Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil's Aeneid 0192863002, 9780192863003

Citation preview

SARAH L.

McCALL UM

f

I I

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid S A R A H  L .  Mc C A L LUM

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Sarah L. McCallum 2023 The moral rights of the author have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2023936273 ISBN 978–0–19–286300–3 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A. Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Acknowledgements It gives me great pleasure to pay tribute to the host of people who have helped me bring this book to fruition. Though I might aspire to be comprehensive in my thanks, I am keenly aware of the shortcomings of memory when assailed by the passage of time (omnia fert aetas, indeed). Thus, I wish to begin by expressing my sincere gratitude to all of the colleagues, family members, friends, mentors, and teachers who have fostered and supported my scholarly passions and pursuits. The pages of this book are a testament to your generosity and impact. I wish to offer my heartfelt thanks to the academic communities I have been fortunate to be a member of throughout the various stages of this project. This book began as a doctoral dissertation under the direction of Alison Keith in the Department of Classics at the University of Toronto, where my studies were enriched by my excellent advisers, instructors, and fellow students, particularly my graduate cohort and Lehrstuhl fellows. My first postgraduate teaching pos­ ition brought me to the Department of Classics and Archaeology at Brock University, where I was bolstered by the encouragement and experience of my colleagues. I am especially grateful to Fanny Dolansky, whose lasting friendship and support have been invaluable. Thereafter, I had the privilege of being a visit­ ing fellow in the Department of the Classics at Harvard University with the sup­ port of a Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. My experience there was transformative, thanks to the exceptional faculty, fellows, staff, and students, particularly Richard Thomas (my generous adviser), Alyson Lynch and Teresa Wu (my friends and mentors), and Lauren Curtis, Flora Iff-­Noël, Naomi Weiss, and Zoa Alonso (my comrades and editors). As a visiting instructor in the Department of Classics at Dartmouth College I benefited greatly from the mentorship and support of my colleagues. I am also grateful to my cohort from the Symposium Cumanum, who were excel­ lent interlocutors on the subject of “Vergil and Elegy.” In 2017, I joined the Department of Religious Studies and Classics at the University of Arizona, where I am extremely grateful to be part of an outstanding community of colleagues (whose advice and friendship I treasure), staff (especially the Billionaire’s Club), and students (including many semesters of fabulous Latin students). I also offer my deepest gratitude to the dear friends in Tucson, who have helped me enor­ mously through the final stages of the book. I am very grateful to Charlotte Loveridge and Cathryn Steele, my editors at Oxford University Press, for their stalwart support and expert advice. My sincere thanks also to the two anonymous readers for providing generous and

vi Acknowledgements con­struct­ive feedback, which helped me to improve the manuscript. I also extend my gratitude to the production team for their admirable attention to detail and efficiency. The indices of the volume are owed to the acumen and patience of Thomas Kozachek. Any errors and infelicities that remain are mine alone. I dedicate this volume to Alison Keith, my parents, and my brother Will. My greatest debt is to Alison, who more than anyone else has shaped how I approach ancient literature in my teaching and research, including this book. I am eternally grateful for your encouragement, inspiration, and guidance: te sine nil altum mens incohat. The unwavering love and support of my parents have seen me through the various stages of the book, and my brother Will motivated me to begin my academic career and made it possible for me to pursue my intellectual passions. My deepest thanks to you all for always being there for me.

Contents Abbreviations Note on Editions, Translations, and Glossary

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6

ix xiii

1

1. From Caieta to Erato: Vergil’s Elegiac Programme (Aeneid 7.1–45)

37

2. Conflicting Amores: The War’s Beginnings in Aeneid 7

52

3. Wielding Passion as Power: Venus’ Manipulation of Vulcan in Aeneid 8

83

4. Warriors in Love: Passion and Death in the Catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10

99

5. From Amor to Mors: Passion and Devastation in Aeneid 12 Epilogue: Vergil and Elegy Beyond the Aeneid Glossary: Elegiac Concepts Bibliography Index Locorum General Index

123 175 183 191 205 214

Abbreviations AC ACD AJP ANRW A.P. Ap. Rhod. Argon. App. BDAG

Antiquité classique Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (1972– ) Anthologia Palatina Apollonius Rhodius Argonautica Appian F. Montanari (ed.), The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek (Leiden: Brill, 2015) Call. Callimachus Aet. Aetia Hymnus in Apollinem Ap. Epigr. Epigrammata Calv. C. Licinius Calvus Cass. Dio Cassius Dio Cat. Catullus carmen c. CCLE P. Colafrancesco and M.  Massaro, Concordanze dei Carmina Latina epigraphica (Bari: Edipuglia, 1986) CE F. Buecheler and E. Lommatzsch (eds.), Carmina Latina Epigraphica, 3 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1897) Cic. Cicero Epistulae ad Familiares Fam. Tusc. Tusculanae Disputationes CJ Classical Journal Claud. Claudian VI Cons. Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti CLS Comparative Literature Studies Classical Philology CPh CQ Classical Quarterly CR Classical Review Denniston J. D. Denniston, The Greek Particles (2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954) D.H. Dionysius of Halicarnassus EG G. Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta (Berlin: Berolini, 1878) EMC Echos du monde classique

x Abbreviations Enn. Ennius Ann. Annales Ernout–Meillet A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, Histoire des mots (4th edn., Paris: Klincksieck, 2001) Eur. Euripides Hipp. Hippolytus EV Enciclopedia Virgiliana, 6 vols. (Rome: Instituto della Enciclopedia italiana, 1984–91) fr./frr. fragment(s) Frisk H. Frisk, Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2 vols. (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1960) Fulg. Fabius Planciades Fulgentius Virg. cont. Expositio Virgilianae Continentiae secundum philosophos moralis Gall. Gallus G&R Greece and Rome, NS (1954/5– ) GL H. Keil (ed.), Grammatici Latini, 5 vols. (Leipzig: Teubner, 1855–68) GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Halsey C. S. Halsey, An Etymology of Latin and Greek (Boston: Ginn, Heath and Co., 1889) Hes. Hesiod Th. Theogony Hom. Homer Il. Iliad Od. Odyssey Hor. Horace Ars Ars poetica Carm. Carmina Epist. Epistulae Epod. Epodi S. Sermones HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology Hymn. Hom. Ven. Hymnus Homericus ad Venerem ICS Illinois Classical Studies IG Inscriptiones Graecae (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1873– ) ISLL Illinois Studies in Language and Literature JRS Journal of Roman Studies LALE R.  Maltby, A Lexicon of Ancient Latin Etymologies (Leeds: Francis Cairns, 1991) LCM Liverpool Classical Monthly LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (Zurich: Artemis, 1981–99) Liv. Livy L–S C. T. Lewis and C. Short (eds.), A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879)

Abbreviations  xi LSJ Lucr. Lygd. Macr. Mart. MD OLD OLS Ov. Am. Ars Fast. Her. Met. Pont. Tr. Phanocl. Pichon Pind. Pyth. Pl. Phdr. Symp. PLLS Prop. QUCC Quint. Inst. RhM Schol. Ver. SEG Sen. Con. Suas. Servius

Stat. Silu. Suet.

H.  G.  Liddell and R.  Scott, A Greek–English Lexicon (9th edn.), rev. Sir Henry Stuart Jones (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1940) Lucretius Lygdamus Macrobius Martial Materiali e discussioni per l’analisi dei testi classici P.  G.  W.  Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968–82) H. Pinkster, The Oxford Latin Syntax, Volume I: The Simple Clause (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015) Ovid Amores Ars Amatoria Fasti Heroides Metamorphoses Epistulae ex Ponto Tristia Phanocles R. Pichon, Index Verborum Amatoriorum (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1966) Pindar Pythian Plato Phaedrus Symposium Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar Propertius Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica Quintilian Institutio Oratoria Rheinisches Museum für Philologie Scholia Veronensia Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Leiden: Brill, 1923– ) Seneca (the Elder) Controuersiae Suasoriae Seruii Grammatici qui feruntur in Vergilii carmina commentarii, ed. G. Thilo and H.  Hagen, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011) Statius Siluae Suetonius

xii Abbreviations TAPA Transactions of the American Philological Association Theoc Theocritus Tib. Tibullus TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig: Teubner; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1900– ) Var. M. Terentius Varro L. De lingua Latina Var. At. Varro Atacinus Argon. Argonautae Verg. Vergil A. Aeneid E. Eclogues G. Georgics V. Fl. Valerius Flaccus YCIS Yale Classical Studies ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Note on Editions, Translations, and Glossary Unless otherwise stated, I generally use the most recent Oxford Classical Texts for Greek and Roman authors, with the following exceptions: Barber 1960 for Propertius; Maltby 2002 for Tibullus; Harder 2012 for Callimachus’ Aetia; and Fulkerson 2017 for the Appendix Tibulliana. All translations are my own. In rendering Greek and Latin passages, I aspire to reflect the construction of the original language, which sometimes comes at the cost of elegant English style. I have included a Glossary that provides explanations for key elegiac concepts, which may not be familiar to all readers. The footnotes throughout the book direct the reader to consult the Glossary, as needed, in passages informed by one or more of these elegiac concepts.

  Introduction Vergil and Elegy in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6

The Aeneid has been called the ‘epic of grief.’ It could as well be called the ‘epic of love,’ for its deepest tragedy is that its people ‘loved too much.’ – viktor pöschl, the art of vergil Throughout his poetic career, Vergil remained committed to the metre of epos and selected its constituent subgenres as the foundations for his three major works. For the Eclogues, Vergil recast for a Roman audience the bucolic and pastoral verse of Theocritus and his imitators.1 The Georgics exemplify recondite didacticism in the manner of Hesiod, Callimachus, Aratus, and Lucretius, and feature agricultural, aetiological, scientific, and philosophical themes.2 Vergil’s final poetic endeavour, the Aeneid, unites mythic, heroic, and ktistic epic in the tale of Aeneas, survivor of Troy’s downfall and the legendary founder of Rome. Indeed, in the simplest terms the Eclogues, the Georgics, and the Aeneid represent Vergil’s successive achievement with each subgenre of the ascending hierarchy of epos.3 But the Vergilian corpus, despite its metrical uniformity, exemplifies generic heterogeneity. Though Vergil foregrounds the pastoral, didactic, and epic traditions in his major works, the generic inclusivity of his verse makes it resistant to straightforward classification. Amidst the pascua (pastures), rura (farmlands), and duces (leaders) of his poems,4 Vergil interweaves elements from virtually every ancient genre with learned allusivity to Greek and Roman literary 1  On the pastoral mode before Vergil and Vergilian imitatio and innovation in the Eclogues, see Coleman (1977) 1–14, 21–36; Van Sickle (1978); Halperin (1983); Hubbard (1998) 19–212; Gutzwiller (2007); Volk (2008a); Martindale (2019) 173–92, with further bibliography. 2  For discussion of the generic affiliations and literary models of the Georgics, see Thomas (19881) 3–11; Farrell (1991) passim; Morgan (1999) 51–5, 161–70, 175–80, 215–16; Gale (2000) 1–17 and passim; Harrison (2007) 136–67; Volk (2008b); Batstone (2019) 193–215, with further bibliography. 3 On the tripartite pattern of Vergil’s career, see Thomas (1999) 101–13; Farrell (2004) 24–46; Putnam (1995) 452–3; Harrison (2007) 9–10, 136; Theodorakopoulos (2019) 226–39, with further bibliography. 4  According to Suetonius, Vergil composed the following epitaph to adorn his own place of burial in Naples (Suet. Vita Vergili 36): Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc | Parthenope; cecini pascua rura duces (Mantua bore me, the Calabrians snatched me away, now Parthenope holds me; I made pastures, farmlands, leaders the subjects of my song).

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0001

2  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid predecessors and contemporaries.5 The Aeneid, a poem characterized by vast literary scope, innovative forms of expression, and thematic complexity, represents the culmination of Vergil’s extensive generic experimentation. Thus, exploring the generic strata of the Aeneid is essential for understanding its transformative approach to the tradition of Homer, to whom the universal primacy of genre had been attributed since the Hellenistic period.6

A Focused Examination of Elegiac Amor and Mors Vergil’s artistic process was shaped by ancient literary critical attitudes to poetic genres, which were ranked on an ascending hierarchical scale and classified according to thematic and formal properties. According to these criteria, the Aeneid exemplified epic, the ‘highest’ poetic genre characterized by martial or heroic subject matter, hexameter rhythm, and significant length. Erotic elegy, by contrast, occupied one of the lowest rungs on the literary hierarchy, based on its themes (desire, lament, rejection of social convention), metrical rhythm (elegiac couplets), and literary form (shorter personal poems). But the efflorescence of elegy coincided with Vergil’s epic endeavours, and his work showcases a per­sist­ent artistic fascination with the relationship between the two genres. In this monograph, I show that elegy is essential to, rather than incompatible with, the entire epic project of the Aeneid. Existing studies have established generic experimentation as an integral part of Vergil’s artistic process and have explored his use of elegiac material in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6.7 Certain passages of overt amatory character have received a disproportionate emphasis: the depictions of Corydon and Gallus in Eclogues 2 and 10; the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice in Georgics 4; and the love affair of Dido and Aeneas in Aeneid 1–6. By posing new questions about the role of elegy in the Aeneid, I make significant and necessary contributions to our understanding of Vergilian epic. My unique focus on Aeneid 7–12 exposes the unexpected presence of elegiac material throughout Vergil’s martial maius opus, thereby redefining its generic character. I also expand my interpretative scope to consider the importance of elegy as a funerary, as well as amatory, mode of expression. Roman elegists accentuate the strong thematic connection between

5  On the generic inclusivity, or polyphony, of Vergilian verse, see Conte (1986) passim; Cairns (1989) 129–76; Farrell (1991) 3–25; Hardie (1993) 71; Hardie (1998) 57–63; Thomas (1999) passim; Harrison (2007) 34–74, 136–67, 207–40; Farrell (2019) 299–325, with further bibliography. 6  On Vergil’s generic inclusivity as a response to the Hellenistic view that all literary traditions originated in the Homeric tradition, see Hardie (1998) 57–62; Harrison (2007) 207. See also Williams (1978) 87–9, 98–9 on Callimachus’ use of the word πόντος (Call. Ap. 106), the oceanic source of all rivers and springs, as an allegory for Homer, the origin of all forms of literature. 7  See Newton (1957); Cairns (1972); Fowler (1982); Conte (1986); Cairns (1989); Horsfall (2000); Nelis (2001); Harrison (2007).

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  3 desire (amor) and death (mors), a binary pairing that reflects the ancient belief that the genre of erotic elegy originated in funeral lament.8 Indeed, the fusion of desire and death was integral to the poetic programme of elegiac verse, and the elegists Propertius and Tibullus incorporated epitaphic language and sepulchral epigram into their erotic poems.9 As the genre of amor (desire) and mors (death), elegy provides Vergil with striking artistic material for articulating the pivotal themes that animate his ambitious martial project (arma, A. 1.1; maius opus, A. 7.45).10 My investigation concentrates on specific episodes from Aeneid 7–12 in which Vergil innovatively integrates elegiac material to accentuate his conceptualization of amor (desire) as a force of genuine destruction that incites violence (arma) and annihilates its victims (mors). Yet my analysis also reveals the intratextual en­tangle­ment of these episodes with other instances of elegiac experimentation in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6. Through my examination of the intertextual significance of intergeneric passages in Aeneid 7–12, I offer compelling evidence for Vergil’s intense artistic engagement with Gallus, Propertius, and Tibullus. Thus, my findings reconstruct the productive artistic dialogue between Vergil and the elegists that shaped the development of Latin literature in a period of radical change. The confirmation of Vergil’s pervasive elegiac fluctuation in the Italian Iliad expands our understanding of its generic complexity, prompting a revisionary reading of its crucial episodes and transforming our perception of its main characters. Moving beyond author and text, I conclude with two preliminary case studies that demonstrate the broader impact of Vergil’s intergeneric experimentation in Aeneid 7–12 on his poetic successors. I show how Statius and Ovid recognize and respond to Vergil’s elegiac interplay, thereby illuminating the ways in which he variously challenged, reinforced, and redefined dominant conceptions of epic and elegy. My methodological framework belongs to the classical branch of scholarship that focuses on genre and intertextuality in Latin poetry (e.g. Cairns 1972; Ross 1975; Conte 1986; Hinds 1998; Thomas 1999; Harrison 2007; Keith 2011a; Davis 2012). It also complements foundational studies of Vergilian epic (e.g. Boyle 1986; Hardie 1986; Cairns 1989; Horsfall 2001; Thomas 2001; Batstone and Tissol 2005; Fratantuono 2007; Panoussi 2009; Mac Góráin and Martindale 2019) and elegy (e.g. Kennedy 1993; Günther 2006; Keith 2008; Heslin 2018). But my particular focus on Vergil’s use of both amatory and sepulchral poetics within an explicitly martial narrative offers a new way of thinking about the importance of elegy to his epic project and provides insights into his artistic process and place in the Latin literary canon. My emphatically philological approach concentrates deliberately on Vergil’s esoteric experimentation with elegy, interrogating its apparently 8  See Glossary s.vv. amor, mors. 9  See Papanghelis (1987); Thomas (1998); Dinter (2005); Ramsby (2007); Keith (2011a). 10  Gillis (1983) studies the themes of eros and death in the Aeneid from the Freudian perspective.

4  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid incongruous aesthetic and thematic presence in Aeneid 7–12. Though rooted in philology and the literary perspective, my examination also gestures towards new avenues of inquiry related to Vergil’s composition of the Aeneid and its reflection of ancient Roman concepts and culture. The introductory overview, to which I now turn, begins with a portrait of Vergil’s artistic and philosophical milieu, which had a profound influence on his conception of amor and his engagement with elegiac verse throughout his entire career. Thereafter, I provide a preliminary survey of Vergil’s elegiac experimentation in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6. My examination of illustrative passages operates on three foundational levels: it specifies conventional elegiac language and motifs that are crucial to Vergil’s intergeneric interplay; it elucidates his tendency to utilize amatory and funerary elegiac elements to depict amor as a dangerous and destructive force; and it identifies pivotal inter- and intratextual comparanda that I return to and expand upon throughout the chapters that focus on Aeneid 7–12.

Vergil, Elegy, and Artistic Exchange Concomitant with Vergil’s own meteoric rise to fame was the swift ascent of the elegiac genre and its chief practitioners, Gallus, Propertius, and Tibullus. Vergil’s intimate exposure to elegy began in the initial stages of his career through the close personal friendship that developed with C. Cornelius Gallus.11 Writing to Cicero in June 43 bce, Asinius Pollio identifies Gallus as his familiaris (meum familiarem, my friend, Cic. Fam. 10.32).12 Vergil’s shared association with Pollio likely facilitated the deep personal connection with Gallus that he commemorates in Eclogue 10 (E. 10.73): Gallo, cuius amor . . . mihi crescit in horas (for Gallus, my love of whom grows every hour). The inclusion of Gallus, moreover, in poetic genealogies and canonical lists of elegists presented by Propertius (e.g. Prop. 2.34.91–92), Ovid (e.g. Ov. Am. 3.9.63–64; Ars 3.333–34; Tr. 2.445–46, 4.10.53–54), Quintilian (Quint. Inst. 10.1.93), and the grammarian Diomedes (GL 1.484) ­confirms his tremendous influence on the early development of Latin elegy.13 Compelling intertextual evidence suggests that Gallus was an important mediator of the works of Callimachus, Euphorion, Parthenius of Nicaea, and Phanocles, and that his aesthetic preferences shaped those of his poetic successors.14 Though 11 On the friendship between Vergil and Gallus, see Boucher (1966) 9–10, 25–6; Ross (1975) ­passim; Courtney (1993) 259; Cairns (2006) 316; Hollis (2007) 225–6. 12  See Hollis (2007) 219, 226 ad Gall. fr. 138b. 13 On Gallus’ appearance in poetic enumerations of the canonical Latin elegists, see Boucher (1966) 70–2; Ross (1975) 44–5; Coleman (1977) 194–5 ad E. 6.64; Hollis (2007) 219–20, 225–30. 14  On Gallus’ engagement with Callimachus, Euphorion, Parthenius, and Phanocles, as well as his possible identification as one of the cantores Euphorionis (chanters of Euphorion, Cic. Tusc. 3.45) mocked by Cicero, see Ross (1975) 46, 49, 53, 79–80, 92–93, 101–2; Kenney (1983) 48–52; Lightfoot

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  5 only eleven lines survive from Gallus’ four books of elegiac Amores, indelible traces of his artistic vision are preserved in the works of Vergil and his elegiac contemporaries.15 After spending three years composing the Eclogues under the patronage of Asinius Pollio,16 Vergil entered the literary circle of Maecenas in 38 bce, due ­perhaps to the retirement of his former patron from public life in that year.17 Under the support of his new patron, Vergil completed the Georgics in 29 bce and spent the next decade composing the Aeneid.18 Shortly after the composition of the Aeneid had begun, Propertius circulated his first collection of elegies (c. 28 bce), the success of which earned him fame and recognition as an elegiac poet and led to his induction into Maecenas’ patronage.19 Membership in the same elite literary circle would have brought Vergil and Propertius into professional contact, granting the two poets mutual access to new compositions prior to circulation. Evidence from Propertius’ elegiac collections written under the patronage of Maecenas confirms that the elegist had detailed knowledge of the Aeneid during its composition. In the closural poem of his second book of elegies, Propertius acknowledges Vergil’s nascent epic poem (Prop. 2.34.63–64): qui nunc Aeneae Troiani suscitat arma | iactaque Lauinis moenia litoribus (who now sets in motion the arms of Trojan Aeneas and the walls established on Lavinian shores). Encased in two elegiac verses are six words (here in bold) that seem to allude to the programmatic opening lines of the Aeneid (A. 1.1–7):20 Arma uirumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Lauiniaque uenit litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto (1999) 55–57, 59–64; Lipka (2001) 87–90; Harrison (2007) 47–59, 68–70; Hollis (2007) 226, 230–4 ad Gall. fr. 139; 238–9 ad Gall. fr. 142. Courtney (1993) 189, 213–24, 262 prefers to connect Cicero’s derisive epithet to C. Helvius Cinna. 15  For discussion and analysis of the fragmentary evidence for Gallan verse, see Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 125–55; Courtney (1993) 259–70; Hollis (2007) 219–52. On the impact of Gallan verse on Vergil and Propertius, see Skutsch (1901); Skutsch (1906); Boucher (1966); Ross (1975); Cairns (2006). 16  Though the chronology of the individual Eclogues is much debated, scholars generally agree that the poems were composed between 42 and 39 bce: see Coleman (1977) 14–21; Clausen (1994) xxii; Conte (1996) 263. 17  By the time Horace sought admission to the circle of Maecenas in 38 bce, Vergil was already an established member: see Mankin (1995) 2; Conte (1996) 250. Cairns (2006) 251 attributes Vergil’s change of patronage to the retirement of Asinius Pollio from public life in 38 bce and to Vergil’s desire for affiliation with a protector active at the forefront of politics. 18  Thomas (19881) 1 determines from internal and external evidence that Vergil completed the Georgics in 29 bce, after seven years of composition. 19  On Propertius’ entry into the circle of Maecenas, likely in 27/26 bce, see Conte (1996) 331; Cairns (2006) 251–52, 300; Keith (2008) 9. Contra Heslin (2010) 54–68 and Heslin (2018), who proposes a redating of the Monobiblos to before Actium. 20  For discussion of this Propertian allusion to the opening lines of the Aeneid, see Cairns (2003) 309–10; Fedeli (2005) 989–90 ad Prop. 2.34.62–64; Cairns (2006) 313. On the potential allusions to the Aeneid in Propertius 2.34 and the scholarly debate they engender, see O’Rourke (2011) 464–73.

6  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid ui superum, saeuae memorem Iunonis ob iram, multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem inferretque deos Latio; genus unde Latinum Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae. [Arms and the man I sing, who first from the coasts of Troy exiled by fate came to Italy and Lavinian shore, that man much buffeted on land and on the deep by the force of the gods above, on account of the remembering wrath of cruel Juno, and having suffered much also in war, until he would found a city and bring his gods to Latium; whence came Latin stock and the Alban fathers and the lofty walls of Rome.]

Propertius also conceals the opening phrase of the Aeneid (arma uirumque cano, arms and the man I sing, A. 1.1) in the fourth poem of his third collection, which begins conspicuously with arma (arms, Prop. 3.4.1) and incorporates thereafter the plural uiri (men, Prop. 3.4.3) and the verb cano (I sing, Prop. 3.4.9).21 Moreover, Propertius seems to have anticipated a readership within the circle of Maecenas similarly endowed with foreknowledge of the incipit of Vergil’s epic and thus able to comprehend his sophisticated allusions.22 The remarkable cor­ res­pond­ence between Vergil’s comparison of the gleaming skin of Ascanius to inlaid ivory in Aeneid 10 (quale . . . | inclusum . . . Oricia terebintho | lucet ebur, just like ivory gleams when enclosed in Orician terebinth, A. 10.135–37) and Propertius’ description of the luxuries enjoyed by the youth Paetus (thyio thalamo aut Oricia terebintho, in a bedchamber of citrus wood or Orician terebinth, Prop. 3.7.49) provides further evidence of their poetic interaction.23 Conspicuous intertextual echoes are thus important testimonia for the artistic exchange between Vergil and Propertius, enabled by their mutual enrolment in Maecenas’ literary circle. Poetic interaction and influence also transcended the boundaries of literary affiliation. Vergil’s elegiac contemporary Tibullus was a member of the literary circle of the Republican aristocrat Messalla Corvinus.24 Messalla, a prominent orator known for his refined taste, assembled an influential literary coterie that

21  See Cairns (2003) 309–11. 22  As suggested by Cairns (2003) 311. 23  See Harrison (1991) 97 ad A. 10.136; Fedeli (1985) 265 ad Prop. 3.7.49; Cairns (2006) 158–9, with further bibliography. Heslin (2018) analyses the function of mythological narrative in Propertius’ polemical engagement with Vergil. 24  Tibullus’ affiliation with M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus is attested in both the Vita Tibulli and in the elegies themselves, particularly in the dedicatory addresses of the first poems of each book (Tib. 1.1.53–74, 2.1.27–36) and in the genethliacon for Messalla (Tib. 1.7): see Putnam (1973) 4–5, 58 ad Tib. 1.1.53–54; 118–19 ad Tib. 1.7; 156 ad Tib. 2.1.31–34; Della Corte (1980) 132 ad Tib. 1.1.53–78; 240–1 ad Tib. 2.1.27–36; 197–8 ad Tib. 1.7; Murgatroyd (1980) 64 ad Tib. 1.1.53–54; 208 ad Tib. 1.7; Murgatroyd (1994) 37–40 ad Tib. 2.1.31–36; Maltby (2002) 41, 115–16 ad Tib. 1.1; 141 ad Tib. 1.1.53; 280–1 ad Tib. 1.7; 359–60 ad Tib. 2.1; 367 ad Tib. 2.1.27–36.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  7 included Tibullus, Ovid, Valgius Rufus, Lygdamus, and his own niece Sulpicia.25 It is clear from the works of Horace and Ovid that interaction existed between the elite literary circles of Maecenas and Messalla: in the first book of Sermones, Horace seeks approval not only from Maecenas and Vergil, but also from Messalla and Valgius Rufus (Hor. S. 1.10.81–85); and Ovid reports in the Tristia that he attended recitations by Propertius and Horace (Ov. Tr. 4.10.45–50).26 The elder Seneca also preserves an artistic exchange between authors that resulted from their mutual attendance at a literary gathering (Sen. Suas. 6.27). There Sextilius Ena’s recitation of the line deflendus Cicero est Latiaeque silentia linguae (tears must be shed for Cicero and the silence of the Latin tongue, fr. 202 Hollis) roused the ire of Asinius Pollio but inspired Cornelius Severus to compose a response, conticuit Latiae tristis facundia linguae (the eloquence of the Latin tongue fell silent in sorrow, fr. 219.11 Hollis), which led in turn to Ovid’s subsequent appropriation of the phrase Latiae facundia linguae (eloquence of the Latin tongue, Ov. Pont. 2.3.75).27 Vergil himself, according to the emphatic assertion of the poet Julius Montanus, performed recitations with exceptional skill (Julius Montanus fr. 221d Hollis): Iulium Montanum poetam solitum dicere inuolaturum se Vergilio quaedam, si et uocem posset et os et hypocrisin (the poet Juius Montanus used to say that he would carry off some things from Vergil, if he could also carry off his voice and countenance and gesticulation).28 Though different literary circles may have had a distinctive ethos, this did not preclude broader participation in the vibrant literary scene, which exposed poets to recent poetic trends and in­nov­ations and engendered mutual admiration, imitation, and rivalry. Indeed, telling evidence in the elegies of Tibullus indicates that his membership in a different literary circle did not preclude his poetic interaction with Vergil. The structural arrangement of Tibullus’ first collection of elegies, which features ten poems of uniform metre and comparable length, is informed by the model of Vergil’s Eclogues, as Eleanor Winsor Leach has shown.29 Furthermore, the pastoral musings of the Tibullan lover-­poet, who yearns to dwell with the beloved in an idealized rustic landscape, recast the themes and diction of the Eclogues in erotic elegiac terms.30 Striking intertextual correspondences between Tibullus’ first collection of elegies and the first half of Vergil’s Aeneid are

25  On Messalla’s circle, see Davies (1973) 25–35; Putnam (1973) 5; Courtney (1993) 287–90 ad Valgius Rufus frr. 1–7 Courtney; Conte (1996) 260–1; Maltby (2002) 41; Gaertner (2005) 401–2 ad Ov. Pont. 1.7.27–30; Hollis (2007) 3, 287–99 ad Valgius Rufus frr. 162–71; Fulkerson (2017) 16–20, 32–3. 26  See Maltby (2002) 3. 27  See Courtney (1993) 320, 325–6 ad Cornelius Severus fr. 13; 329 ad Sextilius Ena; Hollis (2007) 338–9 ad Sextilius Ena fr. 202; 345–47, 358–67 ad Cornelius Severus fr. 219. 28  See Hollis (2007) 368–71 ad Julius Montanus fr. 221d. 29  See Leach (1978) 79–105. 30  See Putnam (1973) passim; Veyne (1988) 101–15; Maltby (2002) 56–8 and passim; O’Rourke (2012) 394–96, with further bibliography. See also Breed (2018) 117–29, who compares Theocritus’ Idyll 2, Vergil’s Eclogue 2, and Tibullus 1.2.

8  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid con­firm­ation of their exchange of poetic materials across the boundaries of affiliation and genre.31 In Tibullus’ second elegiac collection, the palpable aesthetic and thematic similarity of his commemoration of Messalinus’ induction into the Quindecemuiri Sacris Faciundis (Tib. 2.5) to passages from the Aeneid indicates the ongoing nature of his poetic interchange with Vergil.32 These illustrative examples of intertextuality, regardless of priority or origin, are manifestations of the continuous artistic dialogue between Tibullus and Vergil and its influence on their work. The intergeneric translatio of poetic material, as the chapters of this volume demonstrate, is informed by the perceived conceptual differences between mollis (soft) elegy and durus (hard) epic.33 Interweaving material from the two the­or­et­ ic­al­ly antithetical genres creates a productive tension that Vergil and the elegists harness to delineate the aesthetic and thematic parameters of their respective endeavours. Playful poetic discord also reveals critical points of similitude, as  Vergil and the elegists underscore their adherence to Alexandrian poetic prin­ciples and acknowledge their shared literary lineage. What is more, the sheer brilliance of the intertextual interplay between Vergil, Gallus, Propertius, and Tibullus evinces the masterful, nuanced appreciation of each poet for the innovative output of the others.

Engagement With Elegy in Eclogues 2, 6, 10: Corydon and Gallus The traditional belief that Homeric epic was the primordial source of all poetic genres informs the intergeneric inclusivity of the Aeneid. In similar fashion, the generic uariatio of Theocritus’ Idylls shaped that of the Eclogues, in which Vergil self-­consciously juxtaposes the constituent genres of his pastoral project.34 Elements

31  See e.g. Eurusque Notusque, Tib. 1.5.35 ≈ Eurusque Notusque, A. 1.85; ore cruento, Tib. 1.5.49 ≈ ore cruento, A. 1.296; ululetque per orbes, Tib. 1.5.55 ≈ ululata per urbes, A. 4.609. The priority of these  correspondences cannot be confirmed: see Levin (1983) 2036–9. Ball (1983) 86 considers them to be evidence for Tibullus’ response to the Aeneid in progress. By contrast, Maltby (2002) 250 ad Tib. 1.5.35; 254 ad Tib. 1.5.49; 255 ad Tib. 1.5.55 briefly notes the first two parallels (Tib. 1.5.35 ≈ A. 1.85; Tib. 1.5.49 ≈ A. 1.296) and wonders if the third indicates Vergilian imitation of Tibullus (Tib. 1.5.55 ≈ A. 4.609). On the related phrases ululet per orbes (Tib. 1.5.55) and ululata per urbes (Verg. A. 4.609) as allusions to Horace (Canidiam . . . | cum Sagana maiore ululantem, Canidia howling with the older Sagana, Hor. S. 1.8.24–25) see Murgatroyd (1980) 180–1 ad Tib. 1.5.55–56; Maltby (2002) 255 ad Tib. 1.5.55–56. 32  See note 29. 33  See Glossary s.vv. mollis, durus. 34  On the generic polyphony of Theocritus and its influence on Vergil’s generic experimentation in the Eclogues, see Hubbard (1998) 45–139; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 133–90; Breed (2006) 16; Harrison (2007) 34–6; Fabre-­Serris (2008) 47–94.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  9 from Latin elegy influence the aesthetic and thematic character of the Eclogues, as exemplified by the depiction of Corydon, the love-­struck pastor of Eclogue 2, and the poetic commemorations of Gallus in Eclogues 6 and 10. In Propertius 2.34, the elegist allusively privileges the Eclogues in his presentation of ‘author[s] of interest to amatory readers’, as Richard Thomas has shown.35 Propertius devotes one verse to each eclogue with ordered reference to the collection (Prop. 2.34.67–76), whereas the Aeneid and the Georgics receive only six and two lines respectively. (Prop. 2.34.61–66, 2.34.77–78).36 His reception of the Eclogues recognizes and responds to the presence of elegiac aesthetics and themes in the collection. The epigrammatist Martial likewise acknowledges the erotic elegiac resonance of the Eclogues in his catalogue of Roman elegists (Mart. 8.73.5–10): Cynthia te uatem fecit, lasciue Properti;     ingenium Galli pulchra Lycoris erat; fama est arguti Nemesis formosa Tibulli;     Lesbia dictauit, docte Catulle, tibi: non me Paeligni nec spernet Mantua uatem,     si qua Corinna mihi, si quis Alexis erit. [Cynthia made you a poet, luxuriant Propertius; beautiful Lycoris was the talent of Gallus; lovely Nemesis is the renown of clear-­voiced Tibullus; Lesbia composed for you, learned Catullus: neither the Paelignians nor Mantua will spurn me as poet, if I will have a Corinna, if I will have an Alexis.]

Martial’s references to Mantua, Vergil’s place of origin, and Alexis, the beloved of Corydon, align Eclogue 2 with the amatory elegiac poetics of Propertius, Gallus, Tibullus, Catullus, and Ovid. Indeed, Vergil’s depiction of Corydon, the alienated and suffering lover competing with a wealthy rival for the affections of an unresponsive beloved, in­corp­ or­ates the standard personae and themes of elegy.37 Intertextual analysis suggests that Gallan elegy may have had a particular influence on Vergil’s depiction of amatory suffering and alienation in the second eclogue. For example, the Vergilian phrase non ego Daphnim | iudice te metuam (I will not fear Daphnis with you as judge, E. 2.26–27) bears a striking similarity to a Gallan verbal complex found in  the Qaṣr Ibrîm papyrus (non ego, Visce | . . . Kato iudice te uereor, I do not,

35  See Thomas (1999) 263–6. For further discussion of Propertius’ response to the Eclogues in poem 2.34, see also O’Rourke (2011) 473–81. 36  See Thomas (1999) 263–6. 37  On the erotic and elegiac reverberations of Eclogue 2, see Coleman (1977) 108 (‘the most elegiac of pastorals’); Kenney (1983) 48–52 (‘any respectable anthology of Latin love poetry should include Vergil’s second and eighth Eclogues’); Clausen (1994) 61–4.

10  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Viscus, . . . I do not, Cato, fear with you as judge, Gall. fr. 145.8–9 Hollis).38 Vergil’s poem also features an array of themes and motifs commonly attributed to Gallus and his elegies: the unhappy, rejected lover;39 the diues amator as erotic rival;40 the lover’s affection for both puella and puer delicatus;41 and the lover’s solitary retreat to wilderness in search of medicina amoris.42 The exclamatory a, twice uttered by Corydon (a! demens, ah! madman, E. 2.60; a, Corydon, Corydon, ah, Corydon, Corydon, E. 2.69), may also have been a feature of Gallus’ poetry.43 Corydon replicates the behaviour of conventional elegiac lovers: he is wretched (misero, E. 2.58); he suffers from incendiary desire (me tamen urit amor, nevertheless love burns me, E. 2.68); he subscribes to amatory excess (quis enim modus adsit amori, what limit could there be to love, E. 2.68); and he descends into impassioned madness (demens, madman, E. 2.60; dementia, madness, E. 2.69). The amatory rhetoric of Corydon also reflects the conventional elegiac preoccupation with mors: he redoubles the conventional cry of lament (heu heu, alas alas, E. 2.58);44 he accuses Alexis of endangering his life (mori me denique cogis, you drive me even to die, E. 2.7); and he compares the ephemeral beauty of Alexis to fallen and plucked flowers (alba ligustra cadunt, uaccinia nigra leguntur, white privets fall, dark hyacinths are plucked, E. 2.18). The evocations of elegiac mors in Cordyon’s speech lend sepulchral weight to the shadows that usher in the end of

38  On the fragment preserved in the Qaṣr Ibrîm papyrus, see Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 125–55; Hollis (2007) 224, 241–52 ad Gall. fr. 145. Morelli and Tandoi (1984) 101–06; Cairns (2006) 97; and Hollis (2007) 248 consider the Vergilian lines to be a direct reference to Gallus. For arguments in favour of Vergilian priority, see Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 144; Courtney (1993) 267. See also Clausen (1994) 74 ad E. 2.26–27 who notes the textual similarity but does not claim priority for either poet. 39  See Glossary s.v. infelix/miser. 40  Du Quesnay (1979) 60–1 bases his claim that Corydon’s rival, the diues amator Iollas (E. 2.57), derives from Gallan elegy on the grounds that the rival figure, while absent from the primary Theocritean models for Eclogue 2, appears in the depiction of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (E. 10.22–23) and is a pervasive feature of Propertian, Tibullan, and Ovidian elegy. Cairns (2006) 34, 113 considers the wealthy rival a conventional feature of elegy deployed by Gallus and imitated by Propertius in the Monobiblos in reference to Gallan poetics (cf. Prop. 1.4, 1.5, 1.8). 41  Luck (1976) 122–6 persuasively argues that Horace’s treatment of elegiac themes and vocabulary in the eleventh Epode, written prior to Propertian or Tibullan elegy, derives from the poetry of Gallus. Du Quesnay (1979) 61 endorses Luck’s proposal that the Horatian lover’s affection for both puella and puer delicatus derives from Gallan verse, citing Gallus’ affection for both Phyllis and Amyntas in the tenth eclogue (E. 10.37) as evidence. Kenney (1983) 48–9 suggests that the bisexual Corydon is modelled on Callimachus’ Acontius. On the influence of Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe on Gallus, see Ross (1975) 72–4, 88–9; Du Quesnay (1979) 62; Kenney (1983) 44–52, with further bibliography; Rosen and Farrell (1986) 241–54; Cairns (2006) 119–20; Fabre-­Serris (2008) 61. 42  See Glossary s.vv. hunting, medicina amoris. 43  On the neoteric exclamation a as a possible feature of Gallan verse, see Ross (1975) 73; Cairns (2006) 120. On the repeated phrase a, uirgo infelix in Eclogue 6 (a, wretched maiden, E. 6.47, 6.52) as an echo of Calvus’ Io, see Coleman (1977) 189 ad E. 6.47; Thomas (1979b) 337–9; Courtney (1993) 205; Hollis (2007) 51, 64–5 ad Calvus fr. 20. 44  The interjections eheu and heu (alas!) appear frequently in Latin funerary inscriptions: see CCLE s.vv. eheu, heu.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  11 the poem (umbras, E. 2.67), conjuring the gloom and shades of the underworld.45 Throughout Eclogue 2, the conspicuous presence of elegiac language and themes underscores the amatory suffering of Corydon and anticipates that of Gallus later in the collection. Vergil pays exceptional homage to Gallus and his poetic exploits by making him the central figure in Eclogues 6 and 10, two stylized, panegyric poems that frame the second half of his pastoral collection. The near total loss of Gallan verse, so pivotal to the development of Latin elegy, imposes severe limitations on our understanding of the genre. Thus, the explicit Vergilian translatio of Gallan verse in Eclogues 6 and 10 offers crucial insight into its aesthetic and thematic scope.46 Writing at the turn of the twentieth century, Franz Skutsch read Eclogues 6 and 10 as virtual catalogues of Gallan passages.47 Though the totalizing ‘Kataloggedicht’ hypothesis of Skutsch has largely been rejected, substantial evidence supports his basic view that traces of Gallus are preserved in the two eclogues devoted to him. In the sixth eclogue, Silenus interrupts his mythological narrative with a lengthy description of Gallus’ poetic consecration (E. 6.64–73): 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.’ [Then he sings of Gallus wandering near the streams of the Permessus, how one of the sisters led him to the Aonian mountains, and how the entire chorus of Phoebus rose up to honour the man; how Linus, a herdsman of divine song, his tresses adorned with flowers and bitter parsley, said these things to him: ‘To you the Muses give these reeds (behold, take them), which before they gave to the old Ascraean, through playing upon which that one was accustomed to lead down from the mountains the unbending ash trees. With these may the origin of the Grynean grove be told by you, that there may be no grove in which Apollo glories more.’]

45  The noun umbra can refer to the disembodied form of the deceased and the collective plural form umbrae can denote the world of the dead: see OLD s.v. umbra 7. 46  See Ross (1975) passim; Cairns (2006) passim, both with further bibliography. 47  See Skutsch (1901); Skutsch (1906).

12  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Through the initiation scene, Vergil emphasizes Gallus’ importance to the poetic canon, while incorporating themes and motifs from the elegist’s own repertoire. The scene of poetic investiture places Gallus in the elevated company of legendary and literary predecessors, including Linus (E. 6.67), Orpheus (ille, E. 6.70–71), and Hesiod (Ascraeo . . . seni, E. 6.70). Scholars have convincingly identified details within the Vergilian initiation scene that likely derive from a Gallan in­ter­pret­ ation of the Heliconian consecration of Hesiod (Hes. Th. 22–34) as mediated by Callimachus in the Aetia (Call. Aet. fr. 2 Harder).48 In Propertius’ second elegiac collection, a programmatic evocation of Callimachean succession featuring Hesiod, Orpheus, and Linus (Prop. 2.13a.3–8) likely looks back to a lost Gallan model through the Vergilian intermediate in the sixth eclogue.49 Furthermore, Vergil’s reference to the Grynean grove of Apollo (Grynei nemoris, of the Grynean grove, E. 6.72) may allude to a lost Gallan aetiology written in the style of his Hellenistic predecessor Euphorion.50 Gallus’ imitation of Euphorion, who seems to have written predominantly in dactylic hexameter, leads to questions regarding the elegist’s potential experimentation with the epic genre.51 In his second collection of elegies, Propertius conjures the image of the Vergilian Gallus wandering near the streams of the Permessus (errantem Permessi ad flumina Gallum, E. 6.64) in a programmatic declaration of his own elegiac affiliation (Prop. 2.10.25–26): nondum etiam Ascraeos norunt mea carmina fontis, | sed modo Permessi flumine lauit Amor (not yet do my poems know the Ascraean springs, but just now Amor has bathed them in the stream of the Permessus). A comparison of the two passages suggests that Vergil’s initiation scene alludes to Gallus’ generic shift from erotic elegy (Permessi . . . flumina, streams of the Permessus, E. 6.64) to aetio­logic­al

48  On the Hesiodic and Callimachean resonance of the passage, see Ross (1975) 18–23; Clausen (1994) 199–201 ad E. 6.64; Harrison (2007) 55; Keith (2008) 66. For discussion of the Vergilian ini­ti­ ation scene as evidence for a lost Gallan model, see Skutsch (1901) 34–5; Ross (1975) 21–38; Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 149–51; Cairns (2006) 120–31. Rosen and Farrell (1986) 242–3 suggest that Gallus’ privileged position in the succession of poets in Eclogue 6 may indicate that his own work embraced the poetic traditions alluded to in the poetic genealogy. 49  See Ross (1975) 21–38; Coleman (1977) 195–6 ad E. 6.64; Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 149–51; Fedeli (2005) 366–72 ad Prop. 2.13.3–8; Cairns (2006) 120–31; Keith (2008) 65–6. Thomas (1986) 188 uses the phrase ‘window reference’ to describe the simultaneous allusion to two sources, through the close adaptation of an intermediate model which serves as a window on to the ultimate source. Hardie (1989) 3–20 describes the synchronous imitation of both a passage and its model as the practice of ‘double imitation’. 50  See Servius ad E. 6.72: hoc autem Euphorionis continent carmina, quae Gallus transtulit in sermonem Latinum (the poems of Euphorion, moreover, which Gallus translated into the Latin language, preserve this). For discussion of Gallus’ aetion of the Grynean grove, see Luck (1969) 45–6; Coleman (1977) 205–6; Clausen (1994) 203–4 ad E. 6.72; Morgan (1999) 166–7; Cairns (2006) 120–31, 223, 330–1; Harrison (2007) 56–7; Hollis (2007) 230–34, 237–8 ad Gall. frr. 139, 142. See also Lipka (2001) 87–90, 94–100. 51  Hollis (2007) 230–2 summarizes the debate and sensibly concludes that Servius refers to Gallus’ appropriation of the color of Euphorion. Contra Courtney (1993) 261–62, who argues against the long-­held claim that Gallus imitated or translated Euphorion and suggests that Parthenius communicated his enthusiasm for Euphorion to the elegist.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  13 verse (Grynei nemoris . . . origo, origin of the Grynean grove, E. 6.72).52 Though the specific details remain obscured by the loss of Gallus’ poetry, even the limited evidence indicates that his poetic themes and diction inform the scene of ­consecration in Eclogue 6. In the tenth and final eclogue, Vergil focuses on the figure of Gallus in a poem that features the experimental fusion of pastoral and elegiac poetics.53 Vergil begins by dedicating the closural poem (extremum . . . laborem, E. 10.1) of his collection to Gallus (meo Gallo, E. 10.2) and declaring his intention to engage with the elegiac Amores of his friend (E. 10.6): sollicitos Galli dicamus amores (let us sing of the anxious loves of Gallus).54 The poem has long been suspected to contain direct echoes of Gallan elegy, as supported by Servius’ claim (Servius ad E. 10.46): hi autem omnes uersus Galli sunt, de ipsius translati carminibus (all these verses, moreover, are of Gallus, translated from his poems).55 In particular, Gallus’ visions of Lycoris enduring harsh landscapes far from Rome (E. 10.46–49), a passage of thematic unity and elegiac rhythmic cadence, may adapt material from a Gallan propemptikon.56 Impelled by Servius’ attestation of Vergilian translatio, scholars have identified the Gallan provenance of numerous aesthetic and ­thematic features that appear in Eclogue 10 and are conventional aspects of Latin elegy. Throughout Eclogue 10, the figure of Gallus rehearses the role of the suffering amator previously encapsulated by Corydon in the second eclogue. Vergil’s characterization of Gallus, like that of Corydon, is a virtual catalogue in miniature of conventional amatory elegiac topoi, including excessive passion (ecquis erit modus, will there be a limit, E. 10.28); the sorrowful amator (tristis, E. 10.31);57 the insanity of amor (quid insanis, why are you acting like a madman, E. 10.21; furor, frenzy, E. 10.38; insanus amor, insane love, E. 10.44);58 the harsh and unresponsive mistress (dura, harsh one, E. 10.47);59 the juxtaposition of amatory and martial exploits (E. 10.40–45);60 and the retreat of the amator into the wilderness 52  On the phrase Permessi flumina in both Vergil and Propertius and its generic implications in relation to Gallus, see Ross (1975) 32, 119–20; Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979) 151; Courtney (1993) 262; Fedeli (2005) 330–0 ad Prop. 2.10.25–26; Cairns (2006) 125, 329–36; Hollis (2007) 231–2 ad Gall. fr. 139. 53  For discussions of the generic interaction between pastoral and love elegy in Eclogue 10, see Conte (1986) 100–29; Harrison (2007) 59–74. 54  See Glossary s.v. amor. 55  On the uestigia Galli in Eclogue 10, see Ross (1975) 39–50, 85–106; Coleman (1977) 295–7; Conte (1986) 100–29; Courtney (1993) 268–70 ad Gall. fr. 3 Courtney; Clausen (1994) 290–2; Cairns (2006) passim; Harrison (2007) 59–74; Hollis (2007) 221–22, 234–7 ad Gall. frr. 140–41; Fabre-­Serris (2008) 56–7. 56  See Coleman (1977) 288 ad E. 10.46–49; Clausen (1994) 291–2; Hollis (2007) 236, who observes that the phrase me sine sola uides (E. 10.48) could fit the end of a pentameter line. Michael Dewar cautions, per litteras, that the regular pattern of the second half of the Augustan pentameter (– ⌣⌣ – ⌣⌣×) was not yet established in the elegiac poems of Catullus and other early poets and therefore may not have been a standard feature of the elegies of the durior poeta Gallus (Quint. Inst. 10.1.93). 57  See Glossary s.vv. infelix/miser, tears. 58  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 59  See Glossary s.v. durus. 60  See Glossary s.v. militia amoris.

14  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid in search of medicina amoris (E. 10.50–69).61 The noun amor, moreover, exhibits its elegiac flexibility as a term for love (e.g. indigno . . . amore, by unrequited love, E. 10.10), elegiac poetry (e.g. Galli . . . amores, the loves of Gallus, E. 10.6), and the cruel amatory deity (e.g. Amor non talia curat, Amor has not care for such things, E. 10.28).62 Gallus’ threefold repetition of the exclamatory a (E. 10.48–49), echoing that of his pastoral doublet Corydon (a! demens, ah! madman, E. 2.60; a, Corydon, Corydon, ah, Corydon, Corydon, E. 2.69), may exaggerate the elegist’s characteristic mannerism (E. 10.48–49).63 When Gallus declares his intention to carve his amores into the bark of young trees (E. 10.53–54), his words allusively point to the elegist’s influential mediation of Callimachus’ tale of Acontius and Cydippe.64 Other notable features showcase Vergil’s subjection of Theocritean material to Gallan elegiac deformazione. The phrase tua cura Lycoris (your beloved Lycoris, E. 10.22) allusively combines the technical elegiac term for the beloved (cura), which originated with Gallus,65 and the Theocritean formulation ἁ δέ τυ κώρα (the girl [seeking] you, Theoc. 1.82).66 The Latin loanword spelaea (caves, E. 10.52 ≈ σπήλαια) has also been tentatively attributed to Gallus.67 Vergil’s tenth eclogue is thus a testament both to his own amor Galli (cuius amor, a love of whom, E. 10.73) and to his intimate knowledge and virtuosic appropriation of Gallus’ elegiac Amores (Galli dicamus amores, let us sing the loves of Gallus, E. 10.6). Vergil’s incorporation of language and imagery related to death evokes the conceptual association of amor and mors in elegy, as seen in his initial description of Gallus perishing from love (amore peribat, he was perishing from love, E. 10.10).68 When the Vergilian Gallus visualizes his death, he epitomizes the elegiac preoccupation with mors and sepulchral poetics (E. 10.33): o mihi tum quam molliter ossa quiescant (o, how softly would my bones rest then). The envisioned repose of Gallus’ bones reflects the pervasive emphasis in Latin funerary inscriptions on the bodily remains of the deceased resting in the place of burial (e.g. molliter ossa cubent, let the bones lie softly, CE 428.15, 1286.4, 1327.14; hic mea ferali requiescunt ossa sepulchro, here my bones rest in my funereal resting place, CE 1222.3; hoc rudis aurigae requiescunt ossa sepulchro, in this burial place rest the bones of a rough charioteer, CE 1279.1; nunc ita in aeterna requiesco sed[e sepulta], now thus interred in my eternal burial place I rest, CE 1055.9).69 The adverbial form of mollis (molliter, softy, E. 10.33), a metapoetic signpost for elegiac verse, reinforces the generic resonance of Gallus’ sentiments.70 In the final lines of Gallus’ speech, the pastoral image of a dying tree (cum moriens alta liber 61  See Glossary s.vv. hunting, medicina amoris. 62  See Glossary s.v. amor. 63  As suggested by Hollis (2007) 236 ad Gall. fr. 141. 64  See Ross (1975) 73–4; Kenney (1983) 45–7; Cairns (2006) 119, 161. 65  See Glossary s.v. cura. 66  See O’Hara (2017) 251–52, citing Ross (1975) 68–9. 67  See Ross (1975) 73; Clausen (1994) 301 ad E. 10.52; Cairns (2006) 119, 134–5; Hollis (2007) 235. 68  Coleman (1977) 277 ad E. 10.10. See CCLE s.v. perii, periit, perit, peritura, peritus; Pichon s.v. perire. 69 See CCLE s.vv. ossa. See Glossary s.v. mors. 70  See Glossary s.v. mollis.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  15 aret in ulmo, when the dying bark withers on the lofty elm, E. 10.67) harks back to his figurative amatory demise in the beginning of the poem (amore peribat, he was perishing from love, E. 10.10). The reverberations of elegiac mors throughout the eclogue imbue the closural lines with funerary significance, allusively ­connecting the heavy shadows of night (grauis umbra, E. 10.75; grauis umbra, E. 10.76; umbrae, E. 10.76; cf. umbras, E. 2.67) to the darkness and ghostly inhabitants of the underworld.71 Thus, Vergil seals his commemoration of Gallus and the Eclogues with multivalent umbrae that underscore the intrusion of funerary elegiac material into the pastoral landscape. With his last intergeneric flourish, Vergil prefigures the experimentation with elegy, both amatory and sepulchral, that endures beyond his debut collection.

Engagement With Elegy in Georgics 4: Orpheus and Eurydice A tale of tragic love in the fourth book of the Georgics exemplifies the profound impact that Gallus and elegy continued to have on Vergil’s artistic development. Aristaeus, troubled by the loss of his bees, is bidden by his mother Cyrene to seek the aid of Proteus, a shapeshifting seer (G. 4.315–452). In response to Aristaeus’ plea, Proteus sings of Orpheus’ quest to retrieve his beloved Eurydice from the underworld (G. 4.453–527). Whereas Orpheus traditionally succeeds, Vergil presents the legendary singer as unsuccessful, transforming the story into an exemplum of disastrous love.72 The embedded Orpheus and Eurydice epyllion incorporates elements from Phanocles (fr. 1 Powell),73 Catullus (c. 64), and perhaps other lost neoteric models.74 But the figure of Orpheus, the legendary poeta connected to Gallus in the investiture scene of Eclogue 6, hints at the connection between the elegist and the epyllion of Georgics 4.75 Investigation of the Orpheus and Eurydice episode reveals the crucial influence of Gallus and elegy on Vergil’s intergeneric digression.76 In his commentaries on Eclogue 10 and Georgics 4, Servius makes the famous claim that an extended passage in praise of Gallus (laudes Galli), originally 71 See OLD s.v. umbra 7. 72  See Thomas (19882) 225 ad G. 4.453–527. 73  On Vergil’s reception of Phanocles in the Orpheus and Eurydice epyllion, see Dexter (2013) 303–11, with further bibliography. 74  On the connections between Vergil’s Orpheus and Eurydice epyllion and Catullus 64, see Crabbe (1977) 342–51; Thomas (19882) 202 ad G. 4.315–558; 225–6 ad G. 4.453–527; Mynors (1990) 314–15 ad G. 4.453–527. 75  On the figure of Orpheus as representative of Gallus, see Ross (1975) 23–8; Thomas (19881) 15–16; (19882) 226 ad G. 453–527. Contra Harrison (2007) 165, who asserts that chronology prevents Orpheus from being a representative of Gallus. 76 On the intertextual and generic correspondences between the Vergilian figures of Orpheus (G. 4) and Gallus (E. 6, 10), see Conte (1986) 137n.8; Thomas (19882) 226 ad G. 4.453–527; Hardie (1998) 46; Cairns (2006) 138–9. See also Morgan (1999) 167–70 on the elegiac resonance of Vergil’s Orpheus.

16  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid featured in the closural panel of Vergil’s didactic project, was removed at the behest of Augustus and supplanted by the Orpheus epyllion.77 Though few accept Servius’ mysterious assertion, his insistence on the connection of the Orpheus epyllion to Gallus may derive from the elegist’s aesthetic and thematic influence on the passage.78 Indeed, similarities in diction and theme are revealed by comparing the Vergilian epyllion to Eclogues 6 and 10. For example, the conceptualization of the landscape as a responsive entity, weeping in concert with the grief-­stricken Orpheus, revisits the motif of nature’s empathy found in relation to the amatory suffering of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (G. 4.461–63; E. 10.13–15):79                          . . . flerunt Rhodopeiae arces altaque Pangaea et Rhesi Mauortia tellus atque Getae atque Hebrus et Actias Orithyia. [the peaks of Rhodope wept and the Pangaean heights and the warlike land of Rhesus and the Getae and Hebrus and Orythia of Acte.] Illum etiam lauri, etiam fleuere myricae; pinifer illum etiam sola sub rupe iacentem Maenalus et gelidi fleuerunt saxa Lycaei. [For that one even the laurels, even the tamarisks wept; for that one, lying beneath the lonely crag, even pine-­bearing Maenalus wept and the rocks of frosty Lycaeus.]

Orpheus, unable to endure his sorrow after the death of his beloved wife, attempts to assuage his suffering through song and solitude in the wilderness (G. 4.464–66), recalling Gallus’ consolatory singing in the tenth eclogue (E. 10.50–54).80 Vergil’s description of Orpheus, singing as daylight rises and sets (te ueniente die, te decedente canebat, of you when the day was arriving, of you when the day was

77  See Servius ad E. 10.1, G. 4.1. In the first volume of his commentary on the Georgics, Thomas (19881) 13–16 provides a thorough summary of the debate surrounding the laudes Galli. For further discussion of the laudes Galli, see Coleman (1962) 55–71; Klingner (1963) 194–5; Boucher (1966) 59–65; Ross (1975) 107n.1; Mynors (1990) 296; Farrell (1991) 253–6; Courtney (1993) 262; Hardie (1998) 45, with further bibliography; Hollis (2007) 228–9. 78  Thomas (19881) 15–16 makes the attractive suggestion that Vergil’s acknowledgement of the style and content of the poetry of Gallus in the Orpheus epyllion may have contributed to Servius’ misunderstanding. Hardie (1998) 46 similarly suggests that some awareness of the literary influence of Gallus may lie behind Servius’ claim. 79 On the similar length, theme, and diction of the two passages see Thomas (19882) 227 ad G. 4.461–63; 233 ad G. 4.508–09. See also Cairns (2006) 139, 228, who attributes the sentiments and phraseology of G. 4.508–09 to Gallus. 80  Both Thomas (19882) 228 ad G. 4.466 and Cairns (2006) 136–8 suggest that Gallan precedent informs Vergil’s description of Orpheus’ lone lament beside the water (solo in litore, alone on the shore, G. 4.465) and discuss the recurrence of the motif in subsequent elegy (e.g. Prop. 1.18). Thomas (19882) 227 ad G. 4.464 also sees a parallel between Orpheus and the description of Pasiphae in Eclogue 6. See Glossary s.vv. hunting, medicina amoris.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  17 departing he continually sang, G. 4.466), alludes to the East–­West topos explicitly associated with Gallus, which also informs Arethusa’s movement from East to West in the opening lines of Eclogue 10 (E. 10.1–6).81 Orpheus exhibits the insanity of elegiac amor (subita incautum dementia cepit amantem, a sudden insanity overtook the unwary lover, G. 4.488), which likewise characterizes the amatory experiences of Corydon and Gallus in Eclogues 2 and 10.82 Vergil, however, intensifies the destructive nature of amor, as Orpheus’ mad passion compels him to gaze back at Eurydice, condemning her to mors once again (G. 4.487–93). In the final words of Eurydice and Orpheus, Vergil in­corp­or­ ates elements from amatory and funerary elegy that underscore the lovers’ trajectory from amor to mors. Eurydice, echoing Apollo’s interrogation of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (quid insanis, why are you acting like a madman, E. 10.21), implicates Orpheus’ furor amoris as the cause of their mutual destruction (G. 4.494–95): ‘quis et me . . . miseram et te perdidit, Orpheu, | quis tantus furor?’ (‘What frenzy has destroyed both wretched me and you, Orpheus, what frenzy so great?’).83 Through the amatory lens, the wretchedness of Eurydice and Orpheus (me . . . miseram et te, G. 4.494) that springs from his impassioned madness (furor, G. 4.495) evokes the sorrow and insanity of elegiac amatores.84 Through the sepulchral lens, Eurydice’s lamentable destruction (me . . . miseram perdidit, G. 4.494) recalls the omnipresence of the adjective miser (wretched, lamentable) and frequent use of the verb perdere (to destroy) in Latin funerary inscriptions.85 Indeed, sepulchral elements are interwoven throughout Eurydice’s description of her second death. When Eurydice refers to the cruel fates that summon her back into the underworld (crudelia retro | fata uocant, G. 4.495–96), her words are reminiscent of conventional epitaphic expressions that emphasize the cruelty of fate and its power over human life (e.g. crudelia fata, the cruel fates, CE 995b.1, 1169.3, 1537a.5; nos fata benigna uocant, kindly fates summon us, CE 495.10; fata uoca[ru]nt, the fates have summoned, CE 629.4).86 Eurydice characterizes the experience of death through two images: sleep closes her swimming eyes 81  For discussion of the probable Gallan deployment of the Hellenistic East–­West motif, including comparative analysis with Ovid (Am. 1.15.29–30, Ars 3.356–57) and Propertius (Prop. 2.3.43–44), see McKeown (1989) 411–12 ad Ov. Am. 1.15.29–30; Cairns (2006) 97–9. Citing Ov. Am. 1.15.29–30, Thomas (19882) 227–28 ad G. 4.465–66 suggests that the description of Orpheus may have appealed to Gallus and perhaps reflected his style. 82  Thomas (19882) 230 ad G. 4.488 observes the verbal correlation between Corydon (E. 2.69) and Orpheus (G. 4.488) and cites for further comparison the mad passion of Pasiphae in Eclogue 6 (a, uirgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit, a, wretched maiden, what madness has seized you), E. 6.47). See Glossary s.v. insanity. 83  Thomas (19882) 231 ad G. 4.494–95. Cf. also Morgan (1999) 152, who discusses the erotic elegiac resonance of Eurydice’s implication that Orpheus’ furor has destroyed them both. 84  The form of the attributive adjective miseram, which describes both me and te, is dictated by its agreement with the nearest of the two pronouns. See Glossary s.vv. infelix/miser, insanity. 85 See CCLE s.vv. miser, misera, miserae, miseram, miseras, miseri, miseris, miseros, perdere, perdidi, perdimus, perdidit, perdit, perdita, perditum. 86  See Lattimore (1962) 154–8 §§36–37.

18  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid (conditque natantia lumina somnus, G. 4.496); and vast night envelops her and carries her away (feror ingenti circumdata nocte, G. 4.497). Her description in­corp­or­ates numerous lexical and thematic details derived from conventional sepulchral figures that associate mors with darkness,87 drowning,88 eternal sleep,89 and abduction (e.g. abstulit/apstulit/astulit atra dies et funere mersit acerbo, a dark day carried off and drowned [the deceased] in bitter death, CE 608.4, 732.4, 2001.3, 2002.2).90 Eurydice’s cries of farewell (uale, and now farewell, G. 4.497) and lament (heu, alas, G. 4.498) echo those that frequently ring out in Latin funerary inscriptions (e.g. uale, farewell, CE 53.5, 57.6, 232.1, 848.5; heu quam crudeli mor[te perempta], alas taken away by a very cruel death indeed, CE 2106.4).91 After her speech, Eurydice flees like a slender puff of smoke from the eyes of Orpheus (ex oculis subito, ceu fumus in auras | commixtus tenuis, fugit, G. 4.499–500), who grasps in vain at the dematerialized form of his beloved wife (prensantem nequiquam umbras, G. 4.501). Death separates Eurydice’s spiritual essence and body, a process often described in Latin funerary inscriptions (e.g. fugit anima corpore, life has flown from the body, CE 98.3),92 and severs her from Orpheus, whose passion has consigned her to the underworld. Vergil draws the embedded tale to a close with the image of Orpheus’ severed head crying out to Eurydice (G. 4.526): a miseram Eurydicen! anima fugiente uocabat (ah, wretched Eurydice! it kept calling as his life was fleeing). The final words of Orpheus, like those of Eurydice, are multivalent, evoking the poetics of amatory and funerary elegy. Orpheus addresses his beloved Eurydice with the neoteric exclamation a (ah!) and the adjective miser (wretched), which evoke the amatory elegiac suffering of Corydon and Gallus in Eclogues 2 and 10 (a, E. 2.60, 2.69, 10.47, 10.48, 10.49; misero, wretched, E. 2.58; tristis, sorrowful, E. 10.31).93 But Orpheus’ invocation of Eurydice (a miseram Eurydicen, G. 4.526) also resonates with her sepulchral inculpation of his amatory frenzy as the cause of their mutual destruction (‘quis et me . . . miseram et te perdidit, Orpheu, | quis tantus furor?’, ‘what frenzy has destroyed both wretched me and you, Orpheus, what frenzy so great?’, G. 4.494–95). Moreover, as Orpheus’ spiritual essence flees from his body (anima fugiente, G. 4.526), his experience mirrors the mortal disintegration of Eurydice (ex oculis subito . . . | . . . fugit, away from his eyes suddenly she flees, G. 4.499–500). The voice that emanates from Orpheus’ head (uox, G. 4.525), 87  On the association between death and darkness/the removal of light in funerary epitaphs, see Lattimore (1962) 161–4 §39. 88  See e.g. CCLE s.v. mersit. 89  On the association between death and sleep in funerary epitaphs, see Lattimore (1962) 164 §40, 306 §86. Thomas (19882) 231 ad G. 4.496 notes that ‘lumina condere is commonly used of closing the eyes of a corpse’. 90  See e.g. CCLE s.vv. abstulit, apstulit, astulit. 91 See CCLE s.vv. eheu, heu, uale. 92  See Lattimore (1962) 30–1 §3. 93  On the exclamation a in neoteric poetry, see Ross (1975) 73; Cairns (1983) 83–4; Cairns (2006) 120. See Glossary s.v. infelix/miser.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  19 ripped from his marble-­ white neck (marmorea caput a ceruice reuulsum, G. 4.523), calls to mind the disembodied words of the deceased that are uttered by the inscribed marble of their funerary monuments (e.g. quiesco marmore clausus, I rest enclosed in marble, CE 477.3; ego qui sine uoce loquor de marmore caeso, I who without a voice speak from the carved marble, CE 1255.1).94 The inter­gen­ er­ic and intratextual connections between the final moments of Eurydice and Orpheus forge an allusive link between their deaths, underscoring their shared trajectory from amor to mors. Vergil, as these illustrative examples have shown, reinforces the central themes of his epyllion by envisioning the amatory destruction of Orpheus and Eurydice through the prism of elegiac amor and mors. The marked Gallan design of Orpheus’ final words, as Richard Thomas has suggested, allusively marks the clos­ ure of Vergil’s sustained tribute to the elegist.95 Tracing the literary lineage of Orpheus, the grief-­stricken singer of Georgics 4, back to Corydon and Gallus, the suffering lovers of the Eclogues, reveals Vergil’s evolving conceptualization of amor as a force of genuine destruction, which he articulates through experimentation with amatory and funerary elegy.

