen: 27-38. Cameron, A. (1993). The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes, Oxford. —. (1995). Callimachus and His Critics, Princeton. Campbell, J.S. (1982). “Damoetas’s riddle: a literary solution,” CJ 78.1: 122-126. Campbell, M. (1991). Moschus. Europa edited with Introduction and Commentary, Hildesheim. Cancik, H. (1986). “‘Delicias domini’. Ein kulturgeschichtlicher Versuch zu Vergil, Ekloge II,” in U.J. Stache, W. Maaz and F. Wagner (eds.) Kontinuität und Wandel: Lateinische Poesie von Naevius bis Baudelaire. Franco Munari zum 65. Geburtstag, Hildesheim: 15-34. Canter, H.V. (1920). “The Paraclausithyron as a Literary Theme,” AJPh 41.4: 355-368. —. (1933). “The mythological paradigm in Greek and Latin poetry,” AJPh 54: 201-224.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

489

Carpenter, T.H. (1986). Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art. Its Development in Black-figure Vase Painting, Oxford. Cartault, A. (1897). Etude sur les Bucoliques de Virgile, Paris. Casanova-Robin, H. (2007). “Jeux d’encadrement dans les Bucoliques: éléments de poétique et d’esthétique vir-giliennes (pour une esthétique du couplet),” Euphrosyne N.S. 35: 105-124. Castelli, G. (1966). “Echi lucreziani nelle Ecloghe virgiliane,” RSC 14: 313-342. Castelli, G. (1967). “Echi lucreziani nelle Ecloghe virgiliane,” RSC 15: 1439, 176-216. Chambert, R. (2003). “L’influence de Lucrèce dans les poèmes de jeunesse de Virgile,” in A. Monet (ed.). Le jardin romain. Épicurisme et poésie à Rome. Mélanges offerts à Maypotte Bollack, Lille: 247-264. Tartari Chersoni, M. (2008). “Motivi aristofaneschi nelle Bucoliche ‘romane’ di Virgilio?,” GIF 60: 91-103. Cichorius, C. (1922). Römische Studien. Historisches, Epigraphisches, Literargeschichtliches aus vier Jahrhunderten Roms, Leipzig. Cipolla, G. (1962). “Political audacity and esotericism in the ninth Eclogue,” AClass 5: 48-57. Clausen, W.V. (1955). “Silva coniecturarum,” AJPh 76: 47-62. —. (1964). “Callimachus and Latin poetry,” GRBS 5: 181-196. —. (1976). “Cynthius,” AJPh 97: 245-247. —. (1977). “Cynthius: an addendum,” AJPh 98: 362. —. (1994). Virgil. Eclogues with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. —. (1987). Virgil’s Aeneid and the Tradition of Hellenistic Poetry, Berkeley. Clauss, J.J. (2002-2003). “Large and illyrical waters in Vergil's eighth «Eclogue»,” Hermathena 173-174: 165-173. Clay, J.S. (1974). “Damoetas’s riddle and the structure of Vergil’s third Eclogue,” Philologus 118: 59-64. Coleiro, E. (1979). An Introduction to Vergil’s Bucolics with a Critical Edition of the Text, Amsterdam. Coleman, R. (1962). “Gallus, the Bucolics, and the ending of the fourth Georgic,” AJPh 83: 55-71. —. (1966). “Tityrus and Meliboeus,” G&R 13: 79-97. —. (1977). Vergil. Eclogues, Cambridge. Collin, F. (2006). “Poétique de l’Arcadie, de Virgile à Bonnefoy,” BAGB: 92-122. Connolly, J. (2001). “Picture Arcadia: The Politics of Representation in Vergil’s Eclogues,” Vergilius 47: 89-116.

490

Bibliography

Conrad, C.W. (1965). “Traditional patterns of word-order in Latin epic from Ennius to Vergil,” HSPh 69: 195-258. Conte, G.B. (1986). The Rhetoric of Imitation. Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and other Latin Poets Translated from the Italian and Edited with a Foreword by Charles Segal, Ithaca and London. Copley, F.O. (1937). “The pathetic fallacy in early Greek poetry,” AJPh 58: 194-209. —. (1940). “The suicide paraclausithyron: a study of Ps.-Theocritus Idyll XXIII,” TAPhA 51: 52-61. —. (1956). Exclusus Amator. A Study in Latin Love Poetry, New York. Coppola, A. (1998). “Asinio Pollione poeta. Nota a Verg. Ecl. 8,6-10,” RFIC 126: 170-174. Costa, C.D.N. (2001). Greek Fictional Letters, Oxford. Courtney, E. (1990). “Vergil’s sixth Eclogue,” QUCC 63: 99-112. —. (1993). The Fragmentary Latin Poets Edited with Commentary, Oxford. —. (2003/2004). “The ‘Greek’ Accusative,” CJ 99: 425-431. Crowther, N.B. (1979). “Water and wine as symbols of inspiration,” Mnemosyne 32: 1-11. Cucchiarelli, A. (2012). Publio Virgilio Marone. Le Bucoliche. Introduzione e Commento. Traduzione di Alfonso Traina, Roma. Currie, H.M. (1976). “The third Eclogue and the Roman comic spirit,” Mnemosyne 29: 411-420. D’Anna, G. (1987). “Virg. Ecl. 9, 32-36 e Prop. 2, 34, 83-84,” in S. Boldrini et al. (eds.) Filologia e Forme Letterarie: Studi Offerti a Francesco Della Corte 2, Urbino: 427-438. —. (1998). “La natura idealizzata: l’Arcadia nella poesia classica,” in R. Uglione (ed.) Atti del convegno nazionale di studi: l’uomo antico e la natura, Torino: 254-269. Dahlmann, H. (1966). “Zu Vergils siebentem Hirtengedicht,” Hermes 94: 218-232. Damon, P. (1961). “Modes of analogy in ancient and medieval verse,” UCPCPh 15: 261-334. Davies, P.V. (1969). Macrobius. The Saturnalia Translated with Introduction and Notes, New York and London. Davis, G. (2012). Parthenope: The Interplay of Ideas in Vergilian Bucolic, Leiden, Boston. Day, A.A. (1984). The Origins of Latin Love-Elegy, Hildesheim. Delignon, B. (2006). “Frontières pastorales et frontières génériques dans les Bucoliques de Virgile: une poétique de la menace,” VL 174: 38-50. Della Corte, F. (1967). Virgilio-Le Bucoliche, Milano/Verona.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

491

—. (1983). “Brindisi e Virgilio,” in Atti del Convegno Virgiliano di Brindisi nel Bimillenario della morte (Brindisi 15-18 Octobre 1981): 1-15, Instituto di Filologia Latina dell’ Universita di Perugia. Deremetz, A. (1987). “Le carmen deductum ou le fil du poème: à propos de Virgile Buc. VI,” Latomus 46: 762-777. Desport, M. (1952). L’incantation virgilienne. Essai sur les mythes du poète enchanteur et leur influence dans l’œuvre de Virgile, Bordeaux. Dick, B.F. (1968). “Ancient pastoral and the pathetic fallacy,” Comp. Lit. 20: 27-44. —. (1970). “Vergil’s pastoral poetic: a reading of the first Eclogue,” AJPh 91: 277-293. Di Meo, P. (2008). “Figure pastorali da Teocrito a Virgilio: questioni di onomastica,” Aevum N.S. 8: 209-222. Dillon, J. (1992). “Plato and Golden Age,” Hermathena 152: 21-36. Dion, J. (2006). “Les étoiles dans les Bucoliques: astronomie et poétique,” REL 84: 82-102. Disch, H. (1921). De Poetis Aevi Augusti Epicureis, Diss. Ph.D, Bonn. Donlan, W. (1978). The Classical World Bibliography of Vergil, New York. Dover, K.J. (2000). Theocritus. Select Poems Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Bristol. Drew, D.L. (1922). “Virgil’s fifth Eclogue: a defence of the Julius CaesarDaphnis theory,” CQ 90: 57-64. Duckworth, G.E. (1958). “The cradle of flowers (Ecl. 4.23),” TAPhA 89: 1-8. Du Quesnay I.M. (1976-1977). “Vergil’s fifth Eclogue. The song of Mopsus and the new Daphnis,” PVS 16: 18-41. —. (1977). “Vergil’s fourth Eclogue,” in F. Cairns (ed.) Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 1, Liverpool: 25-99. —. (1979). “From Polyphemus to Corydon. Virgil, Eclogue 2 and the Idylls of Theocritus,” in D. West and T. Woodman (eds.) Creative Imitation and Latin Literature, Cambridge: 35-69. —. (1981). “Vergil’s first Eclogue,” in F. Cairns (ed.) Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3, Liverpool: 29-182. Duncan, A. (2006). “Infamous Performers: Comic Actors and Female Prostitutes in Rome” in C.A. Faraone and L.K. McClure (eds.). Prostitutes and Courtesans in Ancient World, Wisconsin: 252-273. Dutoit, E. (1936). Le thème de l’adynaton dans le poésie antique, Paris. Dzino, D. (2011). “Asinius Pollio in Dalmatia: What Happened in Salona 39 BC?,” Klio 93: 158-166.

492

Bibliography

Edmonds, J.M. (1912). The Greek Bucolic Poets with an English Translation, London. Edwards, M.J. (1990). “Chalcidico versu,” AC 49: 203-208. Egan, R.B. (1988). “Two complementary epigrams of Meleager (A.P. 7.195 and 196),” JHS 108: 24-32. Elder, J.P. (1961). “Non iniussa cano. Virgil’s sixth Eclogue,” HSPh 65: 109-125. Ernout, A. (1961). Plaute Tome VII. Trinummus, Truculentus and Vidularia Fragmenta, Paris. Esteve-Forriol, J. (1962). Die Trauer-und Trostgedichte in der römischen Literatur, Munich. Evangelou. G. (2015). ĭȚȜȓĮ in Cicero’s Correspondence, Ph.D. Diss., Edinburgh. Faber, R. (1995). “Vergil Eclogue 3.37, Theocritus 1, and Hellenistic ekphrasis”, AJPh 116: 411-417. Fabre-Serris, J. (2007). “La notion de uoluptas chez Lucrèce et sa réception dans la poésie érotique romaine (Virgile, Buc. 2; Géorg. 3; Properce, 1,10; Ovide, Hér. 18; Ars; Mét. 4),” in L. Boulègue & C. Lévy (edd.) Hédonismes: penser et dire le plaisir dans l’Antiquité et à la Renaissance, Lille: 141-159. Fairclough, H.R. (1999). Virgil Volume I. Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid I-VI with an English Translation Revised by G.P. Goold, Cambridge, Mass., London. —. (1999). Virgil Volume II. Aeneid VII-XII. Appendix Vergiliana with an English Translation Revised by G.P. Goold, Cambridge, Mass., London. Fantazzi, C. (1966). “Virgilian pastoral and Roman love poetry,” AJPh 82: 171-91. Fantazzi, C. and Querbach, C.W. (1985). “Sound and substance: a reading of Virgil’s seventh Eclogue,” Phoenix 39.4: 355-367. Fantham, E. (1972). Compative Studies in Republican Latin Imagery, Toronto. Fantuzzi, M. (1980). “'Ek DiÕj ¢rcèmesqa Arat. Phaen. 1 e Theocr. XVII 1,” MD 5: 163-172. —. (1985). Bionis Smyrnaei Adonidis Epitaphium. Testo Critico e Commento, Liverpool. —. (1995). “Mythological paradigms in the bucolic poetry of Theocritus,” PCPhS 41: 16-35. Fantuzzi, M. and Hunter, R. (2004). Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry, Cambridge.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

493

Faraone, C.A. (1989). “Clay hardens and wax melts: magical role-reversal in Vergil’s eighth Eclogue,” CPh 84: 294-300. —. (1991). “The agonistic context of early Greek binding spells,” in C.A. Faraone and D. Obbink (eds.) Magika Hiera. Ancient Greek Magic and Religion, New York: 3-32. Farrell, J. (1991a). Vergil’s Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic. The Art of Allusion in Literary History, Oxford. —. (1991b). “Asinius Pollio in Vergil Eclogue 8,” CPh 86: 204-211. —. (1992). “Literary allusion and cultural poetics in Vergil’s third Eclogue,” Vergilius 37: 64-71. —. (1997). “The Vergilian Intertext,” in C. Martindale (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Cambridge: 222-238. Farrington, B. (1963). “Polemical allusions to the De Rerum Natura of Lucretius in the works of Vergil,” in L. Varcl and R.F. Willetts (eds.) īǼȇǹȈ. Studies Presented to G. Thomson on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Prague: 87-94. Fedeli, P. (1972). “Sulla prima bucolica di Virgilio,” GIF 3: 273-300. —. (1980). Sesto Properzio. Il Primo Libro delle Elegie, Florence. —. (1985). Properzio. Il Libro Terzo delle Elegie, Bari. —. (2005). Properzio. Elegie Libro II, Cambridge. Fernandelli, M. (2008). “Coridone e il fuoco d’amore,” Pallas 78: 279308. Fitzgerald, W. (2016). “Resonance: the sonic environment of Vergil’s Eclogues,” Dictynna 3: 1-12 Fisher, R.S. (1982). “Conon and the poet: a solution to Eclogue III, 40-2,” Latomus 41: 803-814. Flintoff, E. (1974). “The setting of Virgil’s Eclogues,” Latomus 33: 814846. —. (1992). “Comets and confidence tricks. A meditation on Eclogue IX 47,” ACD 28: 65-71. Fordyce, C.J. (1961). Catullus. A commentary, Oxford. Fowler, D.P. (1998). “On the shoulders of giants: intertextuality and classical studies,” MD 39: 1-34. Fowler, Fraenkel, E. (1955). “Vesper adest (Catullus LXII),” JRS 45: 1-8. —. (1962). “Review of Fordyce (1961),” Gnomon 34: 253-263. —. (2007). Plautine Elements in Plautus Translated by Tomas Drevikovsky and Frances Muecke, Oxford. Fraser, P.M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria Vol. I. Text, Oxford. —. Ptolemaic Alexandria Vol. II. Notes, Oxford. —. Ptolemaic Alexandria vol. III. Indexes, Oxford.

494

Bibliography

Fredericksmeyer, E.A. (1966). “Octavian and the unity of Virgil’s first Eclogue,” Hermes 94: 208-218. Friedländer, P. (1969). Johannes von Gaza und Paulus Silentiarius und Prokopios von Gaza. Kunstbeschreibungen justinianischer Zeit, Leipzig and Berlin. Frischer, B.D. (1975). At tu aureus esto. Eine Interpretation von Vergils 7 Ekloge, Bonn. Fuhrer, T. (1994). “The question of genre and metre in Catullus’ polymetrics,” QUCC 46: 95-108. Gagliardi, P. (2003). Grauis Cantantibus Umbra. Studi su Virgilio e Cornelio Gallo, Bologna. —. (2011a). “Dafni e Gallo nell’ecl. 10 di Virgilio,” A&A 57: 56-73. —. (2011b). “Ecl.10,73-74: Virgilio, Gallo e la crisi della poesia bucolica,” Hermes 139: 21-41. —. (2011c). “L’Ecl. 2 di Virgilio tra Teocrito e Gallo,” Latomus 70: 676696. —. (2012a). “Non omnia possumus omnes. Cornelio Gallo nell’ecl. 8 di Virgilio,” A&A 58: 52-73. —. (2012b). “Virgilio, Properzio e Gallo: a proposito di Virg. ecl. 10, 4649 e Prop. 1,8,” REL 90: 147-163. —. (2013). “Virgilio e l’extremus labor dell’Ecl.10,” Prometheus N.S. 2: 117-136. Gaisser, J.H. (1977). “Tibullus 2.3 and Vergil’s tenth Eclogue,” TAPhA 107: 131-146. Galinsky, G.K. (1965). “Vergil’s second Eclogue. Its theme and relation to the Eclogue book,” C&M 26: 161-191. Gale, M.R. (2000). Virgil on the Nature of Things. The Georgics, Lucretius and the Didactic Tradition, Cambridge. Gale, M.R. (2013). “Virgil’s Caesar: Intertextuality and Ideology,” in J.A. Far-rell & D.P. Nelis (edd.). Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, Oxford/ New York: 278-296. Gall, D. (1999). Zur Technik von Anspielung und Zitat in der römischen Dichtung. Vergil, Gallus und die Ciris, Munich. Gallavotti, C. (1946), Theocritus quique feruntur Bucolici Graeci, Roma. —. (1966). “Le coppe istoriate di Teocrito e di Virgilio,” PP 21: 421-436. Garson, R.W. (1971). “Theocritean elements in Virgil’s Eclogues,” CQ 21: 188-203. Gatz, B. (1967). Weltalter, Goldene Zeit, und Sinnverwandte Vorstellumgen, Hildesheim. Genette, G. (1982). Palimpsestes. La littérature au second degré, Paris.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

495

Gera, D.L. (2003). Ancient Greek Ideas on Speech, Language and Civilization, Oxford. Gerber, D.E. (1969). “Semonides of Amorgos, fr. 1.4,” TAPhA 100: 177180. Geymonat, M. (1981). “Lettura della seconda Bucolica,” in M. Gigante (ed.) Lecturae Vergilianae I. Le Bucoliche, Naples. —. (2004). “Capellae at the end of the Eclogues,” HSPh 102: 315-318. Giangrande, G. (1967). “‘Arte allusiva’ and Alexandrian poetry,” CQ 17: 85-97. —. (1976). “Victory and defeat in Theocritus Idyll V,” Mnemosyne 29: 143-154. Gibson, B.J. (2004). “Song contests in Calpurnius Siculus,” PVS 25: 1-14. Giesecke, A.L. (2000). Atoms, Ataraxy, and Allusion: Cross-generic Imitation of the De Rerum Natura in Early Augustan Poetry, Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York. Gillis, D.J. (1967). “Pastoral poetry in Lucretius,” Latomus 26: 339-362. Glei, R.F. (1991). Der Vater der Dinge: Interpretationen zur poetischen, literarischen und kulturellen Dimension des Krieges bei Vergil, Trier. Goldhill, S. (1987). “An unnoticed allusion in Theocritus and Callimachus,” ICS 12: 1-6. Gómez Gane, Y. (2003). “An ratio inter Vergilii Ecl. 6,66 et Hymnum Hom. ad Ap. 3-4 intercidat,” Latinitas 51: 144-147. Gotoff, H.C. (1967). “On the fourth Eclogue of Virgil,” Philologus 111: 66-79. Gow, A.S.F. (1952). Theocritus Volume I Edited with a Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. —. Theocritus Volume II Edited with a Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. —. (1953). The Greek Bucolic Poets, Cambridge. Gow, A.S.F. and Page, D.L. (1965). The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams Volume I, Cambridge. —. (1965). The Greek Anthology. Hellenistic Epigrams Volume II, Cambridge. —. (1968). The Greek Anthology: the Garland of Philip and some Contemporary Epigrams Volume I, Cambridge. —. (1968). The Greek Anthology: the Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams Volume II, Cambridge. Gow, A.S.F. and Schofield, A.F. (1953). Nicander of Colophon. The Poems and Poetical Fragments, Cambridge. Green, R.P.H. (1996). “Octavian and Vergil’s Eclogues,” Euphrosyne 24: 225-236.