Engagement With Elegy in Aeneid 1–6: Juno, Venus, and Dido In Eclogues 2, 6, and 10, Vergil interweaves elegiac elements to emphasize the dele­teri­ous impact of amor and point to its conceptual connection to mors. His pastoral vision of amor overwhelms and torments individual victims, like Corydon and Gallus, whose impassioned suffering engenders thoughts about mortality and death. In Georgics 4, Vergil’s experimentation with elegy gravitates even further towards its funerary associations, as the destructive force of amor leads to the mutual demise of both Orpheus and Eurydice. In Aeneid 1–6, Vergil utilizes amatory and sepulchral elegiac material to present an even more ca­lam­ itous incarnation of amor, which emerges as the impetus for epic violence and annihilation. My preliminary exploration of elegiac interplay in Aeneid 1–6 focuses on inter­ gen­er­ic depictions of Juno, Venus, and Dido that underscore the destructive potency of amor. Vergil’s introductory portrait of Juno demonstrates how the goddess’ figurative amatory wounds suppurate into vicious animosity towards Aeneas and the Trojans. His description of Venus inflicting amor upon Dido demonstrates the overwhelming force of her erotic power, which she brandishes 94  See Lattimore (1962) 230–5 §§63–65. 95  Thomas (19882) 235–6 ad G. 4.525–27. On the elegiac resonance of Orpheus’ final exclamations, see also Richter (1957) 403 ad G. 4.525–27.

20  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid to secure Aeneas’ epic destiny. In the escalation of Dido’s amatory affliction, her figurative suffering leads to suicide, and her personal self-­destruction endangers her people. In my initial analysis of these key passages, I establish the elegiac dimensions of Juno, Venus, and Dido that are of crucial paradigmatic importance to my discussion of Vergil’s intergeneric interplay in Aeneid 7–12. I also chart Dido’s narrative progression from amor to mors, which informs my detailed examination of the programmatic trajectory from amor to arma and mors that animates Vergil’s martial maius opus. Thus, the general outline presented here identifies crucial aspects of Vergilian elegiac experimentation in the first half of the Aeneid that receive substantial treatment throughout this entire volume.

Juno’s Programmatic Amatory Wrath in Aeneid 1 In the opening passage of Aeneid 1, Vergil establishes the programmatic im­port­ ance of Juno’s wrath (iram, A. 1.4; irae, A. 1.11), which motivates her violent persecution of Aeneas and the Trojans. The initial explanation for the goddess’ enmity is her concern over the fated Roman conquest of Carthage, her beloved city (A. 1.12–24). Yet Vergil briskly undermines the ostensible, political pretext of Juno by exposing the erotic underpinnings of her enduring animosity (A. 1.25–28): necdum etiam causae irarum saeuique dolores exciderant animo; manet alta mente repostum iudicium Paridis spretaeque iniuria formae et genus inuisum et rapti Ganymedis honores: [nor yet even had the reasons for her wrath and savage resentments slipped from her memory; there remains stored deep in her mind the judgement of Paris and the injury of her scorned beauty and the hated descendants and the honours of ravished Ganymede.]

Vergil deftly recasts the Homeric tradition in Callimachean fashion by creating a miniature catalogue of amatory grievances that engender Juno’s wrath and resentment towards the Trojans (causae irarum saeuique dolores, the reasons for her wrath and savage resentments, A. 1.25). Vergil first cites the judgement of Paris, during which the Trojan youth injuriously awards first prize to Venus, thereby scorning the beauty of Juno (iudicium Paridis spretaeque iniuria formae, A. 1.27).96 Next, Vergil connects Juno’s hatred of the Aeneadae to her indignation over

96  On this nota fabula, see Servius ad A. 1.27; Page (1923) 144 ad A. 1.27; Williams (1972) 160 ad A. 1.27.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  21 Jupiter’s serial infidelity. The phrase genus inuisum (the hated descendants, A. 1.28) allusively evokes Jupiter’s extramarital dalliance with Electra, which produces Dardanus, the legendary progenitor of the Trojan people.97 The formulation rapti Ganymedis honores (the honours of ravished Ganymede, A. 1.28) refers to Jupiter’s illicit sexual seizure of Ganymede, son of Tros,98 and the youth’s deification and instalment as the cup-­bearer of the gods, which rub salt in Juno’s amatory wound.99 This Vergilian passage corresponds intertextually to erudite, elegiac catalogues of Jupiter’s clandestine affairs in Propertius and Ovid. In his second elegiac ­collection (Prop. 2.30b.25–40), Propertius fabricates an elaborate Heliconian fantasy in which he and Cynthia witness the Muses singing about the antiqui dulcia furta Iouis (the secret love affairs of Jupiter of old, Prop. 2.30b.28). An ascending tricolon delineates three mythological exempla recounted in the goddesses’ song about Juno’s faithless husband (Prop. 2.30b.29–30): ut Semela est combustus, ut est deperditus Io, | denique ut ad Troiae tecta uolarit auis (how he was burned by Semele, how he was destroyed by Io, and finally how he flew to the rooftops of Troy as a bird). The song of the Propertian Muses, which com­ mem­or­ates Jupiter’s sexual attraction to Semele, Io, and Ganymede, corresponds to an Ovidian passage, which celebrates the poetry that confers fame upon Io, Leda, and Europa by depicting them as objects of the god’s unrestrained sexual desire (Ov. Am. 1.3.21–24):100 carmine nomen habent exterrita cornibus Io     et quam fluminea lusit adulter aue quaeque super pontum simulato uecta iuuenco     uirginea tenuit cornua uara manu. [because of poetry they have renown, Io frightened by her horns and the one whom the adulterer deceived with the form of a waterbird, and the one who, carried over the sea on a feigned bull, held its curved horns with her maidenly hand.]

97  For the phrase genus inuisum as a reference to the affair between Jupiter and Electra, see Servius ad A.1.28; Page (1923) 144 ad A. 1.28; Williams (1972) 156, 160 ad A. 1.28. 98  The participle raptus encapsulates Jupiter’s sexual violation of Ganymede (Servius equates rapti with stuprati) and to the god’s seizure and relocation of the Trojan youth: see Servius ad A. 1.28; Williams (1972) 156, 160 ad A. 1.28. See also Adams (1982) 175. 99 On honores (A. 1.28) as a reference to Ganymede’s immortality and divine role, see Williams (1972) 160–1 ad A. 1.28. Michael Dewar notes, per litteras, that the presence of Ganymede at the gods’ table could be considered an enduring insult to Juno; cf. Statius’ treatment of the myth in Siluae 3.4, in which he depicts Juno resentfully refusing to accept a cup of nectar from Ganymede (quem turbida semper | Iuno videt refugitque manum nectarque recusat, upon whom Juno looks ever violently and flees from his hand and refuses his nectar, Stat. Silu. 3.4.14–15). 100  Ovid also utilizes the phrase cornibus Io in Amores 2.19, in which he devotes one couplet each to Danae (Ov. Am. 2.19.27–28) and Io (Ov. Am. 2.19.29–30).

22  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Ovid’s carmen replicates the construction, Alexandrian manner, and rhetorical purpose of the Muses’ song in the Propertian model:101 he presents three of Jupiter’s paramours in an ascending tricolon; his allusions to Leda and Europa mimic the esoteric style of Propertius’ reference to Ganymede; and he utilizes the paradigmatic myths in an appeal to the puella, the object of his amor and subject of his poetic amores (Ov. Am. 1.3.15–20; cf. Prop. 2.30b.25–26, 40). The striking structural, aesthetic, and thematic correlations between the learned elegiac catalogues of Propertius and Ovid likely derive from a lost Gallan treatment of the amores of Jupiter. A conspicuous assemblage of Gallus’ prototypical themes and verbal complexes appears within Propertius 2.30b.25–40 and Amores 1.3.19–26, as Francis Cairns has shown.102 Compelling philological evidence supports Cairns’s hypothesis that the Propertian and Ovidian renditions of Jupiter’s extramarital affairs allusively engage with Gallan source material.103 The same Gallan provenance may be posited for Vergil’s miniature catalogue of the erotic insults endured by Juno, given its intertextual entanglement with the erudite, elegiac enumerations of Jupiter’s illicit affairs in Propertius and Ovid. Vergil’s intergeneric portrait of Juno, tormented by the indelible memories of the judgement of Paris and infidelity of Jupiter, complements his Gallan rendition of her erotic grievances. The goddess’s violent feelings of resentment (dolores, A. 1.25), fiery emotional state (accensa, inflamed, A. 1.29; flammato . . . corde, with heart inflamed, A. 1.50), and figurative wound (uulnus, A. 1.36) evoke conventional elegiac characterizations of the deleterious impact of amor.104 Though Juno’s anguish resembles that of the elegiac amator, its dire consequences reflect her role as divine, epic antagonist. The goddess’ amatory wound (uulnus, A. 1.36) goads her to soliloquize about her ceaseless epic wrath (A. 1.37–49), the Homeric pedigree of which Vergil underscores through a multilingual pun on μῆνις in her first words (mene incepto, A. 1.37; cf. μῆνιν, Hom. Il. 1.1).105 When the raging goddess asks Aeolus to embroil the Trojan fleet in a deadly storm, her suppliant stance (supplex, A. 1.64) mimics the conventional submission of elegiac lovers,106 and her offered prize of Deiopea, the most beautiful of her nymphs (quae forma pulcherrima, who is most beautiful in appearance, A. 1.72), is unambiguously erotic in nature. The amatory dimensions of Juno’s entreaty contrast with the 101  Elsewhere in Ovidian elegy are a number of miniature catalogues of Jupiter’s love affairs that vary in structure, style, and scope (e.g. Ov. Am. 1.10.7–8, 2.19.27–30, 3.12.33–34; Ov. Ars. 3.251–52; cf. also Ov. Met. 6.103–14): see McKeown (1989) 73–4 ad Ov. Am. 1.3.21–24; Fedeli (2005) 863 ad Prop. 2.30b.27–30. 102  See Cairns (1993) 113–15; Cairns (2006) 92–3, 129–30, 200, 205. 103  Cairns (2006) 128–31 demonstrates the connection between the scene in Propertius 2.30 and Gallan poetics of initiation. 104  See Glossary s.vv. fever/fire/heat, injury/wound. 105  On the wordplay between the elided phrase mene incepto (A. 1.37) and the word μῆνις, the first word of the Iliad, which programmatically encapsulates the wrath of Achilles, see Levitan (1993) 14; O’Hara (2017) 63. 106  See Glossary s.v. submission/supplication.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  23 ferocity of the storm unleashed by Aeolus, which threatens immediate death to Aeneas, the epic uir (A. 1.1), and his men (praesentemque uiris intentant omnia mortem, A. 1.91). Vergil’s depiction of Juno in Aeneid 1 initiates his enduring experimentation with elegy throughout the entire epic. By incorporating elegiac material, Vergil creates an amatory aetiology (amor) for the rage (ira) that motivates Juno’s numerous attempts to eliminate the Trojans (mors). Yet Vergil’s allusions to the judgement of Paris (iudicium Paridis, A. 1.27) and Achilles’ Iliadic wrath (mene incepto, A. 1.37; cf. μῆνιν, Hom. Il. 1.1) root the generic heterogeneity of the Aeneid in the Homeric tradition, which according to ancient thought contained the seeds of all subsequent literary genres. Vergil grafts Roman elegiac amor and mors, the literary offshoots of Homeric love and lament, back onto his innovative interpretation of the epic tradition. In his first demonstration of intergeneric interplay, Vergil creates a striking aesthetic shift from the epic solemnity of Juno’s contemplation of the Trojans’ destined founding of Rome (A. 1.12–24) to the elegiac intensity of her response to the erotic wounds inflicted by their ancestors in the mythical past (A. 1.25–28).107 The generic fluctuation from one passage to the next underscores the two coexistent identities of Juno as the divine antagonist, who relentlessly pursues the epic uir, and the long-­suffering queen of the gods, who endures amatory elegiac anguish. Thus, Vergil establishes Juno’s importance to his intergeneric programme throughout the entire Aeneid. Her divine trajectory from amatory, elegiac grievance to indignant, epic violence intratextually informs that of her mortal doublets Dido, Amata, and Turnus. Moreover, her eternal, erotic wound (aeternum . . . sub pectore uulnus, A. 1.36) allusively prefigures the amatory potency of her divine opponent Venus, who inflicts uulnera amoris to safeguard the epic destiny of Aeneas.108

Venus’ Programmatic Amatory Power in Aeneid 1 Through divine intervention, Aeneas and the Trojans survive the storm engendered by the wrathful Juno, only to find themselves shipwrecked in the realm of 107  For some commentators, the shift in tone is infelicitous. Mackail (1930) 1 implies that the parenthesis is irrelevant or superfluous and declares that the prominent mention of Ganymede in the prologue ‘is an unhappy concession to Alexandrianism’. Commenting on the sudden shift in tone from the solemnity of Rome’s destiny to Juno’s pique, Quinn (1968) 373 suggests that Vergil lays aside his ‘grand manner’ during the parenthesis, and thereafter resumes it for the prologue’s ‘suitably solemn’ ending. 108  The amatory wounds endured by Dido (e.g. uulnus, wound, A. 4.2; uiuit sub pectore uulnus, the wound lives beneath her breast, A. 4.67), Vulcan (aeterno . . . uulnere amoris, with an aeternal wound of love, A. 8.394), and Turnus (e.g. uulnere, A. 12.5) are discussed in greater detail throughout this volume.

24  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid her mortal doublet Dido. Venus regards Aeneas’ Carthaginian landfall with trepidation, due to her mistrust of Dido’s people (A. 1.661) and her awareness of Juno’s violent emotions towards the Trojans (A. 1.662): urit atrox luno et sub noctem cura recursat (unyielding Juno burns and her anxiety rushes back deep in the night). The verb urere (to burn) indicates that Juno continues to seethe with the figurative flames incited by her recollection of the judgement of Paris and Jupiter’s Trojan dalliances (accensa, inflamed, A. 1.29; flammato . . . corde, with heart inflamed, A. 1.50). The addition of two other conventional elegiac symptoms, anxiety (cura, A. 1.662) and sleeplessness (sub noctem . . . recursat, A. 1.662), expands upon Vergil’s previous intergeneric portrait of the goddess’ amatory irae.109 Juno’s bitter hatred of the Trojans (odiis Iunonis acerbae, A. 1.668) and her potential influence over their Carthaginian hosts (uereor quo se Iunonia uertant | hospitia, I fear whither Juno’s welcome may turn itself, A. 1.671) necessitates the protective intervention of Venus. The Cytherean goddess, assisted by Cupid, overwhelms Dido in a programmatic display of divine amatory power (A. 1.657–722). Vergil embellishes the scene with elegiac elements that enhance its aesthetic and thematic association with the erotic sphere. His initial description of Venus allusively anticipates the innovative, intergeneric poetics of her assault on Dido (A. 1.657–58): At Cytherea nouas artis, noua pectore uersat | consilia (But the Cytherean goddess ponders in her heart new stratagems, new plans). The phrase mutatus Cupido (transformed Cupid, A. 1.658) likewise points to the experimental transfiguration of elegiac amores that articulates Vergil’s unique conception of destructive passion. Venus plans to send Cupid in the guise of Ascanius to beguile Dido with gifts (A. 1.658–60). Her strategic designs harness the incendiary madness of conventional amatory elegiac suffering, as she envisions Cupid inflaming Dido into an emotional frenzy (furentem | incendat reginam, A. 1.659–60) and enveloping her bones with fire (atque ossibus implicet ignem, A. 1.660).110 When Venus entreats Cupid to execute her amatory tactics (supplex, A. 1.666), she rehearses Juno’s submissive elegiac supplication of Aeolus, another divine agent of destruction (supplex, A. 1.64).111 In her speech to Cupid, Venus describes Dido’s reception of Aeneas (A. 1.670–71): nunc Phoenissa tenet Dido blandisque moratur | uocibus (now Phoenician Dido holds him and delays him with charming words). The elegiac resonance of tenere (to hold, to embrace), blandus (charming, seductive), and morari (to delay) points to the latent erotic potential of the nascent relationship between Dido and Aeneas, which Venus intends to exploit.112 Motivated by her fears of Juno’s intervention (uereor quo se Iunonia uertant | hospitia, I fear

109  See Glossary s.vv. cura, fever/fire/heat, symptoms. 110  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 111  See Glossary s.v. submission/supplication. 112  See Pichon s.vv. blandus, mora, tenere.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  25 whither Juno’s welcome may turn itself, A. 1.671), Venus lays out an elaborate plan to control Dido with amor (magno Aeneae . . . teneatur amore, [in order that] she be held by a great love of Aeneas, A. 1.675), thereby ensuring that Aeneas’ delay in Carthage (mora; cf. moratur, A. 1.670) does not prevent his destined founding of Rome (Roma).113 Throughout the proposal of Venus’ plan Vergil engages with numerous amatory elegiac motifs. In her initial outline to Cupid (A. 1.673–75), Venus declares her intention to overtake Dido with deception (capere . . . dolis, A. 1.673) and gird her in fire (cingere flamma, A. 1.673). The verbs capere (to seize, overtake) and cingere (to gird) describe the envisioned amatory vanquishment of Dido in martial terms, thereby evoking the conventional elegiac motif of militia amoris.114 Venus’ strategic use of doli (deceptions, A. 1.673) and flamma (fire, A. 1.673) evokes the erotic deception and fiery torment experienced by lovers in elegy.115 Vergil continues to emphasize the elegiac treachery of Venus. The goddess intends to abscond with Ascanius both to prevent his intercession in her deceptions (dolos, A. 1.682) and to enable Cupid’s deceptive impersonation of the boy (faciem illius . . . | falle dolo, impersonate his appearance with deception, A. 1.683–84). Venus envisions Dido bestowing upon the disguised Cupid embraces (amplexus, A. 1.687) and sweet kisses (oscula dulcia, A. 1.687) reminiscent of elegiac displays of physical affection.116 Vergil’s engagement with amatory elegiac deception and fiery passion continues in the final line of Venus’ speech to Cupid, when she directs him to breathe hidden flame into Dido and deceive her with erotic poison (occultum inspires ignem, fallasque ueneno, A. 1.688). In Roman poetry, wordplay between the etymological cognates Venus and uenenum underscores the link between the erotic goddess and amatory pharmaceutical concoctions.117 Thus, by ending her tactical speech with the word uenenum, Venus allusively signs her name to the proposed plan. In the initial description of Dido’s response to the tactical assault of Venus and Cupid (A. 1.712–22), amatory and sepulchral elegiac elements underscore the inauguration of her trajectory from amor to mors. The binary valence of infelix (wretched, A. 1.712) as a term for the wretchedness of elegiac lovers and sepulchral shades prefigures the suffering of Dido in love and in death. Dido, marked for destruction (pesti deuota futurae, A. 1.712), exhibits the insatiability (expleri mentem nequit, she cannot satisfy her own mind, A. 1.713), fiery emotion (ardescit, A. 1.713), and misery (miserae, A. 1.719) of unrestrained elegiac passion. When Cupid preoccupies Dido with love for the living (uiuo . . . amore, A. 1.721), he clinches her inevitable erotic annihilation. The efficacy of Venus’ executed plan establishes the programmatic importance of her amatory power, which she wields to ensure the epic success of Aeneas and protect Ascanius, her greatest care (mea maxima cura, A. 1.678). Vergil’s intergeneric demonstration of the dire potency of 113  See Glossary s.v. anagram. 114  See Glossary s.vv. militia amoris. 115  See Glossary s.v. dolus/deception. 116  See Pichon s.vv. amplecti, oscula. 117  See Glossary s.v. uenenum.

26  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid amor also anticipates his amatory and sepulchral elegiac conceptualization of passion as a force of genuine destruction throughout the Aeneid.

Dido’s Elegiac Devastation in Aeneid 1–6 The Carthaginian queen Dido duplicates the amatory suffering and resentment of Juno, her divine avatar, throughout the first half of Vergil’s epic. In Aeneid 1, Dido becomes the victim of Venus and Cupid, who infect her with amor to ensure her benevolent reception of Aeneas and the Trojans (A. 1.657–94), as we have just seen. Dido’s ensuing erotic suffering and suicide in Aeneid 4 and her final appearance as a shade in Aeneid 6 feature extensive engagement with elegiac aesthetics and themes. The marked intergeneric character of Dido’s appearances in Aeneid 1, 4, and 6 has received extensive scholarly treatment, particularly regarding the influence of amatory elegy on Vergil’s depiction of her emotional anguish throughout the ill-­starred affair.118 In my introductory overview, I call attention to the amatory and sepulchral elegiac dimensions of Dido’s tale of amor and mors that set the stage for further intergeneric experimentation in the latter half of the Aeneid. The fourth book of the Aeneid begins with a programmatic portrait of Dido, which introduces the conventional elegiac topoi that articulate her entire narrative trajectory from amatory anguish to suicide (A. 4.1–5): At regina graui iamdudum saucia cura uulnus alit uenis et caeco carpitur igni. multa uiri uirtus animo multusque recursat gentis honos; haerent infixi pectore uultus uerbaque nec placidam membris dat cura quietem. [But the queen for a long time already wounded by serious care nourishes the wound in her veins and is consumed by unseen fire. Rushing back to her mind frequently are the man’s great valour and the great glory of his people; the appearance and speech of Aeneas stick fast impaled in her breast and care does not give calm rest to her limbs.]

Vergil inflicts upon Dido an array of symptoms that evoke the physical and mental torment of lovers in elegy. In the first two lines, the adjective saucia (wounded, A. 4.1) and noun uulnus (wound, A. 4.2) call attention to the figurative wound that embodies Dido’s amatory pain (cf. uulnus, A. 4.67).119 The description of the 118  See Newton (1957) 31–43; Cairns (1989) 129–50; Horsfall (2001) 125, 166, 184, 385; Nelis (2001) 67; Harrison (2007) 210–14; O’Hara (2017) 111. 119  See Glossary s.v. injury/wound.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  27 impact of Aeneas’ countenance and speech on Dido as piercing arrows (haerent infixi pectore uultus | uerbaque, the appearance and speech of Aeneas stick fast impaled in her breast, A. 4.4–5) relates her erotic uulnus to the elegiac motifs of hunting and militia amoris.120 An image of wasting flame (carpitur igni, A. 4.2) exemplifies the elegiac metaphors of fever, fire, and heat, which Vergil frequently applies to Dido throughout Aeneid 1 and 4 (e.g. ardere, A. 4.101; flamma/flammare, A. 1.673, 4.54, 4.66; ignis, A. 1.660, 1.688, 4.2; urere, A. 4.68). Vergil stresses the mental anguish of Dido through the repetition of cura (A. 4.1, 4.5), the technical elegiac term for the pain and anxiety caused by amor.121 Moreover, etymological wordplay with cura reinforces its intergeneric presence: its cognate recursare (A. 4.3) describes Dido’s fretful fixation on Aeneas;122 and its vertical juxta­pos­ ition with her consuming flames of passion (cura | . . . igni, A. 4.1–2) evokes its ancient etymology (cura dicta ab eo quod cor urat, cura is so called from the fact that is burns the heart, Servius ad A. 1.208).123 The insomnia caused by Dido’s amatory angst (nec . . . dat cura quietem, A. 4.5) recalls the prototypical sleeplessness of the elegiac lover.124 Strikingly, Vergil utilizes the same precise elegiac and etymological figures to describe Juno from the perspective of Venus in Aeneid 1 (A. 1.662): urit atrox Iuno et sub noctem cura recursat (unyielding Juno burns and her anxiety rushes back deep in the night). Indeed, elegiac flames (accensa, inflamed, A. 1.29; urit, she burns, A. 1.662; carpitur igni, she is consumed by fire, A. 4.2), wounds (uulnus, A. 1.36, 4.2), and anxious insomnia (A. 1.662, A. 4.5) highlight the intratextual correspondence between the amatory grievances of Juno and Dido. Though Dido’s elegiac symptoms mirror those of Juno, the similarity belies the devastating impact of amor on the mortal queen, as opposed to her divine counterpart. Through the elegiac evocation of amatory hunting, Vergil traces Dido’s teleogical progression from amatory victimization (amor) to death (mors): Venus adopts the disguise of a Tyrian huntress when she dispatches Aeneas to Carthage (A. 1.314–20); the image of a hind stricken by an unwitting hunter’s arrow emblematizes Dido’s catastrophic uulnus amoris (A. 4.69–73);125 and the hunting expedition of the Trojans and Carthaginians culminates in the sexual union of  Dido and Aeneas (A. 4.129–72), the cause of her death and suffering (leti . . . malorum | causa, A. 4.169–70). Unrestrained passion drives Dido from 120  See Glossary s.v. hunting. 121  See Glossary s.v. cura. 122  On Vergil’s wordplay between cura and recursat, see O’Hara (2017) 120, 128 ad A. 1.662; 150 ad A. 4.1–5. 123  For the ancient etymology found in Servius (Servius ad A. 1.208, 4.1) and Varro (Var. L. 6.46), see LALE s.v. cura. See also Ross (1975) 69; Horsfall (2000) 240–1 ad A. 7.345; O’Hara (2017) 119–20 ad A. 1.208. On vertical juxtaposition as an etymologizing construction in Vergil, see O’Hara (2017) 86–8, 150 ad A. 4.1–5. 124  See Glossary s.v. symptoms. 125  On the thematic correlation between the mortal injury of the hind and Dido’s figurative and literal uulnera, see Newton (1957) 38; Lyne (1987) 121; Keith (2000) 113–14; Harrison (2007) 211.

28  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid elegiac anxiety (cura, A. 4.1, 4.5) to amatory frenzy (furens, A. 4.65, 4.69, 4.283, 4.298, 4.465, 4.548, 5.6) and madness (demens, A. 4.78, 4.374; insania, A. 4.595).126 The lovesick queen, faced with the prospect of life without Aeneas, contemplates death (mortem orat, she prays for death, A. 4.451; quo magis . . . lucemque relinquat, that she may more surely leave the light, A. 4.452; decreuitque mori, she decided to die, A. 4.475). Her suicidal ideation reflects the conventional perspective of elegiac lovers, who contemplate mors as an alternative to the misery of life without amor.127 Dido’s amatory symptoms and sepulchral rhetoric, drawn from the realm of the elegiac imaginary, are gravely literalized when she takes her own life. When the taedium uitae of the impassioned queen escalates to suicide, her figurative elegiac wound and fiery passion materialize in her self-­inflicted mortal injury (uulnus, wound, A. 4.689) and the flames that consume her corpse (infelicis Elissae | . . . flammis, the flames of wretched Elissa, A. 5.3–4). The shift of inter­gen­ er­ic significance underscores the lethal threat posed by Vergil’s conception of amor in the Aeneid. Through intense experimentation with sepulchral aesthetics and themes, Vergil fabricates a death scene for Dido that draws the fourth book of the Aeneid to a funereal close. The final speech of Dido presents a stunning example of Vergil’s extensive use of sepulchral language and motifs to accentuate her trajectory from amor to mors (A. 4.651–62): ‘dulces exuuiae, dum fata deusque sinebat, accipite hanc animam meque his exsoluite curis. uixi et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi, et nunc magna mei sub terras ibit imago. urbem praeclaram statui, mea moenia uidi, ulta uirum poenas inimico a fratre recepi, felix, heu nimium felix, si litora tantum numquam Dardaniae tetigissent nostra carinae.                                                 . . . moriemur inultae, sed moriamur. . . . sic, sic iuuat ire sub umbras. hauriat hunc oculis ignem crudelis ab alto Dardanus, et nostrae secum ferat omina mortis.’ [‘Spoils sweet, as long as the fates and god were allowing, receive this life and release me from these cares. I lived and, what course Fortune had granted, I completed, and now a great shade of me will go beneath the earth. I established a magnificent city, I saw to my defensive walls, having avenged my husband

126  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 127  See Cairns (1989) 148; Hill (2004) 105–20. See Glossary s.vv. e e legein, mors.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  29 I exacted punishment from my hostile brother, fortunate, alas extremely fortunate, if the Dardanian keels had never touched our shores. . . . We will die unavenged, but let us die. . . . thus, thus I take pleasure in going down to the shades. Let the cruel Dardanian drink in this fire with his eyes from the deep, and let him bear with him the omens of our death.’]

An abundance of first-­person singular perfect indicative active verbs (uixi, peregi, statui, uidi, recepi) replicates the perspective and voice of the deceased in speaking inscriptions (e.g. uixi d]um licuit, I lived as long as it was permitted, CE 970.2; dum uixi fui cara uiro, as long as I lived, I was dear to my husband, CE 1086.3; iter . . . fatale peregi, I completed the journey ordained by fate, CE 1068.1).128 The sepulchral resonance of the phrase uixi et quem dederat cursum Fortuna peregi (I lived and, what course Fortune had granted, I completed, A. 4.653) is confirmed by its striking repetition on three epitaphs of uncertain date, two written in dactylic hexameter (uixi et quem de[derat cursum Fortuna peregi, CE 385.4; quem dederat cursum Fort[una peregi, CE 814.1), and one in elegiac couplets (uixi | et quem mi dederat Fortuna peregit, CE 1105.1–2).129 In effect, Dido commemorates her forthcoming death by composing her own epitaph and reciting its contents in her last soliloquy.130 Dido reflects on the divine forces that permitted her erotic dalliance with Aeneas (dum fata deusque sinebat, A. 4.651) and controlled the course of her life (quem dederat cursum Fortuna, A. 4.653). Her sentiments evoke the common epitaphic emphasis on the control of divine agents, the fates, and fortune over human existence, which also informs the final words of Eurydice in Georgics 4, as discussed above (crudelia retro | fata uocant, G. 4.495–96).131 In the moments before her death, Dido highlights three significant achievements from her life, namely her foundation of Carthage, her provision of defensive city walls, and her punishment of Pygmalion (A. 4.655–56). Her rhetorical emphasis reflects the commemorative rhetoric of inscriptions that enumerate the biographical achievements and merits of the deceased.132 Dido mournfully concludes the account of her life by exclaiming that her good fortune would have continued, if Aeneas and the Trojans had never come to Carthage (A. 4.657–58). Dido’s implicit, contrafactual negation of the adjective felix (fortunate, A. 4.657) and her cry of lament (heu, alas, A. 4.657) intratextually evoke her amatory misery throughout Aeneid 4 (infelix, wretched, A. 4.68, 4.450, 4.529, 4.596; heu, alas, A. 4.13, 4.376).133 Vergil, having experimented with the amatory elegiac dimensions of infelix and heu, now exploits their sepulchral significance to associate Dido’s 128  See Lattimore (1962) 230–5 §§63–65. See also CCLE s.vv. peregi, uidi, uixi. 129  Either the inscriptions appropriate suitably sepulchral material from Vergil, or Vergil appropriates epitaphic material for his intergeneric experimentation. 130  See Dinter (2005) 161–2, with further bibliography. 131  See Lattimore (1962) 154–8 §§36–37. 132  See Lattimore (1962) 266–75 §§76–77, 290–9 §81. 133  See Glossary s.v. infelix/miser.

30  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid last words with the wretchedness of the deceased and the laments of the bereaved (e.g. infelix iaceo, wretched I lie, CE 977.4; heu quam crudeli mor[te perempta iacet, alas she lies annihilated by an exceedingly cruel death, CE 2106.4).134 Dido, who once visualized death as an alternative to amatory suffering (e.g. mortem orat, she prays for death, A. 4.451), exhorts herself to die (A. 4.660): moriamur . . . sic, sic iuuat ire sub umbras (let us die . . . thus, thus I take pleasure in going down to the shades).135 Her sentiments synthesize two conventional sepulchral themes: the desire for death (e.g. coge mori . . . | munus erit, compel me to die . . . it will be a gift, CE 949.3–4; perpetuam requiem posco, I demand everlasting rest, CE 1266.4);136 and acquiescence in the face of annihilation (e.g. seic obi(i)sse iu(u)at, thus I take pleasure in having perished, CE 2106.9; moriundum scio, I know that I must die, CE 68.12).137 In the conclusion of her speech, Dido curses her former lover Aeneas to behold and internalize her death (A. 4.661–62): hauriat hunc oculis ignem crudelis ab alto | Dardanus, et nostrae secum ferat omina mortis (let the cruel Dardanian drink in this fire with his eyes from the deep, and let him bear with him the omens of our death). Her last imprecation, evocative of epitaphic maledictions against those who mistreat the deceased during life or after burial,138 recalls her elaborate curse against Aeneas (A. 4.607–29), which culminates with a prayer for intergenerational war between Carthage and Rome (imprecor, arma armis, I pray, arms with arms, A. 4.629). With the word mors (mortis, of death, A. 4.662), Dido seals her nouissima uerba (last words, A. 4.650) with sepulchral finality. The fourth book of the Aeneid concludes with the suicide of Dido, the ensuing lamentation of the Carthaginians and her sister Anna, and the compassionate intervention of Juno and Iris (A. 4.663–705). Dido, driven to an early death by the misery and fiery frenzy of amor (misera ante diem subitoque accensa furore, wretched before her day and inflamed by a sudden frenzy, A. 4.697), engenders the sympathy of Juno, who likewise suffers the fiery torment of amatory grievance (accensa, inflamed, A. 1.29; urit, she burns, A. 1.662), as discussed above. Iris, commanded by Juno to relieve the suffering of Dido, offers a lock of the dying queen’s hair to Dis (A. 4. 702–03): hunc ego Diti | sacrum iussa fero teque isto corpore soluo (this sacred offering I bear as bidden to Dis and I release you from this body). The votive prayer uttered by Iris evokes the pervasive references made in sepulchral inscriptions to the gods and spirits of the underworld (e.g. nunc data sum Diti, now I have been given to Dis, CE 960.7)139 and to the separation of the 134 See CCLE s.vv. heu, infelix. 135  Through the incongruous use of the plural forms moriemur (we will die, A. 4.659) and moriamur (let us die, A. 4.660), Vergil embeds within his depiction of Dido an allusion to the alternative Varronian tradition that featured her sister and doublet Anna as the lover of Aeneas: see McCallum (2019) 27, 34. 136  See Lattimore (1962) 205–10 §56. 137  See Lattimore (1962) 211–14 §57. 138  See Lattimore (1962) 118–26 §§23–24. 139  See Lattimore (1962) 89–90 §16. See also CCLE s.vv. Dite, Ditem, Diti, Ditis.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  31 spiritual essence and body of the deceased (e.g. fugit anima corpore, life has flown from the body, CE 98.3; cf. Eurydice and Orpheus, as discussed above).140 Dido, released by Iris from the suffering inflicted by amor and mors, relinquishes her life to the winds in the final sepulchral gesture of Aeneid 4 (in uentos uita recessit, her life withdrew into the winds, A. 4.705). A vivid denouement at the beginning of Aeneid 5 connects the death of Dido to the departure of Aeneas (A. 5.1–7). The Dardanian hero, now cleaving the waves with the Trojan fleet, gazes back to see the moenia of Carthage, cited by the suicidal Dido as one of her great achievements (mea moenia uidi, I saw to my defensive walls, A. 4.655), now shining brightly from the flames of her burning corpse (moenia respiciens, quae iam infelicis Elissae | conlucent flammis, looking back at the defensive walls which now shine brightly with the flames of wretched Elissa, A. 5.3–4). As Aeneas observes the dire light emitted by Dido’s burning pyre, he fulfils the first curse uttered in her dying words (A. 4.661–62): hauriat hunc oculis ignem crudelis ab alto | Dardanus (let the cruel Dardanian drink in this fire with his eyes from the deep). The second imprecation from Dido’s sepulchral soliloquy (nostrae secum ferat omina mortis, let him bear with him the omens of our death, A. 4.662) informs the remainder of the intratextual coda (A. 5.4–7):                       quae tantum accenderit ignem causa latet; duri magno sed amore dolores polluto, notumque furens quid femina possit, triste per augurium Teucrorum pectora ducunt. [what cause kindled such a great flame lies hidden; but the harsh resentments from the great love that was violated and the knowledge of what a raging woman is capable of lead the hearts of the Trojans through sorrowful foreboding.]

Vergil interweaves the description of ominous fire and doleful apprehension with numerous intergeneric strands from Dido’s story. The collocation of accendere (to kindle), ignis (fire), causa (cause), and furens (raging) connects the burning funerary pyre of Dido (ignem, A. 5.4) to the amatory assault of Venus and Cupid in Aeneid 1. Venus, as discussed above, enjoins Cupid to inflame the Carthaginian queen into frenzy (furentem | incendat reginam, A. 1.659–60), envelop her bones with fire (atque ossibus implicet ignem, A. 1.660), and breathe hidden flames of passion into her (occultum inspires ignem, A. 1.688). Through the intratextual allusion, Vergil exposes the amatory causa of Dido’s death that lies concealed within the text (causa latet, the cause lies hidden, A. 5.5), namely the incendiary amor inflicted by Venus and Cupid (occultum ignem, hidden fire, A. 1.688). The 140  See Lattimore (1962) 30–1 §3.

32  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid blazing corpse of Dido (ignem, A. 5.4), a grim materialization of her figurative flames of passion (e.g. ardere, A. 4.101; flamma/flammare, A. 1.673, 4.54, 4.66; ignis, A. 1.660, 1.688, 4.2; urere, A. 4.68), emblematizes her trajectory from amor to mors. An awareness of what Dido might be capable of under the influence of her dire emotions induces the Trojans’ sense of sorrowful foreboding (A. 5.4–7). But the intratextual dynamics of the passage suggest that the Trojans, brooding over the menacing behaviour of Dido, are threatened by a far greater force. Vergil’s description of the emotional intensity of Dido resonates with the programmatic portrait of Juno in Aeneid 1, which establishes the amatory origins of her hostility towards the Trojans, as discussed above. The flaming pyre of Dido ( flammis, A. 5.4; accenderit ignem, A. 5.4) recalls Juno’s seething reaction to the judgement of Paris and the infidelity of Jupiter (accensa, inflamed, A. 1.29; flammato . . . corde, with heart inflamed, A. 1.50). Vergil utilizes the phrase duri dolores (harsh resentments, A. 5.5) to describe Dido’s reaction to amatory dishonour (magno . . . amore . . . | polluto, great love that was violated, A. 5.5–6; cf. magno . . . amore, great love, A. 1.675), thereby evoking the Iliadic wrath and savage resentments of Juno (causae irarum saeuique dolores, A. 1.25), which are likewise provoked by erotic insults (A. 1.25–28). Though the Trojans rightly interpret the firelight in Carthage as a sign of Dido’s impassioned destruction, they seem unaware of the more om­in­ous threat posed by her divine doublet. Whereas amor and mors have elim­ in­ated Dido, extricating the Trojans from any immediate threat posed by the furens femina (raging woman, A. 5.6), the indestructible menace of Juno blazes on, fuelled by indelible erotic grievances. In Aeneid 6, Dido makes her final appearance as a shade dwelling in the underworld (A. 6.450–76). The Carthaginian queen’s trajectory from amor to mors culminates in her relegation to the mourning fields (Lugentes campi, A. 6.441), the infernal region inhabited by the shades of those consumed by harsh passion (quos durus amor . . . peredit, A. 6.442). Vergil interweaves the scene with amatory and sepulchral elegiac elements reminiscent of the destructive passion that consigned Dido to death.141 The mental anguish (cura, A. 4.1, 4.5) and figurative wound (uulnus, A. 4.2, 4.67) endured by the love-­struck Dido persist even after her annihilation (curae non ipsa in morte relinquunt, cares do not leave in death itself, A. 6.444; recens a uulnere Dido, fresh from her wound, A. 6.450).142 Vergil describes the wounded ghost of Dido wandering in a great subterranean forest (A. 6.450–51): recens a uulnere Dido | errabat silua in magna (fresh from her

141  On the correspondences between the appearance of Dido in the underworld and her story in Aeneid 1 and 4, see Skinner (1983) 12–18; Horsfall (2013) 338–9 ad A. 6.450–76, with further bibliography. 142  See Horsfall (2013) 339 ad A. 6.450.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  33 wound, Dido was wandering in a great forest).143 The infernal shade of Dido re-­enacts her amatory suffering in Aeneid 4 (tacitum uiuit sub pectore uulnus | . . . infelix Dido . . . uagatur, a silent wound lives beneath her breast . . . wretched Dido wanders, A. 4.67–68) and recalls the simile of the injured hind that characterizes her misery through the elegiac motifs of wounds, hunting, and militia amoris (illa [cerua] . . . siluas peragrat, that hind wanders through the woods, A. 4.72). Aeneas’ recognition of the hazy form of Dido amidst the shades (agnouit per umbras | obscuram, A. 6.452–53) evokes her sepulchral acquiescence in the moment of her death (sic, sic iuuat ire sub umbras, thus, thus I take pleasure in going down to the shades, A. 4.660). Whereas the amatory elegiac sorrow of the living Dido (lacrimas, A. 4.314, 4.413) fails to move Aeneas (num lacrimas . . . dedit, he didn’t shed tears did he, A. 4.370; mens immota manet, lacrimae uoluuntur inanes, his mind remains unmoved, tears fall in vain, A. 4.449),144 the sepulchral sight of her shade arouses his tears (demisit lacrimas, he shed tears, A. 6.455). When Aeneas addresses the ghostly apparition of Dido, he adopts a tone (dulcique adfatus amore est, he spoke with sweet love, A. 6.455) reminiscent of her futile amatory rhetoric in Aeneid 4 (si . . . fuit aut tibi quicquam | dulce meum, or if anything of mine has been sweet to you, A. 4.317–18). The prominent placement of infelix Dido at the beginning of Aeneas’ speech (infelix Dido, wretched Dido, A. 6.456) echoes the distinctive epithet that persistently underscores the amatory and sepulchral elegiac dimensions of the Carthaginian queen’s misery and reversal of fortune (infelix Dido, A. 1.749, 4.68, 4.450, 4.596; felix, fortunate, A. 4.657).145 Aeneas proclaims to Dido that he departed unwillingly from Carthage (inuitus, regina, tuo de litore cessi, unwilling, queen, I departed from your shore, A. 6.460). Vergil thus incorporates within Aeneas’ speech an enigmatic allusion that intertextually evokes Catullus’ Latin elegiac mediation of Callimachus’ lock of Berenice (inuita, o regina, tuo de uertice cessi, unwilling, o queen, I departed from the crown of your head, Cat. c. 66.39) and intratextually resonates with the clipping of Dido’s hair in the sepulchral scene of her death (crinem secat, she cuts the hair, A. 4.704).146 Aeneas asks the apparition of Dido to halt (siste gradum, stop your step, A. 6.465) and hear his final words to her (A. 6.466). The appeal of the living hero to the disembodied shade is a stunning inversion of the sepulchral 143  On Dido’s other associations with ‘wandering’, see Horsfall (2013) 340 ad A. 6.451, with further bibliography. 144  I interpret the phrase lacrimae uoluuntur inanes (tears fall in vain, A. 4.449) as confirmation of the inefficacy of tears in the face of Aeneas’ steadfast emotional control (mens immota manet, A. 4.449). On the debate over whose tears are described at A. 4.449, see Servius ad A. 4.449; Austin (1966) 135 ad A. 4.449; Hudson-­Williams (1978) 16–23; Skinner (1983) 14n.8; Horsfall (2013) 342 ad A. 6.455. 145  See Skinner (1983) 15; Horsfall (2013) 343 ad A. 6.456. 146  Horsfall (2013) 344–5 ad A. 6.460 provides a detailed discussion of the allusion, including further bibliography.

34  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid ‘passer-­by’ motif, in which the deceased requests that the passing wayfarer stop and read the funerary inscription (e.g. hospes resiste et pa[rite]r scriptum perlig[e], stranger halt and at the same time read the inscription, CE 54.1).147 Vergil, having utilized the language and motifs of speaking inscriptions to enhance the funereal significance of Dido’s final speech (A. 4.651–62, as discussed above), now marks Aeneas’ last words to her with similar sepulchral finality. In her ghostly form, Dido, so vociferous in love and in death, silently displays the obdurate emotion previously embodied by Aeneas (A. 6.467–71).148 Vergil, by comparing Dido’s static opposition to hard flint and gleaming marble (dura silex aut stet Marpesia cautes, A. 6.471), inverts the analogy of her amatory rhetoric in Aeneid 4, when she correlates Aeneas’ lack of feeling to durae cautes (harsh crags, A. 4.366–67).149 The comparison of the deceased Dido to marble, as Martin Dinter observes, also conjures the image of her own sepulchral marker.150 Though Aeneas attempts to soothe and stir Dido (A. 6.467–68),151 she blazes with the amatory intensity of her former self (ardentem, blazing, A. 6.467; cf. ardet amans Dido, Dido in love blazes, A. 4.101), and she scrutinizes his conciliatory speech with a fierce gaze reminiscent of her response to his justifications for leaving in Aeneid 4 (torua tuentem, fiercely gazing, A. 6.467; cf. auersa tuetur, she gazes askance, A. 4.362). When the ghost of Dido retreats from Aeneas into a dark, shade-­inhabited grove (refugit | in nemus umbriferum, A. 6.472–73),152 she wordlessly answers his last question to her (quem fugis, whom do you flee from, A. 6.466), which itself evokes her Corydonesque elegiac anguish in Aeneid 4 (mene fugis, do you flee from me, A. 4.314; cf. quem fugis, whom do you flee from, E. 2.60).153 In the end, Vergil himself mitigates the amatory and sepulchral suffering of Dido by delivering her shade to the mutual care and reciprocal love of her ghostly husband Sychaeus (illi | respondet curis aequatque . . . amorem, he responds to her cares and matches her love, A. 6.473–74). The restored love of Dido and Sychaeus, evocative of epitaphs that depict loved ones reunited in death,154 seals her trajectory from amor to mors with sepulchral consolation. Thereafter, the Vergilian Dido recedes from the gaze of Aeneas (A. 6.476), never to be seen again. Yet her intratextual presence haunts the second, Iliadic half of the Aeneid, allusively fulfilling her impassioned curse to torment Aeneas 147  See Horsfall (2013) 347 ad A. 6.465, with further bibliography. For discussion and examples of the ‘passer-­by’ motif, see Lattimore (1962) 230–4; Wolff (2000) 45–53; Tsagalis (2008) 219–24. 148  On the reversal of roles, see Skinner (1983) 12–18, with further bibliography. 149  See Skinner (1983) 15; Horsfall (2013) 351–2 ad A. 6.471. 150  See Dinter (2005) 161–2, with further bibliography. 151  The conative forms lenibat (he was trying to soothe, A. 6.468) and ciebat (he was trying to stir, A. 6.468) underscore the futility of Aeneas’ rhetorical pleas: see Horsfall (2013) 348 ad A. 6.467–68. 152  The adjective umbrifer can refer to that which is shady or provides shade, as well as that which bears the shades of the deceased: see OLD s.v. umbrifer. 153  See Clausen (1994) 82 ad E. 2.60; Horsfall (2013) 347–8 ad A. 6.466. 154  On the epitaphic motif of lovers united in death, see Horsfall (2013) 353 ad A. 6.474, who cites Lattimore (1962) 247–50 §70.

Introduction: Vergil and Elegy  35 from beyond the grave (omnibus umbra locis adero, I will appear as a shade in all places, A. 4.386). In Aeneid 7–12, Aeneas, as imprecated by Dido (bello audacis populi uexatus et armis, but plagued by warfare and arms of a fierce people, A. 4.615), becomes embroiled in war with fierce Italian enemies. Within his martial maius opus, Vergil implicates Dido in a complex network of intratextual doub­lets whose violent animosity towards the Trojans derives from amor and leads to mors (e.g. Juno, Amata, Turnus). Consequently, Vergil’s intergeneric depiction of Dido is pivotal to my exploration of Vergil’s elegiac experimentation in the Italian Iliad, throughout which I resurrect the amatory and sepulchral details of her amatory demise.

Conclusion Throughout my introductory discussion of elegiac experimentation in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6, I have explored the artistic and conceptual development of destructive Vergilian amor. In Vergil’s debut collection, amatory and funerary elegiac elements characterize the personal suffering inflicted by amor on figures like Corydon and Gallus. When recounting the tale of Orpheus and Eurydice, Vergil’s gravitation towards sepulchral elegiac aesthetics underscores the dire potency of amor, which consigns the lovers to death. Through the intergeneric depictions of Juno, Venus, and Dido in Aeneid 1–6, Vergil magnifies even further the lethal intensity of amor, which engenders the divine wrath of the acrimonious queen of the gods, fortifies the erotic goddess with baneful power, and destroys the impassioned Carthaginian queen. I have presented examples of elegiac interplay in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid 1–6 that are integral to understanding the intergeneric framework of Aeneid 7–12, upon which I focus in my forthcoming discussion. Thus, I engage extensively with material from Vergil’s entire poetic corpus, particularly Aeneid 1–6, throughout my exploration of his maius opus and its inextricable themes of amor, arma, and mors. My philological analyses of passages from Aeneid 7–12 demonstrate how the conspicuous presence of erotic and funerary elegiac elem­ ents enhances the aesthetic complexity of Vergil’s Iliadic narrative and escalates the deadly virulence of his conception of amor. By illuminating the intergeneric dimensions and inter-/intratextual dynamics of individual episodes in Aeneid 7–12, I reveal new insights about the artistic character of Vergil’s maius opus and its place within his entire corpus. In the first chapter, ‘From Caieta to Erato: Vergil’s Elegiac Programme (Aeneid 7.1–45)’, I explore the programmatic significance of the opening sequence of Aeneid 7. My analysis of the series of interconnected panels from the sepulchral commemoration of Caieta to the invocation of Erato reveals how Vergil allusively establishes the thematic and aesthetic importance of mors and amor to his martial

36  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid maius opus. The second chapter, ‘Conflicting Amores: The War’s Beginnings in Aeneid 7’, turns to an examination of Vergil’s introductory portraits of Lavinia, Turnus, and Amata and his depiction of Allecto’s sequential infuriations of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius. I demonstrate how Vergil utilizes erotic and funerary elegiac elements to delineate the amatory predicaments of his central characters and underscore the Fury’s transformation of conflicting amores into violence and devastation. In the third chapter, ‘Wielding Passion as Power: Venus’ Manipulation of Vulcan in Aeneid 8’, I focus on the encounter between Venus and Vulcan (A. 8.370–406), in which the amatory goddess wields her powers of seduction to procure divine arma for her son Aeneas. I examine how Vergil’s studied generic experimentation with elegiac topoi in the episode exposes the importance of amor—­both maternal and amatory—­to the resolution of the martial narrative of Aeneid 7–12. Though others have noted the erotic language in this episode, my treatment focuses more directly and comprehensively on its specifically elegiac character, as evidenced by Vergil’s manipulation of syntax, sound patterns, and other aesthetic features. In Chapter 4, ‘Warriors in Love: Passion and Death in the Catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10’, I explore two striking aetiological myths of love and death that are embedded within the epic catalogues of the Italian Iliad: Hippolytus’ resurrection and transformation into Virbius (A. 7.765–77); and the avian transfiguration of Cycnus (A. 10.185–88). I show how elegiac fluctuation enables Vergil to create exceptional aesthetic and thematic vignettes that exist in productive tension with the surrounding martial context, reinforcing the centrality of amor, arma, and mors. The fifth and final chapter, ‘From Amor to Mors: Passion and Devastation in Aeneid 12’, exposes the rich intergeneric and allusive texture of the conceptual capstone of the Italian Iliad. Vergil’s interplay with elegiac poetics culminates in the figure of Turnus, as his final encounters with Latinus, Amata, and Lavinia and his fatal duel with Aeneas underscore the lethal consequences of unrestrained amor. In the Epilogue, I consider the enduring impact of Vergil’s idiosyncratic treatment of elegy in Aeneid 7–12 on subsequent Roman poets. Through two case studies in miniature, I present intertextual evidence for the innovation with which Vergil’s poetic successors recognized and responded to his experimentation with amatory and funerary elegy in his maius opus.

1 From Caieta to Erato Vergil’s Elegiac Programme (Aeneid 7.1–45)

Vergil initiates his maius opus with a series of interconnected panels that reveal his extraordinary vision for Aeneid 7–12. The framing elements of the entire sequence—­an epitaphic address to Caieta (A. 7.1–4) and an invocation of Erato (A. 7.37–45)—are exceptionally unconventional. By starting with Caieta, Vergil inverts the traditional use of sepulchral imagery to mark moments of closure and finality.1 Erato, ousted from her rightful place by Caieta, must wait thirty-­six lines for her invocation. Vergil’s delay, as well as his choice of Muse, thwart our ex­pect­ ations. Within the apostrophic frame, Vergil draws out the final stretch of Aeneas’ journey to Italy with a lingering set of vignettes. From Caieta to Erato, the entire sequence consumes forty-­five hexameter lines, far exceeding conventional limits and dwarfing the initial proem of Aeneid 1. What are we to make of such an introduction, which is as strange as it is magnificent? I argue that the various elements of the opening passage coalesce to produce a unified ‘proem in the middle’, a complex articulation of the conceptual and poetic framework of Vergil’s ‘Italian Iliad’.2 The central vignettes, rather than disrupting the proemial passage, enrich and reinforce the thematic and aesthetic significance of the surrounding frame. Through this elaborate nexus of images, Vergil creates an exordium of magnitude and scope that reflects the enormity of the task at hand.

Caieta, Erato, and Poetic Programme The obvious structural correlation between Vergil’s apostrophes to Caieta and Erato invites a consideration of how they operate as a linked pair of programmatic messages. Caieta and Erato emblematize mors and amor respectively, starting with the epitaphic commemoration that marks the beginning of the end of 1  Smith (1968) 172, 175–6 documents two types of closural allusions: words and phrases signifying termination (e.g. last, finished, end, peace) which occur in a concluding passage; words and phrases signifying events associated with termination (e.g. dusk, night, autumn, winter, death, descent, de­part­ure) which occur in a concluding passage. Kermode (2000) passim examines the extent to which the fictional temporal pattern of origin, middle, and, in particular, end affects the aesthetic form and teleological order of literature. 2  For a discussion of the phenomenon of the ‘proem in the middle’ in Latin poetry, see Conte (1992) 147–59.

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0002

38  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Vergil’s epic. In the four-­line passage devoted to the Aeneia nutrix, Vergil appropriates expressions and themes conventionally found in Roman funerary inscriptions (A. 7.1–4):3 Tu quoque litoribus nostris, Aeneia nutrix, aeternam moriens famam, Caieta, dedisti; et nunc seruat honos sedem tuus, ossaque nomen Hesperia in magna, si qua est ea gloria, signat. [You too, nurse of Aeneas, to our shores gave everlasting renown by dying, Caieta; even now your honour remains in your final resting-­place, and your name marks your bones in great Hesperia, if that be any glory.]

The verses replicate the standard structure of Latin epitaphic inscriptions, which provide the name, status, and/or occupation of the deceased, followed by the bestowal of praise.4 In his apostrophe to Caieta, Vergil utilizes the phrase tu quoque (you too, A. 7.1), which echoes the formulaic acknowledgement of the deceased frequently etched into Roman headstones (e.g. tu quoque flendus eris, you too will have to be lamented, CE 1214.2; tu quoque mater eras, you too were a mother, CE 1439.8; tu quoque miles eras, you too were a soldier, CE 1375.8).5 Moreover, the phrase tu quoque (you too, A. 7.1), particularly when construed with moriens (dying, A. 7.2), evokes the common epitaphic theme of the universality of death (e.g. mors omnibus instat, death looms over all, CE 485.5, 486.3, 802.2, 803.2, 1004.3).6 Thus, the epitaphic apostrophe to Caieta initiates Vergil’s maius opus in a way that anticipates its engagement with the all-­encompassing force of mors, which eliminates without distinction characters of every ilk: aged and young; weak and powerful; male and female; pious and corrupt. In the next line, Vergil points to the eternal renown of Caieta (aeternam . . . famam, A. 7.2), which she has bestowed on the shores that bear her bones and name. The emphasis on her aeterna fama derives from the consolatory rhet­ oric of Latin epitaphs that undermine the annihilation of death with the promise of eternal fame for the deceased (e.g. post fata superstes | fama uiget, after death fame persists and flourishes, CE 618.2–3; fama perennis erit, fame will be everlasting, CE 922.2; cum sit perpetuo fama futura uiri, since the fame of the man will exist forever, CE 978.4).7 Vergil concludes the epitaph by declaring that the ­honour and name of Caieta are affixed to, and therefore preserved by, the place of her inhumation (A. 7.3–4). These final two lines reflect the frequent assertion of 3  See Merkelbach (1971) 349–51; Barchiesi (1979) 3–11; Horsfall (1986) 44; Hardie (1998) 108; Kyriakidis (1998) passim; Thomas (1999) 105; Horsfall (2000) 46 on A. 7.1; Dinter (2005) 157–60. 4  See Lattimore (1962) 266–300 §§76–82. 5  See Horsfall (2000) 45–6 on A. 7.1–4; Dinter (2011) 7–18, with further examples and bibliography. 6  See Lattimore (1962) 250–6 §71; Horsfall (2000) 45–6 on A. 7.1–4. 7  See Lattimore (1962) 241–3 §67.

From Caieta to Erato  39 Latin inscriptions that interment and epitaphic commemoration perpetuate the memory and fame of the deceased (e.g. hos ego . . . uersus . . . | testantes uitam multa per saecula misi, I have sent these verses bearing witness to life through many generations, CE 1967.8–9; ne terra aliena ignoti cum nomine obissent | hic titulus paruo proloquitur lapide, in order that they have not perished with their name unknown in a foreign land, this inscription on a small stone speaks out, CE 2119.5–6).8 Furthermore, the mention of Caieta’s final resting-­place and bones (sedem . . . ossa, A. 7.3) evokes the sepulchral poetics of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (E. 10.33): o mihi tum quam molliter ossa quiescant (o, how softly would my bones rest then). The epitaph for Caieta, like the utterance of the Vergilian Gallus, reflects the pervasive emphasis in Latin funerary inscriptions on the bodily remains resting in the place of burial (e.g. hic mea ferali requiescunt ossa sepulchro, here my bones rest in my funereal resting place, CE 1222.3; hoc rudis aurigae requiescunt ossa sepulchro, in this burial place rest the bones of a rough charioteer, CE 1279.1; nunc ita in aeterna requiesco sed[e sepulta], now thus interred in my eternal burial place I rest, CE 1055.9).9 Through his use of conventional epitaphic language and motifs, Vergil creates an authentic inscription that marks the tomb of Caieta in the realm of the imaginary. But in the realm of the text, the inscription carves out mors as something central to the artistic and thematic scope of the maius opus it introduces. At the end of the frame, juxtaposed with Caieta, is Vergil’s delayed invocation of the Muse, in which he invokes Erato for assistance in recounting his narrative of war (A. 7.37–45): Nunc age, qui reges, Erato, quae tempora, rerum quis Latio antiquo fuerit status, aduena classem cum primum Ausoniis exercitus appulit oris, expediam, et primae reuocabo exordia pugnae. tu uatem, tu, diua, mone. dicam horrida bella, dicam acies actosque animis in funera reges, Tyrrhenamque manum totamque sub arma coactam Hesperiam. maior rerum mihi nascitur ordo, maius opus moueo. [Come now, Erato, who the kings were, what the times were, what the state of affairs in ancient Latium was, when the foreign army first landed on Ausonian shores, I will relate, and I will recall the commencement of the first battle. You, goddess, you remind your bard. I will tell of frightful wars, I will tell of battle arrays, and of kings driven by courage to their deaths, and of the Tyrrhenian host, and all of Hesperia assembled under arms. Greater is the series of events that arises for me, greater the work I set in motion.] 8  See Lattimore (1962) 224–30 §§61–62.

9 See CCLE s.v. ossa.

40  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid The programmatic passage is a virtual catalogue of terminology related to warfare, including fleets, armies, battle arrays, courageous leaders, conflict, and cas­ ual­ties. By creating this elaborate expansion of the poem’s initial arma, Vergil establishes with absolute clarity the overarching martial epic content and character of his maius opus (A. 7.45). Given the poetic programme and elevated status of the forthcoming narrative, Vergil’s invocation of Erato has engendered considerable interpretative consternation. In the Servian commentary, for example, bewilderment over the selection of Erato leads to the suggestion that Vergil must surely have simply used her as a proxy for Calliope or the Muse of epic in general (Servius ad A. 7.37): sane erato uel pro Calliope, uel pro qualicumque musa posuit (surely he put Erato either for Calliope or for any Muse without distinction).10 Bolstering this solution, which has continued to attract support in the scholarship,11 are claims that the concretization of the Muses’ specific roles occurred long after the composition of the Aeneid.12 But the suggestion that Vergil would invoke Erato, stripped of any specific identity, is untenable for two reasons: first, it requires us to accept that Vergil, a poet not given to thoughtless imprecision, would make such a striking choice without significance; and second, it fails to take into account the basic fact that by the first century bce the Muses were conceptually linked to individual spheres of influence, some more concretely than others. Thus, there are two crucial questions: what was the precise identity of Erato for Vergil and his audience, and why would her divine expertise be sought by Vergil for recounting the events of Aeneid 7–12?

Erato’s Enduring Erotic Identity To answer the question of Erato’s identity, literary sources confirm her long-­ established distinction as the Muse of the erotic sphere, which has its origins in the introductory hymn of the Theogony (Hes. Th. 1–104). Hesiod begins his poetic genealogy of the gods by commemorating the nine Muses, whom he lists by name (Hes. Th. 76–80):13

10  On Calliope’s epic associations elsewhere in the Vergilian corpus, see Coleman (1977) 147 on her appearance at E. 4.57; Hardie (1994) 171–2 on the invocation at A. 9.525–28 prior to the aristeia of Turnus. The unnamed epic Muse appears in the proem to each Homeric epic: θεὰ, Hom. Il. 1.1; μοῦσα, Od. 1.1; θεά, θύγατερ Διός, Od. 1.10. 11 See e.g. Klingner (1967) 497; Basson (1975) 99–101; Toll (1989) 107–18; Kyriakidis (1998) 161–77. For a detailed summary of the scholarly debate surrounding Erato, see Horsfall (2000) 69–71. 12  On the post-­Augustan concretization of the specific designations of the Muses, see Nisbet and Hubbard (1970) 282–3 on Hor. Carm. 1.24.3; Thomas (1999) 105 [= (1985) 72]; Kyriakidis (1998) 162–3; Nelis (2001) 268n.6, with further bibliography. 13  See West (1966) 180–1 on Hes. Th. 77–79.

From Caieta to Erato  41 ἐννέα θυγατέρες μεγάλου Διὸς ἐκγεγαυῖαι, Κλειώ τ᾽ Εὐτέρπη τε Θάλειά τε Μελπομένη τε Τερψιχόρη τ᾽ Ἐρατώ τε Πολύμνιά τ᾽ Οὐρανίη τε Καλλιόπη θ᾽· ἡ δὲ προφερεστάτη ἐστὶν ἁπασέων. ἡ γὰρ καὶ βασιλεῦσιν ἅμ᾽ αἰδοίοισιν ὀπηδεῖ. [The nine daughters born of mighty Zeus, Kleio and Euterpe and Thaleia and Melpomene and Terpsichore and Erato and Polymnia and Ourania and Kalliope: who is the most excellent of them all. For she is the attendant of venerated kings.]

Hesiod endows each Muse with a name that derives from the preceding description of their activities and traits:14 Κλειώ (κλείουσιν, they celebrate, Hes. Th. 44, 67); Εὐτέρπη (τέρπουσι, they delight, Hes. Th. 37); Θάλεια (ἐν θαλίῃς, in abundance, Hes. Th. 65);15 Μελπομένη (μέλπονται, they sing, Hes. Th. 66); Τερψιχόρη (τέρπουσι, they delight, Hes. Th. 37; χοροὶ, choral dances, Hes. Th. 63); Ἐρατώ (ἐρατὴν, lovely, Hes. Th. 65; ἐπήρατον, lovely, Hes. Th. 67; ἐρατὸς, lovely, Hes. Th. 70); Πολύμνια (ὑμνεῦσι, they sing of, Hes. Th. 48; ὑμνεῦσαι, singing of, Hes. Th. 37, 51; ὑμνεύσαις, singing, Hes. Th. 70); Οὐρανία (οὐρανῷ, in the sky, Hes. Th. 71); and Καλλιόπη (ὀπὶ καλῇ, in their beautiful voice, Hes. Th. 68). The intratextual connection between each name and its etymological provenance associates each goddess with distinct pursuits and qualities. Furthermore, Hesiod’s innovative bequest of unique designations to the Muses is a stunning, metapoetic reflection of Zeus’ allotment of specific provinces to the gods in the preceding lines: εὖ δὲ ἕκαστα | ἀθανάτοις διέταξε νόμους καὶ ἐπέφραδε τιμάς (and well with respect to all and each he appointed ordinances to the gods and assigned spheres of influence, Hes. Th. 73–74).16 Hesiod, by endowing each Muse with a characteristic name, originates the association of individual goddesses with particular spheres of influence. In the case of Erato, the bestowal of a name formulated from ἔραμαι (to love, desire ardently) initiates her enduring association with the realm of the erotic in subsequent ancient Greek and Latin literature and thought.17 When Plato develops Hesiod’s conceptual framework along more explicit lines in the Phaedrus, he further establishes Erato’s identity as the Muse of ἔρως. Socrates affiliates Terpsichore, Erato, Kalliope, and Ourania with specific spheres of influence in his aetiological myth of the cicadas, who report human activity to the Muses (Pl. Phdr. 259c5–259d5):

14  ‘The names seem not to have been traditional, but to be suggested to Hesiod by things he has said about the Muses in the preceding lines’: as observed by West (1966) 180 on Hes. Th. 76, who provides further bibliography. 15  As noted by West (1966) 177 on Hes. Th. 65: ‘a characteristic setting for the association of the Muses (one of whom is actually called Θάλεια)’. 16  On the interpretation of these lines, see West (1966) 180 on Hes. Th. 73–74. 17  The verb ἔραμαι refers properly to love in the sense of sexual passion and desire: see BDAG s.v. ἔραμαι; LSJ s.v. ἔραμαι.

42  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐλθὸν παρὰ Μούσας ἀπαγγέλλειν τίς τίνα αὐτῶν τιμᾷ τῶν ἐνθάδε. Τερψιχόρᾳ μὲν οὖν τοὺς ἐν τοῖς χοροῖς τετιμηκότας αὐτὴν ἀπαγγέλλοντες [259d] ποιοῦσι προσφιλεστέρους, τῇ δὲ Ἐρατοῖ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς, καὶ ταῖς ἄλλαις οὕτως, κατὰ τὸ εἶδος ἑκάστης τιμῆς · τῇ δὲ πρεσβυτάτῃ Καλλιόπῃ καὶ τῇ μετ᾽ αὐτὴν Οὐρανίᾳ τοὺς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ διάγοντάς τε καὶ τιμῶντας τὴν ἐκείνων μουσικὴν ἀγγέλλουσιν, αἳ δὴ μάλιστα τῶν Μουσῶν περί τε οὐρανὸν καὶ λόγους οὖσαι θείους τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνους ἱᾶσιν καλλίστην φωνήν. [And thereafter they went to the Muses to report who among those here ­honours which of them. And so to Terpsichore they report those who have honoured her in choral dances [259d] and make them more beloved to her, and to Erato those who have honoured her in erotic matters, and thus to the others, according to the nature of the honour belonging to each. But to Kalliope, the eldest, and to Ourania, who comes after her, they report those who spend their life in philosophy and honour the music that belongs to them, who of the Muses are especially concerned with heaven and discourses divine and human and utter the most beautiful voice.]