496

Bibliography

Green, S.J. (2004). Ovid Fasti 1: a Commentary, Leiden. Gries, G.G. (2008). “Genus et forma: Randbemerkungen zu Vergils IV. Ekloge,” in S. Freund/ M. Vielberg (edd.), Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Stuttgart: 179-203. Griffin, J. (1992). Theocritus, the Iliad and the East,” AJPh 113: 189-211. Griffiths, C. (1969-1970). “Myricae,” PVS 9: 1-19. Grillo, A. (1971). Poetica e Critica Letteraria nelle Bucolique di Virgilio, Naples. Grimal, P. (1951). Dictionnaire de la Mythologie Grecque et Romain, Paris. Grondona, M. (1977). “Gli epigrammi di Tibullo e il congendo delle elegie (su Properzio e Virgilio),” Latomus 36: 3-29. Guendel, M. (1907). De Ciceronis Poetae Arte Capita Tria, Diss. Ph.D., Leipzig. Gutzwiller, K.J. (1991). Theocritus’ Pastoral Analogies: the Formation of a Genre, Madison. —. (1996a). “Vergil and the date of the Theocritean epigram book,” Philologus 140: 92-99. —. (1996b). “The evidence for Theocritean poetry books,” in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker (eds.) Theocritus II, Groningen: 119-148. —. (1998). Poetic Garlands. Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. Haarhoff, T.J. (1960). “Vergil and Cornelius Gallus,” CPh 55: 101-108. Haber, J. (1994). Pastoral and the Poetics of Self-Contradiction, Cambridge. Hagen, H. (1902). Scholia Bernensia ad Vergili Bucolica atque Georgica, Leipzig. Hahn, E.A. (1944). “The characters in the Eclogues,” TAPhA 75: 196-241. Hanslik, R. (1955). “Nachlese zu Vergils Eclogen I und IX,” WS 68: 5-19. Harder, A. (ed. and tr.) (2012). Callimachus: Aetia. Vol. 1: Introduction, Text, and Translation, Vol. 2: Commentary, Oxford. Hardie, C.G. (1966-1967). “The tenth Eclogue,” PVS 6: 1-11. Hardie, P. (1998). Virgil. Greece & Rome. New Surveys in the Classics No. 28, Oxford. —. (2005). “The Hesiodic ‘Catalogue of Women’ and Latin Poetry,” in R.L. Hunter (ed.). The Hesiodic ‘Catalogue of Women’: Constructions and Reconstructions, Cam-bridge/ New York: 287-298. Halliday, W.R. (1928). The Greek Questions of Plutarch with a New Translation and a Commentary, Oxford.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

497

Harris, W.V. 1992. Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory, New York. Harrison, S.J. (1994). “Drink, suspicion and comedy in Propertius 1.3,” PCPhS 40:18-26. (1998). “The lark ascending: Corydon, Corydon (Vergil, Ecl. 7.70),” CQ 48: 310-311. —. (2006). “Cultural and historical narratives in Virgil’s Eclogues and Lucretius,” in M. Fantuzzi and T.D. Papanghelis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden: 276-300. —. (2007). Generic Enrichment in Vergil and Horace, Oxford. —. (2009). Lucretian Receptions: History, the Sublime, Knowledge, Cambridge/ New York. Hatzikosta, S.G. (1981). “The dual in Theocritus,” MPhL 4: 73-87. —. (2001). “How did Vergil read Theocritus?,” Myrtia 16: 105-110. —. (2005). ĬİȠțȡȓIJȠȣ EȚįȪȜȜȚĮ. ǼȚįȪȜȜȚĮ ǿ-Vǿǿ: ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȒ, ȂİIJȐijȡĮıȘ, ȈȤȩȜȚĮ, Athens. Henderson, W.J. (1973). “The Paraclausithyron Motif in Horace’s Odes,” AClass 16: 51-67. Henderson, J. (1998a). “Virgil’s third Eclogue: how do you keep an idiot in suspense?,” CQ 48.1: 213-228. _—. (1998b). “Virgil, Eclogue 9: valleydiction,” PVS 23: 149-176. Hendry, M. (1995). “When goats look askance: an animal-husbandry joke in Virgil (Ecl. 3.8-9)”, LCM 20: 51-52. Henkel, J.H (2009). Writing Poems on Trees: Genre and Metapoetics in Vergil’s Eclogues and Georgics, Diss. PhD., Chapel Hill. Heuzé, P. (1970). “Formosus Alexis, formosam Amaryllida,” Caesarodunum 5: 147-149. Hinds, S. (1984). “Carmina digna: Gallus P Qasr Ibrim 6-7 metamorphosed,” in F. Cairns (ed.) Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 4, Liverpool: 43-54. —. (1998). Allusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropration in Roman Poetry, Cambridge. Hofmann, H. (1985). “Ein Aratpapyrus bei Vergil,” Hermes 113: 468-480. Hofmann, W. (2001). Plautus: Truculentus, Darmstadt. Holtorf, H. (1959). P. Vergilius Maro: Die größeren Gedichte. Herausgegeben und erklärt. I: Einleitung. Bucolica, Freiburg/ München. Holzberg, N. (2001). Die römische Liebeselegie: eine Einführung, Darmstadt. Hollis, A.S. (1970). Ovid Metamorphoses Book VIII Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Oxford.

498

Bibliography

—. (1990). Callimachus. Hecale Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. —. (2007). Fragments of Roman poetry c. 60 BC-AD 20 Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Hopkinson, N. (1984). Callimachus. Hymn to Demeter Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. Horsfall, N. (1981). “Some problems of titulature in Roman literary history,” BICS 28: 103-114. —. (1995 ed.). A Companion to the Study of Virgil, Leiden. Howard, A.A. (1893). “The Aulos or Tibia,” HSPh 4: 1-60. Hubaux, J. (1927). “Le vers initial des Eclogues,” RBPh 6: 603-616. —. (1930). Les themes bucolique dans la poésie latine, Brussels. Hubbard, M. (1975). “The capture of Silenus,” PCPhS 21: 53-62. Hubbard, T.K. (1995). “Allusive artistry and Vergil’s revisionary program: Eclogues 1-3,” MD 34: 37-67. Hubbard, T.K. (1995-1996). “Intertextual hermeneutics in Vergil’s fourth and fifth Eclogues,” CJ 91: 11-23. —. (1998). The Pipes of Pan. Intertextuality and Literary Filiation in the Pastoral Tradition from Theocritus to Milton, Michigan. Hudson-Williams, A. (1980). “Some passages in Virgil’s Eclogues,” CQ 30: 124-132. Hunter, R.L. (1983). A Study of Daphnis & Chloe, Cambridge, London and New York. —. (1996). Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry, Cambridge. —. (1999). Theocritus, a Selection. Idylls 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13, Cambridge. —. (2001). “Virgil and Theocritus: a note on the reception of the encomium to Ptolemy Philadelphus,” SemRom 4.1: 159-163. —. (2006a). “Virgil’s Ecl. 1 and the origins of pastoral,” in M. Fantuzzi and T.D. Papanghelis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden: 263-273. —. (2006b). The Shadow of Callimachus. Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry in Rome, Cambridge. Hutchinson, G.O. (1988). Hellenistic Poetry, Oxford. Huyck, J. (1987). “Vergil’s Phaetontiades,” HSPh 91: 217-228. Jachmann, G. (1923). “Vergils sechste Ekloge,” Hermes 58: 288-305. —. (1952): “L’Arcadia di Virgilio come passaggio bucolico,” Maia 5: 161-174. —. (1981). “Die dichterische in Vergils Bukolika,” in G. Jachmann (ed.) Ausgewählte Schriften, Königstein: 312-322.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

499

Jacoby, F. (1905). “Zur Entstehung der römischen Elegie,” RhM 60: 38105. Jenkyns, R. (1989). “Virgil and Arcadia,” JRS 79: 26-39. Jenny, L. (1982). “The strategy of form,” in T. Todorov (ed.) French Literary Theory Today. A Reader, Cambridge: 34-63. Jocelyn, H.D. (1967). The Tragedies of Ennius: the Fragments Edited with an Introduction and Cmmentary, Cambridge. Jones, F. (2011). Virgil’s Garden. The Nature of Bucolic Space, London. Johnston, P.A. (1980). Vergil’s Agricultural Golden Age. A Study of the Georgics, Leiden. Johnston, P.A.-Papaioannou, S. (2013). “Arcadia, the Golden Age and the Locus Amoenum. Idyllic Poetic Landscape of Early Rome and Their Later Repercussions,” Monographisches Heft von AAntHung 53.2-3. Irwin, W. (2004). “Against Intertextuality,” Philosophy and Literature 28: 227-242. Kambylis, A. (1965). Die Dichterweihe und ihre Symbolik. Untersuchungen zu Hesiodos, Kallimachos, Properz und Ennius, Heidelberg. Kania, R. (2012). “Orpheus and the Reinvention of Bucolic Poetry,” AJPh 133: 657-685. Kania, R. (2016). Vergil’s Eclogues and the Art of Fiction. A Study oft he Poetic Imagination, Cambridge Kantzios, I. (2004). “ȋȚȠȪȝȠȡ țĮȚ İȚȡȦȞİȓĮ ıIJȠ İȞįȑțĮIJȠ ǼȚįȪȜȜȚȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠțȡȓIJȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJȘ įİȪIJİȡȘ ǼțȜȠȖȒ IJȠȣ ǺȚȡȖȚȜȓȠȣ,” Hellenica 54: 4962. Katz, J.T. and Volk, K. (2006). “Erotic hardening and softening in Vergil’s eighth Eclogue,” CQ 56: 169-174. Kayachev, B. (2016). “Tyrtaeus in Virgil’s first Eclogue,” CQ 66.2: 796799. Kegel-Brinkgreve, E. (1990). The Echoing Woods: Bucolic and Pastoral from Theocritus to Wordsworth, Amsterdam. Keil, H. (1855-1880). Grammatici Latini Volumes I-VIII, Leipzig. Kella, V. (2015). Geminate Writing in Plautus: Doubles & Masks, PhD Diss. London. Kelley, S.T. (1977). “The Gallus quotation in Vergil’s tenth Eclogue,” Vergilius 23: 17-20. Kennedy, D.F. (1987). “Arcades ambo: Virgil, Gallus and Arcadia,” Hermathena 143: 47-59. Kenney, E.J. and Clausen, W.V. (1982). The Cambridge History of Classical Literature Volume II. Latin Literature, Cambridge. Kenney, E.J. (1983). “Vergil and elegiac sensibility,” ICS 8: 44-59.

500

Bibliography

Kerlin, R.T. (1908). “Virgil’s fourth Eclogue. An overlooked source,” AJPh 29: 449-460. Kidd, D. (1997). Aratus Phaenomena Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Cambridge. Kidd, D.A. (1964). “Imitation in the tenth Eclogue,” BICS 11: 54-64. Klingner, F. (1967). Virgil. Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis, Zurich. Knox, P.E. (1986). Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry, Cambridge. —. (1990). “In pursuit of Daphne,” TAPhA 120: 183-202. Köhnken, A. (1984). ““Sola ... tua carmina” (Verg, Ecl. 8,9f.),” WJA 10: 77-90. —. (1995). “Theokrit 1950-1994 (1996),” Lustrum 37: 201-307. Kollmann, E.D. (1975). “A study of proper names in Virgil’s Eclogues,” CW 69: 97-112. Korenjak, M. (2003). “Tityri sub persona: Der antike Biographismus und die bukolische Tradition,” A&A 49: 58-79. Korzeniowski, G.S. (1999). “The clausula-type et mihi Damon and the chronology of Virgil’s Eclogues,” Sileno 25: 115-136. Kraggerud, E. (2012). “Commenting on Vergil’s Hysteron Proteron,” SO 86, 118-144. Kristeva, J. 1967. “Le mot, le dialogue et le roman,” Critique 23: 438-465. —. (1969). ȈȘȝİȚȦIJȚțȒ; Recherches pour une sémanalyse, Paris. —. (1974). La révolution du langage poétique, Paris. —. (1981). Desire in Language: a Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art Translated T. Gora, A. Jardine and L.S. Roudiez (eds.), New York. Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C. (1912). Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache Vol. I: Elementar-, Formen- und Wortlehre, Hannover. —. (1914), Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache Vol. II: Satzlehre, Hannover. Kutzko, D. (2007/ 2008). “All the World’s a Page: Imitation of Metatheater in Theocritus 15, Herodas 1 and Virgil Eclogues 3,” CJ 103: 141-161. Kyriakidis, S. (2004). “Middles in Lucretius’ DRN: the poet and his work,” in S. Kyriakidis and F. De Martino Middles in Latin Poetry, Bari: 27-49. —. (2007). Catalogues of Proper Names in Latin Epic Poetry. LucretiusVirgil-Ovid, Newcastle. Kyriakou, P. (1996). “Pergite Pierides: aemulatio in Vergil’s Ecl. 6 and 10,” QUCC 52: 147-157.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

501

La Penna, A. (1951). Properzio. Saggio Critico, Seguito da due Ricerche Filologiche, Florence. —. (1962). “Esiodo nella cultura e nella poesia di Virgilio,” in K. Fritz and O. Reverdin (eds.) Hésiode et son influence. Fondation d’Hardt: entretiens sur l’antiquité classique VI, Geneve: 216-223. —. (1963). “La seconda Ecloga e la poesia bucolica di Vergilio,” Maia 15: 484-492. —. (1981). “Lettura della terza bucolica,” in M. Gigante (ed.) Lecturae Vergilianae I. Le Bucoliche, Naples: 131-169. Laird, A. (1999). Powers of Expression. Expressions of Power. Speech Presentation and Latin Literature, Oxford. Law, H.H. (1978). The Vocabulary of Intrigue in Roman Comedy, New York and London. Lawall, G. (1967). Theocritus’ Coan pastoral. A Poetry Book, Washington. Leach, E.W. (1971). “Eclogue 4: symbolism and sources,” Arethusa 4: 167-184. —. (1974). Vergil’s Eclogues: Landscapes of Experience, Ithaca, New York. —. (1978a). “Parthenian caverns. Remapping of an imaginative topography,” JHI 39: 539-560. —. (1978b). (1978): “Vergil, Horace, Tibullus: Three Collections of Ten,” Ramus 7: 79-105. Lebek, W.D. (2008). “Das Gleichnis des Varius Rufus, De morte frg. 4 (ceu canis umbrosam usw.) und das erste Gleichnis Vergils, Ekloge 8,85-89 (Talis amor Daphnim usw.),” in S. Freund/ M. Vielberg (eds). Vergil und das antike Epos. Festschrift Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, Altertumswissenschaftliches Kolloquium 20, Stuttgart: 205-220. Lee, G. (1977). “A reading of Virgil’s fifth Eclogue,” PCPhS 203: 62-70. —. (1981). “Imitation and the poetry of Virgil,” G&R 28: 10-22. Lefèvre, E. (2000). “Catulls Parzenlied und Vergils vierte Ekloge,” Philologus 144: 62-80. Leitch, V.B. (1983). Deconstructive Criticism: an Advanced Introduction, New York. Lembach, K. (1970). Die Pflanzen bei Theokrit, Heidelberg. Levi, P.S.J. (1966). “The dedication to Pollio in Vergil’s eighth Eclogue,” Hermes 94: 73-79. —. (1967-1968). “Arcadia,” PVS 7: 1-11. Leumann, M.-Hofmann, J.-Szantyr, A. (1928). Lateinische Grammatik Volume I, Munich.

502

Bibliography

—. (1965). Lateinische Grammatik Volume II. Syntax und Stilistik, Munich. Liebs, D. (2010). “P. Alfenus Varus. Eine Karriere in Zeiten des Umbruchs,” ZRG 127: 32-52. Lightfoot, J.L. (1999). Parthenius of Nicaea. The Poetical Fragments and the 'Erwtik¦ Paq›mata, Oxford. Lindahl, S. (1994). “Die Anordnung in den Hirtengedichten Vergils,” C&M 45: 161-178. Lipka, M. (2001). Language in Vergil’s Eclogues, Berlin, New York. —. (2002). “Notes on fagus in Vergil’s Eclogues,” Philologus 146.1: 133138. —. (2018). “Aretalogical poetry: a forgotten genre of Greek literature: Heracleids and Theseids” Philologus 162.2: 208-231. Littlewood, A.R. (1968). “The symbolism of the apple in Greek and Roman literature,” HSPh 72: 147-181. Loupiac, A. (2001). “Orphée-Gallus, figure de l’évolution morale et poétique de Virgile des Bucoliques à l’Énéide,” REL 79: 93-103. —. (2003). “Notula vergiliana: les coupes d’Alcimédon (Buc. III, 34-47), emblème des interro-gations de Virgil?,” BAGB 2003: 130-135. Luck, G. (1959). “Kids and wolves,” CQ 9: 34-37. Luther, A. (2002). Historische Studien zu den Bucolica Vergils, Vienna. Lyne, R.O.A.M. (1978). Ciris: a Poem Attributed to Vergil Edited with an Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. —. (1994). “Vergil’s Aeneid: subversion by intertextuality: Catullus 66.39-40 and other examples,” G&R 41: 187-204. MacDonald, J.S. (1997). Studies in Allusion in the Eclogues of Vergil, Ph.D Diss., Illinois. —. (2003). “Dueling contests: Theocritus and Vergil’s third and seventh Eclogues,” in C. Deroux (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 11, Brussels: 199-207. —. (2005). “Structure and allusion in Idyll 2 and Eclogue 8,” Vergilius 51: 12-31. Macfarlane, R.T. (1996). “Tyrrhena regum progenies: Etruscan literary figures from Horace to Ovid,” in J.F. Hall (ed.) Etruscan Italy. Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to Modern Era, Utah: 241-266. MacGlynn, P. (1963). Lexicon Terentianum Volume I, London. Mackay, L.A. (1961). “On two Eclogues of Virgil,” Phoenix 15: 156-158. Mader, G. (2008). “Poetic Reflections in Vergil’s Third Eclogue: Two Neglected As-pects”, NECJ 35: 185-191.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