Plato, as Harvey Yunis observes, ‘borrows from Hesiod the names of the Muses (Th. 77–79) and the idea of connecting their names to the activities they supervise (Th. 63–74)’.18 In the Platonic adaptation of the Hesiodic model, Socrates differentiates Erato from her named and unnamed sisters by designating her as the Muse of τὰ ἐρωτικά, matters related to ἔρως.19 Moreover, Plato’s emphatic identification of Erato in the cicada myth follows on the heels of Socrates’ palinode on ἔρως (Pl. Phdr. 243e7–257b6),20 which reflects upon his earlier conception of love as a mental disturbance in his first speech (Pl. Phdr. 237b–241d).21 Though the precise implications of the Phaedrus remain elusive,22 it unequivocally focuses on Erato as the Muse of the erotic sphere. References to Erato in Callimachus and Apollonius provide evidence of her sustained distinction as the Muse of τὰ ἐρωτικά in the Hellenistic period. In Aetia 1–2, Callimachus recounts a dream in which his younger self converses with the

18  See Yunis (2011) 176 on Pl. Phdr. 259c6. On the association of Plato’s four named Muses with the structure of the Phaedrus, see Werner (2012) 148. 19  See Todd (1931) 217: ‘That Love is the province of Erato is quite certain. Plato, Phaedr. 259c, says so.’ 20  For a concise overview of the palinode, see Yunis (2011) 126–30. 21  For a helpful summary of the theme of ἔρως in the dialogue, see Yunis (2011) 14–15. 22  A comprehensive study of the intertextual and thematic connections between the Phaedrus and Vergil’s opening sequence in Aeneid 7 has tremendous potential but would eclipse the objectives and outstrip the scope of this volume. For discussion of the dialogue in relation to ἔρως, Erato, and the myth of the cicadas, incuding further bibliography, see Ferrari (1987) passim; White (1993) 175–202; Nicholson (1999) passim; Morgan (2004) 235–9; Yunis (2011) passim; Werner (2012) 133–52; Hunter (2018) 202–9.

From Caieta to Erato  43 Muses on Mt. Helicon.23 Surviving fragments and scholia,24 together with an epigrammatic testimonium,25 suggest that the envisioned dialogue engages with the introductory hymn of the Theogony (Hes. Th. 1–104) and the myth of the cicadas in the Phaedrus (Pl. Phdr. 259c–259d).26 Callimachus, whose conception of the Muses traces back to Hesiod through the Platonic intermediary, likewise distinguishes individual goddesses as representatives of particular spheres of influence.27 Furthermore, he focuses on Erato as an interlocutor and narrator of an aetiological tale, one fragment of which preserves her name: Ἔρατω δ᾽ἀνταπάμειπτο τά[δε (and Erato answered as follows, Call. Aet. fr. 137a.8 Harder). The vestigial details of Erato’s aetion, together with the thematic im­port­ance of ἔρως throughout the Aetia, have engendered attractive hypotheses regarding its erotic significance.28 Yet even if such hypotheses are dismissed as mere speculation, Callimachus nevertheless differentiates Erato in a dialogic passage that harks back to her conceptual development as the Muse of the erotic sphere in Hesiod and Plato. Apollonius’ invocation of Erato at the midpoint of his Hellenistic Argonautica emphasizes her established erotic significance (Argon. 3.1–5): εἰ δ᾽ἄγε νῦν, Ἐρατώ, παρ’ ἔμ᾽ ἵστασο καί μοι ἔνισπε, ἔνθεν ὅπως ἐς Ἰωλκὸν ἀνήγαγε κῶας Ἰήσων Μηδείης ὑπ᾽ ἔρωτι · σὺ γὰρ καὶ Κύπριδος αἶσαν ἔμμορες, ἀδμῆτας δὲ τεοῖς μελεδήμασι θέλγεις παρθενικάς · τῶ καί τοι ἐπήρατον οὔνομ᾽ ἀνῆπται. [Come now, Erato, stand beside me and tell me how from there Jason brought back the fleece to Iolcus with the aid of Medea’s love. For you have a share also in Cypris’ sphere of influence, and you bewitch unwedded maidens with your love-­ cares. And therefore to you is attached a name of love.]

The etymologizing construction ἐπήρατον οὔνομα (name of love, Argon. 3.5) reinforces the connection between Erato’s name (Ἐρατώ, Argon. 3.1) and ἔραμαι (to love, desire ardently).29 Moreover, Apollonius utilizes the precise adjective (ἐπήρατον, Argon. 3.5) that anticipates and engenders the name Ἐρατώ in Hesiod’s

23  On the dream as the narrative framework of Aetia 1–2, see Harder (20121) 2, 8–9, 52. 24  See Harder (20121) 126–34 ad Call. Aet. fr. 2–2j; Harder (20122) 93–117 ad Call. Aet. fr. 2–2j. 25  See Harder (20121) 113 ad Call. Aet. T 6; Harder (20122) 4–5 ad Call. Aet. T 6. 26 For discussion of Callimachus’ dream dialogue in relation to Hesiod’s Theogony and Plato’s Phaedrus, see Hunter (2006) 15–22; Morrison (2011) 329–48; Acosta-­Hughes, Lehnus, and Stephens (2011) passim; Acosta-­Hughes and Stephens (2012) 31–46, all with further bibliography. 27  See Morrison (2011) 335–6; Harder (20121) 8. 28  See Harder (20122) 920–3, 929 ad Call. Aet. fr. 137a.8. 29  See Hunter (1989) 97 on Argon. 3.4–5; Nelis (2001) 268. The etymological relationship between Ἐρατώ, ἔρως, and ἐπήρατος in the first, third, and final lines further reinforces her erotic associations: see Hunter (1989) 97 on Argon. 3.4–5; Nelis (2001) 268; O’Hara (2017) 184–5 on A. 7.37–40.

44  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid seminal treatment of the individual Muses (ἐπήρατον, lovely, Hes. Th. 67; cf. ἐρατὴν, lovely, Hes. Th. 65; ἐρατὸς, lovely, Hes. Th. 70). The vertical juxtaposition of Ἐρατώ (Argon. 3.1) and ἔρως (ἔρωτι, Argon. 3.3) before the penthemimeral caesura further underscores through sight and sound the erotic identity and province of the Muse.30 When Apollonius explains his reasons for invoking Erato (γὰρ, Argon. 3.3),31 he cites her specific erotic jurisdiction, which she shares with Aphrodite herself (σὺ γὰρ καὶ Κύπριδος αἶσαν | ἔμμορες, Argon. 3.3–4).32 Through etymological wordplay, intertextual allusion, and emphatic structure, Apollonius explicitly identifies Erato as the Muse of ἔρως, a goddess uniquely qualified to assist with the tale of Medea’s love for Jason (Μηδείης ὑπ᾽ ἔρωτι, Argon. 3.3).33 Erato’s initial appearance in the Theogony and active roles in the Phaedrus, Aetia, and Argonautica trace the evolution of her erotic identity, as Hesiod’s allusive suggestion develops into unambiguous endorsements of her unique power and province. By the time Erato reaches Vergil, his learned audience, and his poetic contemporaries, she has been firmly established as a divine embodiment of erotic poetics and themes. The elegists Propertius and Ovid, for example, envision and invoke Erato as the Muse of amor (≈ ἔρως) and amatory verse in passages that hark back to her manifestations in the Greek literary tradition. In elegy 3.3, Propertius dramatizes his programmatic commitment to Callimachean, elegiac poetics through an extended initiation sequence featuring Apollo, Calliope, and the other Muses. When Propertius accompanies Apollo to a grotto inhabited by the Muses, he witnesses the devotion of each individual goddess to her particular sphere of influence (Prop. 3.3.33–36):34 diuersaeque nouem sortitae iura Puellae     exercent teneras in sua dona manus: haec hederas legit in thyrsos, haec carmina neruis     aptat, at illa manu texit utraque rosam. [And the nine Maidens having obtained by lot their provinces occupy their tender hands in their own gifts: this one gathers ivy for thyrsus wands, this one fits her songs to the strings, but that one weaves a rose with each hand.]

Propertius’ emphasis on the allotment of specific provinces to the Muses recalls Hesiod’s inventive differentiation of each goddess in the Theogony (Hes. Th. 77–80). 30  On vertical juxtaposition at the beginning and end of hexameter verses in Vergil, see O’Hara (2017) 34–5, 86–8. 31  On the particle γάρ as ‘confirmatory and causal, giving the ground for belief, or the motive for action’. see Denniston s.v. γάρ I. 32  See Hunter (1989) 97 on Argon. 3.4–5; Nelis (2001) 268. The etymological relationship between Ἐρατώ, ἔρως, and ἐπήρατος in the first, third, and final lines further reinforces her erotic associations: see Hunter (1989) 97 on Argon. 3.4–5; Nelis (2001) 268; O’Hara (2017) 184–5 on A. 7.37–40. 33  See Hunter (1989) on Argon. 3.3–4. 34  Fedeli (1985) 143–5 on Prop. 3.3.33–36. Cairns (2006) 126–7 suggests that Gallus may have influenced this Propertian encounter with the Muses.

From Caieta to Erato  45 Persistent allusions also connect the Heliconian dream of Propertius to Callimachus’ envisioned encounter with the Muses in Aetia 1–2.35 But with the exception of Calliope, Propertius eschews the proper names of the Muses, opting instead for detailed descriptions that connect his three divine Puellae to specific types of poetic production. The third sister, set in contrast to her Bacchic and lyric siblings by the phrase at illa,36 appears in the emphatic final clause of the tricolon crescens. Her placement and signature activity identify her as the Muse of Roman elegiac verse: she is the sole occupant of the pentameter line; and her weaving of roses, a flower that symbolizes both funerary and amatory poetics, evokes the two intertwined facets of elegy.37 In Ovid, we find the Roman incarnation of Erato herself, who retains the name and identity of her Greek antecedents in Hesiod, Plato, and Apollonius (Ov. Ars 2.15–16):38 nunc mihi, si quando, puer et Cytherea, fauete, | nunc Erato, nam tu nomen Amoris habes (Now, if ever, favour me, Cytherea and son, now favour me Erato, for you have the name of Amor). When Ovid seeks Erato’s assistance in Ars Amatoria 2, he associates her with Venus and, like Apollonius, underscores her erotic province by pointing out the etymological resonance of her name.39 A second reference to Erato in Fasti 4 further emphasizes her share in Venus’ month and the connection of her name with amor (Ov. Fast. 4.195–96):40 sic ego. sic Erato, (mensis Cythereius illi | cessit quod teneri nomen amoris habet) (So I spoke. So Erato replied (for the Cytherean month has passed into her care because she has the name of tender love) ). What these examples from Propertius and Ovid clearly demonstrate is that Roman poets were accustomed both to the dif­fer­en­ti­ation of the Muses and to Erato’s conceptual connection to the erotic sphere. Thus, to answer the first crucial question, Vergil and his audience identified Erato precisely as the Muse of erotic themes and amatory poetics.41 35  See Fedeli (1985) 111–13; Cairns (2006) 126–8; Hollis (2006) 97–125; Maltby (2006) 178–9; Newman (2006) 322–4; Keith (2008) 79–82. 36  OLD s.v. at 1b. 37  For evidence of the importance of the rose in Roman funerary rituals and commemorative festivals (e.g. Rosalia and Parentalia), see Lattimore (1962) 137–41 §28; Toynbee (1971) 62–4, 97–8; Brenk (1999) 87–90; Hope (2009) 99–100, 174. On the association of roses with Aphrodite, see Brenk (1999) 91–3. See also Postgate (1885) 156 on Prop. 4.3.36 [=3.3.36]: ‘Perhaps Erato is meant. Love is crowned with roses.’ Note the use of rosa elsewhere in Propertius in programmatic passages related to mors and amor. For example, Propertius imagines his beloved mingling his bones and roses in commemoration of his death (molliter et tenera poneret ossa rosa, softly she would have placed my bones on soft roses, Prop. 1.17.22); and he declares his desire to forever wear rose garlands, the symbol of amatory pursuits and poetry (et caput in uerna semper habere rosa, to always have my head among spring roses, Prop. 3.5.22). Keith (2008) 62–3 interprets Prop. 3.5.18–22 as the poet ‘sounding elegy’s distinct, and distinctly conventional disjunction from lyric’. Cf. also Prop. 2.3.12, 4.2.40, 4.6.72, 4.7.60, 4.8.40. 38  Todd (1931) 217; O’Hara (1996) 68–9. 39  Ovid here uses a bilingual wordplay that employs the Latin transliteration Erato with the noun amor to suggest the derivation of the Greek Ἐρατώ from ἔρως. 40  See Fantham (1998) 131 on 195–6. 41  As Nelis (2001) 268 remarks, with supporting bibliography, ‘indeed it is impossible to believe that Vergil can allude to Apollonius’ Erato but subtract any erotic associations which her name can carry’.

46  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid

The Programmatic Significance of Erato and Caieta Why, then, does Vergil seek Erato’s assistance for recounting his martial maius opus? The simple answer, encoded in the opening line of Vergil’s invocation, is that he, like Apollonius before him, enlists Erato because of her erotic expertise. With the phrase nunc age Erato (A. 7.37), Vergil repeats the opening phrase of Apollonius’ invocation of the Muse in Argonautica 3 (εἰ δ᾽ἄγε νῦν, Ἐρατώ, Argon. 3.1).42 The striking intertextual connection activates for the audience Erato’s explicit erotic identity from the Apollonian model, without the need for further elaboration. In the Aeneid, just as in the Argonautica,43 the invocation of Erato indicates the importance of amatory themes and poetics in the narrative to come.44 The presence of Erato also generates reflection on her erotic mani­fest­ ations in Hesiod, Plato, and Callimachus and her migration from didactic epic to philosophical and Alexandrian elegiac and epic projects that focus on ἔρως. Vergil’s appeal to the erotic Muse identifies amor as integral to the narrative of arma in Aeneid 7–12, a programmatic addendum that corresponds to the epitaphic address of Caieta, which emblematizes mors and the commemoration of and lament for the deceased. Vergil’s poetic gestures to Caieta and Erato, mors and amor, in the opening sequence have crucial programmatic implications. The clear structural cor­rel­ ation between the two framing devices unites mors and amor and sets the linked pair in productive tension with arma, the primary matrix outlined in the cul­min­ ation of the proem. This design delineates, to borrow Conte’s eminently useful formula, the quid and quale of Vergil’s epic vision.45 In terms of content, Caieta and Erato prefigure mors and amor as central themes that drive the martial narrative. The epitaphic address of Caieta, emblematic of loss and lament, 42  On the Apollonian resonance of nunc age, see Fraenkel (1945) 1; Knauer (1964) 227n.1; Basson (1975) 96; Hunter (1989) 95 on Argon. 3.1–5; O’Hara (2017) 184–5 on A. 7.37–40. For discussion of the connection between Vergil’s invocation of Erato and its Apollonian model, see Horsfall (2000) 67–8 on A. 7.37–45; Nelis (2001) 268, with further bibliography. 43  See Woodworth (1930) 178; Nelis (2001) 268. 44  Some associate Erato with erotic aspects of the narrative, looking forward to Lavinia and the theme of marriage, and/or backward to Aeneas’ erotic affair with Dido: see Todd (1931) 217–18; Reckford (1961) 256–7; Williams (1973) 169 on A. 7.37; Fordyce (1977) 64 on A. 7.37; Pavlock (1992) 73; O’Hara (1996) 268–9; Nelis (2001) 268–75; O’Hara (2017) 184–5 on A. 7.37–40. Toll (1989) 113–15 proposes that Erato refers, not to erotic love, but rather to Aeneas’ amor patriae, which took precedence over his amatory attachment to Dido. Cf. Aeneas’ famous declaration to Dido regarding Italy: hic amor, haec patria est (this is desire, this is home, A. 4.347). Others see the interrogative structure of Vergil’s invocation as evocative of the Callimachean technique of question and answer between Muses and the poet which features prominently in the first two books of the Aetia: see Hunter (1989) 95 on Argon. 3.1; Kyriakidis (1994) 203–5. Yet another interpretation connects Erato to the epithalamium, a suitable genre for the theme of betrothal and marriage: see Todd (1931) 217; Monteleone (1977) 184–91. Interestingly, Erato may have been the Muse of the Achilleid, a poem centred upon the love affair between Achilles and Deidamia: see Coleman (1988) 198–9 on Stat. Silu. 4.7.2. 45  Conte (1992) 147–9 differentiates between the proem’s announcement of a poem’s quid (themes, contents, etc.), and quale (artistic character).

From Caieta to Erato  47 prefigures the deaths and commemorations of a host of characters, who exemplify the immense human cost of the forthcoming conflict. At the other end of the frame, the amatory Muse Erato looks ahead to the conflicting passions that ignite and sustain the violence of war throughout the Italian Iliad. Within the narrative economy of Aeneid 7–12, Caieta and Erato correspond to the death of Turnus in the final lines of Vergil’s epic: as one impassioned warrior dies at the hands of another, the poem reaches its appropriately funerary conclusion. In aesthetic terms, the interconnected gestures to Caieta and Erato introduce Vergil’s ‘elegiac programme’. The programmatic juxtaposition of mors and amor emblematizes the two poetic facets of Roman elegy, the genre of lament and love.46 Thus, the integration of Caieta and Erato within the opening sequence prefigures Vergil’s in­corp­or­ation of artistic materials from elegy throughout the overarching martial epic matrix, promising an innovative narrative that remains rooted in the epic tradition, yet engaged with current Roman poetic trends and sensibilities. Vergil thus lays programmatic claim to elegy, the genre which provides both the thematic and aesthetic means to articulate the tensions between love, death, and war that characterize his maius opus.

The Programmatic Significance of Circe and Aurora The tripartite importance of amor, mors, and arma established in the frame of the proem are further reinforced by a central panel of embedded vignettes. I focus here on two aspects from the series of images depicted therein, namely the depiction of Circe and the vivid description of Aeneas’ first Italian dawn. Whereas Circe underscores the epic roots of Vergil’s conceptualization of love as a destructive and deadly force, the Italian sunset exemplifies his transformative use of the specialized lexicon of elegy within the martial poetic matrix. Opening the series of erotic and programmatic scenes is a depiction of the realm of Circe, which the Trojans sail past as they continue their voyage along the Italian coastline after the burial of Caieta (A. 7.10–20). As the ships graze the coastline, Vergil provides a glimpse of the goddess (A. 7.10–14): proxima Circaeae raduntur litora terrae, diues inaccessos ubi Solis filia lucos adsiduo resonat cantu, tectisque superbis urit odoratam nocturna in lumina cedrum arguto tenuis percurrens pectine telas.

46  See Thomas (1998); Dinter (2005); Ramsby (2007). For examples of epigrammatic material in Roman elegy, see Prop. 1.21–22, 2.1.78, 2.13b.35–36, 4.7.85–86. 4.11.35–36; Tib. 1.3.55–56.

48  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid [Closely grazed are the shores of Circe’s land, where the opulent daughter of the Sun makes the inaccessible woods echo with continuous singing, and in her sumptuous abode burns fragrant cedar to illuminate the night as she runs through the fine threads of the warp with a shrill comb.]

The appearance of Circe, particularly given her roles in the Odyssey and the Argonautica, situates Vergil’s Italian Iliad within the poetic tradition of epic verse.47 Vergil’s divine temptress is an intertextual conflation of the Odyssean accounts of both Circe and Calypso (Hom. Od. 5.59–62, 10.220–23): πῦρ μὲν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχαρόφιν μέγα καίετο, τηλόσε δ᾽ ὀδμὴ κέδρου τ᾽ εὐκεάτοιο θύου τ᾽ ἀνὰ νῆσον ὀδώδει δαιομένων · ἡ δ᾽ ἔνδον ἀοιδιάουσ᾽ ὀπὶ καλῇ ἱστὸν ἐποιχομένη χρυσείῃ κερκίδ᾽ ὕφαινεν. [A great fire was blazing on the hearth, and the fragrance of cedar clefts and sweet wood burning suffused the island: she was singing within in a beautiful voice and plied the loom and wove with a golden shuttle.] ἔσταν δ᾽ ἐν προθύροισι θεᾶς καλλιπλοκάμοιο, Κίρκης δ᾽ ἔνδον ἄκουον ἀειδούσης ὀπὶ καλῇ, ἱστὸν ἐποιχομένης μέγαν ἄμβροτον, οἷα θεάων λεπτά τε καὶ χαρίεντα καὶ ἀγλαὰ ἔργα πέλονται. [They stood in the front entry of the goddess with beautiful hair, and heard Circe singing within in a beautiful voice, as she plied the great loom immortal, such as goddesses have, their works fine and graceful and splendid.]

Like her Homeric antecedents, Vergil’s Circe occupies herself with weaving and song, burns fragrant cedar,48 and dwells in a wooded grove.49 Circe, like Erato, 47  See Hunter (1993a) 175–82; Thomas (1999) 106–9; Nelis (2001) 259–62. 48  For the burning cedar as a verbal echo of the Homeric description of Calypso’s cave, see Knauer (1964) 137–8; Fordyce (1977) 55 on A. 7.12; Thomas (1999) 107; Horsfall (2000) 55 on A. 7.12; Nelis (2001) 261. 49  This fusion may reflect post-­Homeric moralizing interpretations of the Odyssey in which these two goddesses come to represent the dangers of lust and passion. For the moralizing interpretation of Circe, see Hunter (1993a) 178–9; Nelis (2001) 261. Perhaps one of the most famous moralizing interpretations of the Homeric Circe occurs in Hor. Epist. 1.2.24–26: quae [pocula] si cum sociis stultus cupidusque bibisset, | sub domina meretrice fuisset turpis et excors, | uixisset canis immundus uel amica luto sus (which draughts if with his companions he had drunk being foolish and greedy, under a whorish mistress he would have been shameful and stupid, he would have lived as a filthy dog or a mud-­loving sow). Written in the period roughly contemporary with the composition of the Aeneid, this epistle presents Homer as a superior moral guide whose epics provide numerous morally in­struct­ ive lessons and illustrations: see Mayer (1994) 124. For Horace, Odysseus’ encounter with Circe illustrates both the dangers of female sexuality to male autonomy and the importance of self-­control in the face of desire—­had Odysseus drunk the magical concoction offered by Circe, he would have been shamefully unmanned by a ‘whorish mistress’ (domina meretrix) and reduced to the status of a filthy beast. Given the significance of the term domina in the lexicon of erotic elegy, Odysseus’ diminished status also resembles that of the submissive elegiac lover.

From Caieta to Erato  49 also connects Vergil’s narrative to the story of Medea’s deleterious passion for Jason in the Argonautica. Circe’s epithet solis filia (A. 7.11) underscores her ge­nea­ logic­al connection to Medea,50 whereas descriptions of her powers of sorcery emphasize the threatening magical ancestry and ability she shares with her mortal niece.51 Vergil’s Circe, evocative of her Homeric and Apollonian antecedents, conjures epic narratives in which destructive amor poses an enduring threat to the epic hero, whose erotic entanglements threaten his homecoming through both delay and loss of life. In thematic and aesthetic terms, the figure of Circe indicates that Vergil, like Homer and Apollonius before him, intends to grapple with amor in its most menacing aspect. His epic conceptualization of amor, unlike that of his elegiac contemporaries, identifies love as a powerful force that leads to real war and death. The image of Circe, resonating with Caieta and Erato, reinforces Vergil’s tripartite design of mors, amor, and arma and situates it within the epic tradition. But, as I have already suggested, Vergil’s epic design for the Italian Iliad includes the incorporation of elegiac materials to create aesthetic moments that reinforce his central themes. The vibrant sunrise in the central panel of the proem provides a preview of the way in which Vergil punctuates his epic narrative by experimenting with the genre of amor and mors (A. 7.25–28): Iamque rubescebat radiis mare et aethere ab alto Aurora in roseis fulgebat lutea bigis, cum uenti posuere omnisque repente resedit flatus, et in lento luctantur marmore tonsae. [And now the sea was growing red with the rays of the sun and from high in the sky Aurora was blazing yellow in her chariot of rose, when the winds dropped and in an instant every breeze died off, and the oars struggle in the marble stillness of the sea.] 50  Fordyce (1977) 55 on A. 7.11 notes that Circe is traditionally the daughter of Helios and Perse, and the sister of Medea’s father Aeetes. In the Theogony, Hesiod draws the genealogical connection between Circe and Medea (Th. 956–61). Homer does not mention Medea, but Odysseus refers to Circe as the sister of Aeetes and the daughter of Helios and Perse (Hom. Od. 10.135–39). Apollonius states that Circe is the daughter of Helios and Perse (Πέρσης τε καὶ Ἠελίοιο θύγατρα, Argon. 4.591), and the sister of Aeetes (κασιγνήτην . . . Αἰήταο, Argon. 4.684). Aeetes alludes to this genealogical connection as he recalls accompanying his father Helios and sister Circe on the journey to the west coast of Italy where she remained (Argon. 3.309–13). Circe recognizes Medea as the offspring of Helios (Ἠελίου γενεὴ, Argon. 4.727) and calls her a blood relative (ὁμόγνιος, Argon. 4.743). Cf. also Valerius Flaccus, who exploits the genealogy of Circe and Medea in his description of Venus, who adopts the guise of Circe to inflame Medea with love for Jason (V. Fl. 7.210–91). 51  See L–­S s.v. cantus 2B; OLD s.v. cantus 3; TLL 3.295.18–48 s.v. cantus. Papanghelis (1987) 40 notes that erotic enchantments, magic potions, and related motifs feature heavily in erotic literature, including elegy. The figure of the saga with powers over the universe and over love was well established among Vergil’s elegiac contemporaries: see Cairns (1989) 145–6. Propertius includes the topos of the lover’s search for remedia amoris through magic in the programmatic opening poem of his Monobiblos: see Cairns (1989) 146n.73; Keith (2008) 48–9. Cf. Prop. 1.1.19–24; Tib. 1.2.41–50, 1.6.43–54.

50  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid At first glance, Vergil conforms to epic tradition by utilizing a morning scene to mark an inaugural moment, namely Aeneas’ first glimpse of the Tiber (A. 7.29–34).52 But his integration of language and motifs from elegy, both erotic and funerary, poetically reinforces the tension between amor and mors established throughout the opening sequence from Caieta to Erato. When the morning rays hit the sea, the water takes on the characteristic colours of erotic passion and sexual response. In the lexicon of amatory poetics, cognates of the verb rubesco signify the blush which arises from pudor, the sense of shame which marks the moment of erotic awakening.53 This ‘blush’ floods into the next line, colouring the horses of personified Dawn with a rosy hue (in roseis . . . bigis, A. 7.26). The goddess herself is a vision of gleaming saffron (Aurora . . . fulgebat lutea, A. 7.26), the reddish-­gold colour of the flammeum which veils the Roman bride.54 Etymologically related to the Greek φλέγω (to burn),55 the verb fulgere describes the radiance of Aurora in language evocative of fire, recalling the conventional elegiac association between love and consuming flame.56 Surging with the colours of flushed skin and fire, the landscape evokes the concept of amor and resonates with the amatory implications of Erato. A sudden change in tone, both chromatic and atmospheric, swiftly extinguishes the initial fervour of the landscape. Though the presence of elegiac language and motifs continues, the scene no longer conveys the heat of erotic awakening, but rather the chill of erotic refusal and the stillness of death. The dynamic undulation of crimson and saffron halts as a pale paralysis overtakes the landscape, the cessation of motion underscored by the shift from the imperfect (rubescebat, fulgebat, A. 7.25–26) to the perfect tense (posuere, resedit, A. 7.27). Once aflame with the hues of erotic passion, the now tranquil sea resembles the smooth, white surface of marble (lento . . . marmore, A. 7.28), an image that recalls both the amatory and funerary aspects of elegy. As it delays Aeneas’ progress, the stony white sea calls to mind the elegiac lover-­poet’s descriptions of the beauty and coldness of the unresponsive dura puella: the exposed skin of the mistress is conventionally pale;57 the colour white suggests the frigid absence of sexual feeling;58 52  Temporal markers at the start of each section (iam, A. 7.25; hic, A. 7.29) indicate that the two aspects of the scene belong to the same moment in time: see Horsfall (2000) 62–3 on A. 7.25–27; 64 on A. 7.29. 53  See Glossary s.v. red. 54  Fordyce (1977) 59 on A. 7.26. For the erotic symbolism of the colour yellow as signified by luteus, see Navarro Antolín (1996) 115 on Lygd. 1.9; Fulkerson (2017) 83–4 ad [Tib.] 3.1.9. On Catullus’ use of luteus in an epithalamic context to refer to Hymen’s yellow slippers and the bride’s blush, see Clarke (2003) 96–7. Among the elements of Roman bridal costume that might be coloured with lutum were the veil (flammeum), hairnet (retinaculum luteum), and footwear (luteum soccum): see La Follette (2001) 54–65; Sebesta (2001) 48; Edmondson (2008) 27. 55  For the etymological relationship between the Latin fulgere and the Greek φλέγω/φλεγέθω (to burn) and φλόξ (flame), see Ernout–­Meillet 259 s.v. fulgeo; Frisk 1022–1024 s.v. φλέγω; Halsey 140 φλεγ, flag, fulg; L–­S s.v. fulgeo; OLD s.v. fulgeo; TLL 61.1507.46–48 s.v. fulgeo. 56  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat. 57  See Glossary s.v. white. 58  See Rhorer (1980) 79.

From Caieta to Erato  51 elegists use the term lentus to denote the withholding of affection;59 and unyielding marble evokes the frequent elegiac topos that associates emotional hardness with stone.60 But marble also evokes the materiality of epitaphs and the poetic expression of mors in funerary inscriptions. Through its striking chromatic shift, the Italian sunrise replicates the poetic dichotomy of amor and mors in elegy, thereby reinforcing the aesthetic and generic import of Caieta and Erato in the surrounding frame. Moreover, the anagrammatic resonance of marmor evokes the interlinked themes of amor, mora, and mors that characterize Aeneas’ quest to found Roma.61

Conclusion From beginning to end, the virtuosic opening sequence of Aeneid 7 provides a rich and complex introduction to Vergil’s innovative artistic design for the Italian Iliad. The conflation of mors, amor, and arma therein sets up a uniquely Roman epic narrative, punctuated with elegiac moments that enrich Vergil’s martial programme with electrifying interest and beauty. That Vergil shows such a deep investment in elegiac poetics within Aeneid 7–12 should come as no surprise: the rise of elegy coincides with his own poetic ascent; the stars of the genre are his personal and professional intimates; and he engages in elegiac experimentation in the amatory narratives of the Eclogues, Georgics, and the first half of the Aeneid. But despite the clear programmatic message of the first forty-­five lines of Aeneid 7, elegy has largely been overlooked as a crucial component of Vergil’s maius opus, due perhaps to its perceived incompatibility with martial epic. But the dissonance of elegy is precisely what makes it such a powerful addition to Vergil’s narrative and artistic scheme. The conceptual metamorphosis of elegiac elements, transplanted from their original poetic context, is striking, transforming their meaning: the wounds of love become actualized in mortal combat; the lament of the rejected wooer becomes that of a bereaved soldier or mother; and the emotional ramifications of amor extend beyond weakening the constitution of the lover to threatening the very foundation of Rome. In essence, Vergil’s engagement with elegy throughout the second half of the Aeneid is absolutely crucial to its poetic success, making it ‘something greater than the Iliad’, indeed.

59  See Pichon s.v. lentus. 61  See Glossary s.v. anagram.

60  See Glossary s.v. durus.

2 Conflicting Amores The War’s Beginnings in Aeneid 7

Following his invocation to Erato (A. 7.37–45), Vergil provides a vivid account of the origins of war, which confirms the programmatic importance of amor to the thematic and aesthetic foundation of his maius opus. As Vergil introduces the central Italian characters and depicts the rampage of Allecto, he establishes a clear teleological progression from amor to arma, which he articulates by means of extensive elegiac experimentation. In this chapter, I begin by examining the introductory portraits of Lavinia, Amata, and Turnus, in which Vergil prob­lem­ atizes each character along amatory lines: Lavinia, the exceptionally attractive daughter of Latinus, incites a multitude of desirous suitors; Turnus emerges as Aeneas’ martial and amatory doublet and rival; and Amata fails to conceal her unseemly erotic desires. Next, I document Vergil’s conjunction of amatory and funerary elegiac material within Allecto’s sequential infuriations of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius, his aesthetic approach amplifying the Fury’s powerful perversion of human emotions, as she transforms conflicting passions (amores) into actual violence and death (mors). My analysis of the text reveals the holistic elegiac atmosphere that pervades Vergil’s account of the commencement of war, as he reinforces on the aesthetic plane his narrative vision of amor as an uncontrollable, lethal force.

Lavinia’s Desirability Immediately after the proem, Vergil delineates the ancestry of Latinus, king of Latium, and provides details regarding his progeny. Due to the untimely death of an unnamed male heir, only a daughter remains (A. 7.52–53): sola domum et tantas seruabat filia sedes iam matura uiro, iam plenis nubilis annis. [Only a daughter was maintaining the house and the greatness of its station, now ripe for a husband, now of full age for marriage.]

Vergil’s introduction of Latinus’ daughter focuses on two crucial factors, namely her exclusive royal birthright (sola filia) and her readiness for marriage in terms Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0003

Conflicting Amores  53 of both physical maturity (matura uiro) and numerical age (plenis nubilis annis).1 On the epic plane, the description interacts with the opening lines of the Aeneid. Vergil connects the marriageable princess (matura uiro) to Aeneas (arma uirumque, A. 1.1), brought by fate to the lands that bear her name (Lauiniaque uenit | litora, A. 1.2–3). Marriage to Latinus’ sola filia offers Aeneas the only chance at succession to the throne of Latium, making her pivotal to the success of his epic mission. But the invocation of Erato exerts intergeneric pressure on the description of Lavinia, activating her latent amatory significance. Vergil’s con­ firm­ation of her sexual maturity suggests that her desirability stems from erotic, as well as political, considerations.2 The phrase matura uiro likewise has an amatory dimension, recalling the use of uir in the elegiac lexicon to refer both to husbands, who limit access to a desired female, and to rival lovers, who compete for her affections.3 Vergil draws attention to the political and erotic aspects of Lavinia’s appeal, which will fuel the forthcoming battle for epic supremacy. As Vergil proceeds to explain, an intense contest for the hand of Latinus’ daughter has already erupted prior to Aeneas’ arrival (A. 7.54–55): multi illam magno e Latio totaque petebant | Ausonia (many were seeking her from great Latium and all Ausonia). Vergil shifts the focus from the qualities that make Lavinia desirable to their overwhelming impact on the multitude of suitors who pursue her. The appraisal of a bride based on the enormous interest she inspires is a conventional feature of erotic and epithalamic passages:4 we may compare Nausicaa in the Odyssey (Hom. Od. 6.34–35);5 the daughter of Antaeus in Pindar (Pind. Pyth. 9.107–08);6 and Cydippe in Callimachus (Call. Aet. fr. 67.9–10 Harder).7 In particular, the intertextual reverberations of Callimachus’ treatment of Acontius and Cydippe establish a crucial link between the Vergilian scene and the tradition of Latin amatory verse that develops from the Hellenistic aetion. Vergil’s emphasis on the number of suitors evokes the Callimachean model through Catullus, who reshapes the lines in an epithalamium to create two pairs of images that illustrate desirability (c. 62.42, 44, 53, 55).8 Moreover, as Francis 1  See Servius ad A. 7.53. Treggiari (1991) 39–40 cites this passage and the Servian commentary as trace evidence for the legal qualification of minimum age for valid marriage in Vergil’s time. 2  Horsfall (2000) 80 ad A. 7.52 notes her uniqueness and the ‘erotic potential of the situation’. See also Fratantuono (2008) 42, who calls the introduction ‘a wonderfully laconic summary of the erotic situation in Italy’. 3 See OLD s.v. uir 2; Pichon s.v. uir. The Greek ἀνήρ likewise can be used of husband or paramour: see LSJ s.v. ἀνήρ 1–5. 4  See Horsfall (2000) 82 ad A. 7.55. 5  ἤδη γάρ σε μνῶνται ἀριστῆες κατὰ δῆμον | πάντων Φαιήκων (For even now the noblest of all the Phaeacians pursue you throughout the land.) 6  τὰν μάλα πολλοὶ ἀριστῆες ἀνδρῶν αἴτεον | σύγγονοι, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ξείνων (Indeed many kinsmen, the noblest of men, were pursuing her, and many foreigners too.) 7  πολλαὶ Κυδίππην ὀλ[ί]γην ἔτι μητέρες υἱοῖς | ἑδνῆστιν κεραῶν ἤιτεον ἀντὶ βοῶν (Many mothers were seeking Cydippe, still small, for their sons in exchange for gifts of horned oxen.) 8  multi illum pueri, multae optauere puellae (many boys desired that flower, many girls desired it, c. 62.42); nulli illum pueri, nullae optauere puellae (no boys desired that flower, no girls desired it,

54  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Cairns has shown, Callimachus’ tale of Acontius and Cydippe became a crucial model for the Latin elegists by way of Gallus.9 The elegiac resonance of Vergil’s description of the suitors is confirmed by the presence of the verb petere. In its nuptial sense, petere signifies the pursuit of an individual prompted by marital aspirations,10 a use that appears in other marked amatory passages of the Aeneid that feature elegiac experimentation.11 But Vergil’s elegiac contemporaries use petere of pursuit driven by desire,12 a meaning which develops from Catullan erotic and Lucretian didactic antecedents,13 quite possibly through a lost Gallan intermediary.14 Thus, the intertextual depth and lexical significance of Vergil’s report of Lavinia’s suitors underscores the erotic aspect of the competition that arises for her, thereby hinting at the devastating amor she inspires in the leading men of Italy.

Turnus’ Pre-­Eminence Vergil distinguishes Turnus, who has powerful ancestry and exceptional beauty, as the leading contender for the hand of Lavinia (A. 7.55–56): petit ante alios pulcherrimus omnis | Turnus, auis atauisque potens (Turnus seeks her above all others most handsome, powerful in his grandfathers and great-­grandfathers). The accentuation of Turnus’ political and physical appeal, commensurate with that of Lavinia, also demonstrates his stature in the contest for her hand. Vergil provides further contrast between Turnus and the multitude of suitors by varying the tense

c. 62.44); hanc nulli agricolae, nulli coluere iuuenci (no farmers cultivated that vine, no bullocks cultivated it, c. 62.53); multi illam agricolae, multi coluere iuuenci (many farmers cultivated that vine, many bullocks cultivated it, c. 62.55). 9  Cairns (1969) 131–4; Cairns (2006) 119, 210–12. See also Keith (2008) 76, 98. 10  Treggiari (1991) 126–7. See OLD s.v. peto 10c. 11  See Helen seeking forbidden marriage to Paris (Pergama cum peteret inconcessosque hymenaeos, while she was seeking Pergama and a forbidden marriage, A. 1.651); Juno seeking to arrange marriage between Aeneas and Dido (petenti, seeking, A. 4.127); Dido contemplating seeking marriage with Numidians (Nomadumque petam conubia supplex, should I seek as a suppliant marriage with the Numidians, A. 4.535). 12  See L–­S s.v. petere B.2.c.; OLD s.v. petere 10b; Pichon s.v. petere; TLL 101.1959.5–10 s.v. petere. 13  See Catullus’ warning to a bride against resisting her husband’s sexual advances, lest he seek gratification elsewhere (nupta, tu quoque quae tuus | uir petet caue ne neges, | ni petitum aliunde eat, you too, bride do not refuse the things which your husband seeks, lest he go to seek it from another, Cat. c. 61.144–46). See also Lucretius, who uses petere in his diatribe against amor to describe desirous pursuit: idque petit corpus, mens unde est saucia amore (the body seeks that thing from which the mind is wounded by desire, Lucr. 4.1048); quod petiere, premunt arte faciuntque dolorem corporis (that which they sought, they press firmly and make pain for the body, Lucr. 4.1079–80); sed laticum simulacra petit frustraque laborat (but he seeks the images of water and strives in vain, Lucr. 4.1099). 14  Interestingly, the verb petere persistently describes amatory pursuit in passages that are quintes­ sentially Gallan. In Propertian elegy, it appears almost exclusively in passages that are profoundly indebted to Gallus (e.g. Prop. 1.10.19, 23; 1.18.5; 2.6.19; 2.9.23; 2.20.27; 2.23.2; 2.30b.20; 2.33.16; 2.32.4; 2.34.4; 3.3.51). Vergil likewise incorporates it into scenes that engage with Gallan verse (e.g. E. 3.64, 6.80; G. 4.446). Ovid also uses it in a conspicuous moment of Gallan imitation (Ov. Her. 18.116).

Conflicting Amores  55 of petere. The juxtaposition of the imperfect plural petebant (A. 7.54) and the present singular petit (A. 7.55) highlights Turnus’ individuality and the dominance of his courtship.15 Philip Hardie has shown how the comparison of one hero against many others operates in epic verse as a way to magnify the superlative qualities and ultimate supremacy of one individual in battle.16 Vergil subjects the martial epic trope of the one against the many to elegiac deformazione through the rhet­oric­al figure of militia amoris,17 by which he highlights Turnus’ superiority as the dominant suitor.18 Vergil’s intergeneric image of militia amoris generates tension within his account of the origins of war, as the amatory pursuit of Lavinia prefigures the forthcoming battle for heroic primacy. The emphasis on the beauty of Turnus (pulcherrimus, A. 7.55) also recalls a passage from Aristaenetus’ prose summary of the Callimachean narrative of Acontius and Cydippe (Call. Aet. fr. 75b.20–21 Harder): τοιγαροῦν εὐθέως, ὦ κάλλιστον παιδίον Ἀκόντιε, | δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ γάμον ἢ θάνατον διελογίζου βληθείς (therefore, immediately after you were struck, Acontius you most beautiful boy, you began to consider one of two possi­ bilities, either marriage or death).19 Turnus, endowed with the beauty of Acontius, rehearses the erotic predicament of his Callimachean counterpart, as external interference hinders his pursuit of the Cydippean Lavinia. But whereas the lovestruck Acontius merely contemplates death as a figurative alternative to erotic success, Turnus’ amor for Lavinia prompts him to face actual elimination in the contest for amatory and martial dominion. Indeed, Vergil destabilizes his own declaration of Turnus’ superlative standing through intratextual and etymological allusions that identify the Rutulian as a doublet for Aeneas. The description of Turnus’ unsurpassed beauty in the erotic context of courtship (ante alios pulcherrimus omnis, above all others most hand­ some, A. 7.55) duplicates in precise lexical and thematic terms the portrayal of Aeneas as Dido’s hunting companion (ante alios pulcherrimus omnis, above all others most handsome, A. 4.141). Vergil intratextually equates Turnus and Aeneas on the basis of exceptional beauty, configuring the two heroes as rivals for supremacy in love and war. An etymological analysis of Turnus’ name further reinforces his correspondence to Aeneas, by identifying him as the offspring of another amatory goddess. The exact origin and significance of Turnus are uncer­ tain, and competing interpretations have attempted to connect the name to Greek or Etruscan root words that evoke Turnus’ character traits.20 The late-­antique 15  For the implications of tense in this passage, see Horsfall (2000) 82 ad A. 7.54–55. 16  See Hardie (1986) 285–91; Hardie (1993) 3–11. 17  See Glossary s.v. militia amoris. 18  In an elegiac reclamation of Vergil’s intergeneric experimentation, Propertius innovatively applies it to the puella, who pursues him exclusively even though she is sought after by many others (cum te tam multi peterent, tu me una petisti, although so many were seeking you, you alone sought me, Prop. 2.20.27). 19  Cf. Call. fr. 75b.1 Harder: Ἀκόντιος . . . καλὸς. See Bing and Höschele (2014) 21–23, 111–12. 20  O’Hara (2017) 91–2 notes that there are possible examples of Vergilian etymologizing wordplay with languages other than Greek and Latin, including Punic, Etruscan, Sabine, Oscan, Scythian, an unspecified North African language, and even Indo-­European or pre-­Indo-­European tongues.

56  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid mythographer Fulgentius sees Turnus as a calque for the Greek phrase θοῦρος νοῦς (furious mind), which encapsulates the disposition of the Italian hero,21 whereas Dionysius of Halicarnassus calls him Τυρρηνός (Tyrrhenian, D.H.  1.64.2), the Greek term for the Etruscan people.22 But the name has the appearance of an Etruscan anthroponym,23 and names given by Vergil to the Rutuli are based on Etruscan, as well as Latin, onomastics.24 Moreover, Vergil exhibits a learned inter­ est in Etruscan language and culture elsewhere in the Aeneid,25 which springs perhaps from his own Mantuan origins and Etruscan cognomen,26 as well as his relationship with Maecenas, a man of celebrated Etruscan ancestry.27 Thus, some have perceived a connection between the name and the Etruscan terms turan (ruler) or turns (ruler’s son) or have suggested a derivation from the Etruscan version of the Greek τύραννος (tyrant).28 Even more remarkable, however, is the resemblance of Turnus to the names for the Etruscan deities Turan (≈ Aphrodite/ Venus) and Turnu (≈ Eros/Amor).29 Turnus’ name, a virtual homophone of Turnu, marks him as the offspring of a goddess associated with Venus. Vergil, as Stephen Harrison observes, is the first to give Turnus a divine mother to match Aeneas.30 Furthermore, he capitalizes on the etymo­logic­al potential of Turnus’ name to make him the son of Venilia (cui diua Venilia mater, A. 10.76), an obscure Italic counterpart of the goddess Venus.31 Turnus rivals Aeneas in divine amatory lineage, as well as superlative beauty. Vergil’s descriptions of Turnus allusively equate him with Aeneas, creating a problematic redundancy. One uir must 21  Turnus enim Grece quasi turosnus dicitur, id est furibundus sensus (for he is called Turnus like turosnus [θοῦρος νοῦς] in Greek, that is to say furious frame of mind, Fulg. Virg. cont. 105.13–14): see LALE s.v. Turnus. 22  O’Hara (2017) 185–6 ad A. 7.56: ‘Cairns and Brandenstein also mention “the historically false (but in antiquity perfectly credible) etymology from Τυρρηνός”.’ Cf. Appian’s use of Τυρρηνός for the Rutuli (App. 1.1). 23 Traina EV 5.324 s.v. Turno. 24 Ampolo EV 4.619–20 s.v. Rutuli. 25 Pallottino EV 2.411 s.v. Etruschi: ‘La presenza del mondo etrusco con particolare rilievo nell’opera di V s’inquadra nel generale interesse letterario ed erudito per la storia la civiltà degli antichi E.  che caratterizza la tarda età repubblicana e il periodo augusteo.’ See Harrison (1991) 23 ad A. 10.198–200 on Ocnus, the legendary founder of Mantua, in the Etruscan catalogue. 26  The Umbrian cognomen Maro derives from the Etruscan word maru (magistracy): see Bonfante and Bonfante (1983) 113; de Grummond (2006) 207. 27  On Maecenas’ lineage, see Cairns (2006) 250–3. 28  See Cairns (1989) 67 and O’Hara (2017) 185–6 ad A. 7.56, both with further bibliography. 29  See Bonfante and Bonfante (1983) 156–57, 160, 208; de Grummond (2006) 85–98. Etruscan bronze mirrors depict Turan as the companion of Atunis (≈ Adonis), a contestant in the judgement of Paris, as the mistress of the swans, and as Turan Ati (≈ Venus Genetrix), and Turnu is seen playing with the iynx, a lovers’ toy associated with spells and oracles. 30  Harrison (1991) 78 ad A. 10.76. 31  [Deam Venilia]m alii Venerem, quod in mari nata sit, alii Nympham, quam Graeci Βουνήνην uocant (Some call the goddess Venilia Venus, because she was born in the sea, others a Nymph, whom the Greeks call Βουνήνη, Schol. Ver. ad A. 10.78). For the identification of Venilia with Venus, see Wissowa (1912) 66; Palmer (1969) 303–4; Takács (2008) 54. Venilia appears to be an ancient Italian theonym that, like Venus, has etymological ties to the verb uenire and the noun uenia: see LALE s.vv. Venilia, Venus; Paschalis (1997) 44; Horsfall (2003) 170 ad A. 11.242; Hinds (2006).

Conflicting Amores  57 eliminate the other to fulfil the programmatic promise of the Aeneid (arma uirumque, A. 1.1) and become the husband of Lavinia (matura uiro, A. 7.53).32

Amata’s Desire Amata, Latinus’ queen, appears for the first time in the context of her daughter’s courtship as a passionate supporter of Turnus (A. 7.56–57): Turnus, auis atauisque potens, quem regia coniunx | adiungi generum miro properabat amore (Turnus, powerful in his grandfathers and great-­grandfathers, whom the wife of the king with strange desire eagerly wanted joined to her as son-­in-­law). Vergil’s introduction of the queen emphasizes her amatory connection to Turnus through meaningful structural arrangement and lexical cues. By framing the opening line with Turnus and coniunx, Vergil creates a narrative segue that links the two characters together. The phrase mirus amor (astonishing passion, A. 7.57) has engendered tremendous debate over Amata’s emotional interest in Turnus;33 does she merely exhibit warm, yet appropriate, enthusiasm,34 or does she feel erotic fervour?35 But the intertextual resonance and programmatic significance of the phrase mirus amor expose the aberrant, amatory nature of Amata’s feelings. Servius’ explanatory gloss noua intemperantia (Servius ad A. 7.57) defines mirus amor as strange licentious­ ness.36 Indeed, Vergil borrows the formulation mirus amor from a Horatian adynaton that depicts unnatural sexual union in the animal world (nouaque monstra iunxerit libidine | mirus amor, strange passion with unusual lust shall form monstrous unions, Hor. Epod. 1.16.30–31).37 The application of the phrase to Amata is troubling, affiliating her mirus amor for Turnus with unrestrained lust and monstrous sexual behaviour.38 Encircled by the two words is the verb propero (properabat, A. 7.57), which has idiomatic sexual connotations (come quickly to climax) that further underscore the erotic nature of Amata’s urgent enthusiasm for Turnus (properabat, A. 7.57).39 In such a marked erotic context, the word amor functions as a generic signpost.40 Vergil’s prominent placement of amor at 32  See Hardie (1986) 285–91; Hardie (1993) 3–11. 33  For a detailed summary of the competing interpretations, see Horsfall (2000) 83 ad A. 7.57, with further bibliography. 34  For non-­erotic interpretations of mirus amor, see Fordyce (1977) 70 ad A. 7.57; Foster (1977) 119–20; Cairns (1989) 68–9; Horsfall (2000) 83 ad A. 7.57. 35  For erotic interpretatio of mirus amor, see Zarker (1969) 3; Hornsby (1970) 121n.2; Burke (1976) 27–9; Lyne (1983) 56; Lyne (1987) 15–16; Perkell (1999) 143; Harrison (2007) 212; Fratantuono (2008) 42n.8. 36 See OLD s.v. intemperantia 1. 37  See Mankin (1995) 258 ad Hor. Epist. 1.16.30–31; Watson (2003) 506–7 ad Hor. Epist. 1.16.30. I follow Watson in rendering monstra as internal, rather than predicative, accusative. 38  On the sexual connotations of monstra, see Watson (2003) 506–7 ad Hor. Epist. 1.16.30, 31. 39  See Adams (1982) 144–5, 254. 40  See Glossary s.v. amor.

58  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid line end draws the introduction of Amata to a programmatic close, prefiguring his intensely elegiac depiction of her mirus amor throughout Aeneid 7–12. In the context of Amata’s initial appearance, etymological wordplay clinches her affiliation with the amatory sphere. Vergil withholds the name of the queen, like that of Lavinia, throughout the introductory sequence.41 In its place is the periphrastic phrase regia coniunx (wife of the king, A. 7.56), which occupies the same prominent final position as amore in the next line. James O’Hara has tenta­ tively identified this vertical juxtaposition as an etymologizing construction that links the phrase regia coniunx to amor, in order to invite recollection of the sup­ pressed name Amata,42 which is identical to the perfect passive participle of the verb amare.43 A striking structural pattern verifies O’Hara’s hypothesis. Without exception, Vergil places Amata at line end,44 anchoring every occurrence of the name to the initial figura etymologica to reinforce its amatory resonance. The emphatic wordplay encourages association between Amata and amor/amo, which in turn creates a conceptual link between the queen and Erato, whose name has an analogous etymological connection to ἔρως/ἔραμαι, as discussed in Chapter 1.45 Through the figura etymologica, Vergil aligns Amata and her mirus amor with the invocation to Erato, establishing the queen as a crucial elegiac figure within his maius opus. Furthermore, the periphrastic phrase that supplants Amata’s name in the ety­ mologizing construction (regia coniunx, A. 7.56) activates a series of intratextual allusions that underscore her problematic amatory motivations and prefigure her destructive behaviour. Vergil utilizes the phrase regia coniunx only three times (A. 2.782, 7.56, 11.371), implementing with astonishing rarity an epithet that could be assigned to a number of prominent royal wives.46 His consistent place­ ment of the dactyl–­spondee combination in the fifth and sixth feet emphasizes and bolsters the connection between each occurrence of regia coniunx. The con­ spicuous presence of regia coniunx unifies the three panels of an intratextual triptych: Creusa’s reference to Lavinia as the prophesied royal wife of Aeneas (regia 41  I am grateful to my anonymous reader for pointing out that when Aeneas first sees Dido, Vergil frames the hexameter with her title and proper name (regina . . . Dido, A. 1.496), utilizing a similar strategy of suppression. 42  The alternatative Ἀμίτα, found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.64.2), is an error or a false ety­ mology based on the Latin amita (maternal aunt): see Horsfall (2000) 240 ad A. 7.343, with further bibliography. 43  O’Hara (2017) 186 ad A. 7.56–57. On vertical juxtaposition and etymological wordplay in Vergil, see Weber (1990) 211–12; O’Hara (2017) 86–8. On name suppression and etymological wordplay, see O’Hara (2017) 79–82. For other discussions of the wordplay between Amata and amare/amor, see Zarker (1969) 3; Bowie et al. (1977) 138; Lyne (1987) 14–15; Paschalis (1997) 255; Harrison (2007) 212. 44  Amatae, A. 7.343; Amatae, A. 7.401; Amatae, A. 7.581; Amatae, A. 9.737; Amatae, A. 12.56; Amatam, A. 12.71. 45 Reed (2007) 114 discusses the possible etymological connection between Dido and Amata, which would reinforce their thematic correspondence. 46  For example, Vergil might have applied regia coniunx to Andromache, Hecuba, Helen, and Juno, not to mention Creusa and Venus.

Conflicting Amores  59 coniunx, A. 2.783); the introductory portrait of Amata, a royal wife of unseemly passion (regia coniunx, | . . . miro . . . amore, A. 7.56–57); and Drances’ sneering identification of Lavinia as the desired royal wife of Turnus (regia coniunx, A. 11.371).47 The placement of Amata in the central panel points to her pivotal role in the conflict that erupts over the contested nuptials of Lavinia, as her mirus amor for Turnus overshadows her role as royal wife and fuels her enmity towards the Trojans. Another intratextual link exists between Amata’s epithet, regia coniunx (A. 7.56), and that of Juno, regia Iuno (royal Juno, A. 1.443, 4.114, 7.438, 10.62), a strikingly similar dactyl–­spondee combination likewise placed in the fifth and sixth feet. Without exception, the phrase regia Iuno demarcates moments in the narrative that connect the divine queen and royal wife (diuum . . . regina Iouisque | . . . coniunx, A. 1.46–47) to destructive amor: the description of the sacred pre­ cinct devoted to her in Carthage (A. 1.443); her plan to unite Dido and Aeneas during the hunting expedition (A. 4.114); the infuriation of Turnus, carried out under her command (A. 7.438); and her impassioned defence of her hostility towards the Trojans (A. 10.62). In these passages, Juno’s actions, alliances, and assertions underscore her hatred of the Trojans, which derives from uulnera amoris (A. 1.12–33), and her disastrous manipulation of human passion, which leads to death and destruction in the mortal sphere. The epithet regia coniunx allusively identifies Amata as the conceptual doublet of regia Iuno, anticipating her trajec­ tory as another royal wife motivated by amor (miro . . . amore, astonishing passion, A. 7.57) to assail the Trojans with violence and destruction.

The Infuriation of Amata In his introductions of Lavinia, Turnus, and Amata, Vergil enmeshes daughter, suitor, and mother in a thorny amatory predicament that erupts into violence under the malignant influence of Allecto. The Fury’s tripartite infuriation of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius replicates the structure of the introductory sequence and brings its amatory theme to terrible fruition, as Allecto manipulates conflicting amores to incite arma. In aesthetic terms, Vergil experiments with the amatory and funerary facets of elegy to enhance his portrayal of the infernal Allecto and her disastrous corruption of human emotions. Furthermore, his persistent allusions to Dido’s amatory demise, the chief locus of elegiac experimentation in Aeneid 1–6,

47  In similar fashion, Vergil utilizes the phrase at regina three times in Aeneid 4 to demarcate its tripartite structure, as observed by Quinn (1968) 135. Quinn demonstrates that each major section of Dido’s affair with Aeneas (beginning, A. 4.1–295; alienation, A. 4.296–503; conclusion, A. 4.504–705) begins with the entry of the queen, the phrase at regina (A. 4.1, 4.295, 4.504), and a keyword that encapsulates the ensuing action (graui, dolos, pyra).

60  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid intratextually amplify the aesthetic and thematic dynamics of the infuriation sequence to raise the spectre of disastrous love once again. Juno, enraged by the encroachment of Aeneas and the Trojans, summons Allecto from the infernal regions to be her agent of destruction (A. 7.286–340). The Fury responds to Juno’s directive with swift and immediate action, seeking the palace of Latinus, where Amata seethes over the arrival of the Trojans and the compromised nuptials of Turnus (A. 7.341–45): Exim Gorgoneis Allecto infecta uenenis principio Latium et Laurentis tecta tyranni celsa petit, tacitumque obsedit limen Amatae, quam super aduentu Teucrum Turnique hymenaeis femineae ardentem curaeque iraeque coquebant. [Thence Allecto, poisoned with the Gorgonian venom, first seeks Latium and the lofty quarters of the Laurentine king, and she has besieged the silent threshold of Amata, whose womanly concerns and indignations were bringing her to a boil, ablaze over the arrival of the Teucrians and the nuptials of Turnus.]

The phrase Gorgoneis uenenis (A. 7.341) affiliates the poisonous Fury with her snake-­tressed mythological counterparts the Gorgons and with Venus by way of the amatory venom that bears her name.48 In Vergil’s intergeneric depiction of Dido, the word uenenum denotes Amor’s deceptive beguilement of the Carthaginian under the direction of Venus ( fallasque ueneno, A. 1.688) and the venomous ingredients she gathers for the dark rites that precede her suicide (pubentes herbae nigri cum lacte ueneni, A. 4.514).49 A vignette featuring Circe’s transformation of Picus shows the desirous goddess deploying uenenum in another amatory assault (uersumque uenenis, A. 7.190). The intratextual res­on­ance of uenenum con­tam­in­ ates the infernal power of Allecto with erotic menace, prefiguring her lethal, supernatural manipulation of amor in the infuriation sequence.50 The verb petit, which describes Allecto’s pursuit of Latium and its palace structure (petit, A. 7.342–43), recalls Turnus’ amatory pursuit of Lavinia in the introductory sequence (petit, A. 7.55). Vergil’s description of Amata, set ablaze by the nuptials of Turnus (super . . . Turnique hymenaeis | . . . ardentem, A. 7.344–45), reintroduces her problematic passion with added elegiac vigour through the imagery of fire.51

48  See Glossary s.v. uenenum. 49 Cf. the appearance of uenenum in the amatory rites of Eclogue 8 (has herbas atque haec Ponto . . . lecta uenena, these herbs and these poisons gathered in Pontus, E. 8.95), which informs those of Dido in Aeneid 4. On Dido and Amata, see Putnam (1965) 160–2; La Penna (1967) 309–18; Zarker (1969) 2–24. 50  Horsfall (2000) 237 ad A. 7.341–72: ‘In this scene alone, we sense that the Fury may actually be to some extent “working with” pre-­existing passions.’ 51  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat.

Conflicting Amores  61 The nexus of intratextual echoes anticipates Allecto’s infuriation of Amata, in which the Fury fans her fiery passions into an elegiac conflagration. Allecto, besieging Amata’s silent threshold (tacitumque obsedit limen Amatae, A. 7.343), becomes a terrifying incarnation of the komastic elegiac lover, who equates his occupation of the beloved’s doorstep to a military blockade.52 The name Amata, resonating with Vergil’s earlier etymological wordplay (≈ beloved), configures the queen within his perversion of the elegiac scenario as the object of Allecto’s pursuit.53 Amata’s silent threshold (tacitum limen, A. 7.343) has sug­ gested to Michael Paschalis the queen’s secret thoughts,54 whereas Nicholas Horsfall views it as a ‘contrast to the coming storm’.55 In aesthetic terms, the for­ mulation tacitum limen may derive from Gallan elegy. Francis Cairns, through an analysis of Propertian and Tibullan comparanda, has identified the Gallan origins of pentameter lines that end with foribus and feature the concepts of exclusion (clausis expulit/clausa) and silence or unresponsiveness (taces, tacitis).56 In Propertius’ Monobiblos, lines classified within the ‘foribus’ group are found in poems 1.3 and 1.16, two komoi with suspected Gallan origins, and poem 1.18, an extensive meditation on Gallus’ elegiac poetics.57 For his description of Allecto, Vergil modifies the Gallan formula: he retains the characteristic form tacitum and applies it to limen (threshold), similar in meaning to fores (leaves of a door); but he emphasizes the martial agency of Allecto by replacing the concept of exclusion with the verb obsidere (to besiege).58 Vergil’s incongruous analogy between Allecto and the elegiac lover-­soldier, who seeks erotic conquest and carnal spoils, confirms the grim consequences of passion in the Aeneid, as the Fury seeks to ignite amor into arma. Evocative imagery characterizes Amata’s seething emotional agitation in ama­ tory elegiac terms (A. 7.344–45): quam super aduentu Teucrum Turnique hymenaeis | femineae ardentem curaeque iraeque coquebant (whose womanly concerns and rages were bringing her to a boil, ablaze over the arrival of the Teucrians and the nuptials of Turnus).59 Vergil’s chiastic arrangement, as observed by Servius, connects Amata’s irae to the Trojans’ arrival and her curae to Turnus and his

52 See Glossary s.vv. exclusus amator, militia amoris. See Lyne (1987) 13–17; Harrison (2007) 212–13. 53  Lyne (1987) 14; Harrison (2007) 212. Contra Horsfall (2000) 239–40 ad A. 7.343, with further bibliography. 54  Paschalis (1997) 255 connects the secretive undertones of tacitus to Latium (< lateo) and tecta (< tego). See also Pichon s.v. tacere. 55  Horsfall (2000) 239 ad A. 7.343. 56  See Cairns (2006) 187–90. 57  See Cairns (2006) 113, 118–19, 187–90, 205; see also 139–40 on tacitus/taciturnus as a feature of the Gallan wilderness scenes. 58  On the military meaning of obsidere (to beseige, blockade, invest, etc.), see L–­S s.v. obsidere IIb; OLD s.v. obsidere 4. 59  The image of cooking used to denote emotional agitation has both Homeric (Odysseus’ anxiety over the suitors, Hom. Od. 20.24–28) and Ennian (Ann. 338 Skutsch) precedents. See Fordyce (1977) 127 ad A. 7.345; Skutsch (1985) 512 ad Ann. 338; Horsfall (2000) 241 ad A. 7.345.

62  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid marital arrangements.60 Vergil employs cura in its elegiac sense as a term for the pain and anxiety caused by amor,61 a meaning reinforced through allusion to its ancient etymology: cura dicta ab eo quod cor urat (cura is so called from the fact that it burns the heart, Servius ad A. 1.208).62 The Vergilian formulation curaeque iraeque coquebant reflects and expands the original etymology: the nouns and verb mimic the syntactical pairing of cura urat, while adding the notion of wrath (irae) to the seething equation; the verb coquere vividly replicates the sense and sound of urere; and the abundance of the phonemes c-, qu-, and r- creates an alliterative echo. An allusion to the same etymology in the opening lines of Aeneid 4 programmatically introduces Dido’s fiery cura (A. 4.1–2): at regina graui iamdudum saucia cura | uulnus alit uenis et caeco carpitur igni (but the queen for a long time already wounded by serious care nourishes the wound in her veins and is consumed by unseen fire).63 Once again, Vergil forges a thematic and aesthetic link between Amata and Dido, two impassioned and ill-­fated queens, who exemplify the dangers of consuming passion. Vergil uses the etymologically and intratextually evocative imagery to characterize Amata’s fiery emotional state as a manifestation of amor. Striving to exploit Amata’s simmering curae, Allecto throws a snake into the Italian queen’s breast (A. 7.346–48): huic dea caeruleis unum de crinibus anguem conicit, inque sinum praecordia ad intima subdit, quo furibunda domum monstro permisceat omnem. [She hurls at her one snake from her dark tresses, and into her breast to her innermost vitals implants it, so that infuriated by the monster she would throw the whole house into confusion.]

Allecto aims her serpent at the physical locus of Amata’s feelings,64 in order to transform her mirus amor into furor. Vergil’s use of the adjective furibundus 60 Servius ad A. 7.345: curaeque iraeque peruerso ordine respondit. Nam ira in Troianos est, cura uero de nuptiis (curaeque iraeque responds in reverse order. For ira is related to the Trojans, but cura concerns the nuptials). 61  See Glossary s.v. cura. 62  For the ancient etymology found in Servius (Servius ad A. 1.208, 4.1) and Varro (Var. L. 6.46), see LALE s.v. cura. See also Ross (1975) 69; Horsfall (2000) 240–1 ad A. 7.345; O’Hara (2017) 119–20 ad A. 1.208; 150 ad A. 4.1–5. 63  For other Vergilian allusions to the etymology in the Aeneid, see A.1.208–09 (curisque ingentibus aeger | spem uultu simulat, premit altum corde dolorem, and sick with enormous cares he feigns hope on his countenance, he represses pain deep in his heart); A. 1.562 (soluite corde metum, Teucri, secludite curas, release fear from your heart, Teucrians, put away your cares); A. 1.662 (urit atrox Iuno et sub noctem cura recursat, unyielding Juno burns and her anxiety rushes back deep in the night); A. 9.225 (laxabant curas et corda oblita laborum, they were relieving their cares and their hearts having forgot­ ten their labours). See O’Hara (2017) 119–20 ad A. 1.208; 128 ad A. 1.662; 218 ad A. 9.215. 64  Horsfall (2000) 242–3 ad A. 7.347. For the heart, lungs, or vitals of the lower chest as the seat of emotions or consciousness, see Onians (1973) 33–4, 40–3, 505–6. See also Pichon s.v. praecordia.