503

Magnelli, E. (2010). “Libetridi in Euforione, in Virgilio e altrove,” MD 65: 167-175. Maltby, R. (1991). A Lexicon on Ancient Etymologies, Leeds. —. (2002). Tibullus Elegies. Text, Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. —. (2006). “Major themes and motifs in Propertius’ love poetry,” in H.S. Günther (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Propertius, Leiden and Boston: 147-181. Manakidou, P.F. (1993). Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der hellenistischen Dichtung, Stuttgart. —. (1996). “ǼȆǿȉǹĭǿȅȈ ǹǻȍȃǿǻȅȈ and ǼȆǿȉǹĭǿȅȈ ǺǿȍȃȅȈ: remarks on their generic form and content,” MD 37: 27-58. Mankin, D. (1988). “The Addressee of Virgil’s eighth Eclogue: a reconsideration,” Hermes 116: 63-76. Manuwald, G. (2002). “Das Singen des kleinen Hermes und des Silen. Zum homerischen Hermeshymnos und zu Vergils Sechster Ekloge,” RhM 145: 150-174. —. (2006). “The First Book”, in H.-C. Günther (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Propertius, Leiden and Boston, Mass: 219-244. Marinþiþ, M. (2001). “Der Weltaltermythos in Catulls Peleus-Epos (c. 64), der kleine Her-akles (Theokr. Id. 24) und der römische ‘Messianismus’ Vergils,” Hermes 129: 484-504. Mariotti, I. (1992). “La prima scena della Mostellaria di Plauto,” MH 49: 105-123. Martin, J. (1946). “Vergil und Landanweisungen,” WJA 1: 98-107. Martin, P.M. (1972). “L’imitation de Théocrite par Virgile dans les Bucoliques (importance et limites),” Caesarodunum 7: 187-199. Martini, L.R. (1986). “Infussi Lucreziani nelle Bucoliche,” CCC 7: 297331. Marx, F. (1904-1905). C. Lucilii Carminum Reliquiae, Leipzig. Maxwell, R.L. (1996). “Quia ister tusco verbo ludio vocabatur: the Etruscan contribution to the development of Roman theatre,” in J.F. Hall (ed.) Etruscan Italy. Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to Modern Era, Utah: 267-286. Mayer, R. (1983a). “Missing persons in the Eclogues,” BICS 30: 17-30. —. (1983b). “The civil status of Corydon,” CQ 33: 298-300. Mayer, R.G. (1994). Horace: Epistles Book 1 (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics), Cambridge. McKeown, J.C. (1987). Ovid: Amores Volume I. Text and Prolegomena, Liverpool. —. (1989). Ovid: Amores Volume II. A Commentary on Book One, Leeds.

504

Bibliography

—. (1998). Ovid: Amores Volume III, A Commentary on Book Two, Leeds. Meillier, C. (1986). “Les deux structures numériques des Églogues de Virgile,” Kentron 2: 34-47. Merkelbach, R. (1956). “BOUKOLIASTAI (der Wettgesang der Hirten),” RhM 99: 97-133. Merli, E. (1997). “ਾȜȚȠȞ ਥȞ ȜȑıȤૉ țĮIJİįȪıĮȝİȞ: sulla tradizione latina di un motivo callimacheo,” Maia 49.3: 385-390. Merone, E. (1961). “L’alliterazione nelle bucoliche di Virgilio,” Aevum 35: 199-219. Mette, H.J. (1973). “Vergil, Bukol.: ein Beispiel ‘generischer’ Interpretation,” RhM 116: 71-78. Meulder, M.A.J. (1996). “Virgile n’a-t-il pas écrit la IVe Bucolique à la fin de 39 av. J.-C.?,” Latomus 55: 815-828. —. (2010). “Présence de Callimaque dans la IVe Bucolique de Virgile?,” Euphrosyne N.S. 38: 311-319. Michalopoulos, A.N. (2001). Ancient Etymologies in Ovid’s Metamorphoses: a Commented Lexicon, Leeds. —. (2014). Ovid’s Heroides 20-21: Acontius and Cydippe. Introduction, Text, Translation, Commentraty. Athens [in Greek]. Michalopoulos, C. (2006). Ovid’s Heroides 4 and 8. A Commentary with Introduction, Ph.D. Diss., Leeds. Michel, A. (1990a). “Catulle dans les Bucoliques de Virgile: histoire, philosophie, poé-tique,” REL 67: 140-148. —. (1990b). “Virgile et Gallus,” in M. Gigante (ed.) Virgilio e gli Augustei, Napoli: 57-68. Mineur, W.H. (1984-1985). Callimachus. Hymn to Delos: Introduction and Commentary, Leiden. Mizera, S.M. (1982). “Lucretian elements in Menalcas’ song,” ‘Eclogue’ 5, Hermes 110: 367-371. Monteleone, C. (1994). Palaemon. L’ecloga III di Virgilio: Lusus Intertestuale ed Esegesi, Neapoli. Moore-Blunt, J. (1977). “Eclogue 2: Virgil’s utilization of Theocritean motifs,” Eranos 75: 23-42. Morel, W. and Büchner, C. (1982). Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et Lyricorum Praeter Ennium et Lucilium, Leipzig. Morgan, L. (1992). “‘Quantum sat erit’: epic acne and the fourth Eclogue,” LCM 17.5: 76-79. Moritz, L.A. (1968). “Some central thoughts on Horace’s Odes,” CQ 18: 116-131. Moya de Baño, F. (1996). “Nota a Ver., E 4,32,” Myrtia 11: 135-137.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

505

Muecke, F. (1975). “Virgil and the genre of pastoral,” AUMLA 44: 169180. Mumprecht, V. (1964). Epitaphios Bionos, Bern, Zurich. Munro, H.A.J. (1886). Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex with Notes and a Translation Volumes I-III, Cambridge. Mynors, R.A.B. (1958). C. Valerii Catulli Carmina, Oxford. —. (1972). P. Vergili Maronis Opera, 2nd edition, Oxford. —. (1990). Virgil. Georgics Edited with a Commentary, Oxford. Najock, D. (2004). Statistischer Schlüssel zum Vokabular in Vergils Eklogen. Alpha-Omega. Reihe A: Lexika, Indizes, Hildesheim/ Zürich/ New York. Navarro Antolín, F. (1996). Lygdamus. Corpus Tibullianum III.1-6: Lygdami Elegiarum Liber, Leiden. Nauta, R.R. (2006). “Panegyric in Virgil’s Bucolics,” in M. Fantuzzi and T.D. Papanghelis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden: 301-332. Nethercut, W.R. (1969-1970). “Menalcas’ answer: the Hyacinth in Bucolic 3.106-107,” CJ 65: 248-254. Neumeister, C. (1975). “Vergils IX. Ekloge im Vergleich zu Theokrits 7. Idyll,” in J. Cobet, R. Leimbach and A.B. Neschke-Hentschke (eds.). Dia-logos. Für Harald Patzer zum 65. Geburtstag von seinen Freunden und Schülern, Wiesbaden, 177-185. Nisbet, R.G.M. and Hubbard, M. (1970). A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book I, Oxford. —. (1978). A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book II, Oxford. Nisbet R.G.M. (1978). “Virgil’s fourth Eclogue: Easterners and Westerners,” BICS 25: 59-78. —. (1991). “The style of Virgil’s Eclogues,” PVS 20: 1-14. Norden, E. (1913). Agnostos Theos, Leipzig-Berlin. —. (1926). P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis Buch VI, Leipzig. Northrup, M.D. (1983). “Vergil on the birth of poetry. A reading on the fourth eclogue,” in C. Deroux (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History III, Brussels: 111-125. Notopoulos, J.A. (1967). “Silenus the scientist,” CJ 62: 308-309. O’Hara, J.J. (1996). True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay, Michigan. —. (1997): “Virgil’s Style,” in C. Martindale (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Cambridge: 241-258. Offermann, H. (1975). “Eine Kleinigkeit zu Vergils Eklogen,” GB 3: 275290.

506

Bibliography

Oppermann, H. (1932). “Vergil und Octavian: zur Deutung der ersten und neunten Ekloge,” Hermes 67: 197-219. Otis, B. (1963). Virgil: a Study in Civilized Poetry, Oxford. Otto, A. (1962). Die Sprichwörter und Sprichtwörtlichenn Redensarten der Römer (repr. Leipzig 1890), Hildesheim. Page, D.L. (1962). Poetae Melici Graeci, Oxford. Papanghelis, T.D. (1987). Propertius: a Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death, Cambridge. —. (1994). Ǿ ȆȠȚȘIJȚțȒ IJȦȞ ȇȦȝĮȓȦȞ «NİȦIJȑȡȦȞ». ȆȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ țĮȚ ȆȡȠİțIJȐıİȚȢ, Athens. —. (1995). ǹʌȩ IJȘ ǺȠȣțȠȜȚțȒ ǼȣIJȠʌȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ȆȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ȅȣIJȠʌȓĮ, Athens. —. (1997). “Winning on points: about the singing-match in Virgil’s seventh Eclogue,” in C. Deroux (ed.) Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 8, Brussels: 144-157. —. (1999). “Eros pastoral and profane: on love on Virgil’s Eclogues,” in S.M. Braund and R.G. Mayer (eds.) Amor, Roma: Love & Latin literature. Eleven Essays and One Poem by Former Research Students Presented to E.J. Kenney on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday, Cambridge: 44-59. —. (2006). “Friends, foes, frames and fragments: textuality in Virgil’s Eclogues,” in M. Fantuzzi and T.D. Papanghelis (eds.) Brill’s Companion to Greek and Latin Pastoral, Leiden: 369-402. Paraskeviotis, G.C. (forthcoming). “Verg. Ecl. 1.27-35. Tityrus’ and Meliboeus’ humorous relief”, CW 2020. —. (2018). “Verg. Ecl. 2.45-55. Corydon’s catalogue of flowers, plants and fruits,” Latomus 77.3: 694-703. —. (2017). “Verg. Ecl. 2.60-62. Paris’ Judgement or Paris’ and Oenone’s Love Story”, LEC 85.4: 361-365. —. (2016a). “The watery image in Greek and Latin pastoral,” Sileno 42: 111-122. —. (2016b). “The echo in Vergilian pastoral,” AC 85: 45-64. —. (2014a). “Verg. Ecl. 6.13-30. Mimic humour in Silenus’ scene,” Arctos 48: 279-293. —. (2014b). “Verg. Ecl. 8.55-56. An impossible mythological exemplum,” BStudLat 44.2: 137-141. —. (2014c). “The mythological exemplum in Vergil’s Eclogues,” Hermes 142.4: 431-460. —. (2014d). “Eclogue 7.69-70. Vergil’s victory over Theocritus,” RCCM 56.2: 259-267. —. (2014e). “Female characters in Vergil’s Eclogues,” Maia 66.1: 58-75.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

507

—. (2013). “Vergil’s Eclogue II. Intertextual humour in Corydon’s love song to Alexis,” Euphrosyne 41: 115-130. —. (2012). “Vergil’s Eclogue 9. Idyll 7 and Eclogue 1 in reverse,” Eos 99: 77-82. Paratore, E. (1964). “Struttura, ideologia e poesia nell’ Ecloga VI di Virgilio,” in M. Renard and R. Schilling (eds.) Hommages à Jean Bayet Collection Latomus 70, Brussels: 509-537. Paschalis, M. (1993). “Two implicit myths in Virgil’s sixth Eclogue,” Vergilius 39: 25-29. —. (1994): “Intonsi montes, Cynthius and Aracynthus: Apollo and the Poetics of Mountain Landscape in Virgil’s Eclogues,” in ȇȠįȫȞȚĮ. ȉȚȝȒ ıIJȠȞ Ȃ.ǿ. ȂĮȞȠȣıțȐțĮ. ȉȩȝȠȢ ȕ, Rethimno: 437-449. —. (1995). “Virgil’s sixth Eclogue and the Lament for Bion,” AJPh 116: 617-621. —. (2001). “Semina ignis: the interplay of science and myth in the song of Silenus,” AJPh 122: 201-222. Pasquali, G. (1951) Stravaganze quarte e supreme, Venice. Pasoli, E. (1977). “Gli Amores di Cornelio Gallo nell’ecloga X di Virgilio e nell’elegia 1,8 di Properzio: riconsiderazione del problema,” RCCM 19, 585-596. Paton, W.R. (1916-1918). The Greek Antology with an English Translation Volumes I-V, London and New York. Pearce, T.V.E. (1966a). “The enclosing word order in the Latin hexameter,” CQ 16: 140-171. —. (1966b). “The enclosing word order in the Latin hexameter II,” CQ 16: 298-320. Peirano, I. (2009). “Mutati artus: Scylla, Philomela and the End of Silenus’ Song in Virgil Eclogue 6,” CQ 59: 187-195. Perkell, C.G. (1990). “On Eclogue 1.79-83,” TAPhA 120: 171-181. —. (1996). “The dying Gallus and the design of Eclogue 10,” CPh 91: 128-140. —. (2002). “The Golden age and its contradictions in the poetry of Vergil,” Vergilius 18: 3-39. Perrot, J. (1961). Les dérivés latins en -men et -mentum, Paris. Perutelli, A. (1995). “Bucolics,” in N. Horsfall (ed.) A Companion to the Study of Virgil, Leiden: 27-62. Petrovitz, W. (2002/3). “Towards a Grammar of Allusion: A Crosslinguistic Study of Vergil’s Seventh Bucolic”, CW 96: 259-270. Pichon, R. (1966). Index Verborum Amatoriorum, Hildesheim. Pinotti, P. (2012). “Propertius IV 9: Alexandrianism and Allusion” in E. Green & Welch, T.S. (eds.) Propertius, Oxford: 116-137.

508

Bibliography

Pfeiffer, R. (1949). Callimachus Volume I. Fragmenta, Oxford. —. (1953). Callimachus Volume II. Hymni et Epigrammata, Oxford. Posch, S. (1969). Beobachtungen zur Theokritnachwirkung bei Vergil, Innsbruck, Munich. Pöschl, V. (1964). Die Hirtendichtung Virgils, Heidelberg. Powell, B.P. (1976). “Thrust and counter-thrust in Eclogue 3,” ICS 1: 113121. Powell, J.U. (1925). Collectanea Alexandrina, Oxford. Pietzcker, C. (1965). Die Landschaft in Vergils Bukolika, Diss., Freiburg. Prioux, É. (2009). “Deux jeux de mots sur le nom d’Aratos: note sur Virgile, B. III, 42 et Aratos, Phaen. 2,” RPh 79: 309-317. Putnam, M.C.J. (1965). “The riddle of Damoetas (Virgil Ecl. 3,104-105),” Mnemosyne 18: 150-154. —. (1970). Vergil’s Pastoral Art. Studies in the Eclogues, Princeton. —. (1975). “Virgil’s first eclogue. Poetics of enclosure,” Ramus 4: 163186. Race, W.H. (1982). The Classical Priamel from Homer to Boethius, Leiden. Reed, J.D. (1997). Bion of Smyrna. The Fragments and the Adonis Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge. Renehan, R. (1977). “Compound-simplex verbal iteration in Plautus,” CPh 72: 243-248. Reitzenstein R.A. (1893). Epigramm und Skolion. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Alexandrinischen Dichtung, Giessen. Richter, A. (1970). Virgile: la huitième Bucolique, Paris. Roberts, J.T. (1982/1983). “The Power of Poetry and the Order of Vergil’s Eclogues,” AugAge 2: 39-47. —. (1983). “Carmina nulla canam: rhetoric and poetic in Vergil’s first Eclogue,” CW 76: 193-199. Robertson, M.A. (1970-1971). “Virgil and Theocritus,” PVS 10: 8-23. Robinson, D.M. and Fluck, E.J. (1937). A Study of the Greek Love-Names, Baltimore. Roche, P. (2014). “Meleager’s Grasshopper (12 G-P = ap 7.195) and Tityrus’ bees (Verg. Ecl. 1.53-55),” Mnemosyne 67.3: 450-453. Rohacek, M. (2008). “Das Reinentsprungene: Versuch einer neuen Deutung der vierten Ekloge Vergils,” WHB 50: 27-45. Rohde, G. (1963). Studien und Interpretationen zur antiken Literatur, Religion und Geschichte, Berlin. Roscher, W.H. (1884-1937). Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, Leipzig. Rose, H.J. (1942). The Eclogues of Vergil, Berkeley, Los Angeles.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

509

Rosen, R.M. and Farrell, J. (1986). “Acontius, Milanion and Gallus: Vergil, Ecl. 10.52-61,” TAPhA 116: 241-254. Rosenmeyer, T.G. (1969). The Green Cabinet: Theocritus and the European Pastoral Lyric, Berkeley. Ross, D.O.Jr. (1969). Style and Ttradition in Catullus, Cambridge, Mass. —. (1975). Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome, Cambridge. Rossi, L. (2001). The Epigrams Ascribed to Theocritus: a Method of Approach, Louvain, Sterling. Rossi, L.E. (1971a). “Vittoria e sconfitta nell’ agone bucolico letterario,” GIF 23: 13-24. —. (1971b). “Mondo pastorale e poesia bucolica di maniera. L’ idillio ottavo del corpus teocriteo,” SIFC 43: 5-25. Rowe, G.O. (1965). “The adynaton as a stylistic device,” AJPh 86: 387396. Rudd, N. (1976). “Architecture: Theories About Virgil’s Eclogues,” in N. Rudd (ed.) Lines of Enquiry: Studies in Latin Poetry, Cambridge: 119144. —. (1996). “Virgil’s contribution to pastoral,” PVS 22: 53-77. Rumpf, L. (1996). Extremus labor: Vergils 10. Ekloge und die Poetik der Bucolica, Göttingen. —. (1999). “Bukolische Nomina bei Vergil und Theokrit,” RhM 142: 157175. Rutherford, R.B. (1989). “Virgil’s poetic ambitions in Eclogue 6,” G&R 36: 42-50. Ryberg, I.S. (1958). “Vergil’s Golden Age,” TAPhA 87: 112-131. Saint-Denis, E. (1963). “Le chant de Silène à la lumière d'une découverte récente,” RPh 37: 23-40. —. (1976). “Encore l’architecture des ‘Bucoliques’ virgiliennes,” RPh 50: 7-21. Sallmann, K. (1995). “Poesie und Magie: Vergils 8 Ekloge,” ZAnt 45: 287-302. Sandbach, F.H. (1933). “Victum frustra contendere Thyrsim,” CR 47: 216219. Saunders, T. (2008). Bucolic Ecology. Virgil’s Eclogues and the Environmental Literary Tradition, London. Scafoglio, G. (2011). “Dafni o la sconfitta della morte: un’interpretazione della Bucolica V,” Euphrosyne N.S. 39: 247-263. Schmidt, E.A. (1968). “Paliurus. Zu Vergil, Ecl. V,38f.,” Hermes 96: 637638.