Conflicting Amores  63 recalls the conventional elegiac conceptualization of amor as an incurable mental illness.65 The only other occurrence of furibundus in the Vergilian corpus describes the amatory frenzy of Dido as she ascends the pyre to take her own life (A. 4.645–46): et altos | conscendit furibunda rogos (and in a frenzy she mounts the high pyre).66 Vergil’s striking use of furibunda binds Amata to Dido yet again, suggesting that her furor, like that of Carthaginian queen, is a self-­destructive symptom of amor. As the poisonous serpent assails and infects Amata, Vergil’s aesthetic engagement with elegy and intratextual allusions to Dido continue. The snake, gliding between Amata’s garments and smooth breasts, inspires a frenzy in her (A. 7.350–51): fallitque furentem | uipeream inspirans animam (and breathing its viper’s breath into her it treacherously leads her into a frenzy). Infused with the Gorgonean poi­ sons of its mistress (Gorgoneis uenenis, A. 7.341), the snake infects Amata with uenenum (ueneno, A. 7.354), causing agony of body and mind (A. 7.355–56): [dum] pertemptat sensus atque ossibus implicat ignem | necdum animus toto percepit pectore flammam (while it invades her senses and winds fire into her bones not yet has her mind felt the flame throughout her entire breast). Vergil emphasizes the searing effect of the poison by placing ignis and flamma in the final position of consecutive lines. The serpent’s deceptive stealth (fallit, A. 7.350), venom (ueneno, A. 7.354), and supernatural inspiration (uipeream inspirans animam, A. 7.351) look back to Venus’ and Amor’s combined amatory assault on Dido in the opening book (occultum inspires ignem fallasque ueneno, A. 1.688).67 As madness over­ takes Amata (furentem, A. 7.350) and fire envelops her bones (atque ossibus implicat ignem, A. 7.355), her amatory symptoms are identical to those Venus intends to inflict upon Dido (A. 1.659–60): donisque furentem | incendat reginam atque ossibus implicet ignem (let him inflame the queen into frenzy, and let him envelop her bones with fire).68 Allecto’s serpentine attack of Amata rehearses the assault of Venus and Amor that infects Dido with devastating passion. Allecto, an infernal goddess, and her serpents assail Amata with the amatory tactics that proved so effective against Dido. Under the erotic influence of Allecto, Amata tearfully pleads with Latinus regarding the betrothal of Lavinia to Aeneas (A. 7.357–58): mollius et solito matrum de more locuta est, | multa super natae lacrimans Phrygiisque hymenaeis (and more softly she spoke according to the accustomed manner of mothers, weeping profusely over the Phrygian nuptials of her daughter). Elegiac elements within the passage suggest an amatory dimension even to Amata’s maternal 65  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 66  Cairns (1989) 83; Horsfall (2000) 243 ad A. 7.348. The narrative gemination of altos rogos provides further evidence of Vergil’s allusive recognition of the alternative Anna–­Aeneas tradition: see McCallum (2019) 22–7. 67  See also the imagery of fire and bones in Venus’ seduction of Vulcan (A. 8.388–90). 68  See also Venus’ erotic inspiration of Vulcan during her request for arma (A. 8.373).

64  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid concern over her daughter’s nuptials. Vergil frequently utilizes the adjective mollis to signal intergeneric fluctuations between epic and elegy.69 The comparative adverb mollius (A. 7.357) anticipates the elegiac character of Amata’s appeal, which features the conventional rhetorical stance of the lover, who attempts to persuade through tears (lacrimans, A. 7.358) and the appeal to pathos (miseret, A. 7.360, 7.361).70 Her denunciation of Aeneas as a faithless robber (perfidus praedo, A. 7.362) recalls the conventional accusation of faithlessness in the elegiac lover’s querela and echoes Dido’s repeated recriminations against Aeneas after he ter­min­ates their affair (perfide, A. 4.305; perfide, A. 4.366; perfidus, A. 4.421).71 Amata invokes Latinus’ fides and cura for his people (A. 7.365) and his previous pledge to Turnus (data dextera Turno, A. 7.366), prompting recollection of her own curae and mirus amor for Turnus, as well as Aeneas’ broken promises to Dido (data dextera, A. 4.307; dextra fidesque, A. 4.597). Vergil continues to imbue the in­furi­ation of Amata with elegiac undertones, drawn in part from his inter­ gen­er­ic depiction of Dido, to underscore the centrality of amor as the fuel for her furor. After Amata’s impassioned plea fails to sway Latinus, she succumbs to furor as the serpent’s pestilence courses through her whole body (A. 7.374–77):        . . . penitusque in uiscera lapsum serpentis furiale malum totamque pererrat, tum uero infelix ingentibus excita monstris immensam sine more furit lymphata per urbem. [and the snake’s infuriating pestilence glides deep into her insides and wanders through her whole body, then she, wretched woman, goaded by the powerful monsters, rages wildly throughout the vast city driven out of her senses.]

The phrase tum uero infelix (A. 7.376 = A. 4.450) signals the stark resemblance of Amata’s wretched descent into amatory frenzy to that of Dido (A. 4.68–69): uritur infelix Dido totaque uagatur | urbe furens (wretched Dido is burned and wanders raging through the whole city). Vergil’s marked use of infelix, a conventional ele­ giac term for amatory misery,72 characterizes Amata as a doublet of Dido.73 The correspondence bodes ill for the state of affairs in Italy, suggesting that Amata’s

69  See Glossary s.v. mollis. 70  See Glossary s.v. tears. On the appeal to pathos as a ‘hallmark of Roman elegy’, see James (2003b) 110, 119, 121–8. See also Pichon s.v. misereri. 71 See Glossary s.v. querela. Horsfall (2000) 251 ad A. 7.362. See Pichon s.v. perfidi. See also Ariadne’s repeated accusation of Theseus in Cat. c. 64: perfide (64.132); perfide (64.133); perfidus (64.174). 72  See Glossary s.v. infelix/miser. 73  Vergil persistently characterizes Dido as infelix throughout her entire trajectory from infatuation in Carthage to her appearance in the underworld (A. 1.712, 1.749, 4.68, 4.450, 4.529, 4.596, 6.456).

Conflicting Amores  65 passionate furor, like that of Dido, sets her on a fatal amatory trajectory that will destroy Latinus’ kingdom. As Amata’s frenzy continues, Vergil compares her frantic motion under the influence of Allecto to a boxwood top, whirled about by a group of boys (A. 7.378–84): ceu quondam torto uolitans sub uerbere turbo, quem pueri magno in gyro uacua atria circum intenti ludo exercent—­ille actus habena curuatis fertur spatiis; stupet inscia supra impubesque manus mirata uolubile buxum; dant animos plagae: non cursu segnior illo per medias urbes agitur populosque ferocis. [just as at times a top flying under the twisted lash, which boys intent on the game drive in a great circle around the empty halls—­that top set in motion by the strap speeds in circular courses; the ignorant and youthful band look down on it in amazement marvelling at the whirling boxwood; the blows give it force: with the same energy she is driven in her course through the midst of cities and fierce peoples.]

Vergil’s epic simile looks back to Callimachean epigram through a Tibullan elegiac intermediary.74 In the Callimachean model, the wise man Pittacus directs a stranger torn between two prospective brides to look upon a group of boys playing with tops (Call. Epigr. 1.9–10 Pf.): οἱ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ὑπὸ πληγῇσι θοὰς βέμβικας ἔχοντες | ἔστρεφον εὐρείῃ παῖδες ἐνὶ τριόδῳ (the boys in a broad crossroad were spinning their swift tops driving them with blows).75 Following Pittacus’ advice, the stran­ ger decides to choose a bride from his own humble rank, based on the boys’ play­ ful cries (οἱ δ᾽ ἔλεγον · ‘τὴν κατὰ σαυτὸν ἔλα.’, and they were saying, ‘drive down your own path’, Call. Epigr. 1.12 Pf.). Tibullus in turn transforms the Callimachean image of the spinning top to signify his powerlessness under the sway of elegiac Amor (Tib. 1.5.3–4): namque agor ut per plana citus sola uerbere turben | quem celer assueta uersat ab arte puer (for I am driven like a top set in motion by the lash over the level ground, which the swift boy whirls with practised skill).76 The image of the top, lashed into motion by the unnamed puer, illustrates the tortures 74  Fordyce (1977) 132 ad A. 7.378 ff.; Lyne (1987) 16, 24–5; Lyne (1989) 68, 132; Horsfall (2000) 261 ad A. 7.378–83. Maltby (2002) 242 ad Tib. 1.5.3–4 notes the similarity between the Vergilian and Tibullan similes and suggests that both may derive from a lost neoteric source. 75  For a detailed discussion of the relationship between the Vergilian top simile and Callimachus Epigram 1, see Bleisch (1996) 453–72. 76 Putnam (1973) 100 ad Tib. 1.5.3–4; Maltby (2002) 242 ad Tib. 1.5.3–4. Ovid imitates the Tibullan simile in his second collection of Amores (Am. 2.9.28). See also Boyd (2002b) 102–9, who discusses Ovid’s play with the semantic range of turbo/turben, in which he engages with Catullus c. 64 (105–10, 149–50, 314), Vergil’s top simile (A. 7.378–84), and Tibullus’ top simile (Tib. 1.5.3–4).

66  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid endured by the seruus amoris under the influence of Amor (ure ferum et torque, burn and torture me untamed, Tib. 1.5.5).77 Vergil signals his intergeneric play with elegiac imagery through the term ludus (A. 7.380), which metapoetically suggests experimentation with carmina leuioris generis.78 The Vergilian top, whirling in its great circle for five hexameter verses (magno in gyro, A. 7.379), inflates the imagery of the Callimachean and Tibullan models to an epic scale.79 In place of Tibullus’ single puer, who represents Amor as amatory master (Tib. 1.5.4),80 are multiple pueri (A. 7.379), who represent the interference of Juno, Allecto, and the serpent. Vergil also amplifies the subjugation and torture endured by Amata by multiplying the number of passive verbs81 and emphasizing the con­ ceptual connection between the blows inflicted upon the top and the torments endured by the seruus amoris.82 Vergil’s innovative emulation of the Callimachean and Tibullan similes in the depiction of Amata evokes her curae over the nuptials of Turnus and characterizes her frenzy as the torment of amatory subjugation. The exaggeration of the elegiac model reveals the severity of Juno’s and Allecto’s divine manipulations of Amata, who is driven to an erotic frenzy of epic proportions. After the simile of the spinning top, Vergil’s sustained experimentation with elegy gives way to tragedy, as he transforms Amata and the matrons of Latium into raving Bacchantes (A. 7.385–405).83 Amata’s trajectory from elegiac in­furi­ ation to maenadic delirium further recalls Dido’s descent into amatory madness and tragic suicide.84 Vergil’s intergeneric and intratextual depiction of Amata reveals her as another victim of divine amatory intervention, whose mirus amor initiates a trajectory towards destruction and death.

77  See Glossary s.v. seruitium amoris. Putnam (1973) 100 ad Tib. 1.5.5–6; Maltby (2002) 243 ad Tib. 1.5.5–6. 78  On the metapoetic implications of ludere as a term for experimentation with carmina leuioris generis, often in opposition to epic: see TLL 72.1775.10–65, 72.1781.80 s.v. ludere. Cf. Propertius’ use of ludere to describe Varro’s experimentation with amatory verse (haec quoque perfecto ludebat Iasone Varro, Varro, too, trifled with these things when his Jason was finished, Prop. 2.34.85). 79  Hardie (1986) 254, (1993) 7 calls attention to ‘epic’s generic obligation’ to be ‘big and great’ and identifies adjectives of size and extent like magnus, ingens, altus, and summus as signifiers of the quan­ titative and qualitative greatness of epic. 80  On the puer of the simile as a surrogate of Amor, see Putnam (1973) 100 ad Tib. 1.5.3–4; Maltby (2002) 242 ad Tib. 3–4. 81  One in Tibullus (agor, Tib. 1.5.31) as compared to three in Vergil (actus, A. 7.380; fertur, A. 7.381; agitur, A. 7.384). 82  The single lash in Tibullus (uerbere, Tib. 1.5.3) reappears in connection with tortus and sub (torto . . . sub uerbere, A. 7.378), and Vergil also adds dant animos plagae (A. 7.383). On the passive participle tortus (< torqueo) in relation to the torture endured by the seruus amoris, see Pichon s.v. torqueri; Putnam (1973) 100 ad Tib. 1.5.5–6; Maltby (2002) 243 ad Tib. 1.5.5–6. The preposition sub is innately bound to the notion of domination: see L–­S s.v. sub B.3.; OLD s.v. sub 15. 83  On the tragic resonance of Vergil’s maenadic depiction of Amata, see Panoussi (2009) 123–33. 84  On Dido and Amata as tragic figures, see Pöschl (1962) 71–2, 82–3, 87; La Penna (1967) 309–18; Zarker (1969) 2–24; Foster (1977) 117, 123; Hardie (1986) 269–71; Lyne (1987) 15–17; Harrison (1989) 1–21; Heinze (1993) 150–1; Harrison (2007) 208–13; Panoussi (2009) passim.

Conflicting Amores  67

The Infuriation of Turnus When Allecto mounts her subsequent assault against Turnus, she resumes the strategic manipulation of amor that proved so effective with Amata. But Allecto’s infuriation of the Rutulian uir yields suitably epic results, as she transmogrifies amor into arma. Vergil increases the tension between the dominant epic matrix and his elegiac experimentation to produce an infuriation befitting of Turnus, Aeneas’ rival for epic supremacy. Through generic experimentation, Vergil identifies Turnus’ problematic passion for Lavinia as the source of his martial rage throughout the episode. Moreover, Vergil’s persistent allusions to the previous elegiac depictions of Amata and Dido mark Turnus as another victim of the destructive potency of amor. Allecto, satisfied with the outcome of Amata’s infuriation, flies on dark wings to Ardea, the city of Turnus (A. 7.406–11).85 Vergil introduces Ardea by empha­ sizing its ancient name and great renown (A. 7.411–12): locus Ardea quondam | dictus auis, et nunc magnum manet Ardea nomen (the place was once called Ardea by the ancestors, and now Ardea remains a great name). Two conspicuous sign­ posts identify Vergilian etymological wordplay in the passage (dictus, nomen), as James O’Hara has shown.86 According to Servius’ appraisal of the wordplay, the phrase magnum tenet ardea nomen (A. 7.412) cleverly points to the similarity between Ardea and ardua (≈ magna, nobilis).87 The phonetic similarity between auīs (by the ancestors, A. 7.412) and auĭs (bird) leads to a second hypothesis, pre­ ferred by the mythographer Hyginus, that connects Ardea to the heron (ardea), the city’s emblematic bird.88 But Vergil offers a third etymological explanation later in Aeneid 7,89 by vertically juxtaposing ardet (A. 7.623) and Ardea (A. 7.631) in the structural frame of a description of Italy ablaze with martial frenzy (A. 7.623–31).90 The wordplay anticipates Turnus’ enduring association with fire, both martial and amatory, throughout the Italian Iliad. 85  The phrase fuscis alis appears at the same metrical position in Vergil’s description of night just prior to Venus’ seduction of Vulcan (A. 8.369). 86 On nomen and dictus as Vergilian etymological signposts, see O’Hara (2017) 75–9. On the word­ play with Ardea in this passage, see O’Hara (2017) 190 ad A. 7.411–12. 87  On the ancient etymological connection between Ardea and ardua, see Servius ad A. 7.412; LALE s.v. Ardea; L–­S s.v. Ardea; Fordyce (1977) 138 ad A. 7.412; Paschalis (1997) 255–6; Papaioannou (2005) 191–2; O’Hara (2017) 70, 190 ad A. 7.411–12. 88  See Servius ad A. 7.412. For the possible wordplay between auīs and auĭs, see LALE s.v. Ardea; Fordyce (1977) 138 ad A. 7.412; Ahl (1985) 55–6; Papaioannou (2005) 188; O’Hara (2017) 70, 190 ad A. 7.411–12. Contra Horsfall (2000) 282 ad A. 7.411–12, who is sceptical about the wordplay here. On Vergil’s pun between ardea (heron) and ardua (high) ad G. 1.364, see Paschalis (1997) 256n.47; Papaioannou (2005) 192; O’Hara (2017) 263 ad G. 1.364. On Ovid’s responsive etymological play with Ardea, ardea, and ardor in his depiction of the death of Turnus and the fall of the city, see Thomas (2001) 83; Myers (2009) 132 ad Met. 14.568–73; 153 ad Met. 14.574–75, 576–80; Papaioannou (2005) 188–97. 89 The three appearances of Ardea in Aeneid 7 seem to reflect the three distinct etymological explanations. 90  For the technique of framing in Vergilian etymological wordplay, see O’Hara (2017) 82–6. On the wordplay between Ardea and ardet, see Papaioannou (2005) 191; O’Hara (2017) 106, 192 ad

68  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid At the beginning of Allecto’s infuriation of Turnus, the repetition of Ardea prefigures the imagery of fire that characterizes her assault.91 The Fury first appears to Turnus in the guise of Calybe, an aged priestess of Juno, and attempts to goad Turnus into a martial frenzy with the news of Lavinia’s impending nuptials to Aeneas (A. 7.415–34).92 Turnus, unmoved by her attempt at rhetorical persuasion, offers a vehement response (A. 7.440–44): sed te uicta situ uerique effeta senectus, o mater, curis nequiquam exercet, et arma regum inter falsa uatem formidine ludit. cura tibi diuum effigies et templa tueri; bella uiri pacemque gerent quis bella gerenda. [But old age, overcome by deterioration and exhausted of truth, o mother, plagues you with cares in vain, and amidst the wars of kings plays the seer with false fear. It is your concern to watch over the statues and temples of the gods; men will manage war and peace, by whom wars should be waged.]

The repetition of cura, evoking the Fury’s successful manipulation of Amata’s feelings (A. 7.344–45), is strikingly juxtaposed against Turnus’ pronounced epic vocabulary (arma, regum, bella, uiri). Vergil marks the understated generic inter­ play with the signpost ludere (A. 7.443), repeating his earlier metapoetic gesture in the intensely elegiac top simile (A. 7.378–84). Subtle aesthetic and intratextual details undermine Turnus’ self-­proclaimed martial, epic identity, hinting that his infuriation, like that of Amata, will have an amatory, elegiac dimension. Indeed, the very next line erupts into Gallan elegiac allusion, as Vergil describes Allecto’s reaction to Turnus’ speech (A. 7.445): talibus Allecto dictis exarsit in iras (at words such as these, Allecto flared up into anger). Francis Cairns identifies the expression exarsit in iras as a Gallan peculiarity, based on Servius’ commentary (et est specialis Cornelii elocutio, and it is a specific idiom of Cornelius, Servius ad A. 7.445) and the appearance of similar formulations in passages influenced by Gallus.93 Allecto, enraged by Turnus’ resistence (cunctantem, 7.449), steps up her game, unleashing an onslaught of snakes (tot . . . hydris, A. 7.447; geminos . . . anguis, A. 7.450), flashing her terrible countenance and fiery eyes (tanta . . . facies, A. 7.448; flammea torquens | lumina, A. 7.448–49), and cracking her whips (uerberaque A. 7.623–31. Contra Horsfall (2000) 366 ad A. 7.623, who dismisses the wordplay on the basis of the distance between ardet and Ardea. For examples of wordplay between distant passages elsewhere in the Aeneid, see Weber (1990) 212–15. 91  Paschalis (1997) 256 asserts that the main significance of Ardea lies in the fact that it anticipates Allecto’s torch-­wound. 92  Horsfall (2000) 286 ad A. 7.419 declares the name Calybe to be ‘a curiously rare, yet insignificant name’. But it may recall the Apollonian simile that compares Jason to a star, upon which gaze maidens in bridal bowers (καλύβῃσιν, Argon. 1.775), one of them longing for her bridegroom (Argon. 1.774–6). 93  Cairns (2006) 101–2.

Conflicting Amores  69 insonuit, A. 7.451). The Fury’s show of force magnifies the imagery of snakes, fire, and torture found in the earlier assault of Amata, as she amplifies her tactics to overwhelm the Rutulian uir and engender war and death (bella manu letumque gero, A. 7.455). Allecto begins her physical assault by hurling a torch, plunging its smoky fire into Turnus’ breast (A. 7.456–57): sic effata facem iuueni coniecit et atro | lumine fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas (thus she spoke and hurled a torch at the young man and planted the brand smoking with dark light beneath his breast). The image vividly recalls the serpentine missile that Allecto unleashed against Amata and its penetration into the queen’s vitals (anguem | conicit, A. 7.346–47). Yet, by emphasizing Allecto’s use of projectiles (conicit, A. 7.347; coniecit, A. 7.456), Vergil challenges the conventional iconography of the Furies, who carry, but do not throw, serpents and torches.94 On the basis of the apparent incongruity, Nicholas Horsfall asserts that Allecto directs or points, rather than throws, her snake and torch.95 But the difference in Vergil’s design is precisely the point, and his innovative depiction of Allecto shooting her victims has important thematic and aesthetic ramifications. The Fury attacks both Turnus and Amata in a manner entirely reminiscent of Amor, who conventionally hurls projectiles at his victims to inflame them with desire.96 In the lexicon of elegy, fax denotes nuptial torches and the arma Amoris (facem, A. 7.456), while figere frequently describes the piercing impact of the love god’s arrows in the breasts of his targets.97 Vergil’s departure from convention transforms Allecto into a lethal analogue of Amor, who strikes her victims with grievous missiles to inflame passion and incite violence. Furthermore, the infernal projectile that pierces Turnus’ breast recalls the comparison of Dido to a wounded hind at the onset of her elegiac suffering (A. 4.69–71): qualis coniecta cerua sagitta, | quam procul incautam nemora inter Cresia fixit | pastor (just like an unwary deer, which a herdsman pierces with a hurled arrow amidst the Cretan woods). In the imagery of deer and hunter, Vergil creates a poignant analogue for Dido and Amor, which combines the elegiac topoi of hunting, wounds, and arma Amoris.98 Vergil creates a number of ­verbal and structural parallels to emphasize the intratextual connection between Allecto/Turnus and Amor/Dido. In each passage, he uses the same formula (projectile–­victim–­conicere) to describe the firing of weapons (coniecta cerua

94  Horsfall (2000) 241–2 ad A. 7.347; 307 ad A. 7.456, who cites LIMC s.v. Erinys. 95  Horsfall (2000) 241–2 ad A. 7.347; 307 ad A. 7.456. Contra Fordyce (1977) 127 ad A. 7.346, who equates conicere with iacere. 96  For visual representations of the arrows and torches of Amor/Cupid/Eros, see LIMC s.vv. Eros, Eros/Amor/Cupid. For discussion of the arsenal of Amor/Cupid/Eros in the literary tradition and the visual arts, see Spencer (1932a) 121–7; Spencer (1932b) 129–34; Spencer (1932c) 139–44; Gutzwiller (2015) 23–44; Wickkiser (2018) 102–3. 97  See Pichon s.vv. fax, figere. 98  See Glossary s.vv. hunting, injury/wound.

70  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid sagitta, A. 4.69; facem iuueni coniecit, A. 7.347), the same phrase to describe the wounds of Turnus and Dido (sub pectore uulnus, A. 4.67; sub pectore, A. 7.457), and the same verb to denote the piercing impact of the hurled missiles (fixit, A. 4.70; fixit, A. 7.457). Turnus, stricken by Allecto’s torch, exhibits symptoms reminiscent of those endured by suffering lovers in elegy (A. 7.458–59): olli somnum ingens rumpit pauor, ossaque et artus | perfundit toto proruptus corpore sudor (monstrous fear breaks his slumber, and sweat, gushing from his entire body, drenches his bones and limbs). Vergil characterizes the hero’s agony by combining the elegiac motifs of sleeplessness, fever, and penetrating heat.99 Once again, Turnus rehearses the amatory suffering of Dido and Amata, whose bones are likewise penetrated by fire (atque ossibus implicet ignem, A. 1.660; atque ossibus implicet ignem, A. 7.355). The aesthetic and intratextual reverberations of the scene strengthen the identification of Turnus as another victim of amor, impelled by divine forces towards arma and mors. Inflamed by Allecto’s firebrand, Turnus is overtaken by martial madness, and frantically seeks the weapons of war (A. 7.460–61): arma amens fremit, arma toro tectisque requirit; | saeuit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli (out of his mind he roars for weapons, he looks for weapons in his bed and his chamber; his desire for battle rages and his accursed madness for war).100 The two verses encapsulate Turnus’ trajectory, in which amor leads to epic warfare and death, through the interplay between epic and elegiac language and themes. Vergil’s repetition of arma, the signpost for his Iliadic maius opus (arma uirumque, A. 1.1), emphasizes the martial rage that erupts in Turnus and spreads throughout Italy (omnes arma requirunt, all call for arms, A. 7.625).101 But the vertical juxtaposition of amor, the signpost for amatory elegy,102 with the adjective amens (out of one’s mind; cf. amans, loving) evokes the mental disturbance experienced by impassioned lovers and connects it to martial violence.103 Furthermore, the description of Turnus’ bedchamber (toro tectisque, A. 7.460) resonates with amor in the following line.104 His call to arms within the erotic locus recalls the elegiac characterization of amor as arma, as lovers engage in Veneris certamina on the bedroom battlefield.105 Vergil reverses the elegiac deformazione to identify Turnus allusively as an epic 99  See Glossary s.vv. bones/marrow, fever/fire/heat, and symptoms. 100  The phrase arma amens fremit (out of his mind he roars for weapons, A. 7.460) recalls two similar formulations elsewhere in the Aeneid: arma amens capio (out of my mind I take up weapons, A. 2.314), which describes Aeneas’ frantic reaction to the violence engulfing Troy; and Troia circum | arma amens uidit (out of her mind she saw the arms of Troy all around, A. 3.306–07), which describes Andromache’s reaction to seeing Aeneas and the Trojans. 101  The phrase omnes arma requirunt is from Ennius (Ann. fr. 169 Sk.): see Fordyce (1977) 173 ad A. 7.625; Skutsch (1985) 336 ad Enn. Ann. fr. 169; Horsfall (2000) 405 ad A. 7.625. 102  See Glossary s.v. amor. 103  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 104  Cf. Horace, Epodes 12.11–12 (iamque subando | tenta cubilia tectaque rumpit, and now from being in heat she breaks the stretched mattress and canopy), on which see Mankin (1995) 210 ad Hor. Epod. 12.12. 105  See Glossary s.v. militia amoris.

Conflicting Amores  71 miles amans, whose martial frenzy is fuelled by amor. Moreover, Turnus’ unsound mind (amens, A. 7.460) and desire for battle (amor ferri, A. 7.461) are striking evocations of the figure of Gallus as envisioned in Vergil’s tenth eclogue (E. 10.44–45): nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis | tela inter media atque aduersos detinet hostes (now an insane desire for harsh battle holds me back in arms amidst weapons and hostile enemies).106 The allusion characterizes Turnus as another Gallus figure, whose insanus amor embroils him in battle and prevents his union with the desired puella.107 Turnus’ frenzy boils over into an extended simile that compares him to a seething cauldron (A. 7.462–66):          magno ueluti cum flamma sonore uirgea suggeritur costis undantis aeni exsultantque aestu latices, furit intus aquai fumidus atque alte spumis exuberat amnis, nec iam se capit unda, uolat uapor ater ad auras. [just as when with a loud roar a fire of brushwood is placed beneath the ribs of an overflowing bronze pot and the water bubbles from the heat; within a river of water steams and leaps up high with foam, and no longer does the wave contain itself, smoky vapour flies into the air.]

The simile recalls the description of Amata’s seething emotion during her in­furi­ ation (femineae ardentem curaeque iraeque coquebant, whose womanly concerns and indignations were bringing her to a boil, A. 7.345). Vergil develops the con­ ceptual significance of coquere to produce an intensely epic incarnation of the original image, which retains its amatory significance. Two signposts mark the epic shift: the word magnus, with which the simile begins (A. 7.462), and the tor­ rential river, which provides a hyperbolic point of comparison for the water in the bronze vessel (amnis, A. 7.465).108 The placement of fire (flamma uirgea) beneath the ribs of the vessel (costis, A. 7.462–63) symbolizes Allecto firing her torch into Turnus’ breast (fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas, A. 7.457) and rehearses the ele­ giac topos of fire penetrating bone found in the scene of Amata’s infuriation (A. 7.355–56). In his description of the fire, Vergil utilizes the extremely rare adjective uirgea, which Servius glosses as de uirgis facta (made from bundles of 106 For ferrum as ‘battle’ by metonymy, see L–­ S s.v. ferrum II; OLD s.v. ferrum 5–6; TLL 61.579.80–580.60 s.v. ferrum. 107 On miles/militia amoris as Gallan concepts, see Cairns (2006) 87–90. 108  See Hardie (1986) 254 and (1993) 7 on the generic magnitude of epic and the adjective magnus as a signifier for the quantitative and qualitative greatness of epic. On the river in spate as metaphor for lofty poetic registers, see McNelis (2006) 79. Cf. the torrential river in Iliadic similes depicting clashing armies (Hom. Il. 4.452–56), Diomedes’ aristeia (Hom. Il. 5.87–92), Hector’s force against Diomedes (Hom. Il. 5.597–99), the might of Ajax (Hom. Il. 11.492–95), galloping Trojan steeds (Hom. Il. 16.389–92), and the rebuff of a Trojan attack by the Aiantes (Hom. Il. 17.747–51).

72  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid brushwood).109 But the enjambment of uirgea calls attention to its form and sound, inviting further contemplation of its significance. Isidore of Seville (Orig. 11.2.21) asserts that its source noun uirga (slender green branch, twig, switch) is etymologically connected to uirgo (maiden) through mutual derivation from uiridior aetas (a greener, more youthful age).110 His hypothesis accords with that of the linguist Birgit Anette Olsen, who posits that the Indo-­European stem *ṷih1-ró (vigorous, fresh, green) may be common to the nouns uirga (green, fresh branch, twig, switch) and uirgo (someone loaded with vigour, youth, and freshness).111 Through etymological wordplay, the phrase flamma uirgea evokes the noun uirgo, forging an allusive analogy between the brushwood that fuels the fire of the simile (uirgae) and two central female figures: Lavinia, the uirgo who stokes the flames of Turnus’ desire (uirgo, A. 7.72, 7.318, 11.479, 12.69; uirgine, A. 7.362, 7.389, 11.70; cf. A. 7.52–53), and Allecto, the infernal maiden who fans amatory sparks into a martial frenzy (uirgo sata Nocte, A. 7.331; Cocytia uirgo, A. 7.479). The water boiling over in the bronze vessel signifies the successful com­ pletion of Allecto’s infuriation of Turnus (nec iam se capit, A. 7.466).112 As Turnus orders the preparation of weapons (iubet arma parari, A. 7.468) and the muster of Rutulian forces for battle (exhortantur in arma, A. 7.472), Vergil emphasizes his exceptional beauty (decus egregium formae, A. 7.473), ancestry (ataui reges, A. 7.474), and brilliant deeds (claris dextera factis, A. 7.474). The precise traits that introduced Turnus as Aeneas’ doublet and chief rival in the nuptial competi­ tion for Lavinia (A. 7.55–56) make a stark second appearance in the context of imminent war, motivating the Rutulians to follow their exceptional leader into battle against both the Trojan and Latin people. Allecto’s second task is complete.

The Infuriation of Ascanius While Turnus and the Italians prepare for battle, Allecto turns her attention to Ascanius, the son of Aeneas. In the third and final episode of the infuriation sequence, Vergil’s sustained experimentation with elegy focuses particularly on Gallus. The sixth and final poems in the Eclogues, which feature the intergeneric fusion of Vergilian pastoral and Gallan elegy, loom large in the Fury’s assault on Ascanius. Here, Vergil fashions a portrait of Ascanius that intratextually conjures the programmatic juxtaposition of Caieta and Erato, the suffering of Dido, and

109  See Servius ad A. 7.463. For the plural uirgae as bundles of brushwood tied together as fuel, see OLD s.v. uirga 1.b. 110 See LALE s.vv. uirga. 111  See Olsen (2003) 313–30, esp. 320–1. Olsen identifies uirere (to show green growth, to be vigor­ ous, to be full of youthful vigour or freshness) as another possible cognate. 112  On the elegiac lover’s conventional loss of self-­control, see James (2003b) 25, 110, 188. On the application of this elegiac topos to Dido, see Cairns (1989) 43–69.

Conflicting Amores  73 the infuriations of Amata and Turnus, thereby incorporating it into the nexus of elegiac passages that underscore the lethal force of amor. Allecto’s initial reconnaissance of Ascanius hints at the aesthetic and thematic character of their forthcoming encounter (A. 7.477–78): arte noua speculata locum quo litore pulcher | insidiis cursuque feras agitabat Iulus (with new stratagem she scouted the place where on the shore beautiful Iulus was hunting wild animals with nets and coursing).113 When Allecto arrives, Ascanius exhibits traits that underscore his similarity to Aeneas: he repeats the Odyssean hunt undertaken by Aeneas on the Carthaginian coast (litore, A. 1.184; litore, A. 7.477);114 and he mirrors his father’s beauty (pulcherrimus, A. 4.141; pulcher, A. 7.477). But the emphasis on Allecto’s ars noua (new stratagem, A. 7.477) offers metapoetic commentary regarding Vergil’s creative vision for her impending attack. The phrase ars noua, used by Vergil to denote the Fury’s tactical shift (new strategem, A. 7.477),115 extra-­semantically anticipates and accentuates the novelty of his own artistic achievement (ars noua),116 as he paints Ascanius’ stag hunt in Gallan elegiac, rather than Homeric epic, terms.117 Strikingly, Vergil reserves the formulation ars noua for one other episode, Venus’ initial assault of Dido (A. 1.657–94), in which it performs the same metapoetic function. The plural form of ars noua describes the newly devised stratagems of Venus (nouas artes, A. 1.657) and prefigures the innovative artistic design of Vergil, who experiments extensively with elegiac poetics throughout Dido’s amatory destruction. Allecto, already associated with Amor during the infuriation of Turnus, inflames the passion of Ascanius with tactics reminiscent of Venus’ deadly elegiac onslaught. The Fury begins by attack­ ing the hounds of Ascanius using the same elegiac force applied to Amata and Turnus. She strikes them with sudden madness (subitam . . . rabiem . . . | . . . obicit, A. 7.479–80; cf. anguem | conicit, A. 7.346–47; faciem . . . coniecit, A. 7.456),118 set­ ting them ablaze with desire to pursue a stag (ut ceruum ardentes agerent, A. 7.481).119 Allecto’s fiery impact on the hounds of Ascanius prefigures the ter­ rible trajectory of the hunting episode. When her flames spread to Ascanius, he 113  I concur with Horsfall (2000) 322–3 ad A. 7.476 that the commas around speculata locum must be removed. 114 On the Homeric pedigree of the hunting scene in Aeneid 1, see Austin (1971) 78 ad A. 1.180–207. 115 For ars as ‘crafty action, trick, wile, stratagem’, etc., see L–­S s.v. ars II; OLD s.v. ars 3; TLL 2.658.49 s.v. ars. See also Servius ad A. 1.657 and 7.477, who glosses the phrase ars noua as dolus (trick, plot, stratagem). 116 For ars as ‘artistic achievement or performance, art, artistry, artistic design, work of art’, etc., see OLD s.v. ars 8. 117  A passage in Macrobius (Macr. 5.17.1–4) censures the stag episode as a trivial and excessively puerile invention (leue nimisque puerile, Macr. 5.17.2), necessitated by the lamentable lack of a Homeric model for the outbreak of war. 118  See Glossary s.v. insanity. The noun rabies is conceptually parallel to furens (A. 7.350), amens (A. 7.460), and insania (A. 7.461). 119  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat. As seen above, ardeo and its cognates repeatedly characterize the seething emotions of Amata and Turnus.

74  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid commits the first act of violence (prima laborum | causa, A. 7.481–82) that sparks war in the Italian countryside (animos accendit agrestis, A. 7.482). Vergil delays Ascanius’ slaying of the stag for ten verses with an elaborate por­ trait of the ceruus and its relationship to the family of Tyrrhus (A. 7.483–92). As Nicholas Horsfall observes, the rustic setting provides Vergil with an opportunity to return to the pastoral poetics of the Eclogues, as exemplified by his description of Tyrrhus’ occupation (A. 7.485–86): cui regia parent | armenta et late custodia credita campi (whom the king’s herds obey and to whom was entrusted the guard­ ianship of the field over a wide area).120 But Vergil also interweaves elements from amatory and funerary elegy to create an intergeneric texture reminiscent of his tenth eclogue, the collection’s closural contemplation of Gallan poetics and the suffering caused by the overwhelming force of amor. In the first four lines, Vergil commemorates the ceruus in the style of a sepulchral epigram:121 he bestows praise for its beauty and grandeur (forma praestanti et cornibus ingens, A. 7.483);122 and he provides a biographical sketch that includes details about its adoptive ­family (A. 7.484–88).123 Vergil reinforces the epitaphic tone of the passage by describing the stag, stolen from its mother, as raptum (A. 7.484), a formulation conventionally applied to the deceased in funerary epigram.124 The final six verses portray the stag with metapoetic terminology evocative of Gallus and elegiac poetics. Silvia, the daughter of Tyrrhus,125 attends to the stag with all her care (omni . . . cura, A. 7.487), interweaving its horns with soft garlands (mollibus intexens . . . sertis, A. 7.488), combing its coat (pectebatque ferum, A. 7.489), and bathing it in a pure spring (puroque in fonte lauabat, A. 7.489). Elegiac signposts such as cura and mollis,126 together with the metapoetic intexens (interweaving), mark the aesthetic presence of amatory elegy. Interwoven images of soft garlands (mollibus . . . sertis, A. 7.488) and pure spring water (puroque in fonte, A. 7.489) evoke both Callimachean and Gallan poetics, as exemplified by the amatory, pastoral visions of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (serta . . . | . . . fontes . . . mollia prata, A. 10.41–42)127 and the omnipresent Callimachean symbolism of soft garlands and pure water in

120  For points of contact with the Bucolics, see Horsfall (2000) 319–21 ad A. 7.475–539; 324 ad A. 7.478; 328 ad A. 7.488 and 489; 330 ad A. 7.491 and 492; and 332 ad A. 7.495. On custos as a sign­ post for pastoral verse, see McCallum (2016) 126. Cf. Verg. E. 3.5, 5.44, 7.34, 10.36. 121  Horsfall (2000) 326 ad A. 7.483 briefly discusses the influence of Greek epigrams and offers examples. 122  See Lattimore (1962) 290–9 §81. 123  See Lattimore (1962) 266–74 §§76–77. 124 See CCLE s.v. raptum. 125  Her name, of course, reflecting her pastoral associations (cf. silua ad E. 1.5, 2.5, 2.31, 2.60, 2.62, 3.46, 3.57, 4.3, 5.28, 5.43, 5.58, 6.2, 6.39, 7.65, 7.68, 8.56, 8.58, 8.97,10.8, 10.52, 10.63; siluestris, ad E. 1.2, 3.70, 5.7). 126  See Glossary s.vv. cura, mollis. 127  On the Gallan and/or elegiac resonance of mollibus sertis, see Putnam (1995) 125; Horsfall (2000) 328 ad A. 7.488.

Conflicting Amores  75 Propertian elegy.128 Vergil likewise endows the ceruus with elegiac tendencies (A. 7.490–92):129 ille manum patiens mensaeque adsuetus erili errabat siluis rursusque ad limina nota ipse domum sera quamuis se nocte ferebat. [that stag, submissive to her hand and accustomed to the table of its mistress used to wander in the woods and of its own accord betake itself home again to the familiar threshold however late in the evening.]

The stag’s submission to its mistress (A. 7.490) and willingness, yet late at night, to return to her threshold (A. 7.491–92) evoke the elegiac lover’s compliance and komastic practices.130 Furthermore, the stag’s solitary wandering in the woods (A. 7.491) calls to mind the wilderness retreat of the Gallan errans amator.131 Vergil allusively interweaves sepulchral and amatory elegiac material to fore­ shadow the death of the stag and to underscore the role amor will play in the deadly hunt and its violent aftermath. As the stag wanders far afield in the wild surroundings (hunc procul errantem), Ascanius’ infuriated hunting hounds put it to flight (rabidae uenantis Iuli | commouere canes, A. 7.493–94),132 and the youthful hunter takes aim (A. 7.496–97): ipse etiam eximiae laudis succensus amore | Ascanius curuo derexit spicula cornu (Ascanius himself likewise inflamed by desire for extraordinary renown aimed arrows with his curved bow).133 The phrase etiam succensus (likewise inflamed, A. 7.496) indicates with economy the Fury’s fiery influence, as she manipulates Ascanius’ desire for extraordinary renown (eximiae laudis amor, A. 7.496).134 Through intratextual allusions to Eclogue 10, Ascanius appears to effectuate Gallus’ vision of consolatory hunting (E. 10.55–61). Ascanius’ amor, itself a generic signpost,135 evokes the title of Gallus’ elegiac collection (cf. amores, E. 10.6, 54, 55) and his amatory motivation to hunt as a means of alleviating furor 128  On Propertius’ emblematic use of soft garlands and pure water to denote Callimachean aesthetics, see Putnam (1995) 125; Cairns (2006) 144; Keith (2008) 45–85 passim. 129  Putnam (1995) 125 notes the elegiac personification of the stag. 130  See Glossary s.vv. exclusus amator, submission/supplication. 131 For error/errare as a Gallan, elegiac motif, see Ross (1975) 62–4; Thomas (1979b) 338–9; Cairns (2006) 227–8. On errare and wild surroundings as Gallan expressions, see Cairns (2006) 136–40. 132  On the association of rabidus with Allecto, cf. rabido . . . ore (A. 7.451). 133  On the etymological explanation of Iulus as connected either to the firing of arrows (ἰοβόλος) or the first downy beard of youth (ἴουλος), see LALE s.v. Iulus; Servius ad A. 1.267; Paschalis (1997) 52 and 298. The former etymology would reinforce Ascanius’ skill with the bow as well as his ge­nea­ logic­al connection with Amor, who wields amatory arrows: see LIMC s.v. Eros. See also Alcaeus’ use of the verb ἰοβολέω in the lover’s complaint about the amatory god’s assault (ἀλλ᾽ἐμὴν ἰοβολεῖ κραδίην, but he shoots arrows at my heart, Alcaeus A.P. 5.10.2). 134  By contrast, Vergil does not associate Ascanius’ enthusiasm for the hunt in Aeneid 4 with amor or fire imagery (A. 4.156–59). 135  See Glossary s.v. amor.

76  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid (tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris, as if these things could be a cure for our frenzy, E. 10.60). The young hunter’s hounds (canes, A. 7.494), curved bow (curuo . . . cornu, A. 7.497),136 and arrows (spicula, A. 7.497) recall those imagined by Gallus (canibus, E. 10.57; Partho . . . cornu, E. 10.59; spicula, E. 10.60). The ambiguous deus who guides Ascanius’ wandering hand (nec dextrae erranti deus afuit, nor did the god fail to assist his wandering right hand, A. 7.498) conjures the vision of Amor in Eclogue 10 as a god hardened to human suffering (aut deus ille malis hominum mitescere discat, or as if that god could learn to soften from the woes of humankind, E. 10.61).137 The haunting presence of Gallus throughout the scene serves as a poignant reminder of his elegiac vision of love as a crushing, unyielding force (omnia uincit amor: et nos cedamus amori, love overwhelms all things: let us yield to love indeed, E. 10.69). Yet Vergil also alludes to Gallus as a cautionary exemplum for the dangers of eximiae laudis amor (desire for extraor­ dinary renown). Gallus’ disgrace and suicide, according to Cassius Dio (53.23.5–11), resulted directly from the fact that he became foolishly excessive because of his renown (ὁ δὲ δὴ Γάλλος Κορνήλιος καὶ ἐξύβρισεν ὑπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, Cass. Dio 53.23.5–6).138 Through the allusively Gallan depiction of Ascanius, Vergil pays tribute to his elegiac friend, whose amatory poetics and woeful demise inform the conception of destructive, unrestrained amor that permeates the Italian Iliad. A stirring vignette of the wounded stag in the final agony of death draws the hunting scene and the infuriation to a sepulchral close (A. 7.500–02): saucius at quadripes nota intra tecta refugit successitque gemens stabulis, questuque cruentus atque imploranti similis tectum omne replebat. [but the wounded beast fled back within the familiar dwelling and entered the stables groaning and spattered with blood and just like someone crying for help began to fill the entire place with its lament.]

136  Horsfall (2000) 333 ad A. 7.497. In each case cornu appears at line end. 137  On the ambiguity of deus, the debate it engenders, and its usual interpretation as Allecto or Venus, see Fordyce (1977) 151 ad A. 7.498; Horsfall (2000) 333 ad A. 7.498, with further bibliography. See also Cairns (2006) 101 on the Gallan resonance of E. 10.61. Amor is well suited to assist an arrow-­ wielding huntsman. Plato calls Eros a skilful hunter in the Symposium (Symp. 203D), and Hellenistic epigrams feature Eros as a hunter, who uses the bow and birdlime to capture his prey: see Page (1981) 312 ad Anon. A.P. 5.100. 138  On the downfall of Gallus, see Courtney (1993) 260; Hollis (2007) 228, both with additional testimonia and bibliography. It is tempting also to contemplate a possible connection between Ascanius’ Gallan eximiae laudis amor and the laudes Galli of Georgics 4. Cf. Aristaeus, who urges his mother Cyrene to destroy his agricultural accomplishments, if strong feelings of repugnance for his renown have overtaken her (tanta meae si te ceperunt taedia laudis, if such great loathing for my praise has taken hold of you, G. 4.332).

Conflicting Amores  77 In aesthetic and thematic terms, Ascanius’ hunting of the stag recalls Vergil’s intergeneric depiction of Dido, preyed upon by Venus and Amor,139 pierced like a deer with the arrows of love (A. 4.68–73), and joined in ill-­fated union with Aeneas, her companion on the Carthaginian hunt (A. 4.129–72). The dire image of the dying stag—­wounded (saucius), groaning (gemens), covered in blood (cruentus), and crying out in lament and distress (questu, imploranti)—elicits mem­or­ies of Dido from her initial amatory wound (saucia, A. 4.1) to her prolonged, agonizing death (cf. ingemuit, A. 4.692; gemitu, A. 4.687; cruore | . . . sparsasque manus, A. 4.664–65; lamentis gemituque, A. 4.667; querar, A. 4.677). Dido epitomizes the trajectory from amor to mors in Aeneid 1–6, and her intratextual resurrection throughout the infuriation sequence bodes ill for the impassioned victims of Allecto. In Vergil’s martial maius opus, Amata and Turnus, like Dido, suffer and die because of amor, but in the process they also incite the arma that condemns many others to the same fate. By contrast, Ascanius, like Aeneas, survives the destructive force of his unrestrained amor, but deflects it on to others who perish in his wake.

From Amor to Arma Allecto has successfully executed Juno’s imperative to sow the seeds of war (sere crimina belli, A. 7.339). Moreover, the Fury’s transmogrification of conflicting amores into mors has fulfilled the programmatic promise of Caieta and Erato at the beginning of Aeneid 7, as Vergil demonstrates the lethal force of amor through the language and motifs of amatory and funerary elegy. Through the infuriations of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius, Vergil firmly establishes a programmatic pattern for generic experimentation, by which amatory elegiac emphasis targets charac­ ters for destruction and funerary elegiac emphasis commemorates their deaths. His implementation of this aesthetic and thematic design throughout the Italian Iliad condemns amor for its fatal role in arma. As Aeneid 7 draws to a close, encore appearances of Allecto, Turnus, and Amata reiterate the aesthetic and the­ matic importance of amor and elegy to the martial epic narrative of Vergil’s maius opus. Allecto, proud in her triumph (uictrix superba, A. 7.544), offers to foment fur­ ther violence: accendamque animos insani Martis amore (and I will inflame their minds with a love of insane Mars, A. 7.550). The collocation of accendere (to inflame), insanus (insane), and amor (love) sparks recollection of the intergeneric infuriation sequence: the fiery potency of the Fury and the blazing emotions of her victims (ardere, A. 7.481, 7.623; flamma, A. 7.356, 7.462; flammea, A. 7.448;

139  Cf. Venus in her huntress disguise ad A. 1.314–24.

78  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid ignis, A. 7.355);140 the madness she inflicts upon Amata, Turnus, and the hounds of Ascanius (furentem, A. 7.350; amens, A. 7.460; insania, A. 7.461; rabiem, A. 7.479);141 and her lethal exploitation of their conflicting passions (amor, A. 7.57, 7.461, 7.496).142 Echoes of Gallus ring out in Allecto’s proposal to inflame the people with insani Martis amore (a love of insane Mars, A. 7.550; cf. insanus amor duri Martis, E. 10.44). Her allusive language harks back to the extensive engagement with Gallan poetics throughout her manipulation of the amores of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius. The elegiac rhetoric of the scheming Fury allu­ sively recapitulates her tactical success against individual victims, underscoring the dire potential of her ambitious plans for sweeping conquest. Although Allecto, dismissed by Juno (A. 7.552–60), never enacts her envisioned campaign, her res gestae establish the perilous connection between amor and arma that persists throughout the Italian Iliad. After the Fury returns to her hellish abode, leaving bloodshed in her wake, a crowd of herdsmen bear the dead back to Latium (A. 7.572–76). With an abrupt shift of focus, Turnus takes centre stage amidst the chaos: Turnus adest medioque in crimine caedis et igni | terrorem ingeminat (Turnus appears amidst their ac­cus­ ation of murder, and with his fiery passion redoubles their fear, A. 7.577–78).143 Vergil frames line 577 with the name Turnus and the noun ignis, reinforcing the warrior’s trademark association with amatory and martial fire, which has been established throughout Aeneid 7. Turnus, ablaze with fiery passion, complains that Aeneas and his people have been invited into the realm of Latinus (Teucros in regna uocari, A. 7.578), that Phrygian stock dilutes Italian (stirpem admisceri Phrygiam, A. 7.579), and that he is being dislodged from the threshold (se limine pelli, A. 7.579). Though Turnus apparently intends to incite common fear (terrorem ingeminat, A. 7.578), his rhetoric reveals that his fervour is kindled by personal, amatory grievances. The first element of Turnus’ tricolon (Teucros in regna uocari, A. 7.578) identifies him as the intratextual doublet of Iarbas, who decries Dido’s reception of Aeneas into her realm (Aenean in regna recepit, A. 4.214). Turnus, like Iarbas, despises Aeneas as an amatory interloper, who threatens to steal his desired bride. In the second element, Turnus implicitly reacts to the prospect of sexual union between Aeneas and Lavinia by envisioning the adulteration of Italian stock (stirpem admisceri Phrygiam, A. 7.579).144 Finally, his protestation at being dislodged from her threshold (se limine pelli, A. 7.579) relates his amatory predicament to that of the exclusus amator of elegy.145 The speech of Turnus 140  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat. 141  See Glossary s.v. insanity. 142  See Glossary s.v. amor. 143  In my view, the copulative conjunction separates igni terrorem ingeminat from the preceding sentence, and I construe the ablative igni as instrumental with ingeminat. For the ablative igni as governed by the preposition in, see Page (1931) 186 ad A. 7.577; Fordyce (1977) 164 ad A. 7.577; Horsfall (2000) 31, 378 ad A. 7.577. 144  On the sexual connotations of misceo and its compounds, see Adams (1982) 180–1. 145  See Glossary s.v. exclusus amator.

Conflicting Amores  79 confirms his identity as an intergeneric miles amans, whose amor ferri is motivated by private passion rather than the public weal. Vergil veers from the amatory elegiac vision of Turnus to the ongoing ­maenadic delirium of Amata and the Latin matrons (A. 7.580–82). The intergeneric swerve from elegiac to tragic experimentation mirrors the conclusion of Amata’s infuriation, where her amatory distress, evoked by the image of the spinning top (A. 7.378–84), transforms into Bacchic, Didonian frenzy (A. 7.385–405). Vergil interrupts the raving of the women with a parenthetical statement regarding the influence of Amata over the other matrons: neque enim leue nomen Amatae (for not light is the name of Amata, A. 7.581). The presence of nomen, a Vergilian etymologizing signpost,146 and Amatae, placed as always at line end, clinches the figura etymologica from the Italian queen’s introduction (regia coniunx | . . . amore, A. 7.56–57). Thus, the final appearance of Amata in Aeneid 7 traces back to her mirus amor for Turnus (astonishing passion, A. 7.57) and her establishment as a pivotal elegiac figure. Vergil’s declaration about Amata also features an allusive metapoetic addendum. The negation of the adjective leuis (neque . . . leue, A. 7.581) is the semantic equivalent of durus, the ancient literary-­critical signifier for epic poetics.147 The combination of the charged litotes (≈ durus) and Amata’s etymo­logic­ally suggestive name (≈ amor/amo) points to the definitive magnitude and severity of Vergilian epic amor. Under the influence of Allecto, Amata’s mirus amor blazes into amor Martis, as she and the other matrons importune the god of war (Martemque fatigant, A. 7.582).

Turnus’ Emblematic Arma The final appearance of Turnus in the catalogue of Italian heroes formalizes his emergence as Aeneas’ rival for martial and amatory supremacy (A. 7.783–92). Vergil, having introduced Turnus as the pre-­eminent suitor in the contest for Lavinia’s hand (petit ante alios pulcherrimus omnis, Turnus seeks her above all others most handsome, A. 7.55), now focuses on his superlative heroic stature (A. 7.783–84): ipse inter primos praestanti corpore Turnus | uertitur arma tenens et toto uertice supra est (among the foremost Turnus himself, with his superior phys­ ique, moves about wielding arms and he is taller by a whole head). The phrase arma tenens heralds the display of Turnus’ martial accoutrements in two ecphra­ seis of equal length (A. 7.785–92). Vergil emblazons the helmet and shield of Turnus with mythological scenes of martial frenzy and amatory conflict that re­inforce his trajectory from amor to arma, which has been established through­ out Aeneid 7. 146 On nomen as a Vergilian etymological signposts, see O’Hara (2017) 75–9. 147  See Glossary s.v. durus.

80  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid His triple-­crested helmet bears the likeness of the fire-­breathing Chimaera (efflantem faucibus ignis, A. 7.786), whose roaring, savage, and blazing aspect ( fremens et tristibus effera flammis, A. 7.787) magnifies the savagery and blood­ shed of battle (effuso crudescunt sanguine pugnae, A. 7.788).148 When Aeneas lays eyes on the Chimaera among the monsters of the underworld in Aeneid 6, she appears armed with flames ( flammisque armata, A. 6.289). The crafted metal like­ ness of the Chimaera animates the epithet flammis armata with vivid images of her igneous exhalation (efflantem . . . ignis, A. 7.786) and ominous flames (tristibus . . . flammis, A. 7.787). Turnus’ helmet, embellished with the fiery arsenal and aspect of the Chimaera, reflects his encounter with Allecto. On the one hand, the Chimaera rehearses Allecto’s hellish onslaught. The Fury, armed with her own infernal flammae, incites Turnus to violence with her burning eyes ( flammea . . . | lumina, A. 7.448–49), flaring anger (exarsit in iras, A. 7.445), and weaponized torch ( facem . . . coniecit, A. 7.456). On the other hand, the Chimaera embodies Turnus himself when she intensifies violence with her roars and savage conflagra­ tion ( fremens et tristibus effera flammis, A. 7.787). Turnus, set aflame by Allecto, roars for weapons (arma amens fremit, A. 7.460), rages with desire for battle (saeuit amor ferri, A. 7.461), and commands his people to prepare for war (iubet arma parari, A. 7.468). The Chimaera engraving thus emblematizes in allegorical miniature the fiery, infernal potency of Allecto and her incitement of Turnus’ amatory and martial fervour. A golden depiction of Io on Turnus’ smooth shield (A. 7.789–92) complements the symbolism of the blazing, bellicose Chimaera, by hinting at the amatory sparks that fuel Turnus’ martial frenzy.149 The first two lines of the ecphrasis focus on the transformation of Io, showcasing her raised horns (sublatis cornibus, A. 7.789) and bristly new bovine form (iam saetis obsita, iam bos, A. 7.790). In the final two lines, the phrase argumentum ingens (a great theme, A. 7.791) briefly disrupts the visual narrative, which concludes with vignettes of Io’s guardian Argus (custos uirginis Argus, A. 7.791) and father Inachus (A. 7.792). Incorporated throughout the ecphrasis are intratextual allusions to Turnus’ pursuit of Lavinia. The phrase iam saetis obsita, iam bos (A. 7.790) and the noun uirgo (A. 7.791) define Io in terms reminiscent of Lavinia’s desirable sexual maturity (iam matura uiro, iam plenis nubilis annis, now ripe for a husband, now of full age for mar­ riage, A. 7.53) and maidenly status (uirgo, A. 7.72, 7.318, 11.479, 12.69; uirgine, A. 7.362, 7.389, 11.70; cf. A. 7.52–53). In the context of Io’s metamorphosis, the epithet pater signifies Inachus’ paternal role and status as a river god.150 But the appearance of pater Inachus on the shield of Turnus also traces back to Amata’s 148  Horsfall (2000) 509 ad A. 7.785 discusses the various interpretations of the Chimaera helmet, with further bibliography. 149  Horsfall (2000) 511 ad A. 7.789 discusses the various interpretations of the image of Io on the shield, with further bibliography. 150  See Horsfall (2000) 512 ad A. 7.791.

Conflicting Amores  81 impassioned defence of his candicacy as son-­in-­law (A. 7.359–72; cf. A. 7.56–57). In her tearful entreaty of Latinus, Amata presents Turnus’ descent from pater Inachus (Turno . . . | . . . Inachus Acrisiusque patres, A. 7.371–72) as powerful ge­nea­ logic­al proof (cf. argumentum ingens, A. 7.791) of his qualification as a son-­in-­law of foreign stock (gener externa . . . de gente, A. 7.367).151 The depictions of Io, her guardian, and her father intratextually evoke the amatory dynamics of Turnus’ campaign for the desirous maiden Lavinia, which Allecto exploits to incite arma during the infuriation sequence of Aeneid 7. Intertextual allusions to Calvus’ Io in the shield ecphrasis underscore Turnus’ thematic association with destructive amor.152 The visual narrative of the clipeus incorporates two elements that likely derive from the Calvan account of Io’s bovine metamorphosis: her horns raised perhaps in supplication (sublatis cornibus, A. 7.789) and her coat of bristles (saetis obsita, A. 7.790).153 Even more striking are the precise echoes of Calvus that resound in the third verse of Vergil’s ­ecphrasis: argumentum ingens, et custos uirginis Argus (a great theme, and the guardian of the maiden Argus, A. 7.791). Framing the verse are the phrase argumentum ingens and the name Argus, which are connected through par­ono­ masia.154 The allusive wordplay evokes Calvus’ formula for the great sleep (ingenti . . . somno, Calv. fr. 22 Hollis) that overwhelms Io’s monstrous guardian.155 Vergil’s triplication of the phoneme a- at the beginning of lines 789–91 (at, A. 7.789; auro, A. 7.790; argumentum, A. 7.791) replicates through stylistic anom­ aly the conventional repetition of the interjection a in neoteric poetry.156 The embedded neoteric a (A. 7.789–91) and the noun uirgo (A. 7.791) are syn­thet­ic­ al­ly suggestive of Calvus’ apostrophe of Io (a uirgo infelix, ah wretched maiden, Calv. fr. 20 Hollis), which informs Vergil’s address of Pasiphae in Eclogue 6 (a uirgo infelix, E. 6.47, 6.52). Through Calvan intertextual interplay, Vergil fashions a shield that connects Turnus to the paradigmatic amatory anguish of Io, his mythological ancestress (Turno . . . | . . . Inachus Acrisiusque patres, A. 7.371–72).157 Turnus, like Io before him, embodies the destructive capacity of amor to radically reconfigure the identity, behaviour, and trajectory of its victims. The engraving of Io’s metamorphosis also evokes the disastrous consequences of Jupiter’s adulterous amores, which incite the vengeful wrath of Juno, his divine 151  For discussion of the genealogical implications of pater Inachus and the phrase argumentum ingens, see Horsfall (2000) 511 ad A. 7.789 and 512 ad A. 7.791, with further bibliography. 152  For the surviving fragments of Calvus’ Io, see Courtney (1993) 205–6; Hollis (2007) 51–2, 60–4. On Calvus’ influential depiction of Io as an exemplum of amatory furor, see Ross (2007) 48–9. 153  See Hollis (2007) 62–3. 154  See Horsfall (2000) 512 ad A. 7.791. 155  For text of and commentary on this fragment, see Courtney (1993) 205; Hollis (2007) 51, 66. It is perhaps worth noting that Seneca refers to Calvus’ poetry as plena ingentis animi (full of great spirit, Sen. Con. 7.4.7, which Hollis includes among the testimonia for Calvus (19g): Hollis (2007) 49, 59. 156 On the exclamation a in neoteric poetry, see Ross (1975) 73; Cairns (1983) 83–4; Cairns (2006) 120. 157  Gale (1997b) 176–96 explores the thematic significance of the Io shield in relation to brutalizing and irresistible passion.

82  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid coniunx.158 Indeed, the aesthetic and thematic resonance of the ecphrasis of Turnus’ shield in Aeneid 7 recalls the miniature catalogue of insults and in­fi­del­ ities endured by Juno in Aeneid 1. In the programmatic introduction of Juno, Vergil exposes the erotic grievances against mythical Trojans that motivate her Iliadic wrath towards the Aeneadae (iram, A. 1.4; irae, A. 1.11): the judgement of Paris, who scorns her beauty (iudicium Paridis spretaeque iniuria formae, A. 1.27); the descent of the Trojan people from Dardanus, the product of Jupiter’s adul­ terous affair with Electra (genus inuisum, A. 1.28); and Jupiter’s illicit sexual abduction of Ganymede (rapti Ganymedis honores, A. 1.28). In the Introduction, I  show that Vergil’s enumeration of Juno’s amatory causae irarum evokes the Callimachean catalogues of Jupiter’s clandestine affairs presented by Propertius (Prop. 2.30b.29–30) and Ovid (Ov. Am. 1.3.21–24). Intertextual evidence points to the mutual derivation of the Propertian and Ovidian passages from a lost Gallan treatment of Jupiter’s extramarital affairs, which likely featured Io in a list of three mythological exempla, as Francis Cairns has shown.159 Io features prom­ in­ent­ly in the elegiac catalogues of Propertius and Ovid, who underscore her paradigmatic importance by placing her name in the final hexameter position (ut est deperditus Io, how he was destroyed by Io, Prop. 2.30b.29; exterrita cornibus Io, Io frightened by her horns, Ov. Am. 1.3.21).160 In the Vergilian ecphrasis, the diction and placement of the phrase cornibus Io (A. 7.789) corresponds to that of Propertius (Io, Prop. 2.30b.29) and Ovid (cornibus Io, A. 7.789). The allusive formulation cornibus Io (A. 7.789) operates on two interconnected levels: it inter­text­ual­ly evokes conventional elegiac enumerations of Jupiter’s amatory dal­ liances; and it intratextually recalls Vergil’s imitation of such elegiac enumerations in the intergeneric list of erotic grievances that engender Juno’s amatory pain and Iliadic wrath (causae irarum saeuique dolores, A. 1.25). By embellishing the shield with the figure of Io, Vergil allusively reinforces the aesthetic and thematic rela­ tionship between his intergeneric depictions of Turnus and Juno throughout the Italian Iliad, as the amatory grievances of the warrior and the goddess erupt into martial violence against Aeneas and the Trojans. Through the ecphrastic portrait of Turnus armatus, Vergil underscores the mortal and divine forces that threaten Aeneas and dictate the exigency of equally superlative martial protection for the Trojan leader. Turnus’ final appearance in Aeneid 7 thus sets the stage for the encounter between Venus and Vulcan in Aeneid 8, when the goddess utilizes amor to acquire divine arma for Aeneas.

158 Vergil emphasizes Juno’s wrath towards Io through the image of the gadfly in Georgics 3 (G. 3.152–53): hoc quondam monstro horribilis exercuit iras | Inachiae Iuno pestem meditata iuuencae (with this monster Juno once indulged her wrath having designed the pest for the heifer daughter of Inachus). 159  See Cairns (1993) 113–15; Cairns (2006) 92–3, 129–30, 200, 205. 160  Ovid also features the phrase cornibus Io in Amores 2.19.29–30, which commemorates Jupiter’s dalliances with Danae and Io.

3 Wielding Passion as Power Venus’ Manipulation of Vulcan in Aeneid 8

The eighth book of the Aeneid features the encounter between Venus and Vulcan (A. 8.370–406), in which the goddess uses her amatory power to convince her husband, the divine craftsman, to create special armour for her son Aeneas. Vergil’s depiction of Venus acknowledges her complex, multifaceted identity as the goddess of sexual desire, the mythical ancestress of the Julii, and the tutelary deity of the Roman people. Consequently, the scene has engendered analyses that consider its relation to gender and sexuality, political ideology, philosophy, and rhetoric. By contrast, my examination concentrates on the intergeneric poetics of the Vergilian scene of divine enticement. I identify amatory elegiac details that accentuate the overt erotic dynamics of Venus’ seduction of Vulcan.1 Moreover, I demonstrate how aesthetic fluctuation between epic and elegy reinforces Vergil’s conception of amor as inextricably linked to arma and mors, as the goddess pro­ cures through seduction the armaments with which Aeneas eventually dispatches Turnus to the underworld. Thus, Vergil’s elegiac experimentation, having estab­ lished amor as a fundamental theme throughout Aeneid 7, continues to empha­ size its importance to the resolution of his martial epic narrative. My discussion begins with an overview of the Homeric and Lucretian epic models that inform Vergil’s delineation of Venus’ protective maternal interven­ tion and divine erotic potency. I then proceed to identify the elegiac elements that inflect the episode from Venus’ maternal motivations to her sequential attempts at rhetorical and physical persuasion. Through embedded elegiac topoi and erotic language, Vergil configures Venus and Vulcan within the inverted gender hier­ archy of elegy and characterizes the passion engendered by the goddess as destructive and painful. The productive tension between epic source material and elegiac elements accentuates the Vergilian Venus in comparison to her literary antecedents. Allusions to Lucretius evoke the symbolic association of Venus with generative natural forces and destructive passion. Moreover, Vergil’s engagement with Lucretian erotodidactic imitates and intensifies that of the elegists, who appropriate the language of philosophical warnings about destructive, uncontrol­ lable amor to characterize its impact on feckless lovers. In effect, Vergil stages a

1  As Putnam (1995) 43 asserts, the seduction scene is ‘the most explicitly erotic moment in the epic’.

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0004

84  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid conceptual confrontation between different aspects of Venus: the epic, protective mother who secures martial glory for her mortal offspring; the Epicurean, gen­ era­tive goddess who utilizes sexual pleasure to gain peace; and the elegiac instiga­ tor of desire, possessed of incomparable erotic power. Her reliance on the last role to obtain weapons for Aeneas plots another point on the uneasy trajectory of Vergil’s martial narrative, in which amor inevitably leads to destruction and death.

Venus’ Homeric, Apollonian, and Lucretian Epic Antecedents Vergil begins by emphasizing Venus’ role as the divine mother of an epic hero, eager to ensure the success of her mortal offspring. Her frightened contemplation of the hostility directed towards Aeneas and the Trojans motivates her appeal to Vulcan (A. 8.370–72): At Venus haud animo nequiquam exterrita mater Laurentumque minis et duro mota tumultu Volcanum adloquitur. [But Venus, a mother stricken with terror in her mind by no means without reason and moved by the threats and hard uprising of the Laurentines, speaks to Vulcan.]2

The characterization of Venus and narrative context naturally invite comparison to Thetis in Iliad 18 (Hom. Il. 18.368–461). Vergil’s goddess, like her Homeric counterpart, beseeches the god of fire for divine armour to safeguard her warrior son. Venus’ correspondence to Thetis here and in her entreaty of Jupiter in Aeneid 1 (A. 1.229–53; cf. Hom. Il. 1.488–530) likewise suggests a correlation between Aeneas and Achilles.3 The themes and language of Venus’ speech further re­inforce the epic lineage of the scene. Like Thetis, Venus recalls past events from the Trojan war (A. 8.374–80)4 and asks for divine weapons for her son (arma rogo, genetrix nato, A. 8.383).5 Her diction also incorporates a striking assemblage of lexical items that signify engagement with epic poetics. The collocation of bellum (A. 8.374), reges (A. 8.374), arma (A. 8.376, 8.383), and labor (A. 8.378, 8.380) recalls the programmatic epic language that appears in the proemial passages of

2 The conjunction at demarcates the narrative shift, while the emphatic phrase Venus mater encloses the opening line: see Gransden (1976) 133–4; Fordyce (1977) 247 ad A. 8.370. 3  Turnus may be the alius Achilles of the Sibyl’s prophecy (A. 6.89), but Aeneas also displays problematic, Achillean behaviour in the war to come: see Hershkowitz (1998) 155, with further bibliography. 4  Cf. Hom. Il. 18.444–56. 5  Cf. Hom. Il. 18.457–60. The phrase genetrix nato etymologically expresses Venus’ maternal con­ nection to Aeneas: see Fordyce (1977) 248 ad A. 8.383; O’Hara (2017) 212 ad A. 8.383.

Wielding Passion as Power  85 Aeneid 1 and 7 (bello, A. 1.5; bella, A. 7.41; reges, A. 7.42; arma, A. 1.1; arma, A. 7.43; labores, A. 1.10). Bolstering the epic undercurrent are the adjective durus (durum, A. 8.380), the ancient literary-­critical signifier for epic,6 and the noun ferrum (A. 8.386), a virtual synonym for arma.7 Duplication and structural placement emphasize arma (A. 8.376, 8.383) and labor (A. 8.378, 8.380): the second occur­ rence of arma appears in the first foot, an unmistakable echo of the opening line of the poem; and the two occurrences of labor are vertically juxtaposed at line end.8 When Venus herself, in a moment of pronounced poetic self-­consciousness, cites Thetis’ successful petition as precedent for Vulcan’s previous compliance (te filia Nerei, | te potuit lacrimis Tithonia flectere coniunx, A. 8.383–84),9 the analogy is transparent and irrefutable. Vergil thus points to Venus’ pivotal maternal function in the Italian Iliad, as she intervenes to ensure the martial supremacy of Aeneas. Vergil’s depiction of Venus also draws on a number of other epic models that focus on her erotic power and exploits, as opposed to her maternal aspect. The goddess’s wily seduction of Vulcan, her divine coniunx, immediately recalls Hera’s sexual manipulation of Zeus in the Iliad (Hom. Il. 14.153–362).10 But the scene also serves as a potent reminder of the extramarital affairs conducted by Venus’ archaic epic counterpart Aphrodite: her dalliance with Ares as recounted by Demodocus in the Phaeacian court (Hom. Od. 8.266–366);11 and her seduction of Anchises in the Homeric Hymns (Hymn. Hom. Ven. 53–199).12 Vergil also looks to Apollonius’ Hellenistic reinterpretation of these models in the Argonautica. When Venus calls upon Vulcan, she rehearses two Apollonian scenes of divine supplication that feature Aphrodite: Hera and Athene entreat her to enlist Eros to make Medea fall in love with Jason (Argon. 3.25–110); and she complies by asking her divine progeny to complete the erotic task (Argon. 3.128–53).13 The location of Venus’ encounter with Vulcan contains lexical details that conjure its epic pre­ ce­dents (A. 8.372–73): thalamoque haec coniugis aureo | incipit (in the golden bedchamber of her husband she begins to utter these words). Vergil’s use of the loanword thalamus evokes the conjugal spaces of the Greek epic world, including 6  See Glossary s.v. durus. 7 For ferrum as ‘battle’ by metonymy, see L–­ S s.v. ferrum II; OLD s.v. ferrum 5–6; TLL 61.579.80–580.60 s.v. ferrum. 8  Contra Eden (1975) 118 ad A. 8.378, who finds the repetition of labor to be ‘without significance’. 9 Cf. A. 11.438–40, where Turnus explicitly compares Aeneas, endowed with divine armour, to Achilles. Eos/Aurora, Venus’ other epic exemplum, likewise requested arms for her son Memnon in the lost Aethiopis of Arctinus of Miletus. 10  The connection is well remarked; see Eden (1975) 116–17 ad A. 8.370 ff.; 119 ad 8.382 ff.; 120 ad 8.387 f.; Fordyce (1977) 247 ad A. 8.370–406; Gransden (1976) 133 ad A. 3.370–453; Lyne (1987) 38–9; Casali (2006) 187–94; Lada-­Richards (2006) 35, with further bibliography. 11  See Casali (2006) 187–94. 12  See Faulkner (2008) 136 ad Hymn. Hom. Ven. 53–199. In his analysis of Venus in Aeneid 1, Reckford (1996) 1–42 identifies her intertextual similarity to the incarnations of Aphrodite in the Odyssey and Homeric hymns. 13  Hunter (1989) 101 ad Argon. 3.36–110; 114 ad Argon. 3.146–48; Nelis (2001) 339–45.

86  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid the bedchamber occupied by Aphrodite and Hephaestus in the Argonautica (θάλαμον, Argon. 3.9; θαλάμοιο, Argon. 3.39).14 The adjective aureus is a Latin ren­ dering of the goddess’s epic epithet χρυσέη (golden), which encapsulates her exceptional beauty and allure.15 Moreover, the phrase thalamus aureus recalls specific details from Aphrodite’s adulterous affair in the Odyssey, namely the bed­ chamber where she was trapped with her lover (θάλαμον, Hom. Od. 8.277) and Hermes’ claim that he would willingly be ensnared if he could lie with the golden goddess (χρυσέῃ Ἀφροδίτῃ, Hom. Od. 8.337).16 The epic erotic valence of the Vergilian scene exists in productive tension with the allusive Thetis analogy. Even as Venus rehearses the role of concerned, dutiful mother, Vergil calls to mind her previous performances as seductress, adulteress, and instigator of passion. But Vergil’s contemplation of Venus’ maternal and erotic aspects derives from Lucretian, as well as Homeric, epic.17 The phrase genetrix nato (A. 8.383) refor­ mulates the opening phrase of De Rerum Natura (Aeneadum genetrix, the ances­ tress of the Romans, Lucr. 1.1). In the hymn to Venus that follows, Lucretius fashions a seduction scene, which celebrates her ability to secure peace through the sexual conquest of Mars (Lucr. 1.31–40):18 nam tu sola potes tranquilla pace iuuare mortalis, quoniam belli fera moenera Mauors armipotens regit, in gremium qui saepe tuum se reiicit aeterno deuictus uolnere amoris, atque ita, suspiciens tereti ceruice reposta, pascit amore auidos, inhians in te, dea, uisus eque tuo pendet resupini spiritus ore. hunc tu, diua, tuo recubantem corpore sancto circumfusa super, suauis ex ore loquellas funde petens placidam Romanis, incluta, pacem. [For you alone are able to assist mortals with tranquil peace, since Mars power­ ful in arms rules the fierce works of war, who often casts himself into your lap vanquished by an eternal wound of love, and thus, looking up with smooth neck bent back, he feeds his eager eyes with love, gaping at you, goddess, and his breath hangs from your mouth as he lies back. As he reclines on your sacred body, you, goddess, enfolding him from above pour from your mouth sweet words seeking calm peace for Romans, glorious one.] 14  See Nelis (2001) 339–40 for a discussion of the parallels between the thalamus of Venus and Greek epic models. 15  See Harrison (1991) 62 ad A. 10.16–17 on Venus aurea for χρυσέη Ἀφροδίτη. 16  Nelis (2001) 340n.50 observes that ‘it is difficult not to recall that this is the same bedroom (βῆ ῥ᾽ ἴμεν ἐς θάλαμον, ὅθι οἱ φίλα δέμνι᾽ ἔκειτο, Hom. Od. 8.277) in which Hephaestus trapped Ares and Aphrodite’. 17  See Gransden (1976) 40–1; Lyne (1987) 40–1; Casali (2006) 187–94; O’Rourke (2014). 18  On the Empedoclean significance of these lines, see O’Rourke (2014).

Wielding Passion as Power  87 Through precise verbal echoes, Vergil sets Vulcan in direct comparison with Lucretius’ Mars, as he, too, is overcome by Venus and reclines in the lap of his divine wife (A. 8.394, 404–06):19 tum pater aeterno fatur deuinctus amore   .  .  .  .  .  .  .                                                       ea uerba locutus optatos dedit amplexus placidumque petiuit coniugis infusus gremio per membra soporem [then the father bound by an eternal love speaks . . . Having said these words he gave her desired embraces and poured in the lap of his wife sought calm sleep throughout his limbs.]

Vergil thus stages a marital encounter between Venus and Vulcan that is an unambiguous reminder of the goddess’s adulterous liaison with Mars. The patently inappropriate application of pater (A. 8.394) to Vulcan allusively evokes further erotic insult in the form of Anchises, Aeneas’ father and Venus’ former mortal lover (cf. tum pater Anchises, A. 3.525, 6.713, 6.867). The intertextual con­ nection sets Vergil’s Venus in stark opposition to her Lucretian counterpart. Compared to the Epicurean goddess, who achieves peace through sexual pleas­ ure, the martial epic genetrix of the Aeneid wields erotic power to procure weap­ ons of war. The complex amalgam of Homeric, Apollonian, and Lucretian elements in the encounter between Venus and Vulcan provides an important framework for the thematic and aesthetic development of the episode. Vergil, by incorporating ­echoes of earlier epic, draws attention to the protean nature of Venus and pro­ vokes a conceptual comparison of her shifting identities. The juxtaposition of her maternal and erotic aspects calls into question her motivations, her tactics, and her impact within the martial narrative. In aesthetic terms, Vergil’s portrait of Venus, epic genetrix and erotic force, becomes fertile ground for generic fluc­tu­ ation between epic and amatory elegy, to which I now turn.

Elegiac Poetics in Venus’ Rhetorical Entreaty of Vulcan Vergil’s scene of divine seduction exemplifies his tendency to successively estab­ lish and thwart epic parameters through generic experimentation. Roman elegists utilize epic language and topoi to playfully elevate amor and amatory pursuits as commensurate in import, merit, and risk to heroic and martial exploits. With intergeneric inversion, Vergil utilizes elegiac language and topoi to gravely 19  As likewise observed by O’Rourke (2014).

88  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid articulate his conception of amor as a violent, lethal force that instigates arma. Throughout the encounter between Venus and Vulcan, interwoven material from amatory elegy works in concert with Homeric, Apollonian, and Lucretian elem­ ents to demonstrate the destructive potency of passion in Vergilian epic.20 Venus wields amor as her most powerful weapon, exploiting the desire of Vulcan to obtain the requisite arma of the Iliadic half of the poem (arma uirumque, A. 1.1). As Venus prepares to deliver her rhetorical plea, she infuses her words with diuinus amor (dictis diuinum aspirat amorem, A. 8.373). The image of divine inspiration intratextually recalls Venus’ incitement of Dido in Aeneid 1, during which she exhorts Cupid to breathe hidden flames of passion into the Carthaginian queen (occultum inspires ignem, A. 1.688),21 and Allecto’s in­furi­ ation of Amata in Aeneid 7, during which an infernal serpent motivates the Italian queen with its breath (uipeream inspirans animam, A. 7.351). Through his allusive description of Venus, Vergil aligns her seduction of Vulcan with violent amatory assaults, thereby focusing attention on the inherent threat posed by her tactical use of amor. Moreover, the intratextual evocation of Dido and Amata, whose ­trajectories are focal points of elegiac experimentation, hints at the intergeneric aesthetics of Venus’ encounter with Vulcan. Indeed, Vergil seals the allusive line with the generic signpost for elegy (amorem, A. 8.373),22 suggesting that he, too, will infuse his words with amor.23 But when Venus begins to speak, her insistent epic tone leaves the aesthetic proclamation seemingly unfulfilled. Her address of Vulcan incorporates a virtual catalogue of lexical signifiers of epic, as discussed above (bellum, A. 8.374; reges, A. 8.374; arma, A. 8.376, 8.383; labor, A. 8.378, 8.380; durum, A. 8.380; ferrum, A. 8.386). Although Venus studs her rhetorical suasoria with martial epic language,24 she betrays the latent amatory potential of the scene by calling Vulcan carissime coniunx (A. 8.377). The alliterative force of the phrase assaults the ear and draws attention to the presence of carus, one of the characteristically honeyed words of amatory elegy.25 Even more remarkable is Venus’ use of the superlative form of the adjective, which appears nowhere else in the entire Vergilian corpus. As the goddess makes her initial attempt at verbal persuasion, she amplifies an elegiac term of endearment to suit the epic magnitude of her request for arma. The goddess proceeds to describe her frequent tears over the epic suffering of  Aeneas (A. 8.379–80): quamuis . . . | . . . durum Aeneae fleuissem saepe laborem 20  Lada-­Richards (2006) discusses elegiac diction within the Venus and Vulcan interlude in terms of Vergilian ‘technologies of gender’. 21  Cf. Tib. 2.3.71–72, where Venus brings joy to those ‘upon whom Amor breathes favourably’ (quibus adspirabat Amor). 22  See Glossary s.v. amor. 23  On the sound effects of the line, see Gransden (1976) 134 ad A. 8.373. 24 Servius ad A. 8.374: sane haec oratio rhetorica suasio est (indeed this speech is rhetorical persuasion). 25  See Glossary s.v. cura.

Wielding Passion as Power  89 (though I had wept often for the severe hardship of Aeneas). Her protective behaviour and maternal aspect correspond to her role as epic genetrix. But the very fact that Venus, the goddess of love, is making an appeal to a sexual partner within a fluctuating epic and elegiac matrix, invites further interrogation of her self-­characterization. Venus, in her attempt to persuade through pathos, employs the precise rhetorical strategy Sharon James calls ‘the hallmark of Roman love elegy’.26 The verb flere, used by Venus to describe her weeping (fleuissem, A. 8.380), evokes the lexicon of elegiac lament, both amatory and funerary.27 In the context of Venus’ account, the severe hardship (durum . . . laborem, A. 8.380) of Aeneas arouses her tears, recalling the elegiac appropriation of the epic sign­ post durus to underscore the harshness of the unresponsive beloved (dura), who is the source of the lover’s sorrow.28 Venus’ self-­identification as a suppliant (supplex uenio, A. 8.382) mimics the conventionally submissive stance adopted by lovers of elegy.29 Her posture also rehearses numerous instances of elegiac sub­ mission interwoven throughout Dido’s intensely intergeneric narrative arc: Venus entreating Cupid for assistance in her amatory assault of Dido (supplex tua numina posco, A. 1.666); Vergil’s apostrophe of improbus Amor, who compels humans to submit to amor (supplex animos summittere amori, A. 4.414); Dido begging Anna to supplicate Aeneas on her behalf (i, soror, atque hostem supplex adfare superbum, A. 4.424);30 and Dido’s fearful contemplation of a Numidian marriage after Aeneas abandons her (Nomadumque petam conubia supplex, A. 4.535). The generic and intratextual details within Venus’ speech are dire reminders of the dangerous potency concealed beneath her submissive exterior. What is more, the amatory subterfuge of the suppliant goddess provides a stark counterpoint to her son’s humble address of Evander earlier in Aeneid 8 (supplex ad limina ueni, A. 8.145). Venus cites the epic exempla of Thetis and Aurora to lend rhetorical weight to her entreaty of Vulcan (A. 8.383–84): te filia Nerei, | te potuit lacrimis Tithonia flectere coniunx (the daughter of Nereus was able to sway you with tears, as was the spouse of Tithonus). The intertextual analogy emphasizes Venus’ identity as epic genetrix, as discussed above. Yet Venus describes her epic counterparts in elegiac language evocative of her own tactical use of tears to persuade Vulcan (fleuissem, A. 8.380). Thetis and Aurora, like Venus, appear to adopt the stratagem of the lover of elegy, who attempts to sway (flectere) an unresponsive beloved through pathos (lacrimis, A. 8.384).31 Venus’ discordant application of elegiac 26  James (2003b) 110, 119, 121–8. 27 See Glossary s.v. tears. For a detailed discussion of tears and weeping in elegy, see James (2003a) 99–122. 28  See Glossary s.v. durus. 29  See Glossary s.v. submission/supplication. 30 For discussion of Vergil’s allusive recognition of the alternative Anna–­Aeneas tradition, see McCallum (2019). 31  See Pichon s.v. flectere; Navarro Antolín (1996) 364 ad Lygd. 4.63; Fulkerson (2017) 166 ad [Tib.] 3.4.63.

90  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid behaviour to models of epic motherhood disrupts her apparent correspondence to the daughter of Nereus and wife of Tithonus (Tithonia coniunx, A. 8.384). Her distinction as the divine embodiment of seductive coercion and her sexual rela­ tionship with Vulcan (carissime coniunx, A. 8.377) set her apart from her analo­ gous epic genetrices, authorizing her use of amor to secure the forging of epic arma for Aeneas.

Elegiac Poetics in Venus’ Physical Seduction of Vulcan When Venus’ words fail to persuade Vulcan, who hesitates to comply with her request, the goddess abandons rhetoric and turns to seduction (A. 8.387–88): dixerat et niueis hinc atque hinc diua lacertis | cunctantem amplexu molli fouet (she had spoken and as he hesitates the goddess warms him with a soft embrace on this side and that in her snowy arms).32 As Venus harnesses the power of her erotic charm, the scene takes a noticeably elegiac turn. Vergil describes the god­ dess’s embrace with the adjective mollis, which he uses frequently as a metapoetic signifier of amatory elegy, particularly in opposition to durus epic.33 The softness of Venus’ physical embrace resonates against the durus labor of Aeneas from her speech (A. 8.380), accentuating the generic fluctuation in the scene. Sensory lan­ guage from the elegiac lexicon heightens the sensual atmosphere. The verb fouere ascribes to Venus’ touch the pleasant warming effect of sexual interaction and amatory persuasion.34 Her snowy arms envelop Vulcan (niueis . . . lacertis, A. 8.387) in the gleaming whiteness that is conventionally associated with female beauty in elegy.35 Throughout the passage, elegiac poetics underscore the power­ ful physical allure of Venus, as she uses amor to gain epic arma. The elegiac dimensions of the encounter between Venus and Vulcan resonate with specific aspects of Propertius 2.18b, which focuses on the theme of mutual and lasting amor, and 2.22a, which explores the potential advantages of poly­ amory. The fact that Propertius’ second collection and Vergil’s Aeneid have over­ lapping periods of composition precludes any definitive claim about the sequence or direction of these intertextual interplays.36 Nevertheless, a comparison of the 32  According to Fratantuono (2007) 243, Vergil never uses cunctantem without significance. The participle denotes Dido’s delay immediately prior to the hunt which results in her ‘marriage’ to Aeneas (A. 4.133), as well as Aeneas’ fearful hesitation following the rejected queen’s utterance of aggrieved curses (A. 4.390). Perhaps most famously, the participle describes the golden bough, which, contrary to the Sibyl’s declaration, resists Aeneas’ eager grasp (A. 6.211). In the second half of the poem it describes Turnus’ reaction to Allecto’s true appearance (A. 7.449) and Aeneas’ hesitation as he con­ siders Turnus’ plea for mercy (A. 12.940). 33  See Glossary s.vv. durus, mollis. 34  See Glossary s.v. fouere. 35  Contra Edgeworth (1992) 116. See Glossary s.v. white. 36 Strong evidence supports the generally accepted conclusion that Propertius and Vergil had mutual access to works in progress prior to wider circulation: see Keith (2008) 10n.50, with further bibliography.

Wielding Passion as Power  91 allusively linked passages reveals a poetic exchange regarding the dynamics of genre being explored by each poet. In Propertius 2.18b, the lover asks a conditional question (Prop. 2.18b.5): quid mea si canis aetas candesceret annis (what if my youth were whitening with hoary years). Though its preceding lines are lost, the import of the question is clear from context: will the devotion of the puella, who scorns the youthful lover (tu etiam iuuenem odisti me, you even scorn me in youth, Prop. 2.18b.19) endure when he is ravaged by age? When the lover proceeds to describe the goddess Aurora embracing her husband Tithonus (Prop. 2.18b.7–18), the portrait of divine amor, like Vergil’s depiction of the seductive embrace of Venus, emphasizes the warmth of her touch (illum . . . fouit, she warmed him, Prop. 2.18b.9; cf. fouet, A. 8.387–88) and her enfolding arms (suis . . . in ulnis, in her arms, Prop. 2.18b.9; cf. lacertis, A. 8.387–88). Moreover, the whiteness of age envisioned by the lover corresponds to the alluring whiteness of Venus’ arms (canis . . . candesceret annis, whitening with white years, Prop. 2.18b.5; cf. niueis, A. 8.387). The two intertextually con­ nected passages have similar metapoetic significance, as each poet allusively engages with the concept of genre. Whereas Propertius emphasizes the amatory aspect of Aurora to suit the rhetoric of the elegiac lover, Vergil underscores her maternal aspect to suit the rhetoric of Venus, the epic genetrix. In the rhetorical entreaty of the Propertian lover, the tender intimacy of Aurora and Tithonus exemplifies the lasting, mutual devotion he aims to engender in the scornful puella. In Aeneid 8, Venus’ reference to Aurora reinforces her self-­identification as the solicitous mother of Vergil’s titular epic hero, while her seductive embrace of Vulcan, reminiscent of the elegiac Aurora and Tithonus, underscores her amatory aspect. Thus, Aurora’s tender embrace of Tithonus, Propertius’ model of amatory devotion, stands in intertextual contrast with the seductive embrace of the Vergilian Venus, an adulteress beguiling her divine coniunx to gain assistance for the offspring of an extramarital affair. On the metapoetic level, Aurora’s treatment of Tithonus emblematizes Propertius’ poetic commitment to elegy, while Venus’ treatment of Vulcan exemplifies Vergil’s experimental fluctuation between epic and elegiac poetics. In poem 2.22a, the Propertian amator deviates from monogamous devotion to polyamorous experimentation. Intertextual correspondences link the erotic ruminations of the elegiac lover to Venus’ encounter with Vulcan in Aeneid 8. The phrase lacertis fouere (to warm in the arms) describes both the warm embrace of a second puella, as envisioned by the lover, and that of Venus, as described during her seduction of Vulcan (altera me cupidis teneat foueatque lacertis, let another woman hold and warm me in her desirous arms, Prop. 2.22a.37; lacertis | . . . fouet, she warms him in her arms, A. 8.387–88). The collocation of labor and Venus in the lover’s declaration of sexual potency (haud umquam est culta labore Venus, by no means has Venus ever been worshipped with difficulty, Prop. 2.22a.22) con­ jures Venus’ rhetorical emphasis on her maternal distress over the suffering of

92  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Aeneas (quamuis . . . | . . . durum Aeneae fleuissem saepe laborem, though I had wept often for the severe hardship of Aeneas, A. 8.380). The amator suggests that having two girlfriends would impart a sense of security, just as having twins ameli­or­ates the anxieties of a mother (tutius et geminos anxia mater alit, and the anxious mother raises twins with a greater sense of security, Prop. 2.22a.42). The image of the anxia mater mirrors Vergil’s description of Venus as an exterrita mater (a mother stricken with terror, A. 8.370) striving to protect her only mortal son. Such conspicuous intertextual echoes elicit further comparison of the two interconnected passages. Whereas the elegiac lover veers from monogamous commitment to polyamorous abandon, Venus’ identity shifts from devoted genetrix and divine coniunx to formidable seductress and adulteress. The fluctuating identities of the Propertian amator and the Vergilian Venus have metapoetic implications. Through the portrait of a lover eager to expand his erotic horizons, Propertius alludes to his own interest in literary experimentation.37 In similar fashion, the coalescence of Venus’ epic and elegiac aspects in the seduction scene of Aeneid 8 exemplifies Vergil’s engagement with intergeneric poetics. Armed with the evidence at hand, I cannot be certain whether Propertius 2.18b and 2.22a influenced the Vergilian encounter between Venus and Vulcan, or it was the other way around. Nevertheless, the intertextual entanglement of the passages generates tantalizing evidence of an artistic exchange between Propertius and Vergil, that centres on the generic experimentation being explored by each poet. As Propertius alternately affirms and renounces his commitment to elegy, Vergil oscillates between generic registers that are distinct in theory but not in practice.

Elegiac Poetics in Vulcan’s Response to Venus Vergil accentuates the absolute triumph of Venus’ physical seduction through an unmistakably elegiac description of her amatory effect on her divine husband. Whereas Vulcan appears hesitant and slow to respond (cunctantem, A. 8.388) to the goddess’s lengthy rhetorical appeal (A. 8.374–86), the efficacy of her soft embrace and gleaming arms (A. 8.387–88) elicits instantaneous, severe elegiac symptoms of love (A. 8.388–90):38                                                              . . . ille repente accepit solitam flammam, notusque medullas intrauit calor et labefacta per ossa cucurrit. 37  As observed by Keith (2008) 103–5 in her discussion of the metapoetic, programmatic import of Prop. 2.22a. 38  See Glossary s.v. symptoms.

Wielding Passion as Power  93 [In an instant he has been pierced by the usual flame, and the well-­known heat has entered his marrow and travelled swiftly through his shaken bones.]

The conventional conceptualization of amor as fire ( flammam) and heat (calor) conveys in elegiac terms the desire that infects the marrow (medullas) and bones (ossa) of Vulcan.39 But Venus’ blistering conquest of Vulcan, whose epic mastery over fire Vergil reiterates throughout the crafting of arma (ignipotens, A. 8.414, 423; ignis, A. 8.410, 420, 430), vividly illustrates her irresistible, unrivalled ama­ tory power.40 Vergil’s emphatic insistence on Vulcan’s familiarity with Venus’ blazing erotic intensity (solitam flammam, notus . . . | . . . calor, A. 8.389–90) evokes the well-­established association of fire with amor in passages of his own elegiac experimentation (e.g. Dido in Aeneid 4, Turnus and Amata in Aeneid 7). The placement of flamma and notus before and after the main caesura allusively points to the Gallan poetics that inform Vergil’s engagement with elegy. Evidence amassed by Francis Cairns identifies notus as Gallus’ emblematic term for the renown of his verses.41 A Propertian passage verifies the intertextual resonance of flamma and notus, variations of which (ignotos . . . ignes) appear in a vituperative address that pointedly turns Gallus’ own words against him (et miser ignotos uestigia ferre per ignes, Prop. 1.5.3).42 Of course, the elegiac description of amor as penetrating fire is itself a recognizable inversion of Lucretius’ warning about the consuming devastation of ardor amantum (Lucr. 4.1077);43 it evokes the lover’s conventional rejection of erotodidactic precepts and its painful consequences. Thus, the fire motif activates elegiac and Lucretian associations that highlight Venus’ amatory aspect, while configuring Vulcan as an epic analogue for the heedless, suffering lover of elegy. The centrality of amor to the forging of epic arma is made abundantly clear, as Vulcan’s flames of arousal prefigure his compli­ ant craftsmanship in the forge.44 Venus, sensing Vulcan’s ardent reaction to her touch, rejoices in her wiles and beauty (A. 8.393): sensit laeta dolis et formae conscia coniunx (she felt it and was pleased with her trickery and conscious of her beauty as wife).45 In epic terms, the 39 See Glossary s.vv. bones/marrow, fever/fire/heat. Lada-­Richards (2006) 45 observes that the imagery of love as fire and heat penetrating the bones ‘are not only well-­known vestiges of amor on the body but also textual markers that Vergil’s Roman readers were well-­equipped to decipher as signifiers of an elegiac thematic intrusion into the poem’s epic flow’. 40  Paschalis (1997) 284 notes the irony of Venus’ use of fiery blandishments on the god of fire (ignipotens). Fire imagery is absent from Hera’s seduction of Zeus in Iliad 14 but characterizes Eros’ effect in Apollonius: see Nelis (2001) 340. 41  Cairns (2006) 78–9, 98–9. 42  I adhere to scholarly consensus and philological evidence in identifying the addressee of Prop. 1.5 as C. Cornelius Gallus: see Keith (2008) 66–7, with further bibliography. 43  See e.g. ardor (Lucr. 4.1086, 1098, 1116, 1216); flamma (4.1087); ardescere (4.1090). 44  As stated by Putnam (1995) 43, ‘the flames of arousal become the flames of the forge’. 45  It is tempting to view the phrase formae conscia coniunx as Venus’ metapoetic juxtaposition of her seductive, elegiac beauty and her status as wife. On the amatory resonance of forma, see Pichon s.v. forma.

94  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid mention of Venus’ deception (dolis) points to Hera’s similar erotic beguilement of Zeus in the Iliad (δολοφρονέουσα, Hom. Il. 14.329).46 In elegiac terms, Venus’ erotic subterfuge evokes the deceptive tactics that lovers use to shroud infidelity and trick unwitting husbands and rivals.47 When Venus beguiles Vulcan with pas­ sion to ensure Aeneas’ victory, her strategy grimly recalls her treacherous ama­ tory manipulation of Dido (dolis, A. 1.673; dolos, 1.682; dolo, 4.95). The goddess, having used her wiles to eliminate the erotic entanglement that thwarted Aeneas’ destiny, seduces Vulcan to ensure the eradication of Turnus, the obstacle to her son’s martial and amatory success. Moreover, Venus’ awareness of her beauty (formae conscia coniunx, A. 8.393) in the moment of her triumph over Vulcan allusively recalls her victory in the judgement of Paris, which Vergil cites as one of three amatory insults that fuels Juno’s hatred of the Trojans (spretaeque iniuria formae, the insult of her scorned beauty, A. 1.27; cf. coniunx, A. 1.47).48 Venus’ intratextual track record for amatory deception predicts the lethal consequences of her acquisition of divine weapons for Aeneas. By engendering Vulcan’s desire (amor), Venus obtains the martial accoutrements (arma) with which Aeneas annihilates Turnus (mors). Vergil reinforces the elegiac resonance of Venus’ doli through his description of Vulcan’s surrender to her masterful erotic deception (A. 8.394): tum pater aeterno fatur deuinctus amore (then the father bound by an eternal love speaks). Venus’ vanquishment of Vulcan is an intertextual reminder of her extramarital dalliance with Mars in Lucretius, as discussed above. The image of her Vergilian coniunx, bound by love (deuinctus amore, A. 8.394), evokes that of her Lucretian lover Mars (aeterno deuictus uolnere amoris, vanquished by an eternal wound of love, Lucr. 1.34). By alluding to Venus’ adulterous affair, Vergil amplifies the elegiac import of her deceptive manipulation (doli) of her husband Vulcan. Lucretius cleverly subverts Mars’ martial power (Mauors | armipotens, Lucr. 1.32–33) through the motif of militia amoris, describing the god as vanquished by Venus (deuictus, Lucr. 1.34).49 In his innovative imitation of the Lucretian model, Vergil ingeniously subverts Vulcan’s mastery of the forge by replacing the imagery of militia amoris with that of seruitium amoris.50 The god, who once fashioned invincible chains to entrap the adulterous Venus and Mars,51 finds himself bound 46  For discussion of Venus’ doli and Hera’s δόλοι, see Gransden (1976) 136 ad A. 8.393; Nelis (2001) 341; Casali (2006) 187–94. 47  See Glossary s.v. dolus/deception. 48  A detailed discussion of the catalogue of Juno’s amatory grievances appears in the Introduction. I am grateful to my anonymous reader for pointing out the possible connection between formae conscia coniunx (A. 8.393), spretaeque iniuria formae (A. 1.27), and et soror et coniunx (A. 1.47), particu­ larly given the allusion to Hera’s seduction of Zeus. 49  See Glossary s.v. militia amoris. Lyne (1987) 40 calls the application of deuictus to Mars ‘a witty paradox’. 50  See Glossary s.v. seruitium amoris. 51  Hephaestus’ crafting and setting of the chains is described in the song of Demodocus in Odyssey 8 (Hom. Od. 8.272–86, 8.296–99, 8.337).

Wielding Passion as Power  95 by eternal passion for Venus (aeterno deuinctus amore, A. 8.394), not a soldier, but a slave of love.52 Through intertextual interplay between Lucretian epic and amatory elegy, Vergil emphasizes Venus’ powers of erotic conquest, as her subju­ gation of Vulcan begets diuina arma, the most epic of spoils. Vulcan, dominated by desire, delivers a reassuring speech in which he prom­ ises to fulfil Venus’ request to the best of his ability (A. 8.395–404): ‘quid causas petis ex alto? fiducia cessit quo tibi, diua, mei? similis si cura fuisset, tum quoque fas nobis Teucros armare fuisset; nec pater omnipotens Troiam nec fata uetabant stare decemque alios Priamum superesse per annos. et nunc, si bellare paras atque haec tibi mens est, quidquid in arte mea possum promittere curae, quod fieri ferro liquidoue potest electro, quantum ignes animaeque ualent, absiste precando uiribus indubitare tuis.’ [‘Why do you seek reasons from long ago? Where, goddess, has your trust in me gone? If your concern had been similar, then too it would have been right for us to arm the Trojans. Neither the all-­powerful father not the fates were forbidding Troy to remain standing and Priam to survive for another ten years. And now, if you are preparing to wage war and this is your intention, whatever care I am able to promise in my technical skill, whatever can be fabricated from iron and liquid electrum, however much fires and bellows can accomplish, cease to doubt in your own powers by speaking as a suppliant.’]

In Vulcan’s speech, Vergil makes a sudden shift back into epic gear. Vulcan responds to Venus’ verbal appeal by rhetorically mirroring its epic themes and language. His references to the Trojan war and the present conflict in Italy echo those of his wife (A. 8.397–400; cf. 8.374–80, 8.383–86). The presence of armare (to arm, A. 8.397), bellare (to wage war, A. 8.400), and ferrum (iron, A. 8.402) in Vulcan’s speech evokes the surplus of lexical signifiers for epic interwoven throughout Venus’ entreaty (bellum, A. 8.374; reges, A. 8.374; arma, A. 8.376, 8.383; labor, A. 8.378, 8.380; durum, A. 8.380; ferrum, A. 8.386). But Vergil inte­ grates other aesthetic cues and effects that uncover the impatient desire lurking beneath Vulcan’s words. Whereas Venus emphatically repeats arma and labor (arma, A. 8.376, 8.383; labores, laborem, 8.378, 8.380), generic signposts for epic, Vulcan duplicates the word cura (A. 8.396, 8.401). Though Vulcan applies cura to 52  Pace Lada-­Richards (2006) 45–6. Cf. the chains of Venus in the context of erotic magic in Eclogue 8 (necte, Amarylli, modo et ‘Veneri’ dic ‘uincula necto’, bind, Amaryllis, now and say, ‘I bind the chains of Venus’, E. 8.78).

96  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Venus’ anxiety and his pledge of devoted attention, the earlier elegiac fluctuations in the scene recall its semantic association with amatory anxiety and desire.53 Three parallel clauses, introduced by quidquid, quod, and quantum (A. 8.401–03), appear in breathless asyndeton and end in excited anacoluthon, as the syntax of the speech collapses due to the god’s sexual agitation and impatient desire to make love.54 Furthermore, the assonance of qu- in the tricolon underscores the vigour of Vulcan’s words.55 The abrupt end of the speech in mid-­line indicates the god’s impatient desire to make love,56 and his muddled urgency is also reflected in the grammatical anomalies of the final half-­line, which features the unprece­ dented compound indubitare oddly paired with the dative.57 In addition to the illustrative composition of the speech, the flames and gusts of Vulcan’s forge (ignes animaeque, A. 8.403) resonate with his elegiac seduction: ignes echoes the flames of desire ignited by Venus’ warm touch (flammam, A. 8.389); and animae evokes Venus’ erotic inspiration prior to her speech (aspirat amorem, A. 8.373). Vergil’s alternation between epic and elegiac aesthetics illustrates the thematic im­port­ ance of amor, as the flames of arousal incite Vulcan to forge the desired arma.

Conclusion After Vulcan promises to craft the weapons for Aeneas, his fervent physical long­ ing culminates in sexual union with Venus (A. 8.404–06):58                                               ea uerba locutus optatos dedit amplexus placidumque petiuit coniugis infusus gremio per membra soporem. [Having said these words he gave her desired embraces and poured in the lap of his wife sought calm sleep throughout his limbs.] 53  See Glossary s.v. cura. 54  For discussion of the anacoluthon and the association of the shift in syntax with the emotional disposition of the aroused god, see Eden (1975) 123 ad A. 8.404; Gransden (1976) 137 ad A. 8.401–04; Fordyce (1977) 250 ad A. 8.404; Lyne (1987) 41. 55  Fordyce (1977) 250 ad A. 8.403. 56  Gransden (1976) 137 ad A. 8.401–04. 57  The compound indubitare first occurs here and is a surprising coinage, as in- is not the norma­ tive negative prefix and the simple verb dubitare is not used with the dative in the sense of diffidere, which is the meaning of the compound here: see Servius ad A. 8.403; Eden (1975) 123 ad A. 8.404; Fordyce (1977) 250 ad A. 8.404; Lyne (1987) 41; Horsfall (2000) 217 ad A. 7.311; Fratantuono and Smith (2018) 498 ad A. 8.404. The only other extant occurrence of indubitare is in the closural panel of Statius Siluae 3.5 (indubito, Stat. Silu. 3.5.110), a passage that appears to engage heavily with Vergil’s encounter between Venus and Vulcan (cf. coniunx, genetrix, adnecto, carissima coniunx, Stat. Silu. 3.5.106–110). 58  For discussion of the response of ancient critics to the allusive description of the act of sexual intercourse (coniugis infusus gremio, poured in the lap of his wife, A. 8.405–06), see Eden (1975) 123–4 ad A. 8.405 f.; Jocelyn (1984) 20–1; Lyne (1987) 40.

Wielding Passion as Power  97 The embraces (amplexus, A. 8.405) shared by Vulcan and Venus in the final lines of the seduction scene trace back to its beginning (A. 8.369): nox ruit et fuscis tellurem amplectitur alis (night has fallen and embraces the earth with its dark wings).59 Vergil thus fashions a suitably evocative frame for an intergeneric encounter, in which Venus inflames Vulcan with her soft, elegiac embrace (amplexu molli, A. 8.388) in an extraordinary display of amatory conquest. But these same embraces also prefigure Venus’ delivery of the arma to Aeneas (A. 8.615–16): et amplexus nati Cytherea petiuit, | arma sub aduersa posuit radiantia quercu (And the Cytherean goddess sought the embraces of her son, and she set the shining arms beneath the facing oak tree).60 The goddess’s gleaming appearance (dea candida, A. 8.608) as she bestows the arma intratextually evokes the snowy arms in which she enfolded Vulcan to motivate his fabrication of Aeneas’ divine weapons (niueis . . . lacertis, A. 8.387). The reverberation of amplexus petiuit (A. 8.405, 8.615) and the repeated emphasis on Venus’ chromatic splendour (niueis, A. 8.387; candida, A. 8.608) establish the crucial link between Venus’ momentous presentation of divine epic armaments to Aeneas and the amatory power she used to acquire them.61 Vergil thus constructs a narrative tra­ jectory within Aeneid 8 that hinges unequivocally on Venus’ multiplicity of iden­ tity. In order to fulfil her epic role as Aeneas’ genetrix, the goddess unleashes her amatory arsenal.

An Ovidian Denouement By means of a short addendum, I briefly consider the intertextual dynamics between Vergil’s scene of divine seduction and Ovid’s metapoetical musing about the apparent contradiction in terms presented by Venus’ marriage to Vulcan (Ov. Am. 2.17.19–22): Vulcani Venus est, quamuis incude relicta     turpiter obliquo claudicet ille pede; carminis hoc ipsum genus impar, sed tamen apte     iungitur herous cum breuiore modo.

59  The phrase fuscis alis appears at the same metrical position in Vergil’s description of Allecto just prior to her infuriation of Turnus (A. 7.408). 60  The difference in syntactical relationship does not obscure the repetition. 61  The narrative link, in my view, does not add an erotic dimension to Venus’ encounter with Aeneas. Contra Putnam (1995) 43, who suggests that there is seductive/erotic language in the hand­ over of arms, and that Venus must ‘seduce Vulcan at the creation, Aeneas at the acceptance, of the arms’.

98  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid [Venus belongs to Vulcan, in spite of the fact that when he has left the anvil he limps unattractively with foot awry. This genre of poetry is itself unequal, but nevertheless the heroic measure is fittingly married with the shorter one.]

Ovid analogously compares the inequality of elegy’s alternating hexameter and pentameter lines to the imbalance of physical perfection between Venus and Vulcan.62 In metapoetic terms, the unequal but expedient union of the divine couple endorses Ovid’s programmatic affiliation to the elegiac couplet. The exem­ plum of Venus and Vulcan also bolsters pivotal aspects of Ovid’s elegiac rhetoric in the broader context of the poem. Ovid refutes negative appraisals of the lover’s enslavement to the puella (seruire puellae, to be a slave to a girlfriend, Ov. Am. 2.17.1) and declares his own submission to Corinna (dominae, Ov. Am. 2.17.5). His citation of Venus and Vulcan to support his amatory subservience evokes Vergil’s use of the elegiac motif of seruitium amoris to characterize Vulcan as bound by amor for Venus (deuinctus amore, A. 8.394). Ovid, who chastises Corinna for scorning his inferiority, encourages her to receive him (me . . . accipe, Ov. Am. 2.17.23) by utilizing the example of Venus and Vulcan to extol the min­ gling of ‘lesser and greater things’ (aptari magnis inferiora licet, Ov. Am. 2.17.14).63 Earlier in this chapter, I demonstrated the intertextual and metapoetic connec­ tions between Propertius’ changeable amator, who emblematizes the poet’s fluc­ tuating commitment to elegy (Prop. 2.18b, 2.22a), and Vergil’s protean Venus, who exemplifies his oscillation between epic and elegiac poetics. Ovid alludes to the Vergilian encounter between Venus and Vulcan as he articulates his thematic devotion to the elegiac domina and his aesthetic avowal of poetic amores. His intertextual rhetoric evinces his recognition of and response to the intergeneric poetics of Vergil’s seduction scene in Aeneid 8. The paradigmatic reference to the assymetrical union of Venus and Vulcan perfectly encapsulates the fusion of ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’, martial and amatory, epic and elegiac material that animates the Vergilian goddess’s vanquishment of her divine coniunx. Ovid’s ingenious intertextual interplay acknowledges the innovative, intergeneric brilliance of Vergil’s encounter between Venus and Vulcan, in which amor begets the titular arma of the Italian Iliad.

62  See McKeown (1998) 374–5 ad Am. 2.17.19–22. 63  See McKeown (1998) 367–8 ad Am. 2.17.1–2.

4 Warriors in Love Passion and Death in the Catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10

In his invocation to Erato (A. 7.37–45), Vergil provides an allusive preview of the two epic catalogues that appear in the Italian Iliad (A. 7.42–44): dicam acies actosque animis in funera reges, Tyrrhenamque manum totamque sub arma coactam Hesperiam. [I will tell of battle arrays, and of kings driven by courage to their deaths, and of the Tyrrhenian host, and all of Hesperia assembled under arms.]

His references to the Tyrrhenian host (Tyrrhenam . . . manum, A. 7.43) and all of Hesperia (totamque . . . | Hesperiam, A. 7.43–44) correspond chiastically to the account of the mustering Italian forces at the end of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.641–817) and the presentation of the fleet of Aeneas’ Etruscan allies in Aeneid 10 (A. 10.163–214).1 Vergil’s appeal to Erato, a muse evocative of amor and poetic amores (Nunc age, qui reges, Erato, Come now, Erato, who the kings were, A. 7.37; Chapter 1), and his grim forecast of death (actosque animis in funera regres, kings driven by courage to their deaths, A. 7.42) programmatically announce his in­nova­tive, intergeneric treatment of the conventional epic catalogue in his maius opus.2 By incorporating elements from amatory and funerary elegy, Vergil creates a palpable generic and thematic tension that underscores the crucial connection between amor, arma, and mors that endures throughout Aeneid 7–12.

Intergeneric Poetics in the Catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10 Vergil further delineates the corresponding artistic programme of the two cata­logues by introducing them with the same invocation (A. 7.641, 10.163): Pandite nunc 1  For an overview of the structure and content of each catalogue, see Harrison (1991) 106–11 ad A. 10.163–214; Horsfall (2000) 414–22 ad A. 7.641–817. 2  Harrison (1991) 107 observes that the individual stories of the catalogue in Aeneid 10 provide Vergil with ‘an opportunity for literary adornment’.

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0005

100  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Helicona, deae, cantusque mouete (now, goddesses, throw open Helicon, and set songs in motion). As he entreats the Muses to grant access to Helicon, the mythological locus of Hesiodic initiation, Vergil emphasizes his commitment to Callimachean aesthetics, even as he embarks on the Telchinian task of composing an epic catalogue.3 A programmatic addendum in the more extensive invocation of Aeneid 7 underpins the importance of Callimachean slenderness to Vergil’s artistic process (A. 7.646): ad nos uix tenuis famae perlabitur aura (to us after much effort glides the slender breeze of the story).4 Consonant with the under­ lying poetics of his programmatic invocation, Vergil embellishes his epic cata­ logues with stylized Hellenistic episodes informed by the slender Callimachean poetics of contemporary Latin elegy.5 A passage in Macrobius’ Saturnalia criticizes Vergil’s Alexandrian approach to the conventional epic catalogue, citing his deviation from Homeric grauitas (Macr. 5.15.1): eundem auctorem suum conatus imitari in non nullis paululum a grauitate Homerica deuiauit (having tried to imitate his same model, he deviated in several things a little from the weight of Homer).6 Of particular interest is the censure of Vergil for listing minor heroes who do not play significant roles in the martial narrative (Macr. 5.15.7–9).7 A statistical analysis of the fifteen individuals listed in the catalogue of Italian forces reveals that five reappear but perish before the end of the Aeneid (Mezentius, Lausus, Halaesus, Turnus, Camilla), three van­ ish from the text (Aventinus, Oebalus, Virbius), and seven are last seen embroiled in battle (Catillus, Coras, Caeculus, Messapus, Clausus, Ufens, Umbro).8 In the case of the Etruscan catalogue, two of the eight leaders reappear but perish before the end of the Aeneid (Abas and Aulestes), five vanish from the text (Massicus, Astur, Cinyrus, Cupauo, Ocnus), and one makes a final appearance on the battle­ field (Asilas).9 Thus, Vergil predominantly enumerates warriors who either explicitly die in battle (seven of twenty-­three) or who figuratively perish from the text (eight of twenty-­three). Even those who survive cling precariously to life as they face their enemies in combat (eight of twenty-­three). 3  For Callimachus’ programmatic emphasis on Hesiod, as expressed through the dream of his poetic initiation, see Call. Aet. 1 frr. 1, 2 Harder. O’Hara (1989) 35–8 discusses the Hellenistic nature of the catalogue of Italian heroes, which he calls the ‘most Alexandrian section of the Aeneid’. 4  On the adjective tenuis as a programmatic term for the slender style of elegy as informed by Callimachus’ ‘slender Muse’ (Μοῦσαν . . . λεπαλέην, Call. fr. 1.24 Harder), see Ross (1975) 26–7; Lyne (1995) 100–1; Hunter (2006) 34; Keith (2008) 36, 74–8. 5  On the elegiac mediation of Callimachus and Gallus’ adaptation of Callimachean diction and imagery into Latin, see Cairns (2006) 120–31 and Keith (2008) 66, both with further bibliography. 6  The precise identity and chronology of Macrobius remains a mystery: see Conte (1996) 629–31. Horsfall (2000) 414–15 ad A. 7.641–817 discusses the ‘typically amusing and unfair’ and ‘unnecessar­ ily harsh’ assessment of the Italian catalogue in Macrobius’ Saturnalia. 7  On the heroes listed in each catalogue, see Harrison (1991) 106–7 ad A. 10.163–214; Horsfall (2000) 415 ad A. 7.641–817. 8 On the intergeneric dynamics of the lament for Umbro within the catalogue of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.750–60), see Dinter (2005) 166–8, with further bibliography. 9  Harrison (1991) 106–7 ad A. 10.163–214 observes that by contrast to the conventional epic cata­logue, the purpose of which was to identify major participants in the forthcoming action, the Etruscan catalogue introduces heroes without significant roles.

Warriors in Love  101 Moreover, in the catalogue of Aeneid 7 Vergil gives special prominence to the five warriors who perish before the end of the poem: he frames the catalogue with an initial commemoration of Mezentius and Lausus (A. 7.647–54) and final portraits of Turnus and Camilla (A. 7.783–92, 7.803–17); and he devotes the central panel to Halaesus (A. 7.723–32).10 The excoriation of Vergil in Macrobius for listing predominantly minor heroes not only overlooks the impactful appearances of Mezentius, Lausus, Turnus, and Camilla in the frame of the Italian catalogue but also passes over entirely the thematic and aesthetic nuance of the two Vergilian martial rosters. Indeed, Vergil’s disproportionate focus on annihilated warriors draws attention to the enormous human cost of arma and emphasizes the programmatic centrality of mors to the Italian Iliad, as established through the epitaphic address to Caieta (A. 7.1–4). Furthermore, the depiction of lesser-­ known heroes gives Vergil tremendous latitude for poetic experimentation.11 His de­vi­ation from the grauitas of the Homeric model, far from being a failed attempt at emulation, stems from his programmatic vision of a catalogue that embraces Alexandrian refinement and intergeneric play (Pandite nunc Helicona, throw open Helicon, A. 7.641, 10.163). Vergil embellishes his catalogues in Aeneid 7 and 10 with mythological vignettes that showcase his experimentation with elegiac aesthetics and themes: he commemorates the Italian youth Virbius by recounting the aetiological origins of his father Hippolytus/Virbius (A. 7.761–82);12 and he commemorates the Ligurian leaders Cinyrus and Cupauo by recounting the aetiological myth of Cycnus (A. 10.185–97). The legendary ancestry of Virbius, son of Hippolytus/ Virbius, and Cupauo, son of Cycnus, provides an opportunity for intergeneric mythological experimentaion. As the thematic and aesthetic cornerstone for the Italian and Etruscan catalogues, Vergil fashions two erudite aetiological narratives, infused with elegiac vocabulary and topoi, that present the resurrection and Italian relocation of Hippolytus/Virbius (A. 7.765–77) and the avian trans­fig­ur­ ation of Cycnus (A. 10.185–88). The two myths have a specific programmatic function in their respective catalogues as vivid aesthetic and thematic illustra­ tions of the teleogical progression from amor to mors. Embedded within the martial spectacle of mustering forces, the stylized digressions encapsulate in miniature the productive tension between arma, amor, and mors that animates the entire Italian Iliad. Framing the two mythological digressions are four verses introducing the sons of Hippolytus/Virbius and Cycnus (A. 7.761–64, 10.185–88) and a short panel devoted to each filius (filius . . . | . . . ruebat, A. 7.781–82; filius . . . | . . . carina,

10  On the alphabetical arrangement of the catalogue in Aeneid 7, see O’Hara (1989) 35–8. 11  As Harrison (1991) 107 ad A. 10.163–214 observes, the individual stories of the Italian and Etruscan heroes ‘give an opportunity for literary ornament, introducing antiquarian material and mythological digressions’. 12  In passages where the shared name of father and son might cause confusion, I refer to the Italian youth/filius as Virbius and to his father as Hippolytus/Virbius.

102  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid A. 10.194–97). Similar in structure, the vignettes commemorating the youth Virbius and the Ligurian leaders are also the longest in their respective catalogues, even when compared to those of principal figures. Vergil devotes significantly more verses to Virbius (22 verses, A. 7.761–92) than to the five warriors who receive pride of place at the beginning, middle, and end of the Italian catalogue: Mezentius and Lausus (8 verses, A. 7.647–54); Halaesus (10 verses, A. 7.723–32); Turnus (10 verses, A. 7.783–92); and Camilla (15 verses, A. 7.803–17). In the Etruscan catalogue, the Ligurian digression (13 verses, A. 10.185–97) surpasses Vergil’s tribute to his birthplace in the Ocnus/Mantua vignette (9 verses, A. 10.198–206).13 Vergil further reinforces the correspondence between the two passages by introducing them with the same Alexandrian footnote (namque ferunt, for they say, A. 7.765, 10.189).14 The plural verb ferunt (they say) repre­ sents the multiplicity of models informing each episode, as Vergil mediates the Hellenistic elegiac works of Callimachus and Phanocles through the poetics of contemporary Latin elegy, with particular emphasis on Gallus.15 Set against the backdrop of mobilizing Italian and Etruscan heroes, Vergil’s mythological digres­ sions showcase his virtuosic intergeneric facility, enhancing the aesthetic appeal of the catalogues. Moreover, the embedded tales of amor and mors reverberate thematically against the martial epic context, evoking the conflicting amores inciting the war and the brutal loss that characterizes the conflict for which the Italians and Etruscans muster.

Elegiac Amor and Mors in the Catalogue of Aeneid 7: Hippolytus/Virbius (A. 7.761–77) In the catalogue of Aeneid 7, Vergil introduces Virbius, the son of Hippolytus/ Virbius, with an account of his lineage, place of origin, and divine associations (A. 7.761–64): Ibat et Hippolyti proles pulcherrima bello, Virbius, insignem quem mater Aricia misit, eductum Egeriae lucis umentia circum litora, pinguis ubi et placabilis ara Dianae. 13  The other listed Etruscan heroes (Massicus, Abas, Asilas, Astur, Aulestes) receive between four and six verses: see Harrison (1991) 107–8 ad A. 10.163–214. 14  See Macrobius on A. 10.189, which may reflect an awareness of the allusive footnote (Macr. 5.14.16): nec uetustissima tacuit, quin et ipsa notitiae nostrae auctoris sui imitator ingereret (nor does he pass over in silence the most ancient things, but rather even thrusts these very things into our awareness as imitator of his model). 15  Virtually nothing is known about Phanocles (c. third century bce), who composed an elegiac poem on the unhappy passions of heroes and deities for beloved boys entitled Ἔρωτες ἢ Καλοί (Loves and Beautiful Youths): see Hopkinson (1988) 177–9.

Warriors in Love  103 [There goes also to war the most beautiful offspring of Hippolytus, Virbius, whom, remarkable in appearance, his mother Aricia sent, having been reared in the groves of Egeria around the wet shores, where there is a rich and appeasable altar of Diana.]

In terms of its content, the passage reflects the typical pattern of heroic introduc­ tions within martial catalogues. Yet Vergil’s emphasis on Virbius’ exceptional beauty (pulcherrima, most beautiful, A. 7.761; insignem, remarkable in appear­ ance, A. 7.762) has particular significance both within the catalogue of Aeneid 7 and across the entire epic.16 The superlative appearance of Virbius, as denoted by the adjective pulcher, links him intratextually to two other heroes commemorated in the account of the Italian forces: Lausus ‘than whom no other was more beauti­ ful with the exception of Laurentine Turnus’ physique’ (quo pulchrior alter | non fuit excepto Laurentis corpore Turni, A. 7.649–50); and Aventinus, the ‘beautiful son of beautiful Hercules’ (satus Hercule pulchro | pulcher Aventinus, A. 7.656–57; cf. ante alios pulcherrimus omnis | Turnus, Turnus above all others most hand­ some, A. 7.55–56). With striking consistency, the eroticized heroes suffer eventual annihilation. Whereas Lausus perishes by Aeneas’ hand (A. 10.819–20), Aventinus and Virbius vanish from the text, never to be seen again.17 Thus, Virbius and his intratextual counterparts exemplify the obliteration of beautiful young warriors that underscores the human cost of arma throughout the Italian Iliad.18 In the aetiological myth that follows, Vergil explains the exclusion of horses from the Arician grove through the tale of Hippolytus’ transformation into Virbius, the father of the Italian youth Virbius (A. 7.765–77).19 The Alexandrian footnote namque ferunt (for they say, A. 7.765) allusively acknowledges the Callimachean source material for the aetion (Servius ad A. 7.778): nam Callimachus scripsit αἴτια, in quibus etiam hoc commemorat (for Callimachus wrote the aetia, in which he, too, recounts this one).20 Vergil, as Nicholas Horsfall observes, creates a passage full of Hellenistic colouring in imitation of Callimachus’ 16  Horsfall (2000) 82–3 ad A. 7.54; 323 ad A. 7.477; 427 ad A. 7.649; 431 ad A. 7.656; 496 ad A. 7.761 discusses the ‘curiously insistent pulchritude of the Vergilian hero’, finding it ‘just a little over­ done’ for his taste. Harrison (1991) 162 ad A. 10.345–46 connects the exceptional beauty of Astur (pulcherrimus Astur, most beautiful Astur, A. 10.180) in the catalogue of Aeneid 10 to the Homeric idealization of the warrior’s physique. 17  Like Aventinus and Virbius, Astur (pulcherrimus Astur, most beautiful, A. 10.180) disappears from the text. 18  Among the youthful warriors who are distinguished by beauty and devastated by mors in Aeneid 7–12 are Camilla (A. 11), Euryalus (A. 9), Lausus (A. 10), Pallas (A. 10), and Turnus (A. 12). In Aeneid 6, Vergil contemplates with sorrow the shade of beautiful Marcellus in the underworld (A. 6.861–86). On the death of the young in the Aeneid, see also Reed (2007). 19 On the legends surrounding Aricia, Egeria, and Hippolytus/Virbius, see Frazer (1955) 1–5; Horsfall (2000) 494–5 ad A. 7.761–82. 20  On the treatment of Hippolytus/Virbius in Callimachus and possibly Varro’s Aetia, see Call. Aet. fr. 190 Harder; Horsfall (2000) 495 ad A. 7.761–82. I have printed the lower-­case form αἴτια, as it appears in Thilo-­Hagen; cf. Αἴτια in Call. Aet. fr. 190 Harder (= fr. 190 Pfeiffer).

104  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid reinterpretation of material from Euripides’ Hippolytus.21 For the aesthetic expression of the Hippolytus/Virbius aetion, however, Vergil looks to the more recent treatment of the Euripidean material in Gallan elegy. The inter­text­ual connection between Gallus’ soliloquy in Eclogue 10 (E. 10.55–60) and that of the lovesick Phaedra in Euripides (Eur. Hipp. 215–22) provides indirect evidence for the influence of the Hippolytus on the elegist’s poetic vision.22 Furthermore, Gallus’ transformation of tragic material through elegiac deformazione, likely informed by Callimachus’ Aetia, may have been a crucial stage in the development of conventional generic themes, including the sickness of love, the retreat to the wilderness, and the vanquishing power of amor.23 In the Italian cata­logue, the metamorphosis and absorption of Hippolytus/Virbius into the Italian mythological landscape metapoetically evoke Gallus’ generic transmogrification and assimila­ tion of Greek source material into Latin elegy. Vergil allusively commemorates Gallus and his elegies throughout his aetio­ logical tale, by replicating in miniature the vocabulary and themes of Eclogues 6 and 10. The extensive repetition of vocabulary from Eclogues 6 and 10 within the mythological digression about Hippolytus/Virbius is starkly visible in the anno­ tated passage below: lexical items that recur either in the same precise form or with morphological changes are indicated with underlining (Eclogue 6) and bold type (Eclogue 10); and words that appear in italics are those which closely replicate in sound and/or form words or phrases from the two eclogues, as specified in the accompanying footnotes (A. 7.765–77): namque24 ferunt fama Hippolytum, postquam arte nouercae occiderit patriasque25 explerit sanguine26 poenas turbatis distractus equis, ad sidera rursus aetheria et superas caeli uenisse sub auras, Paeoniis reuocatum herbis et amore Dianae. tum pater omnipotens aliquem indignatus27 ab umbris mortalem infernis ad lumina28 surgere uitae, ipse repertorem medicinae talis et artis

21  See Horsfall (2000) 495 ad A. 7.761–82, who provides an overview of the intertextual resonance of the Hippolytus/Virbius digression. 22  See Conte (1986) 122–3; Clausen (1994) 308 ad E. 10.55. 23  See Conte (1986) 122–3n.22, who discusses the relationship between Greek tragedy and Latin love poetry; Courtney (1993) 270 ad Gall. fr. 3.56–60. See Glossary s.vv. hunting, symptoms. 24  Cf. esp. namque canebat (for he was singing, E. 6.31). 25 Cf. procul a patria (far from the fatherland, E. 10.46). 26 Cf. sanguineis . . . moris (with blood red mulberries, E. 6.22); sanguineis . . . bacis (with blood-­red berries, E. 10.27). 27 Cf. dignata est (she deigned, E. 6.1); indigno . . . amore (because of unrequited love, E. 10.10). 28 Cf. ad flumina (near the streams, E. 6.64), ad flumina (near the streams, E. 10.18).

Warriors in Love  105 fulmine Phoebigenam29 Stygias detrusit ad undas. at Triuia Hippolytum secretis alma recondit30 sedibus et nymphae Egeriae nemorique relegat,31 solus ubi in siluis Italis ignobilis aeuum exigeret uersoque ubi nomine Virbius esset. [For they say in the story that Hippolytus, after he perished because of his step­ mother’s plot and satisfied with his blood the punishment demanded by his father, torn apart by panicked horses, went to the celestial stars and came back again beneath the upper air of the sky, recalled by Paeon’s healing herbs and Diana’s love. Then the omnipotent father himself, indignant that any mortal has risen from the infernal shades to the light of life, with his thunderbolt drove the discoverer of such healing skill, Phoebus-­born, to the Stygian waters. But Trivia kindly conceals Hippolytus in a secret abode and sends him away to the nymph Egeria and her grove, where alone in the Italian woods he could spend his life unknown and where, with his name changed, he could be Virbius.]

The cumulative assemblage of repeated words and phrases reproduces the aes­ thetic tone of the panegyric eclogues devoted to Gallus, inviting contemplation of potential intergeneric play within the aetiological episode. Indeed, Vergil inter­ weaves the passage with numerous verbal complexes and themes that are emblematic of Gallus and his elegiac Amores. The word nota (familiar, well-­known, renowned),32 concealed as an acrostic within the first four lines of the Hippolytus/Virbius fama (n-­o-­t-­a, A. 7.765–68),33 alludes to the literary diffusion of the tale (fama, A. 7.765), reinforcing the pro­ grammatic import of the concurrent Alexandrian footnote (n-amque ferunt, for they say, A. 7.765). More precisely, the presence of nota signals Vergil’s engagement with Gallus. In his study of Gallan terminology and concepts, Francis Cairns has identified the importance of nomen, notus, and their cognates (e.g. nobilis) as  intertextual markers for Gallan appropriation in the elegiac poetry of Propertius and Ovid.34 A characteristic example in Ovid features conspicuous 29 Cf. Apollo (E. 6.73, 10.21, both at line end); Phoebo (E. 6.11, 6.29, 6.82); Phoebi (E. 6.66). Horsfall (2000) 501–2 ad A. 7.773 prefers the variant poenigenam. 30 Cf. tristia condere bella (to compose sorrowful wars, E. 6.7); Chalcidico quae sunt mihi condita uersu (which have been composed in my Chalcidician verse, E. 10.50). 31 Cf. quae legat ipsa Lycoris (of the sort which Lycoris herself may read, E. 10.2). The fact that relegat and legat are formed from different verbs does not preclude wordplay between them. See Ahl (1985) 54–60, who provides an overview of certain differences in vowel length and form that are not obstacles to ancient wordplay. On ancient etymological play with words that exhibit similarity but have different vowel quantities, see also O’Hara (2017) 61–2. 32 See OLD s.v. notus 5–6. 33  For recent discussions of acrostics in Vergil, see Feeney and Nelis (2005); Grishin (2008); Katz (2008); Somerville (2010); Adkin (2012); Adkin (2014); Adkin (2015a); Adkin (2015b); O’Hara (2017) 21, with further bibliography, 264 ad G. 1.427–35; Robinson (2019), with further bibliography; Wright (2019); Adkin (forthcoming); Hejduk (forthcoming). 34  See Cairns (2006) 84–85, 98–100.

106  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid repetition of both Gallus’ name and notus, combined with the East–­West topos also associated with the elegist (Ov. Am. 1.15.29–30): Gallus et Hesperiis et Gallus notus Eois | et sua cum Gallo nota Lycoris erit (Gallus will be known to the lands of the West and Gallus will be known to the lands of the East, and with Gallus will be known his own Lycoris).35 Strikingly, Ovid makes a similar gesture in the first verse of his own version of the Hippolytus/Virbius myth in Fasti 6, allusively con­ firming its Gallan associations (Ov. Fast. 6.737): notus amor Phaedrae, nota est iniuria Thesei (known is the love of Phaedra, known is the injurious act of Theseus).36 Vergil balances the initial Gallan gesture encoded in the acrostic (n-­o-­t-­a, A. 7.765–68) by placing cognates of nomen in vertical juxtaposition in the final two verses of the passage (A. 7.776–77): solus ubi in siluis Italis ignobilis aeuum | exigeret uersoque ubi nomine Virbius esset (where alone in the Italian woods he could spend his life unknown and where, with his name changed, he could be Virbius).37 Thus, marked intertextual wordplay with nomen in the frame of Vergil’s aetiological digression alludes to its Gallan provenance and demarcates the boundaries of its elegiac intrusion into the epic context of the catalogue. Another Gallan verbal complex (condere–­solus–­silua) appears in the descrip­ tion of Diana’s protective actions following the resurrection of Hippolytus. The goddess conceals Hippolytus (recondit, A. 7.774) and relegates him to the Egerian grove (Egeriae nemorique relegat, A. 7.775),38 where he can live alone and unrec­ ognized in the forests (solus ubi in siluis Italis ignobilis aeuum | exigeret, A. 7.776–77). A comparison with other Vergilian passages informed by Gallan poetics reveals a similar collocation of verb forms related to condere (to compose, to conceal), the adjective solus (alone, lonely), and the noun silua (forest). Corydon, the herdsman-­cum-­suffering elegiac lover of Eclogue 2, appears in ­isolation uttering his artless amatory lament to the surrounding mountains and forests (E. 2.4–5): ibi haec incondita solus | montibus et siluis studio iactabat inani (there alone he kept throwing out to the mountains and forests these poorly wrought songs/words with useless zeal). The speech of Gallus in Eclogue 10 also features the same elements in close succession: the amator incongruously ascribes

35  See Courtney (1993) 261; Cairns (2006) 98; Hollis (2007) 221, 234 ad Gall. fr. 140. 36 Littlewood (2006) 215–16 ad Ov. Fast. 6.737 identifies the anaphora notus . . . nota as an Alexandrian footnote. The balanced structure of Ovid’s Gallan gesture in Fasti 6 calls to mind that of Ars Amatoria 3.536–37, which combines the nomen complex and the East–­West topos: nomen habet Nemesis, Cynthia nomen habet | Vesper et Eoae nouere Lycorida terrae (Nemesis has renown, Cynthia has renown, the West and the Eastern lands know Lycoris). See also Hollis (2007) 232 ad Gall. fr. 139, who contemplates the Gallan resonance of Ovid’s description of Hippolytus bathing his wounds in the underworld in Metamorphoses 15 (Ov. Met. 15.532). 37  Horsfall (2000) 504 ad A. 7.777 identifies uersoque ubi nomine as ‘a distinctly but not exclusively Callimachean metonomasia’. See also O’Hara (2017) 198–9 ad A. 7.761–69, 774–77. 38  The noun nemus (grove), which appears numerous times in Eclogues 6 and 10, may have signifi­ cance in relation to Gallan imagery and poetics of initiation, particularly within his poem on the Grynean grove: see Ross (1975) 32–6, 79–80; Cairns (2006) 120–9, 134–5.