510

Bibliography

—. (1972a). “Poesia e politica nella nona ecloga di Virgilio,” Maia 24: 99119. —. (1972b). Poetische Reflexion: Vergils Bukolik, Munich. —. (1974). Zur Chronologie der Eklogen Vergils, Heidelberg. —. (1975). “Arkadien. Abendland und Antike,” A&A 21: 36-57. —. (1987). Bukolische Leidenschaft, oder über antike Hirtenpoesie, Frankfurt/ Main, Bern, New York. Schneider, O. (1856). Nicandrea. Theriaca et Alexipharmaca, Leipzig. Schöpsdau, K. (1974). “Motive der Liebesdichtung in Vergils dritter Ekloge,” Hermes 102: 268-300. Scholl, W. (2014). Der Daphnis-Mythos und seine Entwicklung. Von den Anfängen bis zu Vergils vierter Ekloge, Hildesheim, Zürich, New York. Schrivjers, P.J. (1995). “Slechte tijden, goede tijden: De Aeneid als Feest van het Vertellen,” Lampas 28: 67-81 Schultz, C.E. (2003). “Latet anguis in herba: a reading of Vergil’s third Eclogue,” AJPh 124.2: 199-224. Segal, C.P. (1965). “Tamen cantabitis, Arcades: Exile and Arcadia in Eclogues 1 and 9,” Arion 4: 237-266. —. (1967). “Vergil’s caelatum opus: An Interpretation of the Third Eclogue,” AJPh 88: 279-308. —. (1969). “Vergil’s Sixth Eclogue and the Problem of Evil,” TAPhA 100: 407-435. —. (1971). “Two Fauns and a Naiad? (Virgil, Ecl. 6,13-26),” AJPh 92: 5661. —. (1976). “Caves, Pan, and Silenus: Theocritus’ Pastoral Epigrams and Virgil’s Sixth Eclogue,” ŽAnt 26: 53-56. —. (1977). “Pastoral Realism and the Golden Age: Correspondence and Contrast Between Virgil’s Third and Fourth Eclogues,” Philologus 121: 158-163. —. (1987). “Alphesiboeus’ Song and Simaetha’s Magic: Virgil’s Eighth Eclogue and Theocritus’s Second Idyll,” GB 14: 167-185. Seng, H. (1999). Vergils Eklogenbuch. Aufbau, Chronologie und Zahlenverhältnisse, Hildesheim. Serbat, G. (1989). “Le datif dans les Bucoliques de Virgile,” Minerva 3: 213-229. Sergent, B. (1987). Homosexuality in Greek Myth Translated by Arthur Goldhammer with a Preface by Georges DumȚzil, London. Serrao, G. (1971). Problemi di Poesia Alessandrina. I Studi di Teocrito, Rome.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

511

—. (1975). “L’Idyllio V di Teocrito: realtà campesrte e stilizzatione letteraria,” QUCC 79: 73-109. Sistakou, E. (1998). ĬİȠțȡȓIJȠȣ «QURSIS À WȚDH», Heraklio. Skånland, V. (1967). “Litus. The mirror of the sea. Vergil, Ecl. 2.25,” SO 42: 93-101. Skoie, M. (2006). “City and countryside in Vergil’s Eclogues,” in R.M. Rosen and I. Sluiter (eds.) City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity, Leiden: 297-325. Skutsch, F. (1901). Aus Vergils Frühzeit, Leipzig. —. (1906). Gallus und Vergil, Leipzig. Skutsch, O. (1956). “Zu Vergils Eklogen,” RhM 99: 193-201. —. (1969). “Symmetry and sense in the Eclogues,” HSPh 73: 153-169. —. (1971). “The singing matches in Virgil and in Theocritus and the design of Virgil’s book of Eclogues,” BICS 18: 26-29. —. (1980). “Numbers in Virgil’s Bucolics,” BICS 27: 95-96. —. (1985). The Annals of Q. Ennius Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford. Smith, E.M. (1930). “Echoes of Catullus in the messianic Eclogue of Vergil,” CJ 26: 141-143. Smith, P.L. (1965). “Lentus in umbra: a symbolic pattern in Vergil’s Eclogues,” Phoenix 19: 298-304. —. (1970). “Vergil’s avena and the pipes of pastoral poetry,” TAPhA 101: 497-510. Smith, W. (1856-57). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London. Smolenaars, J.J. (1995). “Schrivjers en intertekstualiteit,” Lampas 28: 176184. Smutny, R.J. (1955). The Text History of the Epigrams of Theocritus, Berkeley, Los Angeles. Snell, B. (1945). “Arkadien. Die Entdeckung einer geistigen Landschaft,“ A&A 1: 26-31 = Snell, B. (1980). “Arcadia: the discovery of a spiritual landscape,” in B. Snell (ed.) The Discovery of the Mind. The Greek Origins of European Thought Translated by T.G. Rosenmeyer, Oxford: 281-309. Solmsen, F. (1962). “Three elegies of Propertius’ first book,” CPh 67: 7388. —. (1966). “Aratus on the maiden and the Golden Age,” Hermes 94: 124128. Solodow, J.B. (1977). “Poeta impotens: the last three Eclogues,” Latomus 36: 757-771.

512

Bibliography

—. (1986). “Raucae, tua cura, palumbes: study of a poetic word order,” HSPh 90: 129-153. Soubiran, J. (1966). L’ élision dans la poésie Latine, Paris. Spoerri, W. (1970). “Zur Kosmogonie in Vergils VI Ekloge,” MH 27: 144163. Springer, C. (1983). “Aratus and the cups of Menalcas: a note on Eclogue 3.42,” CJ 79.1: 131-134. Starr, R.J. (1995). “Vergil’s seventh Eclogue and its readers: biographical allegory as an interpretative strategy in antiquity and late antiquity,” CPh 90.2: 129-138. Steenkamp, J. (2011). “The Structure of Vergil’s Eclogues,” AClass 54: 101-124. Stewart, Z. (1959). “The song of Silenus,” HSPh 64: 179-205. Stöckinger, M. (2016). Vergils Gaben: Materialität, Reziprozität und Poetik in den Eklogen und der Aeneis, Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften 148, Heidelberg. Stroh, W. (1993). “Horaz und Vergil in ihren prophetischen Gedichten,” Gymnasium 100: 289-322. Suerbaum, W. (1968). Untersuchungen zur Selbstdarstellung älterer römischer Dichter: Livius Andronicus-Naevius-Ennius, Hildesheim. Syme, R. (1939). The Roman Revolution, Oxford. Taliercio, A. (1986). “Memoria di poeti. A proposito dell’uso transitivo di requiesco,” RCCM 28: 117-129. Tarán, S.L. (1979). The Art of Variation in the Hellenistic Epigram, Leiden. Tarrant, R. J. (1978). “The Addressee of Virgil’s eighth Eclogue,” HSPh 82: 197-199. Tatum, J. (1983). Plautus: the Darker Comedies. Bacchides, Casina and Truculentus Translated from the Latin with Introduction and Notes, Baltimore, London. Thibodeau, P. (2006). “The addressee of Vergil’s eighth Eclogue,” CQ 56: 618-623. Thill, A. (1976). “Quellenforschung des Bucoliques,” REL 54: 194-213. —. (1979). Alter ab illo: recherches sur l’imitation dans la poésie personnelle a l’époque augustéenne, Paris. Thilo, G. and Hagen, H. (1883). Servii Grammatici qui Feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii Volume I, Leipzig. Thomas, R.F. (1979). “Theocritus, Calvus, and Eclogue 6,” CPh 74: 337339. —. (1983). “Virgil’s ecphrastic centrepieces,” HSPh 87: 175-184.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