Warriors in Love  107 his solitude to Lycoris (me sine sola uides, without me alone you see, E. 10.48);39 he envisions the pastoral conversion of his poetic compositions (Chalcidico quae sunt mihi condita uersu | carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor auena, I will play on the pipe of a Sicilian herdsman the songs which have been composed in my Chalcidician verse, E. 10.50–51);40 and he declares his preference to endure erotic suffering in the woods (in siluis, E. 10.52). Corydon and Gallus, Vergil’s suffering amatores, rehearse the sequestration in the wilderness that becomes conventional to Latin elegy by way of a lost Gallan source.41 The proximal application of (in) condita to the poetic output of Corydon and Gallus (incondita, poorly wrought, E. 2.4; condita, composed, E. 10.50) associates the verb condere (to compose) with the composition of elegiac verse.42 The metapoetic marker siluae (forests) points to the intergeneric complexity of the wilderness isolation of Corydon and Gallus (siluis, E. 2.5; in siluis, E. 10.52), denoting both Vergil’s pastoral achievement in the Eclogues and his allusive reworking of Gallan elegiac source material (silua ≈ materia) within them.43 In the account of Hippolytus’ transformation into Virbius, the verb recondit (she conceals, A. 7.774), together with the phrase solus in siluis (alone in the woods, A. 7.776) adds metapoetic elegiac colour. When Diana preserves Hippolytus by isolating him in the woods and disguising his identity, she emblematizes Vergil’s intergeneric concealment of Gallan elegiac poetics, mediated through his pastoral achievement in Eclogues 2 and 10, within the recomposition (≈ recondita) of the Hippolytus/Virbius myth in Aeneid 7. Vergil embellishes the aetiological narrative with elegiac flourishes that underscore the thematic trajectory from amor to mors. Whereas Phaedra’s passion leads to Hippolytus’ death, the love of Diana motivates his resurrection, while in­dir­ect­ly condemning Asclepius to the underworld. In the opening lines of the episode, the machinations of the lovesick Phaedra are implicated as the cause of

39  The rare postposition of sine (without) emphasizes the solitude of the amator by separating me (≈ Gallus) from sola (≈ Lycoris). On Gallan resonance of the phrase me sine sola uides and its metrical correspondence to the second half of a pentameter, see Coleman (1977) 288 ad E. 10.46 ff.; Courtney (1993) 268 ad Gall. fr. 3; Clausen (1994) 305 ad E. 10.48; Cairns (2006) 115; Hollis (2007) 221, 236 ad Gall. fr. 141. 40  Cf. the appearance of condere (to compose) in the programmatic opening lines of Eclogue 6 (tristia condere bella, to compose sorrowful battles, E. 6.7), juxtaposed with Vergil’s declared intention to compose pastoral verse (agrestem tenui meditabor harundine musam, I will compose rustic music with my slender reed pipe, E. 6.8). 41  See Cairns (2006) 135–40. In my discussion, I pass over Propertius 1.18, which does not contain the specific condere–­solus–­silua complex that informs Vergil’s Gallan poetics. For discussion of the other Gallan motifs that appear in Propertius 1.18, see Cairns (2006) 110–20. 42  Cairns (2006) 83–89 discusses condere/conditor in relation to the Gallan phrase Romanae historiae, which he suggests informs manifestations of the word historia in Latin elegy, positing that elegiac collocations of conditor/conditur and historia derive from a lost Gallan passage. On the literary critical application of inconditus as indicative of inferior composition, see OLD s.v. inconditus 1–2. 43  Lipka (2001) 30 defines siluae as ‘the main metapoetic term of the Eclogues through which Vergil marks his own achievement’; see also Newlands (2004) 36–7; Davis (2012) 133. For detailed discussion of silua as a metapoetic term for literary source material, including further bibliography, see Hinds (1998) 11–15; Newlands (2004) 36–7; Wray (2007) 127–43.

108  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Hippolytus’ death (A. 7.765–66): postquam arte nouercae | occiderit (after he perished because of his stepmother’s plot). The formulation ars nouercae (the stepmother’s plot) recalls the etymologically similar phrase ars noua (new stratagem),44 which functions as a metapoetic signpost for elegiac fluctuation elsewhere in the Aeneid. Venus’ formulation of nouae artes (new stratagems, A. 1.657) against Dido delineates the intergeneric characterization of her assault on the Carthaginian queen (Introduction). During the infuriation of Ascanius, Allecto’s ars noua (new stratagem, A. 7.477) signals the marked Gallan descrip­ tion of the youth’s stag hunt (Chapter 2). By intratextually associating Phaedra’s plot with the deadly amatory tactics of Venus and Allecto, Vergil emphasizes the destructive potency of her amor for Hippolytus. Whereas the aberrant erotic passion of Phaedra leads to the death of her desired stepson, his resurrection is owed to the divine amor of Diana (reuocatum . . . amore Dianae, recalled by Diana’s love, A. 7.769), who transforms her beloved youth into Virbius to protect him from future harm. Thus, Vergil emphasizes the obliterating force of amor as the cause of both Hippolytus’ actual mors and his symbolic annihilation through metamorphosis. Diana, driven by amor to raise Hippolytus from the dead, seeks the assistance of Asclepius, the god of medicine sired by Apollo. When Asclepius summons the mutilated youth back to life with his healing herbs (Paeoniis reuocatum herbis, recalled by Paeon’s healing herbs, A. 7.769),45 Jupiter strikes him down for the transgression (A. 7.772–73): ipse repertorem medicinae talis et artis | fulmine Phoebigenam Stygias detrusit ad undas (he himself with his thunderbolt drove the discoverer of such healing skill, Phoebus-­born, to the Stygian waters). The refer­ ences to Asclepius’ herbs (A. 7.769) and medical skill (medicinae talis et artis, A. 7.772) intertextually recall the amatory suffering of his divine father Apollo in Tibullan elegy (Tib. 2.3.13–14): nec potuit curas sanare salubribus herbis: | quidquid erat medicae uicerat artis amor (nor was he able to heal his own cares with his health-­giving herbs: love had vanquished all his medical skill). In his depiction of Apollo, Tibullus makes playful use of the Gallan concept of medicina amoris, as love renders even the god of healing powerless to alleviate his curae.46 The intertextual resonance between the Vergilian Asclepius and the Tibullan incarnation of Apollo allusively emphasizes the stark contrast between the father’s amusing amatory dilemma in Tibullus 2.3 and his son’s dire relegation to the underworld in Aeneid 7. The insistent elegiac interplay reinforces the narrative progression from Diana’s love to Asclepius’ death, as Vergil’s god of healing emblematically illustrates the lethal teleology of amor throughout the Italian Iliad. 44  On the etymological relationship of nouerca and nouus, see Ernout–­Meillet s.v. nouerca; L–­S s.vv. nouerca, nouus; OLD s.v. nouerca. 45 Horsfall (2000) 500 ad A. 7.769 notes that the identification of Asclepius with Paeon is Hellenistic. Thus, the phrase Paeoniae herbae may reflect the lost Callimachean source material. 46  See Glossary s.vv. cura, medicina amoris.

Warriors in Love  109 Accentuating the theme of mors in the aetiological digression are the sepulchral vocabulary and topoi that Vergil incorporates into the tale. A brisk account of Hippolytus’ departure from and return to the mortal sphere aesthetically encap­ sulates the swiftness of his regeneration (A. 7.767–68): ad sidera rursus | aetheria et superas caeli uenisse sub auras (he went to the celestial stars and came back again up to the upper air of the sky). Vergil describes Hippolytus’ mythological transformation into the Charioteer constellation (Ἡνίοχος/Auriga) through the phrase ad sidera aetheria uenisse (he went to the celestial stars, A. 7.767–68). The formulation derives from Roman funerary inscriptions, which frequently offer consolation for death through the imagery of astral translation or deification, in which the soul of the deceased ascends to the stars, or becomes a star in the heavens.47 A second epitaphic topos informs Hippolytus’ return to life (rursus | . . . et superas caeli uenisse sub auras, and he came back again up to the upper air of the sky, A. 7.767–68), namely the ascension of the spirit of the deceased from the tomb or the underworld to the upper air (superae aurae).48 In contrast with the straightforward sepulchral illustration of Hippolytus’ catasterism, the funerary reverberations of the youth’s return to life seem startlingly incongruous. But the rapid sequence of epitaphic images within the brief passage intensifies the thematic focus on mors and aesthetically embodies the close narrative succession of the deaths of Hippolytus and Asclepius. Funerary elements likewise magnify the severity of the punishment inflicted upon Asclepius by Jupiter, who deems the resurrection of any mortal a grave offence (A. 7.770–71): tum pater omnipotens aliquem indignatus ab umbris | mortalem infernis ad lumina surgere uitae (then the omnipotent father himself, indig­ nant that any mortal has risen from the infernal shades to the light of life). Vergil enhances the grim tone of the verses through the accumulation of sepulchral vocabulary (infernus, lumen, mortalis, surgere, umbra).49 The phrase mortalem infernis (A. 7.771), as observed by Nicholas Horsfall, suggests the finality of death, as synaloepha erases the distinction between the significantly juxtaposed noun 47  On the epitaphic motif of astral translation/deification, see Lattimore (1962) 28–43 §§4–5. e.g. CE 569.6 (non tamen ad Manes sed caeli ad sidera pergis, nevertheless you proceed not to the Manes but to the stars of the sky); CE 1363.1 (sidera me retinent, the stars keep me); CE 2097.4 (qui retinet merito sidera celsa suo, who holds the stars by his own merit); CE 1109.15–16 (quid o me ad sidera caeli | ablatum quereris?, oh why do you lament me carried off to the stars of the sky?); CE 1535b.2 (accessit astris, he has come to the stars); CE 611.4 (mundus me sumpsit et astra, the universe and the stars have taken me up). See also Senfter (1979) 171–4. 48 For aura as a signifier of the air above the earth or the upper world as contrasted with the lower, see L–­S s.v. aura IIC1; OLD s.v. aura 4. On the ascension of the spirit as a conventional feature of epi­ taphic inscriptions, see CCLE s.v. aura; Lattimore (1962) 39 §4. See e.g. CE 1061.11–12 (hic posita: an superas conuisit luminis auras | innocua aeternis condita sideribus?, here she is placed: or does she look upon the upper air of the light of life unharmed, concealed in the everlasting stars?); CE 1257.7 (contra anima emissa [ad superos assurgit in auras], on the other hand the released spirit rises up into the air to the gods above); CE 1631.18 (ut deus hanc animam superas redducat ad auras, so that the god may lead this spirit back to the upper air). 49 See CCLE s.vv. infernus, lumen, mortalis, surgere, umbra.

110  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid mortalis (mortal) and adjective infernus (infernal).50 Furthermore, the arrangement of ab umbris | mortalem infernis (A. 7.770–71) emphasizes the rightful place of a deceased mortal among the infernal shades. The envisioned ascension of the deceased to the light of life (ad lumina surgere uitae, A. 7.771), appropriated from the consolatory rhetoric of epitaphic inscriptions, resonates with the two similar topoi seen in the previous description of Hippolytus’ resurrection (ad sidera rursus | aetheria et superas caeli uenisse sub auras (he went to the celestial stars and came back again beneath the upper air of the sky, A. 7.767–68). Jupiter’s relegation of Asclepius to the Stygian waters (Stygias . . . ad undas, A. 7.773), moreover, reflects the conventional sepulchral conceptualization of the riverine topography of the underworld.51 Finally, the first line of Vergil’s depiction of Jupiter (tum pater omnipotens aliquem indignatus ab umbris, then the omnipotent father himself, indignant that any mortal from the shades, A. 7.770) is identical in metre and similar in diction to the repeated description of mors applied to both Camilla and Turnus (uitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras, and her/his life flees indignantly with a groan down to the shades, A. 11.831, 12.952).52 Through the intratextual allusion, Vergil anticipates the inevitable deaths of Camilla and Turnus, the two central characters commemorated immediately following the Hippolytus/Virbius digression.53 In the immediate context, the allusive evocation of mors underscores the sepulchral resonance of Asclepius’ relegation to the underworld. More broadly, the intratextual and structural connection of Camilla and Turnus to the Hippolytus/Virbius myth, which exemplifies the teleogical pro­ gression from amor to mors, has significant implications for the two warriors. Though Camilla, like Hippolytus, is graced with Diana’s love (A. 11.536–38), her death leads not to resurrection but to further destruction, as Opis avenges the beloved bellatrix by slaying Arruns (A. 11.836–67). For Turnus, the miles amans of the Italian Iliad, amor incites the martial violence that leads to his death in the closural lines of the Aeneid (Chapters 2 and 5). Thus, the depiction of Asclepius’ death, suffused with sepulchral elements and intratextual prefigurations of mors, underscores Vergil’s conceptualization of amor as a death-­dealing force. Vergil completes the vignette devoted to the Italian youth Virbius by offering a brief glimpse of his preparations for battle (A. 7.781–82): filius ardentis haud setius aequore campi | exercebat equos curruque in bella ruebat (his son nonetheless was 50  Horsfall (2000) 501 ad A. 7.770. 51 See CCLE s.vv. Stygius, Styx, unda. Lattimore (1962) 87–90 §§15–16. See e.g. CE 960.8 (deducta et fatali igne et aqua Stygia, led down by the fatal fire and Stygian water); CE 1005.9 (hic ego nunc cogor  Stygias transire paludes, here now I am compelled to cross the Stygian marshes); CE 1549.14 (raptumque Stygio detinet unda lacu, and the water keeps me snatched away in the Stygian lake). 52  Vergil’s repetition of the same line to illustrate the deaths of Camilla and Turnus has Homeric precedent, namely the identical deaths of Hector and Patroclus (Il. 16.856–57, 22.362–63): see Tarrant (2012) 341 ad A. 12.952; McGill (2020) 264 ad A. 11.831. 53  Cf. the Sibyl speaking ad Tib. 2.5.48: iam tibi praedico, barbare Turne, necem (now for you, cruel Turnus, I predict a violent death).

Warriors in Love  111 stirring his horses to blaze on the level ground of the plain and was rushing into battle in his chariot). The epic vision of the youth draws the elegiac nuances of the mythological digression to a close. Though Vergil characterizes the young son of Hippolytus/Virbius with apparent martial promise, the emphasis on his eques­ trian skill is a disconcerting reminder of his father’s death (turbatis distractus equis, torn apart by panicked horses, A. 7.767). His fiery horses (ardentis . . . | . . . equos, A. 7.781–82) also identify him implicitly with Turnus, the fiery miles amans of the Italian Iliad, whose inevitable death, allusively prefigured in the preceding mytho­ logic­al digression, clouds his brilliant materialization in the next panel of the cata­logue (Chapter 2). Furthermore, the image of the son of Hippolytus/Virbius evokes the disastrous attempt of Phaethon to direct the blazing steeds and chariot of his divine father Helios, ominously suggesting that the martial exploits of the Italian youth will likewise end in mors. Indeed, the sense of doom that permeates Vergil’s epitaphic portrait of Hippolytus/Virbius bodes ill for his warrior son, who vanishes thereafter from the narrative. As Nicholas Horsfall observes: ‘Nothing suggests that Virbius Jr. will enjoy a distinguished career as a warrior; his doom has been signalled more discreetly but no less ambiguously than Umbro’s.’54

Elegiac Amor and Mors in the Catalogue of Aeneid 10: Cinyrus, Cupavo, and Cycnus (A. 10.185–93) The intimation of Phaethon’s fiery demise in the Hippolytus/Virbius digression also provides an intratextual preview of the aetiological myth of Cycnus that embellishes the Etruscan catalogue of Aeneid 10 (A. 10.163–214). In his enu­mer­ ation of the fleet of Aeneas’ Etruscan allies, Vergil intensifies his engagement with Callimachean slenderness and elegiac topoi. A mere fifty-­two verses in length, the catalogue features an elaborate centrepiece devoted to the Ligurian leaders that contemplates the themes of amor and mors through interwoven elements from amatory and sepulchral elegy. The portrait of the Ligurians begins with a brief introduction to the two leaders Cinyrus and Cupauo. But the description of Cupauo’s swan-­feather crest leads to a digression about the paternal origins of the avian symbol. Cupauo’s father Cycnus, stricken with grief for his beloved Phaethon, was transformed from a mournful singer into the swan that bears his name (A. 10.185–93):    non ego te, Ligurum ductor fortissime bello, transierim, Cinyre, et paucis comitate Cupauo, cuius olorinae surgunt de uertice pennae

54  Horsfall (2000) 506 ad A. 7.781.

112  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid (crimen, Amor, uestrum) formaeque insigne paternae. namque ferunt luctu Cycnum Phaethontis amati, populeas inter frondes umbramque sororum dum canit et maestum Musa solatur amorem, canentem molli pluma duxisse senectam linquentem terras et sidera uoce sequentem. [I could not pass you by, Cinyrus, leader of the Ligurians bravest in war, and (you) Cupauo accompanied by few, from whose head swan feathers rise (a  reproach, Amor, against you and your mother), the emblem of his father’s form. For they say that Cycnus in grief for his beloved Phaethon, as he sang amidst the poplar boughs and the sisters’ shade and consoled his sorrowful love with the Muse, took on the whiteness of old age with soft plumage, as he left the earth and sought the stars with his cry.]

Vergil not only places the Ligurians in a central position within the catalogue, but also devotes more verses to them than to any other contingent, including his own Mantuans (A. 10.198–206).55 At the very heart of this prominent passage lies the embedded tale of Cycnus, the erotic and sorrowful centrepiece of Vergil’s Etruscan catalogue. Passages given such special placement and attention are often sites of poetic experimentation and virtuosic display, and the Ligurian digression is no exception. By interweaving the epic context of the martial catalogue with elegiac material from contemporary amatory and sepulchral verse, Vergil underscores the thematic connection between amor and mors.56 The Ligurian leaders, Cinyrus and Cupauo, are commemorated with a eulogistic apostrophe,57 a special honour given to no other commander within the Etruscan catalogue.58 The rare gesture calls attention to the passage and its significant intergeneric fluctuation. Indeed, the names Cinyrus and Cupauo, together with the term Ligus (Ligurian), are etymologically and intertextually connected with amor, mors, and the metamorphosis of Cycnus. Thus, the evocative assemblage has a proemial function, introducing and reinforcing the central themes and generic character of the upcoming Cycnus episode. 55  The Ligurian passage consists of thirteen verses framed by nineteen and seventeen lines of the catalogue proper (A. 10.166–84, 10.198–214). For a discussion of the overall structure of Vergil’s cata­ logue of Etruscan forces, see Harrison (1991) 107–9. 56  See Glossary s.vv. amor, e e legein, mors. 57  Harrison (1991) 119 ad A. 10.185–86 suggests that the combination of litotes and apostrophe strikes a panegyrical note. 58  The only other address in the Etruscan catalogue belongs to the territory of Mantua (A. 10.200): qui muros matrisque dedit tibi, Mantua, nomen (who gave walls and the name of his mother to you, Mantua). In the catalogue of Aeneid 7, the heroes Oebalus (A. 7.735), Ufens (A. 7.745), and Umbro (A. 7.559–60) receive apostrophes, as do the town Anagnia (A. 7.684) and the river Amasenus (A. 7.685). Contra Horsfall (2000) 36, 446–7 ad A. 7.684, who prefers quos diues Anagnia pascit (whom rich Anagnia feeds) over the quos, diues Anagnia, pascis (whom you, rich Anagnia, feed). On Vergil’s poetic commemoration of Oebalus, see Dinter (2005) 166.

Warriors in Love  113 Before exploring the etymological and intertextual significance of the name Cinyrus, a few words must be said regarding its contentious transmission. Serious problems in the manuscript tradition lead to the preservation of several different forms and variants of the name, including Cinyrus, Cinyras, Cinirus, Cunarus, and Cunerus.59 The perplexed transmission has led to considerable debate and discussion, as well as various attempts to resolve the issue through emendation or alternative spellings.60 Some editions opt for the vocative Cunare,61 while others accept the argument of Sebastiano Timpanaro in favor of Cunere.62 Michael Paschalis likewise gives preference to Cunerus, but suggests that either Cinyrus or Cinyras may have been a ‘learned correction’.63 Both T. E. Page and Frederick Ahl prefer the vocative Cinyre formed from Cinyras or Cinyrus respectively.64 No consensus has been reached and the problematic transmission of the name admittedly precludes definitive interpretation. Yet compelling evidence suggests that the variant Cinyrus would be a suitable choice for introducing and reinforcing the thematic content of the upcoming Cycnus episode. In his study of sound- and wordplay, Ahl connects the Latin name Cinyrus to κινυρός (wailing, plaintive),65 an extremely rare Greek adjective that appears only in a single Homeric simile (κινυρή, Il. 17.5) and once more in Apollonius’ Argonautica, where it is explicitly connected with the death of Phaethon (κινυρόν, Argon. 4.605).66 Apollonius uses κινυρός in his description of the Heliades, Phaethon’s sisters transformed into poplar trees after his death (Argon. 4.603–05):

59  The apparatus criticus of Mynors (1969) ad A. 10.186 shows the confusion in the MSS at this point: ‘186 Cunare DSeru.: Cinyr(a)e, Cynir(a)e, Cinire (quae idem ualent) MVω: Cinerae P2 (cinere ceuv): Cunerae P1: Cumarre R.’ See also Servius ad A. 10.186: cunare quidam duci nomen datum tradunt a Cunaro monte, qui in Piceno est (Cunare some relate that the name was given to the leader from mount Cunarus). On the strikingly similar problem of transmission that occurs in relation to Cinyra, the name of Horace’s mistress (ad Carm. 4.1.4, Carm. 4.13.21–22, Epist. 1.7.28, Epist. 1.14.33), see McCallum (2015b) 33–4. 60  Richards (1873) 139–41 discusses the transmission and offers some solutions for the corruption, ultimately concluding that ‘as the evidence stands, there seems no adequate reason for changing “Cinyra” or “Cinire” ’. 61  See Mynors (1969) 339 ad A. 10.186; Williams (1973) 81 ad A. 10.186; O’Hara (2017) 223–4 ad A. 10.185–92. 62  See Timpanaro (1978) 289–317; Harrison (1991) 119 ad A. 10.185–86; Henderson (2000) 184 ad A. 10.186. 63  See Paschalis (1997) 350–1. 64  See Page (1931) 75 ad A. 10.186; Ahl (1985) 33. 65  On the connection between Cinyrus, κινυρός (wailing, plaintive), and κινύρομαι (utter a plaintive sound, lament), see Ahl (1985) 33n.11; Paschalis (1997) 350–51, who connects Cinerus, his preferred variant, to Ἔρως (≈ -erus); O’Hara (2017) 223–4 ad A. 10.185–92. 66  On the two occurrences of κινυρός in the Iliad and the Argonautica, see Ahl (1985) 33n.11; Paschalis (1997) 351; O’Hara (2017) 223–4 ad A. 10.185–92. In his comparative study of the Aeneid and the Argonautica, Damien Nelis classifies the Vergilian Cycnus myth (10.189–93) as a potential ‘imitation, involving verbal allusion and/or similarity of action’ related to the Apollonian description of the Heliades (Argon. 4.603b–626), but he does not include this particular correspondence in his detailed discussion: see Nelis (2001) 478, 503.

114  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid             . . . ἀμφὶ δὲ κοῦραι Ἡλιάδες ταναῇσιν ἐελμέναι αἰγείροισιν μύρονται κινυρὸν μέλεαι γόον. [. . . and all around, the maiden Heliades enclosed in tall poplars sorrowfully weep a wailing lament.]

Stricken with grief, the sisters tearfully utter a wailing lament (κινυρὸν . . . γόον, Argon. 4.605). In the address to the Ligurian leaders, the name Cinyrus allusively evokes the κινυρὸς γόος of the Apollonian Heliades, even as Vergil introduces his own very different account of the grief and transformation resulting from Phaethon’s demise. The term Ligus strengthens the connection between Cinyrus and the laments engendered by Phaethon’s death in Apollonius. On the nocturnal voyage up the Eridanus river, the Argonauts perceive the sharp lament of the Heliades: νυκτὸς δ ̓ αὐ ͂ γόον ὀξὺν ὀδυρομένων ἐσάκουον | Ἡλιάδων λιγέως (and by night they were hearing the sharp lament of the shrilly weeping Heliades, Argon. 4.624–25). In order to illustrate the shrill quality of the Heliades’ weeping, Apollonius employs the adverbial form of λιγύς (λιγέως, shrilly, Argon. 4.625), which appears fre­ quently in connection with melancholic utterances of grief.67 Vergil employs the Latin Ligus, a word phonetically connected to the adjectival form λιγύς, to iden­ tify the nationality of the Ligurian contingent (Ligurum ductor fortissime bello, leader of the Ligurians bravest in war, A. 10.185). Many commentators have rec­ ognized the potential for wordplay between Ligus and λιγύς.68 Frederick Ahl fur­ ther observes that the Greek adverb suggests lamentation in Homer and thus denotes sounds that are not only clear but also melancholy.69 Taken together, Ligus and Cinyrus allusively recall both the plaintive wails (κινυρὸν. . . γόον, Argon. 4.605) and the shrill weeping (ὀδυρομένων. . . | . . . λιγέως, Argon. 4.624–25) of the Apollonian Heliades.70 The name and nationality anticipate the themes and sub­ ject matter of Vergil’s embedded Cycnus myth by evoking the Apollonian model of the mourning Heliades. In the lines that follow, an elegiac Cycnus takes up the lament of Phaethon’s silent arboreal sisters, giving voice to his grief amidst their shady boughs (populeas inter frondes umbramque sororum | dum canit, as he sang amidst the poplar boughs and the sisters’ shade, A. 10.190–91).

67  See LSJ s.vv. λιγυρός, λιγύς II. 68  For the suggestion that Ligurum (A. 10.185), through its phonetic connection to λιγύς, is evocative of the plaintive singing of Cycnus, see Ahl (1985) 33; Putnam (1986) 44; Paschalis (1997) 351; Barchiesi (2005) 268 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80; O’Hara (2017) 223–4 ad A. 10.185–92. 69  Ahl (1985) 33n.10. 70  Vergil’s Heliades also inherit the poplar form of their Hellenistic predecessors (ταναῇσιν ἐελμέναι αἰγείροισιν, enclosed in tall poplars, Argon. 4.604; cf. populeas inter frondes, amidst the poplar boughs, A. 10.190).

Warriors in Love  115 Following the address of Cinyrus, the focus shifts to Cupauo, the son of Cycnus. Swan feathers adorn the crest of Cupauo’s helmet (cuius olorinae surgunt de uertice pennae, from whose head swan feathers rise, A. 10.187), signalling his paternal lineage by evoking Cycnus’ legendary metamorphosis ( formaeque insigne paternae, the emblem of his father’s form, A. 10.188). Cupauo, bedecked with olorinae pennae (swan feathers, A. 10.187), symbolically re-­enacts his father’s transformation into a swan, as the plumes, though merely attached to the helmet, appear to spring up from the uertex or crown of his head (surgunt de uertice, A. 10.187).71 Cupauo’s name, like his avian costume, symbolically replicates the metamorphosis of Cycnus from enamoured human into snowy swan, and prefigures the myth of transformation. The first syllable of the name Cupauo (cup-) echoes that of the Latin verb cupere (to long for, desire) and its cognates Cupido (Cupid) and cupidus (desirous, longing), while the component -auo sim­ul­tan­eous­ly suggests the nouns auis (bird) and auus (forefather).72 As the reader scans from left to right, the name Cupauo mirrors the transformation of Cycnus from ­passionate lover (cup- ≈ cupidus) into a swan (-auo ≈ auis), while also evoking his status as a Ligurian forefather (-auo ≈ auus). Vergil formulates the name Cupauo to inscribe the legendary past of Cycnus onto his warrior son, whose appellation and appearance allusively adumbrate the upcoming narrative focus on amor and metamorphosis.73 Two elegiac gestures, one sepulchral and one erotic, frame the introductory verses of the Ligurian digression. More overt than the allusive nomina Ligurum, the funerary and amatory embellishments in the introduction initiate and re­inforce Vergil’s elegiac experimentation within the central Cycnus panel, while also reflecting the programmatic significance of Caieta and Erato in Aeneid 7 (Chapter  1). Vergil begins with an exceptionally self-­conscious gesture towards the funerary poetics of elegy. In the address to Cinyrus and Cupauo, Vergil assures the two heroes that he could not pass them by when recounting the Etruscan allies: non ego te, Ligurum ductor fortissime bello, | transierim, Cinyre, et paucis comitate Cupauo (I could not pass you by, Cinyrus, leader of the Ligurians bravest in war, and (you) Cupavo accompanied by few, A. 10.185–86). Vergil’s first-­person intrusion into the narrative brings the poet and his artistic process to the foreground, an effect heightened by his unprecedented use of the self-­referential nominative ego, which appears nowhere else in the Aeneid, an

71  See L–­S s.v. uertex; OLD s.v. uertex 2. Hollis (1992) 277 wonders whether the plumes are actually growing from Cupauo’s head, in imitation of the fantastical locks of hair that appear in Hellenistic verse. 72  Paschalis (1997) 350 suggests that the name Cupauo evokes Cupido and auis with reference to Cycnus’ metamorphosis. Difference in vowel length does not preclude wordplay between -āuo and the nouns ăuis and ăuus: see Ahl (1985) 56–7; O’Hara (2017) 61–2. 73  No other extant sources feature the name or character of Cupauo: see Harrison (1991) 119 ad A. 10.185–86.

116  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid interesting anomaly overlooked by commentators, including Servius.74 The formulation non ego te at the beginning of the Ligurian address intratextually evokes Corydon’s intergeneric speech in Eclogue 2 (non ego Daphnim | iudice te metuam, I will not fear Daphnis with you as judge, E. 2.26–27), which is informed by Gallan elegiac poetics (non ego, Visce | . . . Kato iudice te uereor, I do not, Viscus, . . . I do not, Cato, fear with you as judge, Gallus fr. 145.8–9 Hollis). Vergil’s words to the Ligurians are an innovative reinterpretation of the ‘passer-­by’ motif, a conventional feature of Latin funerary inscriptions,75 which frequently appears in elegiac meditations on mors.76 In the ‘passer-­by’ motif, the deceased engages the passing traveller in an imaginary dialogue, asking the wayfarer to suspend his  journey long enough to read the commemorative inscription and/or offer ­salutation.77 When Vergil reassures Cinyrus and Cupauo that he could not pass them by (non ego te. . . | transierim, A. 10.185–86), he evokes the dialogic exchange of the ‘passer-­by’ motif, but shifts the focus from the request of the deceased to the response of the wayfarer, playing the part of a roadside traveller responding to an imaginary behest inscribed on a funerary monument. Vergil’s innovative inver­ sion of the ‘passer-­by’ motif transforms the catalogic address of the Ligurian lead­ ers into an epitaphic commemoration. The funerary gesture has a profound impact on the entire catalogue, imbuing the experience of reading its entries with the sensation of progressing past a series of sepulchral inscriptions. Indeed, with the exception of Asilas, all of the Etruscan leaders suffer annihilation by being slain (Abas and Aulestes) or by vanishing from the text (Massicus, Astur, Cinyrus, Cupauo, and Ocnus). Vergil’s epitaphic gesture, evocative of the funerary poetics of elegy, also sets the thematic and generic tone for the tale of Cycnus. While the sepulchral resonances imbue the Ligurian apostrophe with funerary elegiac significance, a parenthetical reproach to Amor in the final line of the address evokes the erotic aspect of elegy. Following the description of Cupauo’s emblematic swan-­feather crest, Vergil rebukes Amor in a parenthetical aside: crimen, Amor, uestrum (a reproach, Amor, against you and your mother, A. 10.188). Though the censure explicitly targets Amor, it also implicitly condemns his

74  There are five occurrences of the narrative self-­referential ego in the dative and ablative cases, each of which appears in a passage of invocation (mihi, A. 1.8; mihi, A. 6.266; mihi, A. 7.44; mecum, A. 9.528; mihi, A. 12.500). I here exclude the spurious four-­line frontispiece (ille ego, qui quondam . . .), which is generally regarded as a non-­Vergilian interpolation: see Austin (1968) 107–15; Conte (1986) 84–5; Gamberale (1991) 963–80; Horsfall (2001) 24; Farrell (2004) 41–55; Ziolkowski and Putnam (2008) 22–5; Peirano (2012) 76–7, 248–9. 75  For discussion and examples of the ‘passer-­by’ motif, see Lattimore (1962) 230–4; Wolff (2000) 45–53; Tsagalis (2008) 219–24. 76  See e.g. Prop. 1.21, 2.1.75–78. 77  See e.g. CE 123.1 frequens uiator saepe qui transis lege (frequent traveller, you who pass by often, read); CE 1152.5 tu qui uia Flaminea transis, resta ac relege (you, who pass on the Flaminian way, stop and read again); CE 1879.1 tu uiator qui transis rist(a) leg(e) tit(ulum) obiter (you traveller, who pass by, stop and read the inscription on the way); CE 1330.2 uiator transieris et dixeris [h]ui[c] tumulo (traveller may you pass by and say to this burial mound).

Warriors in Love  117 mother Venus through the collective plural possessive adjective uestrum.78 The feathers that adorn Cupauo (olorinae pennae, swan feathers, A. 10.187) reinforce the suggested presence of the unnamed goddess, by evoking the swans that convey her through the sky.79 By placing the phrase crimen uestrum (indictment, reproach) in apposition to the olorinae pennae (swan feathers, A. 10.187), Vergil suggests that the swan-­feather crest is a standing indictment of Amor and Venus, emblematizing their amatory culpability for the fate of Cycnus.80 The noun Amor, moreover, functions as a generic signpost for Vergil’s engagement with amatory elegy.81 As Alison Keith has observed, the parenthetical address ‘conjures up an Amor strikingly similar to the god of the elegiac poets’.82 Propertian elegy, in particular, focuses on the cruelty of Amor, who merits reproach for his perpetual victimization of the impassioned elegiac amator.83 Furthermore, the vocabulary and syntactical structure of the Vergilian formulation crimen, Amor, uestrum (A. 10.188) are similar to two passages from Propertius: the indictment of Amor in relation to the acts of sexual misbehaviour committed at Baiae (a pereant Baiae, crimen Amoris, aquae!, ah may the waters of Baiae perish, a reproach to Amor, Prop. 1.11.30);84 and the lover’s declaration that Amor is to blame for his devotion to one woman (hoc si crimen erit, crimen Amoris erit, if this will be a matter for reproach, it will be a reproach to Amor, Prop. 2.30.24).85 By framing the intro­ ductory panel of the Ligurian digression with sepulchral and amatory elegiac gestures, Vergil replicates in structure and tone the epitaphic address to Caieta (A. 7.1–4) and invocation of Erato (A. 7.37–45) that enclose the programmatic opening passage of his maius opus. Within the immediate narrative context, the elegiac material also prefigures the intergeneric development of the themes of amor and mors in the central panel devoted to Cycnus (A. 10.189–93). Vergil introduces the mythological digression about Cycnus with precisely the same Alexandrian footnote that precedes the story of Hippolytus/Virbius in the Italian catalogue (namque ferunt, for they say, A. 7.765, 10.189).86 An extremely subtle allusion in the preceding line confirms that the phrase namque ferunt refers 78  See Harrison (1991) 120 ad A. 10.188. 79  For examples of Venus’ conveyance by swans, see Hor. Carm. 3.28.15 (iunctis uisit oloribus, she visits with yoked swans), 4.1.10 (purpureis ales oloribus, winged with gleaming swans); Prop. 3.3.39 (niueis uectabere cycnis, you will be conveyed by snowy swans); Ov. Ars 3.809 (cycnis descendere tempus, it is time to disembark from my swans); Ov. Met. 10.708–09 (iunctisque per aera cycnis | carpit iter, and with yoked swans she takes her way through the sky). 80  On Vergil’s use of crimen to denote the reproach to Amor, see Richards (1873) 137–8; Page (1931) 312–13 ad A. 10.187–88; Williams (1973) 334–5 ad A. 10.188; Harrison (1991) 120 ad A. 10.188. 81  See Glossary s.v. amor. 82  See Keith (1992) 144–5. 83  Examples of Amor’s cruelty abound in Propertius (e.g. Prop. 1.1.4, 1.1.17, 1.1.34, 1.7.25–26). 84  On the similarity between crimen, Amor, uestrum (A. 10.188) and crimen Amoris (Prop. 1.11.30), see Richards (1873) 137–8; Page (1931) 312–13 ad A. 10.187–88; Williams (1973) 334–5 ad A. 10.188; Fedeli (1980) 285 ad Prop. 1.11.30; Fedeli (2005) 784–5 ad Prop. 2.28.1–4. I follow Fedeli (1980) 43 in capitalizing Amor (Prop. 1.11.30). 85  See Fedeli (2005) 859 ad Prop. 2.30.24. 86  See Harrison (1991) 120 ad A. 10.189.

118  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid in part to Phanocles’ Ἔρωτες ἢ Καλοί (Loves and Beautiful Youths): the singular noun Amor, together with the plural uestrum (A. 10.188) evokes the first half of the title (Amor(es) ≈ Ἔρωτες); and the noun formae, though singular and genitive in context (form, appearance, A. 10.188), is identical to the nominative plural (beautiful forms, beauties), which reflects the second half of the title (formae ≈ Καλοί).87 In the portrayal of Cycnus that follows, Vergil engages with Phanoclean elegiac material, articulating its themes of amor and mors through the language and motifs of contemporary Latin elegy, thereby fulfilling the allusively program­ matic introductory apostrophe. By depicting Cycnus as Phaethon’s lover, metamorphosed by grief for his deceased beloved, Vergil imitates the Phanoclean version of the myth recounted in the elegiac Ἔρωτες ἢ Καλοί.88 The decision to retain Phanocles’ vision of Cycnus and Phaethon as lovers, as Stephen Harrison has observed, ‘gives greater erotic color and pathos to the tale’,89 and, as Alison Keith has shown, ‘allows Vergil to overdetermine the elegiac quality of Cycnus’ song by combining the elegiac motifs of love and mourning, for the motifs occur twice together in this passage (luctu . . . amati, in grief for his beloved, A. 10.189; maestum . . . amorem, sorrowful love, A. 10.191)’.90 By casting Cycnus in the role of maestus amator (sorrowful lover), Vergil simultaneously acknowledges the influence of Phanocles and creates an opportunity to experiment with the poetics of contemporary Latin elegy as the genre of amor and mors. Vergil alerts the reader to his elegiac experi­ mentation by placing amatus (amati, for his beloved, A. 10.189) and amor (amorem, love, A. 10.191), verbal signposts for erotic elegy, in the conspicuous final hexameter position.91 Furthermore, when the mournful Cycnus takes on the soft plumage of a swan (molli . . . pluma, A. 10.192), he is transformed into an emblem of elegiac amores.92 Vergil describes Cycnus, stricken with grief after the death of his beloved Phaethon (luctuque . . . Phaethontis amati, A. 10.189),93 composing consolatory songs in the wilderness (A. 10.190–91): populeas inter frondes umbramque sororum | dum canit et maestum Musa solatur amorem (as he sang amidst the poplar boughs and the sisters’ shade and consoled his sorrowful love with the Muse). Cycnus intertextually rehearses the lament of Orpheus, his Phanoclean model, who gives voice to his grief for the beloved youth Calais in shady groves (Phanocl. fr. 1.3–4 87  Propertius uses formae to denote beautiful women (e.g. post Helenam haec terris forma secunda redit, after Helen a second beauty returns to the earth, Prop. 2.3.32; tulit . . . quot Achaia formas, as many beautiful women as Achaia bore, Prop. 2.28.53). See Pichon s.v. forma. 88  See Phanocles fr. 6 Powell. On the influence of Phanocles on Vergil’s depiction of Cycnus, see Wiseman (1979) 163; Harrison (1991) 111, 119–20 ad A. 10.187–93; Hollis (1992) 277; Keith (1992) 144. 89  See Harrison (1991) 120 ad A. 10.187–93. 90  See Keith (1992) 144. 91  See Glossary s.v. amor. 92  See Glossary s.v. mollis. 93  Hollis (2007) 211 ad Var. At. Argon. fr. 132 observes that Varro anomalously configures Phaethon as a spondee (– –) rather than the usual anapaest (⌣ ⌣ –). The fact that Vergil likewise configures the first two syllables Phaethontis (A. 10.189) as long may point to an intertextual connection.

Warriors in Love  119 Powell): πολλάκι δὲ σκιεροῖσιν ἐν ἄλσεσιν ἕζετ ̓ ἀείδων | ὅν πόθον, οὐδ ̓ ἦν οἱ θυμὸς ἐν ἡσυχίῃ (and often he sat among shady groves singing of his longing, and his heart was not at peace).94 Vergil, however, mediates the Phanoclean source ma­ter­ ial through the poetics of Gallan elegy, as evidenced by precise thematic and lex­ ic­al echoes of Eclogues 6 and 10 throughout the Cycnus episode. The figure of Gallus in the tenth eclogue (E. 10.50–69) provides the conceptual framework for the characterization of Cycnus as a sorrowful amator, seeking to alleviate his suf­ fering through song and the retreat to the wilderness.95 Moreover, the shade cast by the metamorphosed sisters of Phaethon (umbramque sororum, and the sisters’ shade, A. 10.190) calls to mind the closural refrain of Vergil’s tribute to Gallus (umbra | . . . umbra . . . umbrae, E. 10.75–76).96 Through his allusive portrayal of Cycnus, Vergil conjures the image of Gallus and associates the embedded mytho­ logic­al tale of love, grief, and metamorphosis with the elegist’s poetic legacy. Furthermore, an examination of the phrase dum canit reveals its intertextual connection to Gallan elegy. In the Vergilian corpus, the formulation makes its sole appearance in the conspicuously Gallan characterization of Cycnus, and it occu­ pies the prominent first position of its line (dum canit, as he sang, A. 10.191). The phrase occurs with the same remarkable rarity and Gallan exclusivity in Latin elegy. The only example in Propertian elegy is similarly placed in the first foot but converted into the passive voice (dum canitur, as he is being sung about, Prop. 4.6.14). Its surrounding context, as Francis Cairns has shown, is markedly Gallan, featuring: the carmina . . . dicere . . . digna complex (res est, Calliope, digna fauore tuo, | Caesaris in nomen ducuntur carmina, the subject matter is worthy of your favour, Calliope, my songs are being composed for the glory of Caesar, Prop. 4.6.12–13); and the noun nomen (Prop. 4.6.13), which is ‘highly diagnostic of Gallus’.97 In Tibullan elegy, the phrase likewise materializes only once in the exceptionally Gallan mythological digression about the love-­stricken god Apollo (Tib. 2.3.11–28), which also informs the corresponding Hippolytus/Virbius myth (cf. A. 7.772–73). When amor renders Apollo, the god of healing, powerless to cure his own amatory suffering (quidquid erat medicae uicerat artis amor, love had vanquished all of his medical skill, Tib. 2.3.14), he retreats to the pastoral world, where he consoles himself through song (caneret dum ualle sub alta, as he was singing deep in the valley, Tib. 2.3.19). Tibullus’ characterization of Apollo incorporates Gallan complexes found in Eclogue 10, including the consolatory song and wilderness retreat of the suffering amator;98 a variation of the key Gallan 94  See Harrison (1991) 121 ad A. 10.190–91. See also Barchiesi (2005) 267 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80. 95  On the Gallan resonance of the lover’s retreat to wild surroundings, see Cairns (2006) 112, 136–40, with further bibliography. See Glossary s.v. medicina amoris. 96  Harrison (1991) 121 ad A. 10.190–91 comments on the pastoral resonance of the Cycnus digres­ sion: ‘Singing in the shade of trees recalls the world of pastoral, as does the solace of music for love.’ 97  See Cairns (2006) 92. 98  On the figure of Gallus in Eclogue 10 as a model for Tibullus’ mythological exemplum, see Gaisser (1977) 131–46; Murgatroyd (1994) 82–3.

120  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid phrase uincit Amor (uicerat . . . amor, love had vanquished, Tib. 2.3.14; cf. omnia uincit amor, love overwhelms all things, E. 10.69);99 and the concept of medicina amoris (cf. medicina furoris, a cure for our frenzy, E. 10.60).100 The collective evidence for the phrase dum canit in Vergil, Propertius, and Tibullus confirms its Gallan provenance and elegiac resonance, and its presence in the tale of Cycnus reinforces the intertextual connection between the mythological digression and Gallus’ elegiac vision. Furthermore, the phrase tum canit, analogous in form and rarity to dum canit (A. 10.191), makes only two appearances in the Vergilian corpus in the song of Silenus in Eclogue 6: once in direct relation to Gallus (tum canit . . . Gallum, then he sings of Gallus, E. 6.64); and once three lines earlier in relation to the story of Atalanta (tum canit . . . puellam, then he sings of the girl, E. 6.61), a myth treated by Gallus in his lost poems.101 In each case, Vergil places tum canit in the prom­in­ ent first position, which dum canit likewise occupies in the tale of Cycnus (dum canit, as he sang, A. 10.191). Tracing the allusive thread back to Eclogue 6 leads directly to the appearance of Gallus immediately following a description of none other than the metamorphosis of Phaethon’s sisters into trees (E. 6.62–63): tum Phaethontiadas musco circumdat amarae | corticis atque solo proceras erigit alnos (then he surrounds the sisters of Phaethon with the moss of rough bark and raises them up from the ground as tall elms).102 Arranged in vertical juxtaposition at the end of three successive lines are the alder tree forms of the Phaethontiades (alnos, E. 6.63); Gallus’ name (Gallum, E. 6.64); and the plural form sororum (E. 6.65).103 Thus, on the written page, Gallus wanders (errantem . . . Gallum, E. 6.64) amidst the arboreal forms of Phaethon’s sisters, just as Cycnus does in the mythological digression in the Etruscan catalogue (populeas inter frondes umbramque sororum | dum canit, as he sang amidst the poplar boughs and the sisters’ shade, A. 10.190–91). The subtle intertextual reverberations of dum canit (as he sang, A. 10.191) connect the mythological digression of Aeneid 10 to Silenus’ thematic exploration of metamorphosis in Eclogue 6 (tum canit, then he sings, E. 6.61, 6.64). In the corresponding passages, the evocation of Gallus emblematizes the presence of his elegiac poetics within intergeneric mythological narratives.104 Whereas Vergil’s integration of amatory elegiac material affiliates Cycnus with the suffering, Gallan amator, sepulchral language and motifs underscore the

99  See Cairns (2006) 107. 100  See Glossary s.v. medicina amoris. 101  See Ross (1975) 62; Cairns (2006) 90, with further bibliography. 102  Lipka (2001) 97 suggests that Vergil’s use of the word Phaethontiades (E. 6.62) may derive from Euphorion’s mediation of Euripides’ Hippolytus (Eur. Hipp. 738–41). The same tragedy, as discussed above, informs the Hippolytus/Virbius panel in the catalogue of Aeneid 7. 103  The wordplay at line end is not prevented by the usual semantic interpretation of una sororum (one of the sisters, E. 6.65) as a reference to the Muses. 104  See Cairns (2006) 120–31; Hollis (2007) 230–34, both with further bibliography.

Warriors in Love  121 symbolic association of his metamorphosis with mors. Frederick Ahl has observed that Vergil’s wordplay beween canere (to sing; dum canit, as he sang, A. 10.191) and canēre (to whiten, to be white; canentem, being white, A. 10.192) ac­know­ ledges the proverbial associations of the swan with both song and death.105 Cycnus, newly covered in soft plumage, appears to take on the whiteness of old age (canentem molli pluma duxisse senectam, A. 10.192), an image of mortality.106 The noun umbra, which denotes the shady backdrop of Cycnus’ sorrowful song (umbramque sororum, the sisters’ shade, A. 10.190),107 resonates with the themes of death and lament, thereby recalling its sepulchral significance as a term for the disembodied form of the deceased.108 In the final line of the mythological digression, Vergil describes the final stage of Cycnus’ metamorphosis (A. 10.193): linquentem terras et sidera uoce sequentem (as he left the earth and sought the stars with his cry). The Cycnus-­swan leaving the earthly realm for the stars exemplifies the process of catasterism, evoking the precise rhetoric of Roman funerary commemoration seen in the corresponding Hippolytus/Virbius digression in the Italian catalogue of Aeneid 7 (ad sidera . . . | aetheria . . . uenisse, he went to the celestial stars, A. 7.767–68).109 In the two mythological tales, Vergil’s refer­ ences to astral translation or deification derive from the rhetoric of consolation found in Roman epitaphic inscriptions. Through the integration of sepulchral material, Vergil transforms Cycnus’ avian metamorphosis into a suitably funerary image of poetic closure, thereby fulfilling the programmatic promise of the funerary gesture in the introductory frame of the mythological digression (non ego te . . . | transierim, I could not pass you by, A. 10.185–86). Following the final flight of the Cycnus-­swan, the elegiac fluctuation of the mythological digression gives way to the poetics of epic, as the focus turns to the Cupauo’s immense ship (ingentem. . . Centaurum, the huge Centaur, A. 10.195), threatening its enemies with an enormous stone (saxumque. . . immane minatur, A. 10.196). The sudden return to epic magnitude and martial violence serves as a generic foil for the intergeneric passage that precedes it, highlighting the elegiac character of the Ligurian digression and the embedded tale of Cycnus. 105  See Ahl (1985) 194–5. 106  Harrison (1991) 121–2 ad A. 10.192 suggests that we are not meant to take Cycnus’ old age as literal, since as amator he should not be a senex. Page (1931) 313 ad A. 10.192 calls the imagery of old age a ‘highly artificial expression’ intended only as chromatic description. Cf. Ovid (Met. 2.367–80) and Claudian (VI Cons. 159–77), who portray Cycnus as a kinsman and senex, rather than a lover: see Bömer (1969) 334 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80; Dewar (1996) 176 ad Claud. VI Cons. 170, 173; Barchiesi (2005) 268 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80. See Glossary s.v. mors. 107 On umbra as a term for shade or shadow, see L–­S s.v. umbra I; OLD s.v. umbra 1, 3–4. 108 On umbra as a term for the shade or ghost of the deceased, see L–­S s.v. umbra B2; OLD s.v. umbra 7. It appears frequently in this funerary sense in Latin epitaphic inscriptions (e.g. CE 428.6, 395.3, 1039.3, 1110.4): see CCLE s.v. umbra; Lattimore (1962) passim. 109  Harrison (1991) 122 ad A. 10.193 wonders if catasterism featured in Phanocles’ Cycnus myth. Claudian identifies the Swan constellation with the Cycnus of the Phaethon myth: see Dewar (1996) 176 ad Claud. VI Cons. 173. On the intertextually significant imagery of swans and metamorphosis in Vergil’s Cycnus myth and Horace’s poetic declarations in Carm. 2.20, 4.1, and 4.10, see McCallum (2015b) 29–42.

122  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid

Conclusion In the catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10, Vergil displays his intergeneric and inter­ text­ual virtuosity in the aetiological digressions devoted to Hippolytus/Virbius and the Ligurians. Throughout his tales of metamorphosis, Vergil transfigures notae famae into innovative recompositions that pay allusive homage to his poetic source material. Interwoven throughout each myth are elements informed by elegiac verse, both amatory and funerary, and by Vergil’s own experimentation with Gallan elegy in Eclogues 2, 6, and 10. Within the broader context of the Italian Iliad, the exceptional digressions of pronounced erotic and sepulchral ele­ giac colour reaffirm the revisionary epic programme emblematized by Caieta (mors) and Erato (amor) in the opening sequence of the maius opus. Within the Italian and Etruscan catalogues, the tales of Hippolytus/Virbius and Cycnus are captivating entr’actes that exemplify the interconnected themes of amor and mors amidst the bustle of mustering troops. By interrupting the roster of warriors with myths about the amatory annihilation of their progenitors, Vergil exemplifies the crucial tension between arma, amor, and mors that animates his vision of epic. As destructive amor engenders mors in the tales of Hippolytus/Virbius and Cycnus, the intergeneric elimination of ancestors in the legendary past presages the martial obliteration of warriors in the narrative present. Vergil allusively her­ alds the impending cost of war through an ominous acrostic concealed in the final lines of the Italian catalogue in Aeneid 7 (v-­a-­e, A. 7.815–17). The embed­ ded exclamatory interjection uae (alas) seals the first martial epic list and the first book of Vergil’s maius opus with an anguished cry of foreboding.110 Although the two catalogues celebrate Aeneas’ Italian enemies and Etruscan allies at the outset of battle, they also pre-­emptively commemorate those destined to perish by enemy hands (Mezentius, Lausus, Halaesus, Turnus, and Camilla in the catalogue of Aeneid 7; and Abas and Aulestes in the catalogue of Aeneid 10) or vanish from the text (Aventinus, Oebalus, and Virbius in the catalogue of Aeneid 7; and Massicus, Astur, Cinyrus, Cupauo, and Ocnus in the catalogue of Aeneid 10). Thrown into relief against the martial pomp of the catalogues, the stylized inter­ generic vignettes are also monuments to the evolving nature of Vergil’s elegiac experimentation. Suffused with inter- and intratextual richness, the mythological digressions provide compelling evidence for Vergil’s enduring commitment to Alexandrian principles, his engagement with the recent elegiac innovations of Propertius and Tibullus, and his perpetuation of the poetic legacy of Gallus even after his disgrace and death.

110 On uae as an exclamation of anguish or foreboding, see L–­S s.v. uae; OLD s.v. uae 1.

5

From Amor to Mors Passion and Devastation in Aeneid 12

The final book of the Aeneid is the culmination of Vergil’s experimentation with amatory and funerary elegy, an intergeneric swansong that reinforces in aesthetic and thematic terms the programmatic trajectory from amor to mors that animates the entire epic. Vergil interweaves the closural passages with ­distinct elegiac elem­ents, intertextual allusions to crucial external models, and intratextual references to previous episodes that feature his own engagement with elegy. The resulting nexus of poetic material calls to mind the essential elegiac threads of the entire narrative, prompting reflection on the nature of Vergilian amor, its pervasive impact, and its centrality to the outcome of the Aeneid. Vergil begins with a dialogic exchange between Turnus, Latinus, Amata, and Lavinia (A. 12.1–80) that evokes the narrative, aesthetic, and thematic design of the programmatic introductions and infuriation sequence of Aeneid 7. The last congregation of the central Italian characters offers a potent reminder of the conflicting amores transformed by Allecto into the first violence (arma) and death (mors) of Vergil’s maius opus. Although Turnus now pays lip service to political and martial ideals in his desire for single combat with Aeneas, his ferocious enmity stems from amor and he cannot bear for Lavinia to be betrothed to his Trojan rival. The urgent speeches of Latinus and Amata recall the queen’s unseemly mirus amor for Turnus and his fury over the engagement of Lavinia to Aeneas, emphasizing the amatory vulnerabilities that Allecto manipulated into arma. Vivid erotic imagery in the description of Lavinia, blushing hotly in response to her mother’s fervent speech, silently declares her amor for Turnus. In the martial escalation that follows the dialogic exchange, Vergil consigns Amata and Turnus to mors with marked funerary elegiac gestures, thereby fulfilling the teleogical progression established in Aeneid 7. The intergeneric and allusive texture of Aeneid 12 makes it the conceptual capstone of the established thematic trajectory, which brutally confirms the perilous consequences of amor for the central Italian characters of the maius opus.

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0006

124  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid

Turnus’ Impassioned Martial Resolve (A. 12.1–17) As the long-­awaited conclusion gets under way, Vergil gives special priority to Turnus by making his name the incipit of Aeneid 12 (Turnus, A. 12.1), the only book to feature a proper name in its locus primus.1 The commemoration of Turnus programmatically signals his paramount importance to the resolution of the narrative. Indeed, as Viktor Pöschl maintains, ‘the twelfth book belongs to Turnus in the same way that the fourth belongs to Dido’.2 Vergil proceeds to establish Turnus’ emotional response to the martial setbacks of his people (A. 12.1–4): Turnus ut infractos aduerso Marte Latinos defecisse uidet, sua nunc promissa reposci, se signari oculis, ultro implacabilis ardet attollitque animos. [Turnus, when he sees that the people of Latium, shattered by unfavourable battle, have lost strength, that now his promises are claimed as due, that he is the target of hostile eyes, on his part blazes unappeasably and raises his courage.]

The focus on Turnus in the programmatic opening passage of Aeneid 12 draws the mind back to the introduction of Juno, the warrior’s divine avatar, in Aeneid 1 (A. 1.12–33). In the correlated passages, Vergil establishes Juno and Turnus as violent enemies of Aeneas and presents ostensible reasons for their enmity that are unrelated to amor. Turnus’ martial uiolentia (A. 12.9) apparently derives from concern for his exhausted and war-­torn people, the need to fulfil his earlier pledge to fight Aeneas in single combat, and the hostile scrutiny that threatens his reputation.3 The alleged reason for Juno’s violent rage (ui superum . . . Iunonis ob iram, A. 1.4) is her concern that the Roman descendants of Aeneas are fated to vanquish her beloved Carthage (A. 1.12–25).4 Such pretexts, however, are at variance with the elegiac descriptions of both Juno and Turnus, which reveal the figurative amatory flames (accensa, A. 1.29; accenso, A. 12.9) and wounds (uulnus, A. 1.36; uulnere, A. 12.5) that motivate their mutual aggression towards Aeneas.5 Vergil thus frames the entire epic with intergeneric portraits of Turnus and Juno, who

1  The opening words or phrases of the twelve books are arma (A. 1.1); conticuere (A. 2.1); postquam (A. 3.1); at regina (A. 4.1); interea (A. 5.1); sic fatur (A. 6.1); tu quoque (A. 7.1); ut belli (A. 8.1); atque ea (A. 9.1); panditur (A. 10.1); Oceanum (A. 11.1); Turnus (A. 12.1). 2  Pöschl (1962) 109. 3  See Turnus’ promise to determine the outcome of the war through single combat with Aeneas, offered in response to Drances’ invective in Book 11 (A. 11.438–44). 4  Vergil’s initial description of Carthage at A. 1.12–25 establishes the parameters of its analogical and oppositional relationship to Rome: see Giusti (2018) 98–103. 5  See Glossary s.vv. fever/fire/heat, injury/wound.

From Amor to Mors  125 embody the connection between uulnera amoris and Iliadic uiolentia.6 Even within the explanation of Turnus’ uiolentia, Vergil alludes to the warrior’s enduring association with fire, both amatory and martial. The form ardet (he blazes, A. 12.3), placed in the emphatic final position of its verse, allusively indicates that amor fuels his desire to fight Aeneas.7 In the vivid lion simile that follows, Vergil fuses together epic and elegiac ma­ter­ial to illustrate Turnus’ identity as an epic miles amator (A. 12.4–9):         Poenorum qualis in aruis saucius ille graui uenantum uulnere pectus tum demum mouet arma leo, gaudetque comantis excutiens ceruice toros fixumque latronis impauidus frangit telum et fremit ore cruento. haud secus accenso gliscit uiolentia Turno. [As in the fields of the Carthaginians that lion, injured in its breast by a grievous wound inflicted by hunters, then at last commences battle, and he rejoices as he shakes out his shaggy mane with his neck and without fear breaks the embedded shaft of the robber and roars with his bloody mouth. Just so violence swells in Turnus, set aflame.]

As has long been noted by commentators, Vergil’s simile has a distinct Homeric provenance,8 recalling the frequent use of leonine imagery to describe the war­ riors and heroes of the Iliad and the Odyssey.9 In particular, Vergil models his lion simile on the Iliadic comparison of Achilles to a hunted lion as he prepares to engage Aeneas in combat (Hom. Il. 20.164–75).10 There are numerous parallels between the two similes: a lion faces a group of human assailants (ἄνδρες, Hom. Il. 20.165; uenantum, A. 12.5); endures a spear wound (δουρὶ, Hom. Il. 20.168; telum, A. 12.8); and rouses itself for battle with a display of furious might (Hom. Il. 20.168–73; A. 12.6–8). The Achillean lion also displays the same ‘kill or be killed’ warrior philosophy (Hom. Il. 20.172–73) that Turnus enunciates in his

6  On the ancient etymological connection between uiolentia, uulnus, and uis, see LALE s.vv. uiolentus, uulnus; Paschalis (1997) 380. 7  Cf. Vergil’s proximal placement of amor and ardet in subsequent descriptions of Turnus in relation to Lavinia (A. 12.70–71, 12.670–71). 8  For discussion of the Homeric origins of the simile, see Pöschl (1962) 110; Otis (1963) 372; Knauer (1964) 425; Williams (1973) 438 ad A. 12.4 f.; Briggs (1980) 95; Gransden (1984) 191; Cairns (1989) 112; Perkell (1999) 211; Tarrant (2012) 85–6 ad A. 12.4–9. 9  On Homeric lion similes, see Scott (1974) 58–62, 141; Moulton (1977) 60–1, 70–3, 89, 97–98, 105, 112–14, 139–41; Schnapp-­Gourbeillon (1981) 38–64; Lonsdale (1990) 39–70, 118–22, 137–41; Scott (2009) passim. 10  For discussion of this Achillean lion simile, see Moulton (1977) 112–13; Schnapp-­Gourbeillon (1981) 86; Lonsdale (1990) 40–1; Edwards (1991) 309 ad Hom. Il. 20.164–75; Scott (2009) 35, 84.

126  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid opening speech to Latinus immediately following the simile (A. 12.14–17).11 For his depiction of Turnus, undaunted and filled with fury, Vergil appropriates the simile of the Achillean lion, a suitable image for his alius Achilles.12 The intratextual reverberations of the lion simile associate Turnus with other youthful warriors whose trajectories proceed from amor to mors, reinforcing his role as miles amans and his fatal entanglement in the conflicting amores of Vergil’s Italian Iliad.13 Striking verbal correspondences forge a link between the Turnus/ lion simile and that which describes Nisus’ martial frenzy during the fateful night raid in Aeneid 9. The two images end with the identical phrase fremit ore cruento (he roars with his bloody mouth, A. 9.341, 12.8), preceded by the anagrammatic metu (A. 9.341) and telum et (A. 12.8).14 Vergil, through the precise echo, associates Turnus’ state of mind and readiness for action with that of Nisus, another youthful warrior whose amor leads to mors. But the appearance of the phrase fremit ore cruento (A. 12.8) in the Turnus/lion simile also conjures two key elements of his slaughter of Pallas in Aeneid 10. Vergil compares the image of Turnus charging Pallas (Turni uenientis imago, A. 10.456) to that of a lion pursuing a bull (A. 10.454–56): leo, specula cum uidit ab alta | stare procul campis meditantem in proelia taurum, aduolat (the lion, when he has seen from an elevated lookout a bull standing far away in the fields practising for battle, rushes to attack).15 When Turnus deals the death blow to Pallas, the dying Arcadian youth bites the hostile earth with his bloody mouth (A. 10.489): et terram hostilem moriens petit ore cruento.16 The phrase fremit ore cruento traces an intratextual path back to Pallas, implicating Turnus in the trajectory of the Arcadian warrior from eroticized youth (amor) to lamented loved one (mors). When Turnus slaughters Pallas with leonine ferocity, he also unwittingly clinches his own teleological progression from impassioned warrior to victim of Aeneas, who strikes him down to avenge the beloved Arcadian youth. The vivid description of the Turnus/lion joyfully shaking his shaggy mane (gaudetque comantis | excutiens ceruice toros, A. 12.6–7) duplicates the action of 11  The ‘kill or be killed’ philosophy articulates the epic hero’s indifference to life or death: see Moulton (1977) 113; Lonsdale (1990) 40; Edwards (1991) 310 ad Hom. Il. 20.172–73. 12  On the Sibyl’s prophetic reference to Turnus (alius Latio iam partus Achilles, a second Achilles has already been born in Latium, A. 6.89), see Servius ad A. 6.89; Butler (1920) 103 ad A. 6.89; Page (1923) 452 ad A. 6.89; Williams (1972) 465 ad A. 6.89; Cairns (1989) 114; Gransden (1991) 2. On Aeneas’ troubling Achillean behaviour and role as alius Achilles, see Anderson (1957) 24–7; Quinn (1968) 46; Galinsky (1981) 999; Moskalew (1982) 153; Boyle (1986) 155–6; Hershkowitz (1998) 155. Cf. also the ‘second Achilles’ of Eclogue 4 (atque iterum ad Troiam magnus mittetur Achilles, and once more a great Achilles will be sent to Troy, E. 4.36), on which see Servius ad A. 6.89; Butler (1920) 103 ad A. 6.89; Coleman (1977) 141–2 ad Ecl. 4.36; Clausen (1994) 125. 13  There are no lion similes in Books 1–6 of the Aeneid. 14  On the Nisus simile, see Hornsby (1970) 10–11, 65–6 [who attributes the simile to Euryalus]; Hardie (1994) 134–5 ad A. 9.339–41. Cf. the description of Furor in Aeneid 1 (fremet horridus ore cruento, it will roar terrible with its bloody mouth, A. 1.296). 15  For discussion of this Turnus/lion simile, see Harrison (1991) 188–9 ad A. 10.454–56. 16  On the description of Pallas, see Harrison (1991) 196 ad A. 10.489.

From Amor to Mors  127 the Mezentius/lion simile in Aeneid 10 (A. 10.726): gaudet hians immane comasque arrexit (he rejoices, his mouth gaping monstrously, and has raised his mane).17 Mezentius’ leonine frenzy occurs shortly before his death at the hands of Aeneas (A. 10.906–07) and characterizes his ferocious slaughter of the youthful warrior Acron, who leaves behind unfinished nuptials and an arranged bride (infectos . . . hymenaeos, A. 10.720; pactae coniugis, A. 10.722). Without exception, hymenaei (match, marriage) in the Aeneid refers to problematic couplings ­thematically connected to amor, arma, and mors,18 particularly the disputed ‘marriage’ of Turnus’ conceptual doublets Aeneas and Dido19 and the conflict over Lavinia’s successive betrothals to Turnus and Aeneas.20 Vergil likewise uses the participle pactus (arranged, settled, negotiated), which describes Acron’s betrothed (pactae coniugis, A. 10.722), exclusively in reference to Aeneas’ union with Dido and his eventual engagement to Lavinia: Juno exhorts Venus to collaborate with her in arranging the marriage of Dido to Aeneas (pactosque hymenaeos, A. 4.99); Juno charges the Trojans with stealing arranged brides in a veiled reference to Aeneas and Lavinia (gremiis abducere pactas, A. 10.79); and Turnus sarcastically taunts Aeneas to stand and fight for his arranged marriage to Lavinia (thalamos ne desere pactos, A. 10.649). The correspondence between the jubilant lions of the Turnus and Mezentius similes creates a complex intratextual circuit that operates on multiple levels: it associates Turnus with Acron, underscoring his role as another doomed, displaced bridegroom; it analogizes Turnus to Mezentius, foreshadowing that he, too, will perish at Aeneas’ hand; and it enmeshes Turnus within a network of contentious nuptial arrangements that engender arma and mors, emphasizing the perilous nature of his own amatory predicament. In Aeneid 12, the third and final Turnus/lion simile, intratextually reminiscent of Nisus, Mezentius, and Pallas, brings into sharp focus the Rutulian’s amatory mo­tiv­ations, martial fallibility, and 17  On the Mezentius simile, see Harrison (1991) 245 ad A. 10.723–29. 18  See Helen’s unlawful marriage to Paris, which incites the Trojan war (inconcessos . . . hymenaeos, A. 1.651); Pyrrhus’ abandonment of his captive wife Andromache in pursuit of Hermione (Lacedaemoniosque hymenaeos, A. 3.328); the shade of an incestuous father, punished for his ‘forbidden marriage’ in the underworld (uetitosque hymenaeos, A. 6.623). 19  See Juno’s desire to collaborate with Venus in securing Dido’s betrothal to Aeneas (pactosque hymenaeos, A. 4.99); Juno plotting with Venus to unite Dido and Aeneas in the cave (hic hymenaeus erit, A. 4.127); Dido’s mistaken belief in the marital legitimacy of her union with Aeneas (per inceptos hymenaeos, A. 4.316). 20  See Amata’s agitated contemplation of the arrival of Aeneas and nuptials of Lavinia and Turnus (super aduentu Teucrum Turnique hymenaeis, over the arrival of the Teucrians and the nuptials of Turnus, A. 7.344); Amata’s tearful plea to Latinus regarding Lavinia’s engagement to Aeneas (multa super natae lacrimans Phrygiisque hymenaeis, weeping profusely over the Phrygian nuptials of her daughter, A. 7.358); Amata singing of the marriage of Lavinia and Turnus during the Bacchic frenzy of Latin matrons (natae Turnique canit hymenaeos, she sings of the nuptials of her daughter and Turnus, A. 7.398); Juno’s sarcastic reference to the betrothal of Lavinia to Aeneas after Allecto’s successful instigation of violence (talis celebrent hymenaeos, such nuptials they will celebrate, A. 7.555); the Latin people cursing the war and Turnus’ marital dispute as they mourn the dead (Turnique hymenaeos, the nuptials of Turnus, A. 11.217); Drances, the enemy of Turnus, telling Latinus to marry Lavinia to Aeneas (dignisque hymenaeis, worthy nuptials, A. 11.355); Jupiter chiding Juno for mingling marriage with grief (luctu miscere hymenaeos, to mingle nuptials with grief, A. 12.805).

128  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid brutal triumph over Aeneas’ beloved companion.21 The outlook for Turnus is grim as he girds himself for the duel that seals his trajectory from amor to mors. The aesthetic qualities of the lion simile further accentuate the amatory underpinnings of Turnus’ martial frenzy. With the image of the lion, Vergil continues to characterize Turnus through the elegiac imagery of hunting (uenantem, A. 12.5; fixum . . . telum, A. 12.6–7), wounds (saucius . . . uulnere pectus, A. 12.5), and fire (accenso . . . Turno, A. 12.9), which characterize Allecto’s assault on the impassioned warrior during the infuriation sequence of Aeneid 7 ( fixit sub pectore ­taedas, she planted the brand beneath his breast, A. 7.457).22 Moreover, the military phrase mouet arma (he commences battle, A. 12.6),23 resonating with the other elegiac elements, calls to mind the conventional rhetoric of militia amoris.24 The anthropomorphized lion, goaded by its grievous wound, takes up arms (mouet arma, A. 12.6) with a furious roar ( fremit ore cruento, A. 12.8), rehearsing Turnus’ martial response to the amatory wounds inflicted by Allecto (arma amens fremit, out of his mind he roars for weapons, A. 7.460). Vergil’s heterogeneous lion represents the intergeneric fusion of epic and elegiac elements that characterize Turnus’ competing roles of warrior and lover. For Turnus, unlike his elegiac counterparts, militia amoris escapes the confines of the erotic imaginary, and he suffers in both the amatory and martial spheres. Furthermore, the description of Turnus at the beginning of Aeneid 12 bolsters his sustained connection to Dido. Specific lexical and thematic details within the Turnus/lion simile and its descriptive frame recall the proemial glimpse of the love-­struck Dido in Aeneid 4 and her subsequent comparison to a wounded hind (A. 4.1–5, 69–73).25 The Carthaginian setting of the Turnus/lion simile points immediately to Dido (Poenorum in aruis, in the fields of the Carthaginians, A. 12.4).26 Indeed, the only other Vergilian example of the genitive masculine

21  One other lion simile suggests that Turnus’ ferocity may not be sufficient to secure his triumph in battle. In Aeneid 9, Vergil compares Turnus’ reluctant, but necessary, retreat from a group of Trojan warriors to a lion routed by a group of hunters (A. 9.792–96). For discussion of the simile, see Hardie (1994) 242–3 ad A. 9.792–96. 22  See Glossary s.vv. fever/fire/heat, hunting, injury/wound. 23  On the military significance of mouet arma and its anthropomorphizing effect, see Servius ad A. 12.6; Page (1931) 414 ad A. 12.6; Williams (1973) 438 ad A. 12.6. Cf. the exiled bull in the Georgics, who returns to renew the epic battle over the lovely heifer (signa mouet, he takes up the standards, G. 3.236). 24  See Glossary s.v. militia amoris. 25  For the observation that the lion simile corresponds to the opening description of Dido in Book 4, see Pöschl (1962) 113–14; Putnam (1965) 154–5; Di Cesare (1974) 213; Gransden (1984) 191. On the intratextual connection betweeen the lion and hind similes, see Otis (1963) 373; Putnam (1965) 154–5; Hornsby (1970) 120; Di Cesare (1974) 212–13; Briggs (1980) 95; Lyne (1987) 163–4; Cairns (1989) 111. 26  For the phrase Poenorum in aruis as evocative of Carthage and Dido, see Page (1931) 413 ad A. 12.4; Putnam (1965) 156; Hornsby (1970) 120; Di Cesare (1974) 213; Gransden (1984) 191; Cairns (1989) 111; Fratantuono (2007) 368; Reed (2007) 58; Tarrant (2012) 86 ad A. 12.4; Goldschmidt (2013) 145–6; Giusti (2018) 228–9. On the Ennian/Hannibalic aspects of the comparison of Turnus to a Carthaginian lion, see Goldschmidt (2013) 145–6; Giusti (2018) 227.

From Amor to Mors  129 form Poenorum (A. 4.134) describes the Carthaginians mustering for the fateful hunt that leads to Dido’s fatal union with Aeneas (ille dies primus leti, that first day of death, A. 4.169). Fire imagery framing the lion simile (ardet, A. 12.3; accenso gliscit . . . Turno, A. 12.9) underscores Turnus’ characteristic ardour, while recalling the language that describes both the onset and escalation of Dido’s fiery, devastating amor (cf. caeco carpitur igni, she is consumed by unseen fire, A. 4.2; ardet, she burns, A. 4.101; accensa, set aflame, A. 4.364).27 Vergil also figuratively inflicts upon Turnus the same precise wounds of love that Dido suffers in the beginning of Aeneid 4.28 The hunted lion, injured in its breast by a grievous wound (saucius . . . graui . . . uulnere pectus, A. 12.5), embodies Turnus’ uulnera amoris and mirrors those of Dido (graui . . . saucia cura | uulnus alit, injured by grievous care she nourishes the wound, A. 4.1–2; haerent infixi pectore uultus | uerbaque, the appearance and speech of Aeneas stick fast impaled in her breast, A. 4.4–5).29 Turnus’ comparison to the hunted lion, like that of Dido to a herdsman’s quarry (A. 4.69–73), evokes the conventional elegiac characterization of the lover as prey.30 Hunters’ projectiles pierce both the Dido/hind and the Turnus/lion (fixit . . . | . . . telis, A. 4.70–71; fixum . . . telum, A. 12.6–7), recalling the penetrating arrows of Amor in amatory elegy.31 From its conspicuous Carthaginian setting to its array of intratextual references and intergeneric motifs, the lion simile cor­rel­ates Turnus to Dido, suggesting that he will share her fate as another victim of amor and Aeneas. But Vergil adapts significant aspects of the hunted animal simile to suit Turnus’ unique role as the miles amans of the Italian Iliad, pitted against Aeneas in both martial and amatory competition. By contrast to the pastor nescius (unknowing herdsman, A. 4.71–72), who signifies Aeneas’ unwitting erotic effect on Dido, the latro (robber, A. 12.7) of the lion simile implicates the Trojan hero in the theft of Turnus’ intended bride.32 Vergil’s conspicuous, one-­time use of latro (robber) to  refer to Aeneas’ conceptual doublet within the simile recalls the exclusive application of its synonym praedo (robber) to the Trojan hero elsewhere in the epic. Amata, Mezentius, and the Latin matrons denounce Aeneas as a bride-­ stealer (praedo, A. 7.632; praedonis, A. 10.774; praedonis, A. 11.484),33 their hostile invective evoking that of Iarbas and Juno, who condemn him as a second Paris 27  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat. Vergil elsewhere uses flamma (A. 4.23, 4.66), flammare (A. 4.54), ignis (A. 1.688), and uro (A. 4.68) to describe Dido’s symptoms of love and characterize her erotic ­suffering: see Cairns (1989) 149. 28  See Glossary s.v. injury/wound. 29 For discussion of these verbal parallels, see Pöschl (1962) 110; Putnam (1965) 155; Nelis (2001) 375. 30  See Glossary s.vv. hunting, militia amoris. 31  See Pichon s.vv. figere, tela. 32  On Vergil’s use of prosaic latro (robber), see Servius ad A. 12.7; Putnam (1965) 154; Hornsby (1970) 120; Williams (1973) 438 ad A. 12.7; Lyne (1989) 163–5; Thomas (1998) 289; Fratantuono (2007) 367–8; Tarrant (2012) 87 ad A. 12.7. 33  See Page (1931) 348 ad A. 10.774; Williams (1973) 194 ad A. 7.362; 373 ad A. 10.774–76; Lyne (1987) 161–5; Harrison (1991) 258 ad A. 10.774; Horsfall (2000) 252 ad A. 7.362.

130  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid (ille Paris . . . rapto potitur, A. 4.215–17; Paris alter, A. 7.321). The lion, in stark contrast to the unwary deer and her unwitting assailant, fiercely confronts a group of hostile hunters, embodying the epic clash for supremacy between the superlative epic hero and a multitude of combatants.34 Whereas the hind wanders in flight (fuga . . . peragrat, A. 4.72) with the herdsman’s arrow stuck fast in her flank (haeret lateri letalis harundo, A. 4.73), the warlike lion moves to attack (mouet arma, A. 12.6), fearlessly breaks the hunter’s implanted dart (impauidus frangit telum, A. 12.8), and roars with his bloodied mouth (fremit ore cruento, A. 12.8). In Aeneid 4, the hunted deer emblematizes Dido’s amatory heedlessness, suffering, and destruction, its wounds prefiguring her self-­inflicted mortal injury.35 In Aeneid 12, the wounded lion, preparing to face insurmountable odds, exemplifies the productive tension between amor and arma that characterizes Turnus’ frenzy, agony, and resolve to face death at the hands of Aeneas, his superlative amatory and martial rival. But the simile of the Punic lion also allusively prefigures Turnus’ inability to defeat Aeneas, whose eventual dominance in battle emulates that of a fierce Umbrian hunting hound chasing its frightened prey (A. 12.749–55). During the first stage of the duel, Vergil describes the frantic flight of Turnus from Aeneas through the image of a stag, hemmed in by fear of the crimson feathers on the hunter’s enclosure (ceruum aut puniceae saeptum formidine pennae, A. 12.750) and fleeing back and forth in terror (territus . . . | fugit refugitque, A. 12.752–53). The conceptualization of Aeneas and Turnus as hunter and prey evokes a network of interlinked passages: the analogous simile of the hunted cerua that illustrates the deleterious amatory effect of Aeneas on Dido and prefigures her subsequent destruction (A. 4.69–73); the infuriation of Ascanius and his slaying of Silvia’s stag, which incites the outbreak of violence (A. 7.475–510); and the comparison of Turnus, eager for a confrontation with Aeneas, to the wounded Punic lion fa­cing insurmountable odds (A. 12.4–8). Moreover, the presence of the adjective puniceus (crimson; Punic, Carthaginian) bolsters the connection with Dido (cf. Poenorum . . . in aruis, in the fields of the Carthaginians, A. 12.4), as does the frantic motion of the stag (fugit refugitque, it flees back and forth, A. 12.753), which recalls that of Dido as a wounded cerua (illa fuga . . . peragrat, she wanders in flight, A. 4.72) and that of Anna conveying her sister’s futile entreaties to Aeneas (fertque refertque soror, her sister brings and brings again, A. 4.438). Thus, the stag simile, intratextually redolent of Dido’s amatory destruction, Allecto’s ma­nipu­la­tion of amor to provoke arma, and Turnus’ impassioned desire for

34  For discussion of the recurring epic theme of one superlative hero fighting against many op­pon­ ents, see Hardie (1993) 3–10. 35  For discussion of the thematic correlation between the mortal injury of the hind and Dido’s fi­gura­tive and literal uulnera, see Newton (1957) 38; Lyne (1987) 121; Keith (2000) 113–14; Harrison (2007) 211.

From Amor to Mors  131 battle, underscores the progression of Vergil’s miles amans from impassioned violence to mors. Immediately following the Turnus/lion simile, Vergil describes the fiery es­cal­ation of Turnus’ emotions (A. 12.9): haud secus accenso gliscit uiolentia Turno (just so violence swells in Turnus, set aflame). The verse, densely packed with inter- and intratextual lexical cues, underscores the destructive amor that fuels the warrior’s desire for arma. In a nod to two Lucretian illustrations of the perilous consequences of passion, Vergil juxtaposes the rare verb gliscere (to swell), which appears nowhere else in his corpus, with the amatory motifs of fire and wounds.36 In De Rerum Natura 1, Lucretius condemns the blazing love of Helen that swells in Paris’ breast for its role in igniting the Trojan war (Lucr. 1.473–75): numquam Tyndaridis forma conflatus amore ignis, Alexandri Phrygio sub pectore gliscens, clara accendisset saeui certamina belli [Never would the flame kindled by love on account of Helen’s beauty, swelling beneath the Phrygian breast of Alexander, have inflamed the famous struggles of ferocious war.]

Later in his diatribe on the dangers of unchecked passion, Lucretius warns of the intensifying frenzy that results from festering uulnera amoris (Lucr. 4.1068–69): ulcus enim uiuescit et inueterascit alendo | inque dies gliscit furor atque aerumna grauescit (for the sore comes to life and becomes chronic from being nourished, and the frenzy swells each day and suffering becomes grievous).37 The unrestrained amor of Turnus has the same dire consequences as that of Paris and the suffering lover in Lucretius: it inflicts a figurative wound to his breast (saucius graui . . . uulnere pectus, A. 12.5); it sets him aflame (accenso, A. 12.9; cf. ardet, A. 12.3); and it escalates into violence (accenso gliscit uiolentia, A. 12.9). Vergil’s intertextual engagement with Lucretius configures Turnus as another incarnation of Alexander, whose problematic passion for an unattainable object of desire engenders war. Turnus’ allusive identification as a second Paris strains against that of Aeneas, who is reviled by his enemies as a bride-­stealing alter Paris (cf. latro, A. 12.7; Paris, A. 4.215, 7.321; praedo, A. 7.632, 10.774, 11.484). Once again, Vergil underscores the problematic redundancy created by the existence of Turnus and Aeneas, two similarly superlative warriors vying for dominance in the amatory and martial spheres (cf. ante alios pulcherrimus omnis, A. 4.141, 7.55). Turnus’ impassioned uiolentia motivates him to fight a battle that ends with his 36  See Glossary s.vv. fever/fire/heat, injury/wound. 37  For Lucretius’ use of illness or disease as a metaphor for erotic affliction, see Brown (1987) 133–4, 209–13 ad Lucr. 4.1068–72; 248 ad Lucr. 4.1120. Lucretius only uses gliscere two other times (Lucr. 3.480, 5.1061).

132  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid elimination, leaving Aeneas unchallenged as the emblematic epic uir (arma uirumque, A. 1.1) and fated husband of Lavinia (matura uiro, A. 7.53). Vergil makes uiolentia the exclusive attribute of Turnus (A. 11.354, 11.376, 12.9, 12.45), a dubious distinction that emphasizes his lack of emotional control.38 All four examples of Turnus’ uiolentia, moreover, explicitly relate to the disputed marital arrangements of Lavinia. In Aeneid 11, Drances exhorts Latinus to disregard Turnus’ uiolentia and give Lavinia to Aeneas (A. 11.354–56): nec te ullius uiolentia uincat | quin natam egregio genero dignisque hymenaeis | des pater (let no man’s violence overpower you, preventing you, the father, from giving your daughter to an exceptional son-­in-­law and a worthy marriage). In the speech that follows (A. 11.357–75), Drances attacks Turnus for embroiling the people in his selfish amatory crusade: he declares that the Rutulian should fight Aeneas himself, if he has such a keen desire for a royal dowry (si adeo dotalis regia cordi est, A. 11.369); and he condemns the warrior for causing death and devastation in order to gain a royal bride (ut Turno contingat regia coniunx, A. 11.371). Drances’ invective assault ignites the violence of Turnus (talibus exarsit dictis uiolentia Turni, at words such as these the violence of Turnus flared up, A. 11.376). In Aeneid 7, Turnus’ contemptuous speech to Allecto has precisely the same impact on the Fury, who flares up into anger (talibus Allecto dictis exarsit in iras, at words such as these, Allecto flared up into anger, A. 7.445).39 The stunning intratextual repetition emphatically evokes the commencement of Allecto’s infuriation of Turnus, tracing his impassioned uiolentia back to its intergeneric inception. In Aeneid 12, Vergil likewise connects the uiolentia that swells in Turnus (haud secus accenso gliscit uiolentia Turno, just so violence swells in Turnus, set aflame, A. 12.9) to his pursuit of Lavinia. The word amor, concealed in an anagram (nulla mora in Turno, there is no delay in Turnus, A. 12.11),40 and the phrase Lauinia coniunx (A. 12.17) frame Turnus’ renewed pledge to engage Aeneas in single combat (A. 12.11–17). Vergil thus alludes to the love of Lavinia that fuels Turnus’ martial resolve to fight Aeneas without delay.

Latinus’ Ineffectual Speech (A. 12.18–53) Latinus, exhorted by Turnus to formalize the arrangements for the duel (A. 12.13), attempts to defuse the uiolentia of the impassioned youth and dissuade him from battle with a sober speech (A. 12.18–53).41 He begins by tactfully combining 38  As noted also by Putnam (1995) 180; Tarrant (2012) 88 ad A. 12.9; McGill (2020) 151–2 ad A. 11.354. 39  See McGill (2020) 157 ad A. 11.376. 40  See Glossary s.v. anagram. On Turnus and the amor/mora anagram, see also Reed (2016) 90–1. 41  Highet (1972) 81–2 provides a summary of the contents of the speech and discusses its rhet­ oric­al structure. See also Peirano Garrison (2019), who explores the relationship between rhetoric and poetry after Vergil.

From Amor to Mors  133 c­ autionary words with strong praise, as he cites Turnus’ exceptional qualities as justification for concerned intervention (A. 12.19–21). Yet Latinus’ recognition of Turnus’ superlative standing (praestans, A. 12.19; exsuperas, A. 12.20) and fierce uirtus (feroci | uirtute, A. 12.19) calls to mind the challenge posed by the Rutulian youth to the supremacy of Aeneas, the titular uir (arma uirumque, A. 1.1), as expressed in the introduction and catalogue of Aeneid 7 (petit ante alios pulcherrimus omnis | Turnus, auis atauisque potens, Turnus seeks her above all others most handsome, powerful in his grandfathers and great-­grandfathers, A. 7.55–56; ipse inter primos praestanti corpore Turnus | uertitur arma tenens et toto uertice supra est, among the foremost Turnus himself, with his superior physique, moves about wielding arms and he is taller by a whole head, A. 7.783–84). Latinus’ praise not only fails to prevent the duel but even points to its inevitability. The king, by citing the qualities that distinguish Turnus as the superlative doublet and rival of Aeneas, anticipates the necessary vanquishment of the former at the hands of the latter to satisfy the programmatic conditions of the Aeneid (arma uirumque, A. 1.1).42 Next, Latinus attempts to focus Turnus’ attention on the vast wealth and land he possesses through paternal inheritance, conquest, and the goodwill of the king himself (A. 12.22–23). But Latinus’ well-­intended pragmatism, like other attempts at rhetorical reason in the face of amor, seems unlikely to move Turnus, a hero intent on amatory and martial primacy. As Latinus continues, he offers erotodidactic advice intended to assuage Turnus by altering his perspective on Lavinia (A. 12.24–28):43 sunt aliae innuptae Latio et Laurentibus aruis nec genus indecores. sine me haec haud mollia fatu sublatis aperire dolis, simul hoc animo hauri: me natam nulli ueterum sociare procorum fas erat, idque omnes diuique hominesque canebant. [there are other unmarried women in Latium and the Laurentine fields not unbecoming in birth. Permit me to reveal in speech, with trickery removed, these things by no means soft, and at the same time drink this in with your mind: it was divine law that I unite my daughter with none of the long-­standing suitors, and all, both gods and men, were proclaiming this.]

Latinus’ address of Turnus evokes the conventional dynamics of elegy, in which the praeceptor amoris fails to persuade the lover, whose repudiation of advice stems from an unyielding attachment to the desired puella. By focusing on Turnus’ nuptial predicament, the king implicitly acknowledges its paramount importance to the miles amans. Latinus attempts to redirect Turnus’ amatory 42  See Hardie (1986) 285–91 and (1993) 3–11.

43  See Glossary s.v. erotodidactic.

134  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid attention to the abundance of readily available and praiseworthy prospective brides (sunt aliae innuptae . . . | nec genus indecores, A. 12.24–25). Here Vergil characterizes Latinus as the concerned male friend of elegy, who extols other women to entice the lover, either to console him for abandonment by the puella or to sever his unhealthy attachment to her. The elegiac lover consistently spurns such attempts to deter him from his adamant devotion, as seen in Propertius’ reproach to Bassus (Prop. 1.4.1–2): quid mihi tam multas laudando, Basse, puellas | mutatum domina cogis abire mea? (Why, Bassus, do you compel me to change and leave my mistress by praising so many girls to me?) In Latinus’ speech, the juxtaposition of the phrases sunt aliae innuptae (there are other unmarried women, A. 12.24) and fas erat (it was divine law, A. 12.28) also recalls Propertius’ steadfast devotion to Cynthia (Prop. 1.12.19): mi neque amare aliam neque ab hac desistere fas est (it is divine will for me neither to love another woman nor to detach myself from this one). Vergil’s engagement with elegy configures Latinus and Turnus as epic incarnations of the praeceptor amoris and amator. The inter­ gen­er­ic analogy anticipates the futility of Latinus’ attempt to deter Turnus from his exceptional pursuit of Lavinia (petit ante alios, he seeks her above all others, A. 7.55) by offering well-­intended amatory guidance. Whereas the Propertian echoes in Latinus’ speech underscore the inextinguishable resolve of Turnus, other lexical details foreshadow his eventual defeat by providing subtle confirmation of Aeneas’ primacy within the design of the Aeneid. Latinus asks Turnus for permission to explain his decision to offer Lavinia to Aeneas (A. 12.26): sine me haec haud mollia fatu | sublatis aperire dolis (permit me to reveal in speech, with trickery removed, these things by no means soft). Allusive language within the king’s deferential request points to the epic priority of Aeneas and his advantageous divine lineage. The inherent metapoetic significance of haud mollia (≈ dura) suggests that the betrothal of Lavinia to Aeneas, as opposed to Turnus, aligns with the dominant narrative and generic scheme of Vergil’s durus epic.44 Given the elegiac significance of dolus as a term for the conventionally deceptive behaviour of lovers and amor itself,45 the phrase sublatis dolis (with trickery removed, A. 12.26), like haud mollia, betrays Latinus’ metapoetic alignment with epic. Moreover, the word dolus intratextually recalls Venus’ strategic use of her amatory wiles to ensure the success of Aeneas: she protects his safety in Carthage by beguiling Dido with amor (dolis, A. 1.673; dolos, A. 1.682; dolo, A. 1.684; dolo, A. 4.95); and she endows him with divine arma by seducing Vulcan (laeta dolis, pleased with her trickery, A. 8.393). Latinus defends his rejection of Turnus’ suit as bridegroom by citing divine authority (fas erat, it was 44  In effect, the litotes haud mollis is equivalent to durus, as noted by Tarrant (2012) 93 ad A. 12.25. See Glossary s.vv. durus, mollis. 45  See Glossary s.v. dolus/deception; Pichon s.v. doli.

From Amor to Mors  135 divine law, A. 12.28), recalling Aeneas’ similar justification for his abandonment of Dido (A. 4.350): et nos fas extera quaerere regna (it is divine law that we too seek out a realm in another country). The divine support that extricates Aeneas from the amatory entanglement that threatens his epic mission in the first half of the Aeneid now safeguards his success by preventing the fulfilment of Turnus’ amor. Latinus’ citation of divine will also looks back to the oracle of Faunus (A. 7.96–101), which opposed the selection of a Latin husband for Lavinia and warned against the marriage chambers already prepared (thalamis . . . paratis, A. 7.97). Though the phrase thalami parati indicates the existence of prior nuptial arrangements between Turnus and Lavinia, commentators disagree on the precise nature of the Rutulian’s claim to her hand.46 Livy and Servius provide evidence for the widespread conviction that Lavinia was betrothed to Turnus before Aeneas’ arrival (Liv. 1.2.1; Servius ad A. 12.31): Turnus rex Rutulorum, cui pacta Lauinia ante aduentum Aeneae fuerat (Turnus was the king of the Rutulians, to whom Lavinia had been betrothed before the arrival of Aeneas);47 licet multi dicant, ante eam Turno fuisse promissam (although many say that she had been promissed to Turnus before). Though Vergil opts for ambiguity, his awareness of the existing tradition about Lavinia’s formal betrothal to Turnus informs phrases like thalami parati (A. 7.97; cf. promissam eripui genero, A. 12.31). Latinus, by referring to the oracle, implicitly acknowledges Turnus’ former claim to Lavinia as the favoured suitor prior to the arrival of the foreigner Aeneas.48 Through his apologetic explanation, the king attempts to exonerate himself from blame and demonstrate his sympathy towards Turnus. But by prompting recollection of Turnus’ loss of his intended bride he only reinforces the youth’s amatory grievance against Aeneas.

46  See Servius (ad A. 7.97, 12.31), who discusses the alternative intepretations of Vergil’s various intimations regarding prior marital arrangements between Turnus and Lavinia. Anderson (1957) 22 and Putnam (1965) 157 endorse the interpretation that Lavinia was betrothed to Turnus. On thalami parati as evidence for Turnus’ prior betrothal, see Page (1931) 156 ad A. 7.97; Zarker (1969) 4, 6; Bleisch (1996) 457; Thomas (2001) 82; Thomas (2006) 302. Contra Fowler (1919) 42 (‘no contract of any kind’); Heinze (1993) 145 (‘a formal betrothal had not taken place’); Horsfall (2000) 106 ad A. 7.97 and 288–9 ad A. 7.423, who argues against any official engagement and disregards other authors who refer to one (e.g. Liv. 1.2.1, Ov. Met. 14.451, D.H.  1.64.2), yet acknowledges that Turnus fights for Latinus under the implicit assumption that his service will be rewarded by marriage to Lavinia. 47  Ogilvie (1965) 40–1 ad Liv. 1.2.1 suggests that the insertion of the dream oracle of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.81–106) was designed to mitigate Latinus’ discourteous rejection of Turnus in favour of Aeneas. Rostagni (1942) discusses Livy’s influence on Vergil, and the poet’s influence on the historian. Contra Ogilvie (1965) 3, who rejects the possiblity that Vergil borrowed from Livy and vice versa. 48  On the one hand, the ambiguity with which Vergil treats the marital intervention of Aeneas, the mythical ancestor of Augustus, may reflect a sense of decorum or delicacy. On the other hand, as I am grateful to my anonymous reader for pointing out, the ambiguity creates space for the perspectives of different characters to coexist and clash (cf. the thorny issue of marriage between Aeneas and Dido in Aeneid 4).

136  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Latinus next claims that his personal behaviour led to the rupture of the marital arrangements and the outbreak of war with the Trojans (A. 12.29–31): uictus amore tui, cognato sanguine uictus coniugis et maestae lacrimis, uincla omnia rupi; promissam eripui genero, arma impia sumpsi. [overcome by love of you, overcome by kindred blood and the tears of my sorrowful wife, I broke all bonds; I snatched her from the son-­in-­law she was promised to, I took up impious arms.]

The juxtaposition of amor (A. 12.29), coniunx (A. 12.30), and gener (A. 12.31) in Latinus’ speech immediately evokes the programmatic introduction of Amata in Aeneid 7, which emphasized her mirus amor for Turnus and fervent desire to procure him as husband for Lavinia (A. 7.56–57): quem regia coniunx | adiungi generum miro properabat amore (whom the wife of the king with strange desire eagerly wanted joined to her as son-­in-­law).49 Astonishingly, Latinus presents a distorted account of the outbreak of war, in which he attributes to himself the destructive elegiac impulses of his wife and misrepresents his own actions. The phrase uictus amore tui (overcome by love of you, A. 12.29) ascribes to Latinus the amor for Turnus that overtook Amata (miro . . . amore, A. 7.57) under the influence of the uictrix Allecto (A. 7.554). Latinus, who asserts that he was overcome by Amata’s tearful appeal (uictus | coniugis et maestae lacrimis, A. 12.29–30; cf. A. 7.358–72), actually stood firm against her (contra stare, A. 7.374). Lastly, the suggestion that Latinus snatched Lavinia away from Aeneas and incited war (promissam eripui genero, arma impia sumpsi, A. 12.31) encapsulates two central aspects of Amata’s post-­infuriation frenzy: she concealed Lavinia in the leafy mountains, in order to snatch the marriage from the Trojans (natam frondosis montibus abdit, | quo thalamum eripiat Teucris, A. 7.387–88);50 and her Bacchic influence drove the people to importune Mars (Martemque fatigant, A. 7.582) and demand unspeakable war (infandum . . . bellum | . . . poscunt, A. 7.584–85). Latinus, by contrast, failed to quell the martial impulses of his people, then retreated within his palace and relinquished the reins of power (A. 7.591–600). The marked inaccuracy of Latinus’ twisted narrative allusively incriminates Amata and underscores the correlation between her mirus amor and the eruption of arma at the beginning of the Italian Iliad.51

49  As also noted by Zarker (1969) 6, 13. 50  On Vergil’s use of thalamus here as metonymy for nuptiae, coniugium, or Lauiniam coniugem, see Page (1931) 175 ad A. 7.388; Williams (1973) 197 ad A. 7.388; Fordyce (1977) 133 ad A. 7.388; Horsfall (2000) 268 ad A. 7.388. 51  Keith (2000) 67–78 discusses Vergil’s displacement of responsibility for the instigation of wars waged by men on to militaristic female figures like Juno, Helen, Allecto, Dido, and Amata.

From Amor to Mors  137 Vergil further accentuates the capacity of amor to vanquish its victims and incite violence through Latinus’ enigmatic assertion that he was overpowered by love for Turnus (uictus amore tui, A. 12.29) and thereby snatched Lavinia from the son-­in-­law to whom she was promised (promissam eripui genero, A. 12.31). The first phrase, uictus amore tui (overcome by love of you, A. 12.29), incongruously ascribes to Latinus the passion for Turnus that overwhelms Amata under the influence of Allecto in Aeneid 7 (cf. miro . . . amore, A. 7.57; uictrix, A. 7.554). In the strictest grammatical sense, the genitive pronoun in the phrase uictus amore tui (overcome by love of you, A. 12.29) must be objective with amor, denoting Turnus as the recipient of Latinus’ love.52 Nevertheless, the combination of amor and the pronomial signifier for Turnus (tui) extrasemantically evokes his passion for Lavinia (cf. nulla mora in Turno, there is no delay in Turnus, A. 12.11; illum turbat amor, desire rouses the passion of Turnus, A. 12.70).53 Thus, the formulation uictus amore tui, which serves as a subtle reminder of Turnus’ over­power­ing desire, undermines Latinus’ rhetorical attempt to ameliorate the impassioned youth. Moreover, the formulation of uictus amore tui resonates intratextually with the scenes of infuriation and defeat that frame Turnus’ progression from amor to  arma and mors. In Aeneid 7, Turnus falls victim to the vanquishing Allecto (uictrix, A. 7.554), who transforms his passion into a raging desire for battle (saeuit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli, his desire for battle rages and his accursed madness for war, A. 7.461). When Aeneas triumphs in Aeneid 12, Turnus emphatically reiterates his admission of defeat and cedes Lavinia to his amatory and martial rival (uicisti et uictum tendere palmas | Ausonii uidere; tua est Lauinia coniunx, you have emerged victorious and the Ausonians have seen me, vanquished, extending my palms; my bride Lavinia is yours, A. 12.936–37). Latinus’ assertion that he snatched Lavinia from the son-­in-­law she was promised to (promissam eripui genero, A. 12.31) refers to the broken compact with Aeneas.54 But given the ambiguity of gener,55 the king’s words simultaneously evoke Turnus, Amata’s desired son-­in-­law (generum, A. 7.57; generum, A. 12.55), and the theft of his promised bride. Once again, Latinus heedlessly calls to mind the contentious issue of Lavinia’s betrothal, thereby intensifying Turnus’ urgency to fight Aeneas, who has stolen his intended bride (cf. latronis, A. 12.7). 52 See OLS 1044: ‘If the adnominal (second) argument is a pronoun, the genitives mei, tui, and sui are used.’ 53  A striking ambiguity appears in Servius’ explanation ad A. 12.29: victus amore tui hoc est propter te, propter tuum amorem (‘overcome by love of you’ that is to say on account of you, on account of your love). In Latin syntax, the possessive adjectives can correspond to either the objective or subjective genitive: see OLS 1045–6. Thus, the phrase propter tuum amorem can denote amor felt/experienced by Turnus (tuum ≈ subjective) or amor felt for Turnus (tuum ≈ objective). 54  For discussion of gener as representative of Aeneas, see Servius ad A. 12.31; Page (1931) 416 ad A. 12.31; Williams (1973) 440 ad A. 12.31; Di Cesare (1974) 211. 55  Contra Zarker (1969) 6–7, who interprets this occurrence of gener as referring only to Aeneas. See also Tarrant (2012) 95 ad A. 12.31, who asserts that the speaker’s perspective governs the in­ter­ pret­ation of gener.

138  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Latinus concludes his speech by mournfully contemplating the devastating consequences of his indecision over the selection of a bridegroom for Lavinia (A. 12.32–45). The king’s allusive lament reflects the thematic connection between amor, arma, and mors, as he attributes the outbreak of violence and bloodshed to his vacillation between Turnus and Aeneas. Generic signposts saturate Latinus’ initial description of the war (A. 12.32–35) with marked epic colour (bella, A. 12.33; labores, A. 12.33; magna . . . pugna, A. 12.34), recalling the proemial invocation of the Italian Iliad (pugnae, A. 7.40; bella, A. 7.41; maior . . . maius, A. 7.44–45). But immediately thereafter, Latinus paints a vivid picture of the martial carnage that derives from both epic and elegiac models (A. 12.35–36): recalent nostro Tiberina fluenta | sanguine adhuc campique ingentes ossibus albent (the streams of the Tiber are still warm with our blood and the enormous fields are white with bones). Vergil here recasts a striking vignette from the final section of Georgics 1, which encapsulates the lasting impact of the recent civil war through the image of a future farmer discovering human remains in his furrows (G. 1.497): grandiaque effossis mirabitur ossa sepulcris (he marvels at the huge bones in the unearthed graves). But Latinus’ shift from amatory guidance to the sepulchral contemplation of martial carnage mirrors the aesthetic progression of Propertius’ Monobiblos from amor to mors. Indeed, the bone-­scattered landscape of Latium (campique ingentes ossibus, A. 12.36) also evokes the two epigrams on the Perusine war that seal Propertius’ amatory collection with sepulchral finality (Prop. 1.21.9–10; 1.22.8): et quaecumque super dispersa inuenerit ossa | montibus Etruscis (and whatsoever bones she will have found scattered over the Etruscan mountains); tu nullo miseri contegis ossa solo (you cover the bones of the wretched man with no earth). The intertextual resonance of Latinus’ description of enormous, bone-­littered fields (campique ingentes ossibus, A. 12.36) allusively connects the proto-­civil war of the Italians and Trojans to the internecine violence that shattered Vergil’s contemporary Roman world. Furthermore, numerous intratextual cues within Latinus’ closing lament point precisely to marked elegiac episodes in the Aeneid that likewise exemplify the devastating impact of amor. The graphic image of the landscape ravaged by war allusively anticipates the amatory blush of Lavinia, in which Vergil transforms epic blood and bone into an elegiac flush of desire, as I discuss below. When Latinus erupts in a series of agitated rhetorical questions, he repeats Dido’s contemplation of her amatory madness (quae mentem insania mutat?, what madness changes my mind?, A. 4.595 = 12.37),56 which itself rehearses the elegiac interrogation of Gallus in the tenth eclogue (Galle, quid insanis?, Gallus, why are you acting like a madman?, E. 10.22).57 In the final lines of his speech, Latinus anxiously wonders how the Rutulians and Italians will react if he should betray 56  See Tarrant (2012) 97 ad A. 12.37.

57  See Glossary s.v. insanity.

From Amor to Mors  139 Turnus to death (ad mortem si te . . . | prodiderim, natam et conubia nostra petentem, if I should betray you to death, as you seek marriage with our daughter, A. 12.41–42).58 Latinus’ description of Turnus as petens (A. 12.42) echoes the programmatic introductory passage in Aeneid 7, in which Vergil uses the verb petere in its amatory sense to emphasize the warrior’s desirous pursuit of Lavinia (petit ante alios, he seeks her above all, A. 7.55). The phrase conubia nostra (A. 12.42) connects the vexed marital arrangements of Turnus to those of Dido, who rejects Iarbas as bridegroom (conubia nostra | reppulit, A. 4.213–14) only to unite herself with Aeneas in a disastrous relationship of questionable marital legitimacy (per conubia nostra, by our marriage, A. 4.316). Vergil’s anagrammatic wordplay in the phrase ad mortem (A. 12.41) suggests that Turnus, like Dido, will fall victim to amor, fulfilling the fears of Latinus. In the densely allusive conclusion of Latinus’ speech, Vergil utilizes powerful intergeneric imagery to underscore the cor­rel­ ation between amor, arma, and mors that permeates the entire Aeneid. Moreover, the aesthetic tension between epic and elegiac poetics captures the strain between public, political obligations and personal, private inclinations, which currently imperils Latinus and Turnus to the detriment of all.

Turnus’ Reaction to Latinus (A. 12.45–53) Latinus’ grave speech, rife with misguided references to amatory belli causae and Lavinia’s betrothal, exacerbates Turnus’ uiolentia (A. 12.45–46): haudquaquam dictis uiolentia Turni | flectitur; exsuperat magis aegrescitque medendo (not at all is the violence of Turnus swayed by the words; he/his violence is more excessive and he/his violence grows sick from the healing).59 The verb exsupero, used by Latinus to extol Turnus’ superlative standing (exsuperas, A. 12.20), now encapsulates his increasingly excessive uiolentia.60 Vergil collocates the amplification of Turnus’ epic violence with his deteriorating amatory condition, as expressed through the motif of medicina amoris/furoris, a conventional feature of elegy that likely derives from Gallan deformazione of Lucretian erotodidactic.61 One of the crucial models for elegiac descriptions of amor as a physical illness comes from Lucretius’ diatribe, in which he compares uncontrolled passion to infected wounds (Lucr. 4.1068–69): ulcus enim uiuescit et inueterascit alendo | inque dies gliscit furor atque aerumna grauescit (for the sore comes to life and becomes chronic from being nourished,

58  On the hendiadys of natam et conubia nostra, see Tarrant (2012) 98 ad A. 12.42. 59  The verbs can accommodate as subject either Turnus himself or his uiolentia. Parallel uses of exsuperare (A. 12.20, 12.46) suggest Turnus, while the Lucretian intertexts suggest uiolentia. See Servius ad A. 12.46. 60 See OLD s.v. supero 2b, 3. 61  The term deformazione is adopted from Cairns (2006) passim, but especially 104–9. See Glossary s.v. medicina amoris.

140  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid and the frenzy swells each day and suffering becomes grievous).62 The Lucretian inchoative phrase gliscit furor (frenzy swells, Lucr. 4.1069) has already informed Vergil’s introductory illustration of Turnus’ swelling violence (gliscit uiolentia, A. 12.9). Vergil now emulates other elements of the same Lucretian passage to emphasize the deleterious impact of Latinus’ speech on Turnus. The formulation aegrescitque medendo (he/his violence grows sick from the healing, A. 12.46) imitates Lucretius’ combination of an inchoative verb and gerund (inueterascit alendo, Lucr. 4.1068) and mimics the sound of aerumna grauescit (Lucr. 4.1069).63 Vergil thus frames the speech of Latinus with correlative Lucretian allusions that associate Turnus’ swelling uiolentia with uncontrolled, festering amor. Moreover, Latinus’ abject failure to alleviate Turnus evokes the stark real­iza­tion of Gallus in the tenth eclogue that no remedy exists for his amatory furor (tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris, as though these things could be a remedy for our frenzy, E. 10.60). The vividly allusive descriptions of Turnus underscore the failure of Latinus’ speech, which aggravates the warrior’s figurative uulnera amoris (cf. uulnere, A. 12.5) and further inflames his amatory violence.64 Indeed, as soon as Turnus can speak, he emphatically rejects Latinus’ attempt to soothe him (A. 12.48–49): quam pro me curam geris, hanc precor, optime, pro me | deponas (the care which you bear for me, this I pray, most estimable one, you set aside for me). The multivalent elegiac significance of cura denotes both the remedy proffered by Latinus and the amatory suffering of Turnus.65 As Turnus declares his intention to barter death for praise and showcase his martial skills (A. 12.49–51), he defines himself as the quintessential epic warrior, confident in his mastery of arma (tela . . . ferumque, shafts . . . iron, A. 12.50) and in his capacity to inflict bloody wounds (nostro sequitur de uulnere sanguis, blood follows from our wound, A. 12.51). But Turnus’ language calls to mind his earlier comparison to the lion, pierced and bloodied by weapons (uulnere, A. 12.5; telum, A. 12.8; cruento, A. 12.8), yet determined to confront an insurmountable enemy. The evocation of the lion simile allusively predicts the outcome of the duel, during which Turnus’ symbolic uulnera amoris materialize into the bloody, fatal wound inflicted by Aeneas’ sword (uulnere, A. 12.948; sanguine, A. 12.949; ferrum, A. 12.950).66 Though Latinus has allusively confirmed Venus’ ability to protect Aeneas through her amatory wiles (dolis, A. 12.26), Turnus blatantly rejects the notion that she 62  For Lucretius’ use of illness or disease as a metaphor for erotic affliction, see Brown (1987) 133–4; 209–13 ad Lucr. 4.1068–72; 248 ad Lucr. 4.1120. 63  For discussion of Lucretius’ use of the gerund, see Bailey (1947) 103–5; Brown (1987) 211 ad Lucr. 4.1068. 64  Johnson (1976) 52–3 interprets the medical metaphor as an indication of what he calls Turnus’ ‘irrational sickness’, which distorts the hero’s perception. 65  See Glossary s.v. cura. 66  As Putnam (1965) 159 rightly notes, Turnus’ statement that ‘blood flows from his uulnus’ could mean that blood flows from a wound inflicted either by Turnus or upon him. Tarrant (2012) 100–1 ad A. 12.51 likewise comments that ‘an unintended reference to T.’s being wounded is hard to avoid’.

From Amor to Mors  141 can safeguard her mortal son in battle (A. 12.52–53): longe illi dea mater erit, quae nube fugacem | feminea tegat et uanis sese occulat umbris (his divine mother will be of no avail to him, to protect him as he flees with her womanly cloud and hide herself in deceptive shadows).67 Turnus exposes his fatal misapprehensions by mocking Venus and her strategic reliance on deception (uanis sese occulat umbris, A. 12.53). His dangerous provocation of the amatory goddess is an ironic pre­fi­ guration of her ultimate triumph, when Aeneas dispatches the Rutulian’s life to the shades (uita . . . fugit . . . sub umbras, A. 12.952).68

Amata’s Impassioned Outburst (A. 12.54–63) Turnus’ bold martial proclamations and foreboding mockery of Venus have an extraordinary effect on Amata (A. 12.54–55): At regina noua pugnae conterrita sorte | flebat et ardentem generum moritura tenebat (But the queen frightened by the restored terms of single combat began to weep and, doomed to die, clung to her blazing son-­in-­law).69 Amata’s outburst, indicative of her mirus amor (astonishing passion, A. 7.57), exposes her feelings as consistent with those of an impassioned lover, rather than a concerned future mother-­ in-­ law.70 Indeed, Vergil portrays Amata as the alia Dido of his Italian Iliad, a second love-­struck queen who falls victim to destructive amor. Vergil marks the shift of focus from Turnus to Amata with at regina (A. 12.54), a phrase intimately associated with Dido as it delineates three decisive moments in her narrative arc: the programmatic opening description of her amatory condition (at regina, A. 4.1); her real­iza­tion that Aeneas intends to abandon her (at regina, A. 4.296); and the beginning of the dark rituals which culminate in her suicide (at regina, A. 4.504).71 Moreover, Vergil describes Amata using the feminine participle moritura (doomed to die, A. 12.55), which he applies exclusively to women whose deaths are connected to 67  On the language and construction of these lines, see Tarrant (2012) 101 ad A. 12.52–53. 68  Note the parallel placement of umbrae in the final position of Turnus’ speech and the Aeneid. 69  The phrase noua pugnae sors (A. 12.54) poses a challenge of interpretation. Servius ad 12.54 glosses noua sors as magna sors on the basis that a duel already pledged cannnot be considered ‘new’, and explains the phrase as referring in particular to single combat. On noua sors as ‘new terms/conditions’, see Page (1931) 419 ad A. 12.54; Williams (1973) 441 ad A. 12.54; Tarrant (2012) 102 ad A. 12.54. Michael Dewar, per litteras, proposes that noua in this context means ‘restored, as good as new’, a meaning very much in tune with the narrative: OLD s.v. nouus 13. For sors as ‘terms’ or ‘conditions’, see OLD s.v. sors 8b. For pugna as a term for single combat on the battlefield, see L–­S s.v. pugna I.; OLD s.v. pugna 1a. 70  Amata’s outburst, like her mirus amor, leads to disagreement among the commentators. On the outburst as indicative of inappropriate and/or amatory feelings, see Lyne (1987) 116; Tarrant (2012) 103 ad A. 56–63. Contra Anderson (1957) 29n.17 (‘almost parental concern’). 71 On at regina and its association with Dido, see Putnam (1965) 161; Zarker (1969) 14; Tarrant (2012) 102 ad A. 12.54, with further bibliography. Quinn (1968) 135 similarly observes that the phrase at regina (A. 4.1, 4.296, 4.504) appears at the beginning of three major sections in Aeneid 4: the beginning of the affair (A. 4.1–295); alienation (A. 4.296–503); and the end of the affair (A. 4.504–705). On Dido and Amata, see also La Penna (1967) 309–18.

142  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid amor in his poetic corpus: Hero (moritura, G. 3.263); Eurydice (moritura, G. 4.458); Dido (moritura, A. 4.308, 4.415, 4.519, 4.604); and Amata herself (A. 12.55, 12.602).72 The startling application of moritura to Amata has important aesthetic and thematic ramifications: it proves incontrovertibly the erotic nature of her attachment to Turnus; it associates her narrative with other instances of Vergil’s amatory, elegiac experimentation; and it confirms that her trajectory proceeds from amor to mors.73 The image of Amata clinging fast to Turnus (ardentem generum moritura tenebat, she began to weep and cling, doomed to die, to her blazing son-­in-­law, A. 12.5) rehearses Dido’s desperate attempt to keep Aeneas in Carthage through the intimation that his departure will cause her death (A. 4.308–09): nec te noster amor nec te data dextera quondam | nec moritura tenet crudeli funere Dido? (Does neither our love hold you back, nor the right hand once pledged, nor Dido doomed to die from a cruel death?) Amata, like Dido before her, falls victim to unrestrained and unfulfilled amor, which renders her unable to endure the loss of the hero she desires and results in her impassioned demise. When Amata attempts to dissuade Turnus from combat, her fervent speech intergenerically proclaims her mirus amor for the Rutulian hero (A. 12.56–63):74 ‘Turne, per has ego te lacrimas, per si quis Amatae tangit honos animum: spes tu nunc una, senectae tu requies miserae, decus imperiumque Latini te penes, in te omnis domus inclinata recumbit. unum oro: desiste manum committere Teucris. qui te cumque manent isto certamine casus et me, Turne, manent; simul haec inuisa relinquam lumina nec generum Aenean captiua uidebo.’ [‘Turnus, by these tears, by any esteem for Amata that touches your mind, if any: you are now my only hope, you are the respite from wretched old age, the glory and power of Latinus are in your control, on you the entire house falls crumbling. One thing I beg: forbear to engage in close combat with the Teucrians. Whatever misfortunes await you in that contest of yours await me, too, Turnus; 72  See Putnam (1965) 161; Zarker (1969) 14; Di Cesare (1974) 211; Burke (1976) 28; Johnson (1976) 56; Lyne (1987) 116–17; Keith (2000) 114; Hill (2004) 106; Tarrant (2012) 102 ad A. 12.55, with further bibliography. 73  The term moritura is particularly troubling for commentators who do not wish to acknowledge Amata’s passion for Turnus. For example, Johnson (1976) 56 quotes a letter written by A. E. Housman to J. W. Mackail in 1927: ‘Virgil’s besetting sin is the use of words too forcible for his thoughts, and the moritura of Aeneid 12.55 makes me blush whenever I think of it.’ Johnson further remarks that Ribbeck emended moritura to monitura to maintain the respectibility of Amata. See also Tarrant (2012) 102–3 ad A. 12.55, with further bibliography. 74 On the speech as erotic disclosure, see Zarker (1969) 18 (‘almost an open avowal of love’); Hornsby (1970) 121n.2 (‘more than a little in love with Turnus’); Burke (1976) 24 (‘anomalous nature of her attachment’); Lyne (1987) 116–17 (‘protestation suited to a lover’).

From Amor to Mors  143 together with you I will leave behind this hateful light of life, and I will not look, a captive, upon Aeneas as son-­in-­law.’]

Two disjunctive epic models inform Amata’s unsettling address to Turnus and underscore its erotic nature. In structural terms, Amata’s intervention cor­res­ ponds to that of Hecuba, who addresses Hector following the speech of her husband Priam (Hom. Il. 22.82–89).75 Throughout her urgent attempt to dissuade Hector from his final battle with Achilles, Hecuba repeatedly invokes her maternal role: she displays her breast (ἑτέρηφι δὲ μαζὸν ἀνέσχε, while with her other hand she held up her breast, Hom. Il. 22.80); she recalls nursing him in his infancy (εἴ ποτέ τοι λαθικηδέα μαζὸν ἐπέσχον, if ever I offered my breast to banish your cares, Hom. Il. 22.83); she refers to his birth (ὃν τέκον αὐτή, to whom I myself gave birth, Hom. Il. 22.87); and she addresses him with numerous motherly terms of endearment (τέκνον ἐμὸν, my child, Hom. Il. 22.82; φίλε τέκνον, dear child, Hom. Il. 22.84; φίλον θάλος, dear scion, Hom. Il. 22.87). By contrast, Amata makes no reference to her maternal role in her speech to Turnus, and her words echo another passionate plea to Hector, namely that of his wife Andromache in Iliad 6 (Hom. Il. 6.410–13):76                             ἐμοὶ δέ κε κέρδιον εἴη σεῦ ἀφαμαρτούσῃ χθόνα δύμεναι · οὐ γὰρ ἔτ᾽ ἄλλη ἔσται θαλπωρὴ ἐπεὶ ἂν σύ γε πότμον ἐπίσπῃς ἀλλ᾽ ἄχε᾽. [It would be better for me, having been deprived of you, to plunge into the earth; for no longer will there be any consolation when you have met your fate, but there will be grief.]

Amata redoubles Andromache’s passionate assertion that Hector is her sole consolation (A. 12.57–58 ≈ Hom. Il. 6.411–13) and her claim that death would be preferable should he perish (A. 12.62–63 ≈ Hom. Il. 6.410–11). Moreover, Amata’s declaration that she would prefer death to becoming the captive of Aeneas (A. 12.62–63) recalls Hector’s reply to Andromache that he would rather be dead than witness her being dragged away by Greek captors (Hom. Il. 6.464–65): ἀλλά με τεθνηῶτα χυτὴ κατὰ γαῖα καλύπτοι, | πρίν γέ τι σῆς τε βοῆς σοῦ θ᾽ ἑλκηθμοῖο πυθέσθαι (but may heaped earth cover me dead, before I hear your cries and learn of your capture). Vergil intratextually reinforces the intertextual connection 75  For discussion of Amata’s correspondence to Hecuba, see Anderson (1957) 29; Knauer (1964) 290, 426; Burke (1976) 24–5; Harrison (2007) 213. 76  For discussion of Amata’s correspondence to Hecuba, see Anderson (1957) 29; Knauer (1964) 290, 426; Burke (1976) 24–5; Harrison (2007) 213. Fratantuono (2007) 370 observes without further discussion that Amata casts herself in the role of a captive Trojan queen, as if Turnus were Hector and she Hecuba or Andromache.

144  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid between Amata and Andromache through his application of the extremely rare adjective captiua to both women in the Aeneid.77 Amata, who prefers death to being Aeneas’ captive (captiua, A. 12.63), and Andromache, who favourably compares the sacrificial slaughter of Polyxena to her own captivity (captiua, A. 3.324), exhibit the same abhorrence of being taken prisoner after the defeat of their respective heroes. The placement of Amata’s speech in the same structural locus as that of the Homeric Hecuba falsely anticipates an encore performance of epic motherhood. Thwarting our expectations, the Italian queen plays Andromache to Turnus’ Hector in a revelatory performance of her mirus amor.78 Vergil also metapoetically underscores Amata’s irregular passion through extensive engagement with elegy. Her speech to Turnus takes the form of the conventional querela of the lover, who aims to persuade the beloved by engendering pathos,79 and recalls Dido’s similarly elegiac attempt to dissuade Aeneas from leaving her (A. 4.314–19). Each queen beseeches her addressee, making an appeal based on her tears (per ego has lacrimas . . . te | . . . oro, by these tears I beg you, A. 4.314–19; per has ego te lacrimas | . . . oro, by these tears I beg you, A. 12.56–60) and wretched state (miserae, A. 4.315; miserae, A. 12.58).80 The rhet­oric­al approach adopted by Amata and Dido recalls the elegiac lover’s emphatic invocation of tears as a means of engendering sympathy to secure the compliance of the beloved.81 As Amata entreats Turnus to recognize his esteem for her (per si quis Amatae | tangit honos animum, by any esteem for Amata that touches your mind, if any, A. 12.56–57), she recalls Dido’s similar claim to merit Aeneas’ regard (A. 4.317–18): si bene quid de te merui, fuit aut tibi quicquam | dulce meum (if I have done anything to deserve well from you or if anything of mine has been sweet to you). Likewise, the implication that Dido’s salvation rests in Aeneas’ power (miserere domus labentis, take pity on a falling house, A. 4.318) informs Amata’s declaration that she herself, her people, and her tottering house depend solely on Turnus (A. 12.56–59). As Amata and Dido plead for approbation and relinquish their self-­reliance, they adopt the conventional stance of the elegiac lover, whose querela hinges on proclamations of devotion and submission.82 Thus, Vergil intergenerically and intratextually endows Amata with the perspective and discourse of the elegiac amator, which, bolstered by the amatory res­on­ance of her name, indicate that her response to Turnus’ forthcoming duel derives from her mirus amor, rather than parental concern. Vergil interweaves the amatory features of Amata’s speech with distinct funerary elements, harnessing the two facets of elegy to underscore the calamitous nature of her passion for Turnus.83 The Italian queen, announcing her intention to 77  Aside from its application to Amata and Andromache, the only other occurrence of the feminine captiua describes clothing plundered from Troy (captiua uestis, A. 2.765). 78  See Burke (1976) 26. 79  See Glossary s.v. querela. 80  On this verbal parallel, see Putnam (1965) 161; Zarker (1969) 15; Lyne (1987) 116–17. 81  See Glossary s.vv. infelix/miser, tears. 82  See Glossary s.v. submission/supplication. 83  See Glossary s.vv. amor, mors.

From Amor to Mors  145 relinquish her life if Turnus dies (simul haec inuisa relinquam | lumina, together with you I will leave behind this hateful light of life, A. 12.62–63), resembles Dido, who prays for death when faced with the loss of Aeneas (mortem orat, she prays for death, A. 4.451; quo magis . . . lucemque relinquat, that she may more surely leave the light, A. 4.452; decreuitque mori, she decided to die, A. 4.475).84 Once again, the two queens articulate feelings characteristic of the elegiac lover, who prefers to die with the beloved rather than live on alone,85 and when faced with rejection or the loss of the beloved contemplates suicide as means to end amatory suffering.86 The elegiac lover’s preoccupation with mortality also suffuses Amata’s identification of Turnus as a source of consolation during impending old age (A. 12.57–58): spes tu nunc una, senectae | tu requies miserae (you are now my only hope, you are the respite from wretched old age). Her words recast those of elegiac lovers, who fantasize about lasting, mutual love that endures through senescence and beyond the grave.87 Amata’s intense pronouncements, aes­thet­ic­ al­ly reminiscent of amatory and funerary elegiac poetics, reinforce the connection between her mirus amor for Turnus and her inevitable death as the regina moritura of the Italian Iliad.

Lavinia’s Amatory Blush (A. 12.64–69) Amata’s fervent, tearful speech elicits a powerful reaction from Lavinia. Though the princess remains silent, the intensity of her physical response conveys her unvoiced emotions (A. 12.64–66): accepit uocem lacrimis Lauinia matris flagrantis perfusa genas, cui plurimus ignem subiecit rubor et calefacta per ora cucurrit. [Lavinia took in her mother’s speech, her blazing cheeks drenched with tears, and her powerful blush shot up fire and rushed over her heated face.] 84  Cairns (1989) 148 cites A. 4.451 as an example of erotic elegiac taedium uitae. For a detailed discussion of Dido’s desire for death and suicide, see Hill (2004) 105–20. 85  See e.g. Propertius 2.28b.42 (uiuam, si uiuet, si cadet illa, cadam, I will live, if she will, if she will perish, I will perish). Fedeli (2005) 804 ad Prop. 2.28.39–40 considers these lines to be a contemplation of noble suicide should the beloved perish. 86  See e.g. Tib. 2.6.19–20 (iam mala finissem leto, sed credula uitam | Spes fouet et fore cras semper ait melius, already would I have ended suffering with death, but credulous Hope cherishes life and says that tomorrow will always be better). On the theme of suicide in Latin erotic elegy, see Hill (2004) 92–104, with further bibliography. Lyne (1987) 116 compares Amata’s promise to die on the same day as Turnus to Propertius 2.20.17–18: me tibi ad extremas mansurum, vita, tenebras: | ambos una fides auferet, una dies (I will remain yours, my life, all the way to the final shadows: one and the same faith, one and the same day will carry us both away): see also Fedeli (2005) 601 ad Prop. 2.20.13–18. 87  See e.g. Lygd. 3.7–8 (sed tecum ut longae sociarem gaudia uitae | inque tuo caderet nostra senecta sinu, but in order that I might share the joys of long life with you and our old age might fall in your lap). See Navarro Antolín (1996) 194, 204–5 ad Lygd. 3.7–10 and Fulkerson (2017) 116–17 ad [Tib.] 3.3.7–8, both with discussion, examples, and further bibliography.

146  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Vergil’s description of the blush implicitly confirms that Lavinia’s perturbation, like that of Amata, derives from her amor for Turnus.88 The assertion that Lavinia’s tearful blush proves her erotic attachment to Turnus has engendered considerable scholarly resistance, undoubtedly because it problematizes Aeneas’ nuptial interference and elimination of his Rutulian competitor.89 Various rem­ed­ies for the interpretative quandary have been proposed: Lavinia, hearing her ­mother’s reference to Aeneas as gener (A. 12.63), blushes at the prospect of marry­ ing him; she blushes out of embarrassment or fear from being the focus of attention; or she blushes in response to the feelings of Amata or Turnus rather than her own.90 But Lavinia’s blush resonates with the correlated dynamics of both the surrounding dialogic exchange and the programmatic introductions and infuriation sequence of Aeneid 7, the cumulative evidence of which confirms her amatory and nuptial connection to Turnus, her most attractive and oustanding suitor prior to the arrival of Aeneas.91 Recognition of a mutual love between Lavinia and Turnus complicates the issue of Aeneas’ success, which depends upon the subordination of erotic amor to epic teleology. One need only look to the precedent of Dido to know that this is precisely the point. Of course, Vergil approaches Lavinia, by contrast to the Carthaginian queen, with subtlety and decorous ambiguity, as befits her ktistic and ancestral stature.92 But although Vergil’s amatory characterization of Lavinia seems understated by comparison to Dido, Amata, and Turnus, it is astonishingly bold for the founding mother of Rome.93 The tremendous heat of the scene reinforces its amatory underpinnings, as Vergil vividly describes blazing cheeks (flagrantis . . . genas, 88  Lyne (1987) 117 likewise proposes that Lavinia’s tearful display aligns with that of Amata, and that the princess also weeps out of love for Turnus. On Lavinia’s blush as indicative of her love for Turnus, see Fowler (1919) 40; Garstang (1950) 51; Lyne (1983) 60; Lacey EV s.v. Lavinia 3.148; Fowler (1987) 190–1; Lyne (1987) 115–17, 121–2; Nelis (2001) 379–80; Fratantuono (2008) 400n.4. See also Mac Góráin (2017) 398–403, who concludes that Vergil’s description of Lavinia’s blush may indicate mutual desire based on its intertextual connection to Lucretius’ account of blushing (Lucr. 4.1049–57). 89  Lyne (1987) 115 asserts that while Lavinia’s love for Turnus ‘would seriously complicate our emotional if not our moral response to the rapidly approaching denouement’, the suggestion of her love is there and requires comment. Cairns (1989) 153n.10 declares that Lyne makes a ‘fanciful’ claim by proposing that Lavinia loves Turnus. 90  See Woodworth (1930) 186; Putnam (1965) 159; Quinn (1968) 256; Hornsby (1970) 121; Di Cesare (1974) 211; Burke (1976) 26; Johnson (1976) 56–7; Todd (1980) 29; Cairns (1989) 153, 159; Nelis (2001) 379–80; Fratantuono (2007) 370; Fratantuono (2008) 48; Tarrant (2012) 105 ad A. 12.64–69, who provides a summary of the debate, with further bibliography. See also Servius ad A. 12.66: mouebatur autem, intellegens se esse tantorum causam malorum (moreover she is moved, as she realizes that she is the cause of such great woes). 91  Both Fowler (1919) 41 and Lyne (1987) 115 remark on the oustanding qualities of Turnus which make him an obvious candidate for Lavinia’s love. See also Woodworth (1930) 187: ‘Turnus was undoubtedly a more suitable match for her in years than the “mature widower Aeneas,” aside from the plainly indicated fact that he was passionately in love with her.’ 92  On the necessity of approaching Lavinia with respect and propriety, see Woodworth (1930) 176, 186–7; Anderson (1957) 22; Otis (1963) 376; Zarker (1969) 15; Todd (1980) 27–8; Lyne (1987) 115; Cairns (1989) 151n.2. 93  Contra Todd (1980) 29 who declares that Vergil at no point implies any love on the part of Lavinia for Turnus.

From Amor to Mors  147 A. 12.64–65), projected fire (ignem | subiecit, A. 12.65–66), and heated skin (calefacta . . . ora, A. 12.66).94 Vergil applies to Lavinia the same elegiac imagery of fever, fire, and heat that he consistently uses to characterize the consuming force of amor and its painful effects, particularly in relation to Dido, Amata, and Turnus.95 Indeed, the projected fire of Lavinia’s blush (ignem | subiecit rubor, her blush shot up fire, A. 12.65–66) intratextually recalls the torches hurled by Allecto, the infernal analogue of Cupid, at Turnus in Aeneid 7 (facem iuueni coniecit, hurled a torch at the young man, A. 7.456).96 The blazing blush of Lavinia, just like the fiery projectiles of Allecto, inflames Turnus’ amor and incites his desire for arma. In Propertius, the puella threatens to burn out the eyes of her lover with projected flame (Prop. 3.8.7): tu minitare oculos subiecta exurere flamma (you threaten to burn out my eyes with applied flame).97 The conspicuous similarity between the ignis subiectus of Lavinia’s blush (A. 12.65–66) and the flamma subiecta of the puella’s threats (Prop. 3.8.7) suggests that the two passages are intertextually linked. Though the directional flow of the intertextual interplay cannot be determined,98 it creates an allusive association between Vergil’s inter­ gen­er­ic depiction of Lavinia’s blush and Propertius’ image of amatory violence. Furthermore, Vergil models the movement and heat of Lavinia’s blush (rubor et calefacta per ora cucurrit, and the blush rushed over her heated face, A. 12.66) on the rushing warmth that permeates the bones of Vulcan in reaction to Venus in Aeneid 8 (calor et labefacta per ossa cucurrit, and the heat travelled swiftly through his shaken bones, A. 8.390). Through verbal echoes and sound effects, Vergil connects Lavinia’s behaviour to that of Vulcan during his intensely erotic and elegiac encounter with Venus, suggesting that her fiery blush is likewise an expression of passion. The evocation of Vulcan also initiates a complex network of allusions that trace the origins of Lavinia’s blush back to Medea’s erotic response to Jason in Apollonius’ Argonautica.99 When Vulcan proceeds to the forge after the seduction scene, Vergil compares him to a female textile worker who kindles fire to il­lu­min­ate her tasks in the darkness of night (A. 8.408–11),100 the precise simile used by 94  Lyne (1983) 57: ‘It seems a tremendous amount of heat to attribute to a blush.’ Vergil here, as elsewhere (e.g. A. 2.37, 5.103, 11.183), uses verb subicio to describe the kindling of fire: see L–­S s.v. subicio IA; OLD s.v. subicio 3d. 95  See Glossary s.v. fever/fire/heat. See also the feverish symptoms of Sulpicia, the authorial elegiac puella (quod mea nunc uexat corpora fessa calor, the fact that feverish heat now torments my weary body, [Tib.] 3.17.2); ne tibi sim, mea lux, aeque iam feruida cura, let me not be to you, light of my life, as feverish a care, [Tib.] 3.18.1): see Fulkerson (2017) 290–1 ad [Tib.] 3.17.2; 292 ad [Tib.] 3.18.1. 96  As noted also by Nelis (2001) 378. 97  See Fedeli (1985) 285–6 ad Prop. 3.8.7. 98  Propertius’ third elegiac collection and Vergil’s Aeneid are composed during the same period. 99  Thomas (1986) 188 identifies this type of multiple allusion as a ‘window reference’, in which the poet noticeably interrupts the close adaptation of one model in order to allow reference back to its source, and the intermediate model serves as a window onto the ultimate source. Hardie (1989) 3–20 calls the imitation of two models, one of which is at the same time the model for the other, the practice of ‘double imitation’. 100  For discussion of this epic simile, see Eden (1975) 124–6 ad A. 8.407–15; Fordyce (1977) 251–2 ad A. 8.407–15; Nelis (2001) 341–2.

148  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Apollonius to describe the fiery, destructive passion that arouses Medea’s blush (Argon. 3.291–98). In Apollonius, the fires lit by the female textile worker encapsulate the intensity and consuming force of the ἔρως that burns secretly in Medea’s heart (τοῖος ὑπὸ κραδίῃ εἰλυμένος αἴθετο λάθρῃ | οὖλος ἔρως, Argon. 3.296–97) and inflames her cheeks (ἁπαλὰς δὲ μετετρωπᾶτο παρειάς | ἐς χλόον, ἄλλοτ᾽ ἔρευθος, ἀκηδείῃσι νόοιο, and her tender cheeks began to turn now to pallor, now to redness, in the anguish of her mind, Argon. 3.297–98).101 A similarly hot blush later takes hold of Medea’s cheeks, when the sight of Jason arouses her erotic distress (Argon. 3.963): θερμὸν δὲ παρηίδας εἷλεν ἔρευθος (a hot blush took hold of her cheeks). In the case of Medea, fire and heat distinguish the two blushes that are sparked by her passion, as opposed to those that arise from maidenly shame (Argon. 3.681–82) and joy (Argon. 3.725).102 When Lavinia duplicates the fiery, erotic flushes of Medea, she brings to light her own underlying passion. Vergil’s emphasis on the blazing heat of Lavinia’s blush allusively ascribes to her the amatory fervour of the elegiac puella, Turnus, Vulcan, and Medea, indicating that she, too, is set aflame by amor. Another layered allusion in the description of Lavinia’s revelatory blush further underscores her amatory attachment to Turnus. Vergil looks back to Callimachus’ treatment of Acontius and Cydippe by way of Catullan elegy, repeating the precise intertextual manoeuvre that connects Lavinia and Turnus to the young lovers in the introductory passage of Aeneid 7.103 The circumstances surrounding Lavinia’s blush evoke a Catullan simile that appears at the end of his epistolary elegy addressed to Hortalus (Cat. c. 65.19–24):104 ut missum sponsi furtiuo munere malum,     procurrit casto uirginis e gremio, quod miserae oblitae molli sub ueste locatum,     dum aduentu matris prosilit, excutitur, atque illud prono praeceps agitur decursu,     huic manat tristi conscius ore rubor. [as an apple, sent as a secret gift from her betrothed, rushes forth from the in­viol­ate lap of a maiden, which, placed under the soft clothes of the wretched, forgetful girl, is shaken out when she leaps up at the arrival of her mother, and as 101  On the intertextual relationship of the Vergilian simile and its Apollonian precedent, see Eden (1975) 124–6 ad A. 8.407–15; Fordyce (1977) 251–2 ad A. 8.407–15; Nelis (2001) 342, 378. On Medea’s blush, see Hunter (1989) 131 ad Argon. 3.296–98. 102  Cairns (1989) 153n.10 calls Lavinia’s blush a ‘conflation and “correction” ’ of Medea’s various blushes. Cf. the absence of heat in relation to Hypsipyle’s maidenly blush (Argon. 1.790–91). 103  On the importance of Acontius and Cydippe as a crucial model for Latin elegy, see my earlier discussions in the Introduction and Chapter 2 on pp. 10n.41, 14 and 53–55. 104  For general discussion of the simile and its significance within Catullus’ poem, see Fordyce (1961) 327–8 ad Cat. c. 65.19–24; Quinn (1973) 354 ad Cat. c. 19–23; Thomson (1997) 447 ad Cat. c. 65.19–24; Clarke (2003) 141–2; Skinner (2003) 14–19.