513

—. (1986). “Virgil’s Georgics and the art of reference,” HSPh 90: 171198. —. (1988). Virgil. Georgics Volume 1. Books I-II, Cambridge. —. (1988). Virgil. Georgics Volume 2. Books III-IV, Cambridge. —. (1993). “Callimachus back in Rome,” in M.A. Harder, R.F. Regtuit and G.C. Wakker (eds.) Callimachus I, Groningen: 197-215. —. (1996): “Genre through Intertextuality: Theocritus to Virgil and Propertius,” Hellenistica Groningana 2: 22-46. —. (1999). “Voice, poetics and Virgil’s sixth Eclogue,” in R.F. Thomas (ed.) Reading Virgil and his Texts. Studies in Intertextuality, Michigan: 288-296. Thomson, D.S.F. (1997). Catullus, Toronto, Buffalo, London. Thornton, B. (1988). “A note on Vergil Eclogue 4.42-45,” AJPh 109: 226228. Timpanaro, S. (1978). Contributi di Filologia e di Storia della Lingua Latina, Rome. Torlone, Z.M. (2002). “From Daphnis to Gallus: the metamorphosis of genre in the Eclogues,” NECJ 29.4: 204-221. Toynbee, J.C.M (1973). Animals in Roman Life and Art, London and Southampton. Tracy, S.V. (1982). “Sepulchrum Bianoris: Virgil Eclogues 9.59-61,” CPh 77: 328-330. —. (2003). “Palaemon's indecision” in P. Thibodeau & H. Haskell (eds.), Being there together: essays in honor of Michael C. J. Putnam on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, Afton: 66-77. Traina, A. (1999). “Si numquam fallit imago: reflections on the Eclogues and Epicureanism,” in P. Hardie (ed.) Virgil: critical assessments of classical authors, London: 84-90. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, I. (1961). “De Cicerone poetarum Graecorum interprete,” in I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel (ed.) Atti del I Congresso internazionale di Studi Ciceroniani II, Rome: 161-174. Tress, H. (2004). Poetic Memory: Allusion in the Poetry of Callimachus and the Metamorphoses of Ovid, Leiden. Trimble, G.C. (2013). Catullus 64 and the Prophetic Voice in Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue,” in J.A. Farrell & D.P. Nelis (eds.). Augustan Poetry and the Roman Republic, Oxford, New York: 263-277. Tromaras, L. (2001). ȀȐIJȠȣȜȜȠȢ. ȅ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩȢ ʌȠȚȘIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ȇȫȝȘȢ, Catulli carmina, ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȒ-ȀİȓȝİȞȠ-ȂİIJȐijȡĮıȘ-ȈȤȩȜȚĮ, Thessaloniki. Tugwell, S. (1963). “Virgil, Eclogue 9.59-60,” CR 13: 132-133. Ucciero, R. (2007). “Il genere bucolico tra pratica poetica e riflessione esegetica,” Invigilata Lucernis 29: 263-276.

514

Bibliography

Usener, H. (1901). “Italienische Volksjustiz,” RhM 56: 1-28. Van der Valk, M. (1971-87). Commentarii ad Homeri Iliadem Pertinentes ad Fidem Codicis Laurentiani Editi, Leiden. Van Groningen, B.A. (1977). Euphorion, Amsterdam. Van Sickle, J. (1975). “Epic and Bucolic (Theocritus, Id. VII; Virgil, Ecl. I),” QUCC 19: 45-72. —. (1976). “Theocritus and the development of the conception of bucolic genre,” Ramus 5: 18-44. —. (1978). The Design of Virgil’s Bucolics, Rome. —. (1980a). “The Book-Roll and Some Conventions of the Poetic Book,” Arethusa 13: 5-42. —. (1980b). “Reading Virgil’s Eclogue Book,” in ANRW II 31.1: 576-603. —. (1981). “Commentaria in Maronen commenticia: a case of history of Bucolics misread,” Arethusa 14: 17-34. —. (1986). Poesia e potere. Il mito Virgilio, Bari. —. (1987). “Shepherd slave. Civil status and bucolic conceit in Virgil, Eclogue 2,” QUCC 56: 127-129. —. (1992). A Reading of Virgil’s Messianic Eclogue, New York. —. (2000). “Virgil vs. Cicero, Lucretius, Theocritus, Plato and Homer: two programmatic plots in the first bucolic,” Vergilius 46: 21-58. Vásquez, B. (1952). “A Vergilian parallel in Callimachus,” Aegyptus 32: 253-256. Veremans, J. (1969). Eléments symboliques dans la III Bucolique de Virgile, Brussels. Vian, F. (1974-1981). Apollonios de Rhodes. Argonautiques texte établi et commenté Volumes I-III, Paris. Vidal-Naquet, P. (1978). “Plato’s myth of the Statesman. The ambiguities of the Golden Age of history,” JHS 98: 133-141. Vischer, R. (1965). Das enfache Leben. Wort- und motivgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Wertbegriff der antiker Literatur, Göttingen. Voisin, D. (2010). “Le prétendu cercle littéraire des Arcadiens,”Latomus 60 : 321-344. Volk, K. (2008). Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Vergil’s Eclogues, Oxford. Vox, O. (2009). “La maschera di Dafni: l’Idillio di Teocrito e l’Ecloga VIII di Virgilio,” in G. Laudizi & O. Vox (edd.) Satura Rudina. Studi in Onore di Pietro Luigi Leone, Lecce: 305-330. Wackernagel, J. (1920-1924). Vorlesung über Syntax mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch Reihes I-II, Basel.

Vergil’s Eclogues: A Study of the Greek and Roman Literary Sources

515

Waite, S.V.F. (1972). “The contest in Vergil’s seventh Eclogue,” CPh 62: 121-123. Waltz, R. (1927). “La Ire et la IXre Bucolique,” RBPh 6: 31-58. Watkins, C. (1966). “An Indo-European construction in Greek and Latin,” HSPh 71: 115-119. Watson, L.C. (2003). A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes, Oxford. Watson, P.A. (1995). Ancient Stepmothers: Myth, Misogyny and Reality, Leiden. Weber, C. (1987). “Metrical imitatio in the proem to the Aeneid,” HSPh 91: 261-271. Webster, T.B.L. (1964). Hellenistic Poetry and Art, London. Wellesley, K. (1968). “Virgil’s Araxes,” CPh 63: 139-141. Wendel, C. (1914). Scholia in Theocritum Vetera, Leipzig. West, M.L. (1966). Theogony Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford. —. (1978). Hesiod. Works & Days Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary, Oxford. —. (1982a). Greek Metre, Oxford. —. (1982b). “Three topics in Greek metre,” CQ 32: 281-297. —. (1998). Homerus Ilias. Volumen prius, rhapsodias I-XII continens, Stuttgart and Leipzig. Westendorp Boerma, R.H.E. (1958). “Vergil’s debt to Catullus,” AClass 1: 51-63. Whitaker, R. (1988). “Did Gallus wrote ‘pastoral’ elegies?,” CQ 38: 454458. White, K.D. (1970). Roman Farming, London. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U. (1905). Bucolici Graeci, Oxford. —. (1906). Die Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker, Berlin. Wilkinson, L.P. (1963). Golden Latin Artistry, Cambridge. Williams, C.A. (1999). Roman Sexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity, New York. Williams, F. (1971). “A theophany in Theocritus,” CQ 21: 137-145. —. (1978). Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo. A commentary. Oxford. Williams, G. (1968). Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford. —. (1974). “A Version of pastoral: Virgil Eclogue 4,” in T. Woodman & D. West (eds.) Quality and Pleasure in Latin Poetry, Cambridge: 3146. —. (1992). “Theocritus’ Idyll 7 from a Vergilian perspective,” in R. Hexter & D. Selden (eds.) Innovations of Antiquity, New York: 541556.

516

Bibliography

Williams, R.D. (1974-1975). “Virgil’s fourth Eclogue: a literary analysis,” PVS 14: 1-6. —. (1979). Virgil: the Eclogues & Georgics Edited with Introduction and Notes, New York and London. Wills, J. (1993). “Virgil’s cuium”, Vergilius 39: 3-11. —. (1996). Repetition in Latin Poetry. Figures of Allusion, Oxford. Wimmel, W. (1960). Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit, Wiesbaden. Wiseman, T.P. (1985). Catullus and his World, Cambridge. Wissowa, G. (1912). Religion und Kultus der Römer, Munich. Wormell, D.E.W. (1960). “The riddles in Virgil’s third Eclogue,” CQ 10: 29-32. —. (1969). “The originality of the Eclogues: sic parvis componere magna solebam,” in D.R. Dudley (ed.) Virgil. Studies in Latin literature and its Influence, London: 1-26. Woodman, A.J. (1991). “Virgil, Eclogue 6.39-40 and Lucretius,” LCM 16: 92. —. (1997). “The position of Gallus in Eclogue 6,” CQ 47: 593-597. Wright, J.R.G. (1983). “Vergil’s pastoral programme: Theocritus, Callimachus and Eclogue 1,” PCPhS 29: 107-160. Van Erp Taalman Kip, A. (1994). “Intertextuality and Theocritus 13,” in I. De Jong and J.P. Sullivan (eds.) Modern Critical Theory and Classical Literature, Leiden, New York: 153-169. Yardley, J.C. (1980). “Gallus in Eclogue 10: quotation or adaptation?,” Vergilius 26: 48-51. Yatromanolakis, Y. (1993). ȂȩıȤȠȣ ǼȣȡȫʌȘ. ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ȂİIJȐijȡĮıȘ, Athens. Zanker, G. (1985). “A Hesiodic reminiscence in Vergil, E. 9.11-13,” CQ 35: 235-237. —. (1987). Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: a Literature and its Audience, London. Zetzel, J.E.G. (1977). “Gallus, elegy and Ross,” CPh 72: 253-254. Zucchelli, B. 1995. “Il giuramento di Tirsi: (Verg. Ecl. 7,41-43),” Paideia 50: 355-366.