From Amor to Mors  149 that apple is driven headlong in a downward descent, a self-­conscious blush flows over her sorrowful face.]

Catullus’ depiction of a mother precipitating the revelation of the bridegroom’s secret gift, thereby causing the self-­conscious blush of her maiden daughter, restages a Callimachean passage featuring Acontius and Cydippe (Call. Aet. frr. 67–75 Harder).105 The interaction between the uirgo, sponsus, and mater in the Catullan model, and presumably its Callimachean antecedent,106 informs that of Lavinia, Turnus, and Amata. By intertextual association, Vergil suggests that Amata triggers Lavinia’s self-­conscious awareness of her own amor for Turnus, which in turn engenders the blush that exposes her feelings. Vergil’s allusions to Catullus and Callimachus in the portrait of interpersonal dynamics here in Aeneid 12 bolster the crucial analogy between Lavinia/Turnus and Cydippe/ Acontius established in the introductory passage of Aeneid 7. Lavinia, whose exceptional desirability mirrors that of Cydippe (A. 7.54–55),107 now rehearses her amatory blush. Turnus, whose superlative beauty matches that of Acontius (A. 7.55), now transforms his figurative elegiac contemplation of marriage or death (γάμον ἢ θάνατον, Call. Aet. fr. 75b.21 Harder) into the forthcoming epic contest for amatory and martial supremacy. Vergil thus frames the story of Lavinia and Turnus with corresponding allusions to Acontius and Cydippe, the archetypal lovers of Hellenistic and Latin elegy, thereby authenticating the amatory nature of their predicament. Two elaborate and artfully constructed similes emphasize the contrasting tones of Lavinia’s flushed skin (A. 12.67–69):108 Indum sanguineo ueluti uiolauerit ostro si quis ebur, aut mixta rubent ubi lilia multa alba rosa, talis uirgo dabat ore colores. [Just as if someone spoiled the purity of Indian ivory with blood-­red crimson, or as when white lilies, mixed with many a rose, redden, of such a kind were the colours the maiden exhibited on her face.]

105  On the Callimachean allusion in Cat. c. 65, see Hunter (1993b) 179–82; Rosenmeyer (1996) 9–31; Skinner (2003) 15–19; Fantuzzi and Hunter (2004) 86, 474–5. 106  Based on Aristaenetus’ prose summaries of the fifth century ce, scholars have proposed that Cydippe blushes upon reading aloud the marital oath inscribed upon the apple sent by the enamoured youth Acontius: see Hunter (1993b) 180–1; Rosenmeyer (1996) 9–31; Skinner (2003) 15–17; Bing and Höschele (2014) 21–23, 111–12. 107  Cf. Call. Aet. fr. 67.9–10 Harder; Cat. c. 62.42, 44, 53, 55. 108  For detailed discussion of the elaborate and artful construction of the similes, which are replete with anagrams (e.g. ebur . . . rubent, A. 12.68), chiastic arrangements (e.g. Indum sanguineo . . . ostro | . . . ebure, A. 12.67–68; rubent . . . lilia . . . | alba rosa, A. 12.68–69), and chromatic effects (passim), see Ahl (1985) 264–5; Edgeworth (1992) 32, 69, 121, 182n.67.

150  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Vergil’s image of stained ivory derives from a Homeric simile describing Menelaus’ wound in Iliad 4 (Hom. Il. 4.141–42): ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τίς τ᾽ ἐλέφαντα γυνὴ φοίνικι μιήνῃ | Μῃονὶς ἠὲ Κάειρα, παρήιον ἔμμεναι ἵππων (as when some Maeonian or Carian women stain ivory with crimson to be a cheekpiece for horses).109 Lavinia’s blush, which floods her cheeks (genas, A. 12.65) with red and white, replicates the c­ olour and anatomical locus of the Homeric cheekpiece (παρήιον, Hom. Il. 4.142), which is designed to frame an equine face with crimson-­stained ivory.110 But the intertextual correspondence between the sim­iles that describe Lavinia’s flushed cheeks and the decorative cheekpiece extends beyond mere appearances. The Homeric description of the παρήιον emphasizes its exceptional desirability and exclusivity (Hom. Il. 4.143–44): πολέες τέ μιν ἠρήσαντο | ἱππῆες φορέειν · βασιλῆι δὲ κεῖται ἄγαλμα (many horsemen desire to possess it; but the treasure is reserved for a king). Lavinia’s blushing cheeks, evoca­tive of the coveted παρήιον, are an allusive reminder of her amatory predicament as the highly sought-­after bride (multi illam . . . petebant, A. 7.54), who is withheld for one king.111 Vergil, adapting the Homeric simile of the cheekpiece to Lavinia’s blushing cheeks, vividly portrays her emotional response to Turnus, while underscoring her centrality to his dispute with Aeneas, as the two superlative heroes vie to win her as treasured bride. Vergil conceptually underscores the cycle of amor, arma, and mors that centres around Lavinia by associating the stained-ivory simile that describes her blush with vivid images of martial wounds. By intertextual extension, Lavinia’s red and white cheeks evoke not only the Homeric cheekpiece simile but also its object of comparison, the bloody battle-­wound sustained by Menelaus (Hom. Il. 4.146–47). From Turnus’ perspective, the war fought between Menelaus and Paris prefigures his own fight to regain Lavinia from Aeneas, whom he reviles as a bride-­stealing alter Paris (cf. latronis, A. 12.7). In the Homeric model, the image of the cheekpiece describes Menelaus’ wound, while transporting the imagination beyond the battlefield to the domestic sphere. Vergil reverses the paradigm by transferring the violence and bloodshed of war to the image of the stained ivory: he replaces μιαίνω (to stain, dye) with uiolare (to treat violently, injure, violate);112 and he 109  The similarity between the Vergilian and Homeric images of stained ivory is frequently noted: see Servius ad A. 12.67 (Homeri comparatio); Fowler (1919) 49; Page (1931) 420 ad A. 12.67; Williams (1973) 442 ad A. 12.67–69; Johnson (1976) 57–8; Todd (1980) 29–30; Lyne (1983) 58; Lacey EV s.v. Lavinia 3.148; Fowler (1987) 190; Lyne (1987) 119–21; Krier (1988) 6; Cairns (1989) 175; Edgeworth (1992) 145, 183n.68; Paschalis (1997) 381; Dyson (1999) 281; Nelis (2001) 377–8; Fratantuono (2007) 370; Fratantuono (2008) 48. By alluding to Menelaus’ wound, which results in the breaking of the truce between Greek and Trojan forces, Vergil prefigures the breaking of the truce between Trojans and Italians, which he models on the Iliadic scene (A. 12.216–323): see Lyne (1987) 119; Fratantuono (2008) 47. 110  The Greek noun παρήιον, which signifies the decorative cheekpiece in the Homeric simile, is the Ionic singular form of παρεία (cheeks): see LSJ s.vv. παρεία, παρήιον. 111  For discussion of the cheekpiece as symbolic of Lavinia, see Todd (1980) 29–30; Fratantuono (2007) 370; Fratantuono (2008) 48. 112  By contrast to μιαίνω, uiolo has no primary connection to the process of staining or dyeing: see LSJ s.v. μιαίνω 1–3; L–­S s.v. uiolo; OLD s.v. uiolo. Lyne (1987) 120 discusses the contrast between the Homeric μιαίνω and the Vergilian uiolo.

From Amor to Mors  151 alters the neutrality of φοῖνιξ (crimson) by adding the intimation of blood (sanguineo . . . ostro, blood-­red crimson, A. 12.67). Lavinia’s blush, through comparison with the stained ivory, mutates into a violent assault that wounds her cheeks, emblematizing the uulnus amoris that fuels her own fiery flush.113 Vergil’s stained-­ivory simile, evocative of Menelaus’ wound and martial violence (uiolauerit, A. 12.67), also transforms Lavinia’s red and white blush into a graphic intratextual reminder of the brutal war that rages around her. The in­tim­ation of blood (sanguineo . . . ostro, blood-­red crimson, A. 12.67), bone (ebur, A. 12.68), and violence (uiolauerit, A. 12.67) stains the image of Lavinia’s erotic beauty with martial horror, as her flushed cheeks recast the colours of her war-­torn land, as depicted by her father (A. 12.35–36): recalent nostro Tiberina fluenta | sanguine adhuc campique ingentes ossibus albent (the streams of the Tiber are still warm with our blood and the great fields are white with bones). It also evokes the correlation between uulnera and uiolentia that appears elsewhere in relation to Camilla and Turnus, two beloved warriors who perish in battle. The description of Lavinia, blushing with the colours of violent uulnera (uiolauerit, A. 12.67), recalls the fatal wound that violates Camilla in Aeneid 11 (uiolarit/uiolauit ­uulnere, A. 11.591, 848). Diana, lamenting the forthcoming death of Camilla, instructs Opis to take vengeance upon any warrior who violates her body with a wound (quicumque sacrum uiolarit uulnere corpus, A. 11.591). When the spear of Arruns strikes Camilla down, Opis addresses the deceased maiden, vowing to fulfil Diana’s command (quicumque uiolauit uulnere corpus, whoever has violated your body with a wound, A. 11.848).114 Once again amor begets arma and mors, as Diana demands further bloodshed in recompense for the martial violation of her beloved bellatrix. Moreover, the cheekpiece simile, evocative of wounds and violence, reverberates with the description of Turnus at the beginning of Aeneid 12, which emphasizes his symbolic uulnera amoris and amatory uiolentia.115 The subtle correlation between Lavinia’s livid amatory blush and Turnus’ impassioned martial violence suggests that for the young lovers mutual amor leads to mutual devastation. Through anagrammatic wordplay, Vergil links the first simile, pale ivory stained with blood-­red dye, to the second, lilies mixed with roses: a violet (uiola), concealed within the form uiolauerit (A. 12.67), adds a third blossom to the mingled white and red flowers (mixta . . . lilia multa | alba rosa, A. 12.68–69); and the ebur of the first simile (A. 12.68) reappears in reverse in the form rubent

113  For discussion of the symbolic association between uiolo and Lavinia’s wound of love, see Lacey EV s.v. Lavinia 3.148; Lyne (1987) 120–1. 114  See also the warrior Diomedes’ wounding of Venus, an amatory interloper on the battlefield (A. 11.277): Veneris uiolaui uulnere dextram (I inflicted the hand of Venus with a wound). 115  On the connection between uiolare and Turnus’ uiolentia, see Page (1931) 420 ad A. 12.67; Putnam (1965) 159; Johnson (1976) 57; Paschalis (1997) 381; Jacobson (1998) 314; O’Hara (2017) 233 ad A. 12.45–46, 67–69.

152  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid (A. 12.68).116 The anagrams metapoetically fuse together the two similes, which saturate the silent blush of Lavinia with similar shades of meaning. In thematic terms, the mixed bouquet, like the stained ivory, allusively reflects the centrality of amor, arma, and mors in the surrounding narrative. In aesthetic terms, the amatory overtones of the floral simile complement the Homeric undertones of its stained-­ivory counterpart, as Vergil intensifies his engagement with epithalamic and elegiac verse. Thus, the floral simile casts the colours of Lavinia’s blush through a second intergeneric prism that further enhances its thematic significance. In the epithalamic tradition, the contrast of red and white imbues the praise of the bride with distinct erotic connotations,117 as chromatic imagery conveys the pale beauty of her complexion, the vibrancy of her wedding attire,118 and the flush of sexual awareness which floods her cheeks, alluding to her imminent defloration.119 Vergil, by describing the blush of Lavinia with the floral simile, intertextually connects her to two crucial Catullan epithalamia.120 First, the lilies and roses of the Vergilian simile derive from Catullus c. 61, in which he compares the bride’s beauty to Asian myrtle (myrtus Asia, Cat. c. 61.22), hyacinth (flos hyacinthinus, Cat. c. 61.89), white parthenium (alba parthenice, Cat. c. 61.187), and yellow poppy (luteum . . . papauer, Cat. c. 61.188).121 Second, the intertextual pathway to c. 61 extends to its companion piece, another epithalamium that emphasizes the desirability of the uirgo through the image of a plucked flower (Cat. c. 62.42–44): multi illum pueri, multae optauere puellae: idem cum tenui carptus defloruit ungui, nulli illum pueri, nullae optauere puellae: [many boys desired that flower, many girls desired it; the same flower, when plucked by a fine nail it withers, no boys, no girls desired it.] 116 On the anagrammatic wordplay between uiolare and uiola, see Ahl (1985) 153–54, 265; Edgeworth (1992) 165; Jacobson (1998) 315; Dyson (1999) 284. Ahl (1985) 264 also points out the anagrammatic play between ebur and rubent in A. 12.68. 117  For discussion of botanical imagery and the red/white contrast as conventional features of epithalamic verse, see Fordyce (1961) 237, 241 ad Cat. c. 61.21–22; Sandy (1971) 188; Lyne (1983) 60; Lyne (1987) 122; Laguna (1992) 325–6 ad Stat. Silu. 3.4.56; Navarro Antolín (1996) 310–13, ad Lygd. 4.29; 314–15 ad Lygd. 4.30; 315–17 ad Lygd. 4.31–34; Dyson (1999) 281; Fedeli (2005) 129 ad Prop. 2.3.9–14; Fulkerson (2017) 146–51 ad [Tib.] 3.4.29–34. 118  The contrast of red and white reflects the white tunica recta and reddish yellow flammeum worn by the bride. On the Roman bridal costume itself, see La Follette (2001) 54–65; Sebesta (2001) 48. 119  See Glossary s.vv. red, white. Rhorer (1980) 79 discusses the connection of white and red to innocence and sexual awakening. On flowers and the contrast of red and white as hymeneal topoi, see Dyson (1999) 281; Clarke (2003) 191. 120  Fragmentary evidence suggests that Calvus, like his close friend Catullus, wrote epithalamia, which may have featured floral imagery and contrasting tones of red and white (< – ⌣ – > uaga candido | nympha quod secet ungui, fr. 29 Hollis; , suppl. Broukhusius; , suppl. Courtney): see Hollis (2007) 53–4, 71–3. 121  See Fordyce (1961) 241 ad Cat. c. 61.21–22; 246 ad Cat. c. 61.88–89; 252 ad Cat. c. 61.187; Edgeworth (1992) 11–12; Thomson (1997) 352 ad Cat. c. 61.22; 353 ad Cat. c. 61.89; 262 ad Cat. c. 61.188; Clarke (2003) 18, 75–6, 96–97, 175–97.

From Amor to Mors  153 Thus, tracing Lavinia’s blush back to the blooming Catullan bride of c. 61 leads in turn to the precise model that informs her initial introduction as the most desirable bride in Latium in Aeneid 7 (multi illam magno e Latio totaque petebant | Ausonia, many were seeking her from great Latium and all Ausonia, A. 7.54–55). Of course, the exceptional desirability of the Catullan bride also provides the poetic blueprint for that of Camilla, the eroticized warrior maiden (multae illam frustra Tyrrhena per oppida matres | optauere nurum, many mothers throughout the Tyrrhenian towns desired her as daughter-­in-­law in vain, A. 11.581–82). Whereas the stained-­ivory simile calls to mind the martial violation of Camilla, the layers of epithalamic allusion in the floral simile recall her radiant beauty and unfulfilled marital potential. The two similes, teeming with inter- and intratextual implications, work together to create an allusive tension between Lavinia, the desirable bride who engenders war, and Camilla, the beloved bellatrix who perishes in battle, as each uirgo plays her part in Vergil’s narrative cycle of amor, arma, and mors. Intertextual interplay between Vergil and Propertius forges an analogy between Lavinia, whose beauty incites epic arma, and the puella, whose beauty arouses elegiac rivalry. Vergil’s comparison of Lavinia’s blush to a vibrant bouquet of lilies and roses (mixta . . . lilia multa | alba rosa, A. 12.68–69) bears a striking resemblance to Propertius’ description of the beautiful complexion of the puella (Prop. 2.3.9–12):122 nec me tam facies, quamuis sit candida, cepit     (lilia non domina sint magis alba mea; ut Maeotica nix minio si certet Hibero,     utque rosae puro lacte natant folia). [Nor is it so much her face that has captured me, although she is radiant (lilies could not be whiter than my mistress; it is as though Maeotic snow competed with Spanish cinnabar, just like rose petals that swim in pure white milk).]

Though Propertius denies the primary importance of the beauty of the puella, the parenthesis undermines his claim, revealing the amatory potency of her

122  On the comparability of the Vergilian and Propertian floral similes, see Enk (1962) 58 ad Prop. 2.3.11–12; Lyne (1983) 60 and (1987) 122; Edgeworth (1992) 154; Fedeli (2005) 130 ad Prop. 2.3.9–14. On the possible Ennian origins of the Propertian imagery of milk and flowers, see Enk (1962) 59 ad Prop. 2.3.12; Skutsch (1985) 526 ad Enn. Ann. fr. 361; Clarke (2003) 18; Fedeli (2005) 130 ad Prop. 9–14. I suspect that a lost Gallan intermediary informs both Prop. 2.3 and Vergil’s description of Lavinia’s blush, as evidenced by the collocation of snow (E. 10.23, 47–49, 66), red and white botanical elements (E. 10.25–27, 38–40), and flowers (E. 10.40) in Eclogue 10 (E. 10.25–27, 38–40); and the appearance of the East–­West topos in Prop. 2.3.43–44, on which see Ross (1975) 118; Cairns (2006) 97–100.

154  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid appearance.123 As the elegy continues, Propertius elevates the puella by comparing her to the Homeric precedent of Helen (Prop. 2.3.32–40). The beauty of the elegiac domina rivals that of the Iliadic Helen (post Helenam haec terris forma secunda redit, this beauty returns to earth a second time after Helen, Prop. 2.3.32), the epic puella who caused the Trojan war (tanti . . . belli | causa puella fuit, a girl was the cause of such a great war, Prop. 2.3.35–36). Lurking within the portraits of Lavinia and the puella are tantalizing traces of an artistic exchange between Propertius and Vergil.124 The two corresponding depictions of devastating female beauty point to Propertius’ and Vergil’s contrasting intergeneric interplay between epic and elegiac material. Propertius pilfers Helen from epic to exaggerate the amatory potency of the elegiac puella, who sets the Roman youth aflame with passion (hac ego nunc mirer si flagrat nostra iuuentus, why am I surprised that our young men burn because of her, Prop. 2.3.33). The analogy between the puella and Helen aggrandizes the incitement of the young men of Rome by implicitly comparing their amatory rivalry to Iliadic war. By contrast, Vergil purloins elegiac imagery to underscore the genuine threat posed by the amatory potency of Lavinia, whose exceptional desirability engenders epic arma. When read together, the Propertian and Vergilian passages allusively inculpate Lavinia as cause of the Iliadic conflict of Aeneid 7–12 (cf. tanti belli causa, the cause of such a great war, Prop. 2.3.35–36). The intertextual identification of Lavinia as the alia Helena of the Italian Iliad fulfils the prediction made by the Sibyl in Aeneid 6 (A. 6.93–94): causa mali tanti coniunx iterum hospita Teucris | externique iterum thalami (the cause of such great woe for the Teucrians again will be a wife connected to the bond of guest-­friendship and again will be a foreigner’s marriage).125 Furthermore, the implicit analogy confirms that Lavinia’s thematic and amatory counterpart is Turnus, whose role as the second Menelaus has likewise been suggested by the cor­res­pond­ing stained-­ivory simile.

Turnus’ Plan for the Duel (A. 12.70–80) The blushing cheeks of Lavinia transfix Turnus, who rehearses Propertius’ fix­ ation on the beautiful face of the desired puella (A. 12.70): illum turbat amor figitque in uirgine uultus (desire rouses the passion of Turnus and he fixes his countenance on the maiden). Vergil refrains from specifying the subject of amor,

123  On the contrast between Propertius’ denial and praise of her beauty, as well as its connection to the Monobiblos, see Fedeli (2005) 128 ad Prop. 2.3.9–14; Keith (2008) 100. 124  Which passage precedes the other remains in question, due to the simultaneous composition of Propertius’ second elegiac collection and the Aeneid. 125  See Servius ad A. 6.93: coniunx iterum hospita nam et Paris ab Helena fuerat susceptus hospitio (‘again will be a wife connected to the bond of guest-­friendship’ for Paris likewise had been received by Helen in guest-­friendship).

From Amor to Mors  155 leading to speculation regarding the amatory dynamics of the scene.126 The more common identification of amor with Turnus’ passion for Lavinia correlates well with his sustained characterization as a miles amans.127 But amor, given its proximity to Amata’s outburst and Lavinia’s blush, can just as easily refer to their concurrent passions for Turnus.128 Indeed, the ambiguity of amor, which points to the conflicting amores of Lavinia, Turnus, and Amata, underscores the triangular emotional entanglement of the uirgo, sponsus, and mater.129 Yet the vertical juxtaposition of amor, which rouses Turnus’ passions (illum turbat amor, A. 12.70), and arma, for which he blazes even more (ardet in arma magis, A. 12.71) gives special emphasis to the connection between his amatory and martial impulses. Turnus, fired for battle, addresses Amata, declaring his intention to engage Aeneas in single combat at the next light of dawn (A. 12.72–80). The first lines of Turnus’ speech underpin his identity as the doomed miles amans of the Italian Iliad (A. 12.72–74): ‘ne, quaeso, ne me lacrimis neue omine tanto prosequere in duri certamina Martis euntem, o mater; neque enim Turno mora libera mortis.’ [‘Do not, I beg, do not send me on my way with tears or such foreboding as I go into the battles of harsh Mars, o mother; for a delay of death is not a matter of choice for Turnus.’]

Turnus’ brief (paucis, A. 12.71) and formal address (o mater, A. 12.74) of Amata stands in sharp contrast to her prolonged and ardent plea, and its tone seems designed to deflect her unseemly passion.130 As Turnus focuses instead on his inevitable confrontation with Aeneas, his words allusively characterize his martial impetuosity as militia amoris. The Rutulian hero, preparing to go into the battles of harsh Mars (duri certamina Martis, A. 12.73), conjures the figure of Gallus from the tenth eclogue (E. 10.44–45): nunc insanus amor duri me Martis in armis | tela inter media atque aduersos detinet hostes (now an insane desire for harsh battle holds me back in arms amidst weapons and hostile enemies). Turnus’ blazing desire for battle (ardet in arma magis, A. 12.71) and Gallan fixation on 126  For discussion of the ambiguity of amor in A. 12.70, see Lacey EV s.v. Lavinia 3.148; Lyne (1983) 60; Nelis (2001) 381; Tarrant (2012) 108 ad A. 12.70. 127  On the passionate nature of Turnus’ response and its indication of his love for Lavinia, see Fowler (1919) 41; Anderson (1957) 22; Lyne (1983) 60; Cairns (1989) 76; Fratantuono (2007) 370; Reed (2007) 60. Though Boltwood (1952) 183 denies that Vergil places any great emphasis on the love existing between Turnus and Lavinia, he does acknowledge the significance of her blush and his reaction as ‘the high point of their romance’. 128  Di Cesare (1974) 211 suggests that amor refers to Lavinia’s passion, but perhaps also that of Amata. Contra Tarrant (2012) 108 ad A. 12.70. 129  Lyne (1983) 60 and Nelis (2001) 381 propose that the ambiguous noun amor may refer to the love of Turnus for Lavinia, and hers for the hero. 130  As suggested by Di Cesare (1974) 211.

156  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid duri certamina Martis (A. 12.73) evoke the impassioned martial madness of his inter­gen­er­ic infuriation in Aeneid 7 (A. 7.460–61): arma amens fremit, arma toro tectisque requirit; | saeuit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli (out of his mind he roars for weapons, he looks for weapons in his bed and his chamber; his desire for battle rages and his accursed madness for war). Moreover, when Turnus rejects the possibility of postponing mortal combat (neque enim Turno mora libera mortis, for a delay of death is not a matter of choice for Turnus, A. 12.74),131 he echoes his own words at the beginning of the dialogic exchange in Aeneid 12 (nulla mora in Turno, there is no delay in Turnus, A. 12.11).132 Vergil underscores the thematic constituents of Turnus’ teleology as miles amans by anagrammatically interweaving his second urgent declaration of arma with amor and mors (mora libera mortis, A. 12.74; cf. nulla mora in Turno, A. 12.11).133 The first three verses of Turnus’ speech, redolent of Gallan militia amoris and entwined with amor, mora, and mors, metapoetically seal his fate, as he hastens to die for Lavinia at the hands of Aeneas, the fated founder of Roma. Turnus sends Idmon as his proxy to arrange the duel with Aeneas for the following morning (A. 12.76–77): cum primum crastina caelo | puniceis inuecta rotis Aurora rubebit (as soon tomorrow’s Aurora begins to redden in the sky conveyed on crimson wheels). The vivid description of dawn intratextually traces back to the beginning of the Italian Iliad and forward to the duel, allusively prefiguring the triumph of Aeneas. Turnus’ vision of Aurora evokes her earlier appearance in the programmatic opening panel of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.25–26): Iamque rubescebat radiis mare et aethere ab alto | Aurora in roseis fulgebat lutea bigis (And now the sea was growing red with the rays of the sun and from high in the sky Aurora was blazing yellow in her chariot of rose; see Chapter 1). The two cor­res­ pond­ing depictions of Aurora implictly juxtapose the sunrise of Turnus’ last day on earth with that of Aeneas’ first day in Italy, thereby connecting the elimination of the Rutulian warrior with the success of his Trojan enemy’s fated mission. Aurora’s crimson chariot wheels (puniceis inuecta rotis, A. 12.77) are a subtle reminder of the trajectory of Turnus in Aeneid 12. The adjective puniceus (crimson; Punic, Carthaginian) recalls the similes of the hunted Punic lion (Poenorum . . . in aruis, A. 12.4) and fearful stag (puniceae . . . pennae, A. 12.750), which illustrate his progression from impassioned miles amans to Aeneas’ frightened prey.134 Finally, Turnus’ desire to meet Aeneas when Aurora reddens

131 Servius ad A. 12.74 calls the line one of the twelve insoluble passages in Vergil (sciendum tamen est, locum hunc unum esse de insolubilibus XII, nevertheless it should be understood that this part is one of the twelve insoluble ones). See Page (1931) 420 ad A. 12.74; Quinn (1968) 256–7; Williams (1973) 443 ad A. 12.74; Di Cesare (1974) 211; Tarrant (2012) 110 ad A. 12.74. 132  The echo is likewise observed by Di Cesare (1974) 211. 133  See Glossary s.v. anagram. 134  Putnam (1965) 160 likewise observes the connection of puniceus to Poenorum in aruis (A. 12.4) and puniceae pennae (A. 12.750).

From Amor to Mors  157 in the morning sky (rubebit, A. 12.77) conjures the blushing cheeks of Lavinia (rubor, A. 12.66; rubent, A. 12.68), the beloved puella for whom he fights.135 In the epic tradition, formulaic illustrations of daybreak demarcate narrative beginnings. Vergil likewise cor­rel­ates the final appearance of Aurora in the Italian Iliad with the commencement of its decisive battle. But for the two warriors who fight, the significance of the momentous dawn depends entirely on perspective. For Aeneas, the sunrise in­aug­ur­ates the confrontation from which he emerges as victor, thereby setting in motion his new marriage to Lavinia and unimpeded conquest of Italy. For Turnus, however, it is ultimately a closure, ushering in the duel that seals his fate, even as it intratextually traces his evolving story as the miles amans of Vergil’s maius opus. The final verses of Turnus’ speech encapsulate the connection between amor and arma so central to Aeneid 7–12 (A. 12.79–80): nostro dirimamus sanguine bellum, | illo quaeratur coniunx Lauinia campo (let us settle the war by our blood, let Lavinia be sought as wife on that plain). Here, as throughout the dialogic exchange, Vergil leads us back to the programmatic beginnings of the second half of the Aeneid, where he established the contentious issue of Lavinia’s nuptials as a crucial factor in the outbreak of violence. The intratextual interaction between the opening passages of Aeneid 7 and 12 underscores their collaborative function as the frame for the aesthetic and thematic sweep of the entire Italian Iliad, throughout which Vergil’s intergeneric fluctuation between epic and elegy elucidates the central connection between arma and amor.

Turnus’ Elegiac Enervation (A. 12.216–82) By the end of the dialogic exchange, Turnus hastens towards imminent destruction, yet Vergil defies the hero’s urgency by delaying his death for hundreds of lines. The prolonged conclusion of the Italian Iliad continues to articulate the tripartite importance of amor, arma, and mors, thereby fulfilling the programmatic promise of Caieta and Erato in its extended introduction (A. 7.1–45). Throughout Turnus’ final performance as miles amans, Vergil incorporates amatory and funerary elegiac expressions that underscore his erotic suffering and foreshadow his inevitable demise. When Turnus venerates the altar prior to combat, his impassioned uiolentia has been supplanted with a troubling air of vulnerability and defeat (A. 12.219–21):

135  Putnam (1965) 160 and Zarker (1969) discuss the verbal correlation between Lavinia’s blushing face (rubor, A. 12.66) and the reddening Aurora (rubebit, A. 12.77).

158  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid adiuuat incessu tacito progressus et aram suppliciter uenerans demisso lumine Turnus tabentesque genae et iuuenali in corpore pallor. [The fact that Turnus has advanced with silent gait and is venerating the altar as a suppliant with downcast eye increases the unrest, as do his wasting cheeks and the pallor upon his youthful body.]

Turnus’ suppliant manner and downcast eyes (suppliciter . . . demisso lumine, A. 12.220) evoke the conventional behaviour of the elegiac amator, who supplicates and submits to the puella, the amatory deities, and even amor itself.136 Indeed, the etymological association between uenerans (venerating, A. 12.220) and Venus allusively links Turnus’ supplication of the altar with the goddess of amor.137 Thus, Turnus’ ritual preparation for combat implictly invokes the divine lineage and amatory power that ensure Aeneas’ epic supremacy. Moreover, the sickly appearance of Turnus conjures the elegiac symptoms of amor experienced by Dido, the emblematic target of Venus’ hostile amatory force in the first half of the Aeneid.138 As Turnus prepares for the duel, his pallor (pallor, A. 12.221) recalls that of Dido as she contemplates her own death (pallor, A. 4.499; pallida, A. 4.644).139 Turnus’ wasted cheeks (tabentesque genae, A. 12.221) call to mind the emaciation of Dido and the other lovelorn inhabitants of the Lugentes Campi in the underworld (quos durus amor crudeli tabe peredit, those whom harsh love has devoured with cruel wasting, A. 6.442).140 Through intergeneric and intratextual imagery, Vergil emphasizes the amatory forces that diminish Turnus’ epic stature and condemn him to the shades below (sub umbras, A. 12.952). The elegiac enervation of Turnus exacerbates (adiuuat, A. 12.219) the Rutulians’ concerns regarding his impending battle with Aeneas (A. 12.216–17): at uero Rutilis impar ea pugna uideri | iamdudum et uario misceri pectora motu (but indeed to the Rutulians this battle had seemed unequal for a long time and their breasts were mixed up by fluctuating emotion).141 In the phrase impar pugna 136  See Glossary s.v. submission/supplication. In the programmatic opening lines of the Monobiblos, Propertius declares that Amor has cast down his eyes (deiecit lumina, Prop. 1.1.3). 137  On the etymological connection of ueneror and Venus, see Ernout–­Meillet 721–2 s.v. uenenum; L–­S s.v. ueneror; OLD s.v. ueneror; Hinds (2006). Cf. Prop. 3.5.1–2: pacis Amor deus est, pacem veneramur amantes: | sat mihi cum domina proelia dura mea (Amor is a god of peace, we lovers worship peace: enough for me are harsh battles with my mistress). 138  See Glossary s.v. symptoms. 139  Tarrant (2012) 148 ad A. 12.221 observes that these are the only two occurrences of pallor in Vergil. 140  Tarrant (2012) 147–8 ad A. 12.221 prefers the generally accepted pubentes to the variant tabentes found in Tib. Cl. Donatus. But given Vergil’s persistent alignment of Turnus with Dido, another victim of destructive amor, the alternative tabentes fittingly evokes Lucretian and elegiac discourse on the symptoms of passion. Interestingly, the only other occurrence of the extremely rare pubentes in the Aeneid also connects to Dido, who seeks out grasses filled with the milk of black poison (pubentes herbae nigri cum lacte ueneni, A. 4.514). 141 On adiuuat, see Tarrant (2012) 147 ad A. 12.219.

From Amor to Mors  159 (A. 12.220), metapoetic language connects Turnus’ elegiac symptoms to the erosion of his martial potency. The adjective impar, an ancient literary critical signifier of the elegiac couplet, semantically undermines the noun pugna, an epic signpost used by Vergil to define the martial programme of his maius opus (primae reuocabo exordia pugnae, I will recall the commencement of the first battle, A. 7.40).142 In the description of the Rutulians’ churning emotions (uario misceri pectora motu, their breasts were mixed up by fluctuating emotion, A. 12.220), the verb miscere (to mix, blend) and the phrase uarius motus (fluctuating emotion/movement) reflect Turnus’ heterogeneous identity and intergeneric oscillation between epic warrior and suffering amator. Through complementary elegiac and metapoetic allusions, Vergil demonstrates how amor undercuts Turnus’ epic capacity for arma, jeopardizing his chances against Aeneas, his superlative rival. Juturna immediately intervenes to protect Turnus by dispelling the anxious doubts of the Rutulians and driving them to sabotage the truce and prevent the duel (A. 12.222–56). In the guise of Camers, another warrior of superlative standing (ipse acerrimus armis, himself most valiant in battle, A. 12.226), she delivers a scathing speech that rekindles the martial resolve of the Rutulians (talibus incensa est iuuenum sententia dictis | iam magis atque magis, at words such as these the determination of the young men was kindled now more and more, A. 12.238–39). Next, she engineers an avian portent, which the augur Tolumnius inteprets as divine authorization for the Rutulians to violate the truce by taking up arms to defend Turnus. When Tolumnius hurls his spear, striking one of Aeneas’ Etruscan allies, Vergil describes the resulting martial frenzy of the Trojan and Italian forces as a ruling passion (A. 12.282): sic omnis amor unus habet decernere ferro (thus one and the same desire to decide by combat takes hold of them all). The cor­rel­ ation of amor and ferrum, a virtual synonym for arma, recalls Turnus’ desire for battle during his infuriation in Aeneid 7 (amor ferri, desire for battle, A. 7.461). In the beginning of the Italian Iliad, Allecto fans the flames of Turnus’ amor into arma, sparking the initial oubreak of war. Now, Juturna rehearses the role of the Fury, as she ignites the amor ferri of the two opposing armies and rouses Turnus’ fiery martial passion once more (subita spe feruidus ardet, he blazes feverishly with sudden hope, A. 12.325; cf. ardet, he blazes, A. 12.3).

142  On the unneven metre of elegy, see Thorsen (2013b). For Horatian and Ovidian examples of impar as a literary critical term for the genre of elegy, see Hor. Carm. 1.33.10–12 (sic uisum Veneri, cui placet imparis | formas . . . sub iuga aenea | . . . mittere, so it seemed to Venus, who delights in sending unequal forms beneath the bronze yoke); Hor. Ars 75–76 (uersibus impariter iunctis querimonia ­primum | . . . inclusa est, in verses unequally yoked at first lamentation was enclosed); Ov. Am. 1.1.3 (par erat inferior uersus, the lower verse used to be equal); Ov. Am. 2.17.21–22 (carminis hoc ipsum genus impar, sed tamen apte | iungitur herous cum breuiore modo, this genre of poetry is itself unequal, but nevertheless the heroic measure is fittingly married with the shorter one). See McKeown (1998) 374–5 ad Am. 2.17.1–2.

160  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid

Amata’s Impassioned Demise (A. 12.595–611) As the war blazes on with renewed fury, Vergil recounts the vicissitudes of battle and showcases the martial prowess of Aeneas and Turnus (A. 12.289–553). But when Venus inspires Aeneas to mount an assault on the city of Latinus (A. 12.554–92), the focus turns once again to the royal family of Latium. Amata, watching from the palace, sees the enemy attacking the walls and setting the rooftops aflame without any opposition from the Rutulian forces (A. 12.595–97). The absence of Turnus, the object of her mirus amor, leads her to draw a false and fatal conclusion (A. 12.598–603): infelix pugnae iuuenem in certamine credit exstinctum et subito mentem turbata dolore se causam clamat crimenque caputque malorum, multaque per maestum demens effata furorem purpureos moritura manu discindit amictus et nodum informis leti trabe nectit ab alta. [the wretched woman believes that the youth has been killed in the struggle of battle, and thrown into mental turmoil by sudden grief, she cries aloud that she is the cause of, culpable for, and the source of woes, and having uttered many things throughout her sorrowful frenzy the madwoman, doomed to die, tears her crimson clothes by hand and from a high beam ties the noose of hid­ eous death.]

When Amata, stricken by the supposed death of Turnus, ends her own life, she fulfils her programmatic trajectory from amor to mors. Interwoven throughout her final scene are intergeneric and intratextual cues that conjure the various stages of her amatory destruction, while reinforcing her enduring association with Dido. Vergil emphasizes the return of Amata with the phrase regina ut (when the queen, A. 12.595), a variation of the formula that introduces her entreaty of Turnus (at regina, but the queen, A. 12.54), where it allusively associates her amatory affliction, fear of abandonment, and contemplation of death with that of Dido (at regina, but the queen, A. 4.1, 4.296, 4.504). Thus, the expression regina ut initiates the scene of Amata’s suicide, while tracing back to the speech that features her Didonian, elegiac ideation (simul haec inuisa relinquam | lumina, together with you I will leave behind this hateful light of life, A. 12.62–63). In similar fashion, the reappearance of the participle moritura (doomed to die, A. 12.602) connects Amata’s impassioned demise to her earlier address of Turnus (moritura, A. 12.55), while underscoring once again her affiliation with other Vergilian women whose deaths are connected to amor, particularly Dido (Hero: moritura, G. 3.263, Eurydice: moritura, G. 4.458; Dido: moritura, A. 4.308, 4.415,

From Amor to Mors  161 4.519, 4.604). Amata’s swift progression from sudden grief (subito . . . dolore, A. 12.599) to sorrowful frenzy (maestum . . . furorem, A. 12.601) and suicide recalls the emotional deterioration that drives Dido to take her own life (concepit furias euicta dolore | decreuitque mori, overcome by grief she took in the furies and decided to die, A. 4.474–75; peribat | . . . subito accensa furore, she was perishing . . . inflamed by sudden frenzy, A. 4.696–97).143 Moreover, Amata exhibits in the moments before her death the precise traits that align her intergeneric infuri­ ation with the amatory demise of Dido: misery (infelix, A. 12.598; cf. infelicis Amatae, for wretched Amata, A. 7.401; infelix . . . Dido | mortem orat, wretched Dido prays for death, A. 4.450–51); emotional turmoil (turbata, A. 12.599; cf. ceu . . . turbo, just as a top, A. 7.378); and sorrowful furor (maestum . . . furorem, A. 12.601; cf. infelix . . . | . . . furit, the wretched woman rages, A. 7.376–77; infelix Dido . . . | . . . furens, wretched Dido . . . raging, A. 4.68–69).144 Likewise, Amata rehearses the Gallan elegiac madness (demens, A. 12.601) exhibited by Dido from her initial amatory obsession with Aeneas (demens, A. 4.78) to her self-­ condemnation and tragic suffering after his betrayal (demens, A. 4.374, 4.469).145 In his characterization of the suicidal frenzy of Amata, the lovestruck regina of the Italian Iliad, Vergil seals her persistent association with Dido, the infelix regina of Aeneid 1–6, with devastating finality. As Amata utters her final speech, her self-­recrimination rings out with intratextual echoes of pivotal figures who share her intergeneric trajectory from amor to mors. Amata cries aloud that she is the cause of, culpable for, and the source of woes (se causam clamat crimenque caputque malorum, A. 12.600).146 In Aeneid 4, Vergil utilizes the formulation causa malorum (cause of woes) to underscore the trajectory from Dido’s hunting expedition, which culminates in her sexual union with Aeneas, to her impassioned suicide (A. 4.169–70): ille dies primus leti primusque malorum | causa fuit (that day was the first day of death and that day was the first cause of woes). The phrase causa malorum also evokes the infuriation sequence in Aeneid 7, when Ascanius’ desire for praise (eximiae laudis amor, A. 7.496) leads to the slaughter of Sylvia’s stag, which causes the outbreak of violence (quae prima laborum | causa fuit, which was the first cause of sufferings, 143  See Tarrant (2012) 242 ad A. 12.599. 144  See Glossary s.v. infelix/miser. Amata’s amatory misery is also reflected in her assertion that Turnus is her only respite from wretched old age (senectae | . . . miserae, A. 12.57–58). The elegiac signifier infelix appears frequently in connection with Dido (A. 1.711, 1.749, 4.529, 4.596, 6.456). For furor as a shared trait of Amata and Dido, see Tarrant (2012) 243 ad A. 12.601. 145  As noted also by Tarrant (2012) 243 ad A. 12.601. See Glossary s.v. insanity. The occurrence of demens at A. 4.469 indirectly characterizes Dido’s madness through comparison with the tragic figure of Pentheus. For discussion of Vergil’s allusion to Euripides’ Bacchae within the Pentheus simile, see Panoussi (2009) 134–36, with further bibliography. 146  The expression causa malorum makes an interesting appearance in Servius’ contemplation of the emotions that provoke Lavinia’s blush earlier in Aeneid 12 (Servius ad A. 12.66): mouebatur autem, intellegens se esse tantorum causam malorum (moreover she is moved, as she realizes that she is the cause of such great woes).

162  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid A. 7.481–82). Drances, Turnus’ rhetorical antagonist in Aeneid 11, utilizes the expression causa malorum to censure the Rutulian (o Latio caput horum et causa malorum, o source and cause of these woes in Latium, A. 11.361), whom he ­condemns for causing death and devastation in order to win Lavinia as bride (ut Turno contingat regia coniunx, A. 11.371). Moreover, Amata’s proclaimed culp­ abil­ity (crimen, A. 12.600) evokes Vergil’s elegiac indictment of Amor and Venus for Cycnus’ demise, which results from his passion for Phaethon, as recounted in the Etruscan catalogue of Aeneid 10 (crimen, Amor, uestrum, a reproach, Amor, against you and your mother, A. 10.188; see Chapter  4). Amata’s self-­ incrimination, like that of Latinus earlier in the dialogic exchange (A. 12.29–31), allusively distorts her role and responsibility, as the intratextual resonance of her words implicates her within a complex network of central characters whose unrestrained passions engender violence and death. The suicide of the impassioned Italian regina starkly fulfils her intergeneric pledge to perish with Turnus (A. 12.62–63), as her unseemly passion (mirus amor, A. 7.57) culminates in her hideous death (informis leti, A. 12.603). The news of Amata’s suicide swiftly reaches Lavinia and the other Latin women (A. 12.604): quam cladem miserae postquam accepere Latinae (as soon as the Latin women have taken in the loss of the wretched woman).147 Lavinia immediately lacerates her rosy cheeks (roseas laniata genas, A. 12.606), driven by grief to wound the cheeks that flushed with the colours of blood and bone, betraying her amor for Turnus, after her mother’s impassioned speech to Turnus (A. 12.64–69). Amata’s death, like that of Dido, sends shock waves through her people. The crowd around Lavinia rages out of control (cetera circum | turba furit, A. 12.606–07), and the buildings resound far and wide with cries of lamentation that echo those of the Carthaginans after Dido’s suicide (resonant late plangoribus aedes, A. 12.607; resonat magnis plangoribus aether, the upper air resounds with loud lamentations, A. 4.668). Wretched word of Amata’s annihilation spreads throughout the entire city (totam infelix uulgatur fama per urbem, A. 12.608), recalling the Bacchic frenzy of Fama throughout Carthage, a city shaken by the death of its queen (concussam bacchatur Fama per urbem, Rumour rages like a bacchant throughout the shaken city, A. 4.666). As the Latin people, wracked with grief, rehearse the infuriated raving of their impassioned queen (infelix . . . | immensam sine more furit lymphata per urbem, she, wretched woman rages wildly throughout the vast city driven out of her senses, A. 7.376–77), the deadly and far-­reaching consequences of her mirus amor come sharply into focus.

147 Although miserae has been consistently construed as a nominative feminine plural adjective with Latinae, Vergil’s frequent depiction of Amata as infelix/miser (e.g. infelix, A. 7.376; infelix, A. 12.598; senectae | . . . miserae, A. 12.57–58) supports its identification as a genitive feminine singular substantive form. Cf. misera as applied to the dying Dido ad A. 4.697.

From Amor to Mors  163

Turnus After Amata’s Death (A. 12.620–22, 646–49, 665–71) After the suicide of Amata, Turnus becomes increasingly aware of the mournful despair of his people, contemplates his own imminent death, and sorrowfully receives the news of the queen’s demise. When Turnus, as yet unaware that Amata has perished, perceives the outpouring of sorrow after her suicide (A. 12.620–22), he utters the conventional cry of lamentation (ei mihi, woe to me, A. 12.620) and asks why the city is thrown into confusion by such grief (quid tanto turbantur moenia luctu?, A. 12.620).148 Vergil allusively answers Turnus’ question with the word amor, concealed within the following line (A. 12.621): quisue ruit tantus diuersa clamor ab urbe? (What is this great outcry that rushes from the distant city?) The description of Turnus as amens (out of his mind, A. 12.622) recalls the mental disturbance of his amatory infuriation (arma amens fremit, out of his mind he roars for weapons, A. 7.460). But by contrast to his frenzied call for arma, the stricken hero delivers a sepulchral contemplation of mors (A. 12.646–49): usque adeone mori miserum est? uos o mihi, Manes, este boni, quoniam superis auersa uoluntas. sancta ad uos anima atque istius inscia culpae descendam magnorum haud umquam indignus auorum. [Is it such a wretched thing to die? You, o Shades, be kind to me, since the will of the gods above is turned against me. I will descend to you a spirit blessed and unknowing of this crime, a man by no means unworthy of my great ancestors.]

Vergil fashions the foreboding speech to conjure the themes of mors and funerary lament: he interweaves epitaphic vocabulary (anima, dignus, Manes, miser, mori, sanctus);149 he creates a mournful sound through alliteration of the phoneme m;150 and he derives Turnus’ acquiescence in death,151 address of the Manes,152 and declaration of excellence from the conventional voice of speaking funerary inscriptions.153 The appropriation of epitaphic material in Turnus’ conceptual confrontation of mors is informed by the funerary poetics of elegy, as exemplified by Propertius (Prop. 1.19.1–2): non ego nunc tristis uereor, mea Cynthia, Manes, | nec moror extremo debita fata rogo (I do not fear the grim shades now, my

148 See CCLE s.v. luctus. 149 See CCLE s.vv. anima, Manes, miser, mori, sanctus; OLD s.v. sanctus 3c. 150  See Quintilian on the letter m (Inst. 12.10.32): illa quasi mugiente littera (that mooing letter, so to speak). On alliteration in Vergil and Ovid, see Clarke (1976) 276–300. 151  See Lattimore (1962) 211–14 §57. 152  See Lattimore (1962) 90–4 §90. For epitaphic examples of the formula uos o Manes, see CE 383.9, 1689.6, 1117.02. Cf. Propertius’ addresses of the Callimachi Manes (Prop. 3.1.1) 153  See Lattimore (1962) 285–90 §80.

164  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Cynthia, nor do I delay the fate owed to the final pyre).154 But when Vergil imbues the speech of his epic miles amans with the elegiac poetics of mors, his inter­gen­ er­ic translatio turns the metaphorical contemplation of death into a sombre acknowledgement of the mortal danger faced by Turnus, who ominously envisions his descent to the underworld. In the scene of Turnus’ reaction to the news of Amata’s suicide, Vergil intratextually recalls the amatory predicaments of each character as he draws the narrative arc of their relationship to a close. Saces, imploring Turnus for help, impresses upon him the dire circumstances in Latium. His report of Aeneas, thundering in battle (fulminat Aeneas armis, A. 12.654), and Latinus, muttering in indecision over whom he should call his son-­in-­law (mussat rex ipse Latinus | quos generos uocet, A. 12.657–58), emphasizes the contest for martial and amatory supremacy that Turnus now stands to lose. Saces also informs Turnus that Amata has taken her own life (A. 12.659–60): praeterea regina, tui fidissima, dextra | occidit ipsa sua lucemque exterrita fugit (moreover, the queen herself, who believed in you most of all, has perished by her own hand and frightened has fled the light). The messenger’s account of the suicide of Amata evokes its ideation in her impassioned plea to Turnus in the dialogic exchange. Amata’s fear as she perishes (regina . . . | . . . exterrita, A. 12.659–60) evokes her fearful contemplation of Turnus’ death (at regina . . . conterrita, but the queen frightened, A. 12.54), which fuels her suicidal thoughts. Her terrified flight from the light of life (lucemque exterrita fugit, A. 12.660) recalls her intention to perish if Turnus should die (simul haec inuisa relinquam | lumina, together with you I will leave behind this hateful light of life, A. 12.62–63), which reflects Dido’s fearful prayer for death if Aeneas should leave (exterrita Dido | mortem orat, stricken with terror Dido prays for death, A. 4.450–51; cf. A. 4.451, 4.452, 4.475).155 Through its intratextual evocation of Amata’s Didonian feelings for Turnus, Saces’ report allusively identifies amor as the cause of her death and confirms her role as the impassioned infelix regina of the Italian Iliad. Turnus, upon hearing the messenger’s news about Aeneas, Latinus, and Amata, seethes with a complex range of emotions (A. 12.666–68): aestuat ingens | uno in corde pudor mixtoque insania luctu | et furiis agitatus amor et conscia uirtus (there seethes in one heart great shame and madness mixed with grief and passion provoked by furies and self-­conscious manliness).156 The catalogue of emotions experienced by Turnus replicates in miniature his entire narrative progression and its central themes of amor, arma, and mors. His seething heat (aestuat,

154  The phrase o mihi in the marked funerary context also evokes Gallus’ vision of mors in the tenth eclogue (E. 10.33): o mihi tum quam molliter ossa quiescant (o how sofly then would my bones rest). 155  Tarrant (2012) 257 ad A. 12.660 notes the recollection of Dido in exterrita. 156  On Turnus and Saces, see also Hershkowitz (1998) 85–95.

From Amor to Mors  165 A. 12.666), madness (insania, A. 12.667), and infuriated passion (furiis agitatus amor, A. 12.668) illustrate the lasting impact of Allecto’s fiery transmogrification of his amor into a raging desire for battle and an accursed madness for war (saeuit amor ferri et scelerata insania belli, A. 7.461). Turnus, having learned of Amata’s death, rehearses the grief (luctu, A. 12.667) of the Latin people, which previously gave him pause (quid tanto turbantur moenia luctu?, why is the city thrown into confusion by such grief?, A. 12.620). The self-­conscious recognition of his status as uir, evoked by the phrase conscia uirtus (A. 12.668), underscores his renewed awareness of the inevitable confrontation with Aeneas (arma uirumque, A. 1.1). Thereafter, his blazing eyes (ardentis oculorum orbis, the blazing orbs of his eyes, A. 12.670) and turbulent emotional state (turbidus, in a state of turmoil, A. 12.671) reflect his appearances throughout Aeneid 12: his fiery martial resolve in the opening lines (ardet | attolitque animos, he blazes and raises his courage, A. 12.3–4); his turbulent speech to Latinus and its allusive revelation of amor as the rationale behind his martial urgency (ita turbidus infit: ‘nulla mora in Turno’, thus in a state of turmoil he begins: ‘there is no delay in Turnus’, A. 12.10–11); and his amatory turmoil and desire for battle kindled by the blush of Lavinia (illum turbat amor . . . | ardet in arma magis, desire rouses the passion of Turnus . . . he blazes all the more for battle, A. 12.70–71; cf. ardentem, A. 12.55). The intratextual depth of Turnus’ emotion, prompting recollection of his past encounters, restores his commitment to confront Aeneas. In his speech to Juturna, he draws together the threads of amor/mora, arma, and mors that have been interwoven throughout his story: he demands that his sister cease her tactics of delay (absiste morari, A. 12.676);157 he prepares to face both his epic fortune and Aeneas (quo deus et quo dura uocat Fortuna sequamur, | stat conferre manum Aeneae, let us follow whither god, whither harsh Fortune summons us, I am determined to join Aeneas in battle, A. 12.677–78);158 and he restates his sepulchral acquiescence (stat, quidquid acerbi est, | morte pati, I am determined to suffer in death whatever bitterness there is, A. 12.678–79.).159 Indeed, Turnus implicitly acknowledges his impending death even as he prays to unleash the force of his infuriation on the battlefield (A. 12.680): hunc, oro, sine me furere ante furorem (let me rage, I pray, with this madness before I die).160 But unbeknownst to Turnus, his words allusively prefigure a second infernal assault and his subsequent defeat.

157  See Glossary s.v. anagram. 158  See Glossary s.v. durus. 159 The bitterness of death is a conventional theme of Greek and Latin epitaphs, for example: σήματι τοῦ πικροῦ ῥῦσιν ἔχω θανάτου (in the tomb I have deliverance from bitter death, EG 200.2.4); ὁ πικρὸς Ἅδης (o bitter Hades, SEG 1.454.2); ἡ . . . πικρὰ Μοῖρα (bitter Moira, IG 12.9.1240); ut acerbo es deditus fato (you have been handed over to a bitter fate, CE 362.1); at nunc funus acerbum (now a bitter death, CE 403.7). See also CCLE s.v. acerbus. 160  Tarrant (2012) 264 ad A. 12.680: ‘ante: i.e. before I die’.

166  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid

The Interventions of the Dira (A. 12.843–68) With the epic battle between Turnus and Aeneas under way, Jupiter and Juno reach their agreement regarding the fate of the Latin and Trojan people (A. 12.791–842). As Jupiter thereafter enlists the Dirae to force Juturna to withdraw her assistance from Turnus (A. 12.843–86),161 the dread goddesses from Aeneas’ shield (tristesque ex aethere Dirae, and the grim Dirae from the upper air, A. 8.701) materialize to secure his success in arma. Just as Juno summoned Allecto from the abode of the dread goddesses (dirarum ab sede dearum, A. 7.324)162 to  inflame Turnus’ amor into martial violence, Jupiter now dispatches one of the  Dirae to deliver him to mors.163 Vergil’s initial description of the Dirae as geminae pestes (twin instruments of ruin, A. 12.845), endowed with matching ­serpentine coils (paribus . . . | serpentum spiris, A. 12.847–48) and wings as swift as wind (uentosasque . . . alas, A. 12.848), calls to mind precise details from the beginning of Allecto’s infuriation of Turnus: her flight to Ardea on dusky wings (fuscis tristis dea tollitur alis, the grim goddess flies on dark wings, A. 7.408); her alliterative serpentine hissing (tot Erinys sibilat hydris, the Fury hisses with so many serpents, A. 7.447);164 and the twin snakes that rise from her hair (geminos erexit crinibus anguis, she raised two snakes from her tresses, A. 7.450).165 Moreover, striking inter- and intratextual allusions imbue the Dira with elegiac significance, confirming that she, like Allecto, is a lethal analogue for Amor.166 First, Vergil appropriates imagery from Propertius’ elegiac meditation on the icon­og­raphy of Amor (Prop. 2.12), transferring the artist’s rendition of Amor’s wings (uentosas addidit alas, he added wings as swift as wind, Prop. 2.12.5) to Nox equipping her infernal daughters (and she added wings as swift as wind, A. 12.848).167 Second, he compares the dispatched Dira to a fired arrow in a simile redolent of the same Propertian elegy and Eclogue 10 (A. 12.856–59): non secus ac neruo per nubem impulsa sagitta, armatam saeui Parthus quam felle ueneni, Parthus siue Cydon, telum immedicabile, torsit, stridens et celeris incognita transilit umbras. 161  See Tarrant (2012) 306–7 ad A. 12.843–886, 842–52 for discussion of the episode and comparison of the Dirae and the Furies. 162  Cf. Allecto’s declaration to Turnus (A. 7.454): adsum dirarum ab sede sororum (I have come from the abode of my dread sisters). 163  On the two episodes as a structural frame within Turnus’ narrative progression, see Tarrant (2012) 307 ad A. 12.845–52, with further bibliography. 164  On the alliteration of s in the description of the Dirae, see Tarrant (2012) 307 ad A. 12.848. 165  Cf. the discharged Allecto at the end of the infuriation sequence (A. 7.561): illa autem attollit stridentis anguibus alas (she raised her wings hissing with snakes). 166  Tarrant (2012) 310 ad A. 12.857–58 is tempted ‘to see the Dira as a perversion of eros/Eros’. 167  See Tarrant (2012) 307 ad A. 12.848, who suggests that Vergil likely imitates Propertius, on the basis of the greater functionality of addidit in the elegy.

From Amor to Mors  167 [no differently than an arrow, fired through a cloud by the bowstring, which, armed with the gall of fierce poison, a Parthian, a Parthian or a Cydonian has hurled, a shaft making incurable wounds, and hissing it springs unseen through the swift shadows.]

The collocation of uenenum (A. 12.857), telum (shaft, A. 12.858), and umbrae (shadows, A. 12.859) recalls Propertius’ description of the poisoned arrows of Amor (tecta, shafts, Prop. 2.12.18; ueneno, poison, Prop. 2.12.19), which strike the shade of his former self (non ego, sed tenuis uapulat umbra mea, it is not I, but my slender shade that is struck, Prop. 2.12.20). In the simile, the redoubled Parthus (Parthian, A. 12.57–58), together with Cydon (Cydonian, A. 12.58) and torsit (he  has hurled, A. 12.858), echoes Gallus’ desire to hunt in Parthenian glades (Parthenios . . . saltus, Parthenian glades, E. 10.57), taking consolatory delight in the firing of Cydonian arrows from his Parthian bow (libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu | spicula, it pleases to fire Cydonian arrows with a Parthian bow, E. 10.59–60).168 Through the phrase telum immedicabile (a shaft making incurable wounds, A. 12.858),169 Vergil further associates the destructive potency of the Dira with the furor amoris that motivates Gallus’ retreat to the wilderness (tamquam haec sit nostri medicina furoris, as if these things could be a cure for our frenzy, E. 10.60). Finally, the shadows through which the telum immedicabile flies are reminiscent of the closural repetition of umbra at the end of the tenth eclogue devoted to Gallus and the collection as a whole (umbra, | . . . umbra; . . . umbrae, E. 10.75–76). The arrow simile reverberates with the elegiac tone and allusive significance of Allecto’s infuriations of Amata, Turnus, and Ascanius, evoking in particular her poisonous erotic potency (Gorgoneis Allecto infecta uenenis, Allecto poisoned with the Gorgonian venom, A. 7.341), her use of infernal missiles to inflame amor (unum . . . anguem | conicit, she hurls one snake, A. 7.346–47; facem . . . coniecit, she hurled a torch, A. 7.456), and her effect on Ascanius, who effectuates Gallus’ vision of consolatory hunting by slaying the stag (A. 7.496–99). The arrow, evocative of Allecto and Turnus’ unhealable amatory uiolentia (uiolentia aegrescit medendo, A. 12.46), prefigures the assault of the Dira, which leads directly to the hero’s demise. Indeed, the Dira, in order to accomplish her divine directive (Iuppiter inque omen Iuturnae occurrere iussit, and Jupiter ordered her to check Juturna by way of an omen, A. 12.854), moves swiftly to attack Turnus in avian form (A. 12.862–64):

168  See Tarrant (2012) 310 ad A. 12.857–58, with further bibliography. Like Tarrant, I am tempted by the correlations between the arrow simile, the Gallan hunting scene, and the Propertian vision of Amor to posit that all are informed by the same erotic model—­perhaps a lost Gallan intertext? 169 Servius ad A. 12.858 glosses immedicabile as cuius uulneri mederi non possit (of the sort which produces a wound that cannot be healed). Tarrant (2012) 310 ad A. 12.858 suggests that immedicabile is a Vergilian coinage.

168  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid alitis in paruae subitam collecta figuram, quae quondam in bustis aut culminibus desertis nocte sedens serum canit importuna per umbras [drawing herself into the sudden form of the small bird, which at times, perched on desolate tombs or rooftops at night, ill-­omened sings a late song through the shadows.]

Through her vivid metamorphosis, the Dira becomes an ominous clone of the owl perceived by Dido during her tormented nocturnal rites at the funerary shrine of Sychaeus (A. 4.462–63): solaque culminibus ferali carmine bubo | saepe queri et longas in fletum ducere uoces (and alone on the rooftops an owl often lamented with its funereal song and drew its lingering utterances into a wail).170 Astonishingly, when Dido succumbs to sleep in the verses thereafter, she dreams of Clytemnaestra, transformed into Allecto herself (armatam facibus matrem et serpentibus atris, the mother armed with torches and black serpents, A. 4.472), and of the avenging Dirae on the threshold (ultricesque sedent in limine Dirae, the avenging Dirae perch on the threshold, A. 4.473; cf. in limine, on the threshold, A. 12.849),171 whom she later invokes (et Dirae ultrices, and the avenging Dirae, A. 4.610) to witness her final curse for war in Italy and intergenerational hatred between Carthage and Rome (A. 4.612–29). Furthermore, the movements of the Dira, rushing again and again at Turnus’ face (se . . . | fert refertque sonans, she rushes again and again, A. 12.865–66), call to mind those of Anna (fertque refertque soror, her sister brings and brings again, A. 4.438), repeatedly conveying Dido’s tearful pleas to Aeneas in vain.172 Finally, the phrase per umbras (through the shadows, A. 12.864) echoes Aeneas’ words during his encounter with the shade of Dido in the Lugentes Campi (per umbras, through the shades, A. 6.461). Thus, the Dira cloaks herself in an ominous form that elicits memories of Dido’s impassioned lamentations, furious martial maledictions, and descent into the underworld. Vergil’s intratextual resurrection of Dido during the Dira’s assault of Turnus reinforces once again his trajectory from amor to mors, the culmination of which is now very close at hand. Vergil imbues Turnus’ visceral response to the menacing Dira with similar intratextual gravity (A. 12.867–68): illi membra nouus soluit formidine torpor, | arrectaeque horrore comae et uox faucibus haesit (a strange paralysis slackened his limbs in fear, and his hair stood on end from bristling dread and his voice stuck 170  On the verbal correspondences between the Dira/owl and the bubo of Aeneid 4, see Tarrant (2012) 311 ad A. 12.862–64, who also provides illustrative intertextual reminiscences in Ovid. Servius ad A. 12.863 suggests that the Dira takes the shape of the noctua (night owl), whose smaller size cor­ res­ponds to the adjective parua (A. 12.862), by contrast to that of the larger bubo (horned owl). 171  On the phrase in limine, see Tarrant (2012) 308 ad A. 12.849. 172  Cf. the Turnus/stag of the simile, as discussed above (fugit refugitque, it flees back and forth, A. 12.753).

From Amor to Mors  169 fast in his throat). Just as Allecto caused his limbs to quake with dread (subitus tremor occupat artus, a sudden fearful quaking seized his limbs, A. 7.446), the Dira disables them with paralytic terror.173 His fear (formidine, A. 12.867), engendered by the repetitive movement of the Dira (se . . . | fert refertque sonans, she rushes again and again, A. 12.865–66), recalls the simile of the frightened stag in flight (formidine, by fear, A. 12.750; territus | fugit refugitque, it flees back and forth, A. 12.752–53), which underscores Turnus’ narrative progression from amor to martial mors and vividly illustrates his martial inferiority to Aeneas in the first stage of the duel. Strikingly, Turnus’ reaction to the implicit message of the Dira is identical to that of Aeneas when confronted by Mercury, another divine instrument of Jupiter (arrectaeque horrore comae et uox faucibus haesit, a strange par­ aly­sis slackened his limbs in fear, and his hair stood on end from bristling dread and his voice stuck fast in his throat, A. 4.280).174 Through the conspicuous verbal repetition, Vergil alludes yet again to Dido, recalling the divine ordinance that drove Aeneas to abandon her to death. The intratextual reminiscences of Turnus’ infuriation, Aeneas’ martial supremacy, and Dido’s deficit of divine support have significant implications for the resumption of the duel. Whereas Jupiter himself safeguards Aeneas’ success, to the detriment of those who oppose him, Turnus, like Dido, falls victim to divine interventions that diminish his stature and set him on a path towards destruction. As commanded by Jupiter, the ominous Dira incapacitates Turnus, who struggled in combat before, to ensure that he falls prey to Aeneas, his martial and amatory rival.

Juturna’s Lament for Turnus (A. 12.870–81) The omen of the Dira/owl has the desired effect on Juturna, who recognizes its lethal implications for her brother Turnus and dissolves immediately into phys­ic­al acts of mourning (A. 12.870–71): infelix crinis scindit Iuturna solutos | unguibus ora soror foedans et pectora pugnis (Juturna, his wretched sister, tears out her unbound hair, disfiguring her face with her nails and her breasts with her fists). In her fearful imperative to the Dira, Juturna metapoetically acknowledges the intratextual plurality of her avian form and its ominous evocation of the sepulchral Didonian bubo (A. 12.875–76): ne me terrete timentem, | obscenae uolucres (do not frighten me away, fearful as I am, portentous birds).175 Aware of her inability to delay Turnus’ inevitable death (qua tibi lucem | arte morer?, with what skill could I delay your departure from the light?, A. 12.873–74), she ceases her

173  See Tarrant (2012) 312 ad A. 12.867–68. 174  See Tarrant (2012) 312 ad A. 12.868. 175  On the problem of interpretation posed by the plural, see Tarrant (2012) 314 ad A. 12.876, with further bibliography.

170  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid martial intervention, offering instead an anticipatory lament for her doomed brother informed by the funerary poetics of elegy (A. 12.879–81):176 quo uitam dedit aeternam? cur mortis adempta est condicio? possem tantos finire dolores nunc certe, et misero fratri comes ire per umbras! [To what end did Jupiter grant eternal life? Why have the terms of death been taken away? Now, surely, I could end such great sorrows and proceed through the shades as companion to my wretched brother!]

Vergil interweaves Juturna’s speech with fragmented elements of Catullus’ funerary elegiac refrain for his dead brother (lux, A. 12.874; ademptus, A. 12.879; miser, A. 12.881; frater, A. 12.881): o misero frater adempte mihi (o brother taken from wretched me, Cat. c. 68.20); ei misero frater adempte mihi | ei misero fratri iucundum lumen ademptum (woe brother taken away from wretched me, woe the delightful light of life taken away from my wretched brother, Cat. c. 68.92–93); heu miser indigne frater adempte mihi (alas wretched brother cruelly taken from me, Cat. c. 101.6). Moreover, her complaint against the immortality conferred by Jupiter after her rape (cur mortis adempta est | condicio, A. 12.879–80) also echoes Propertius’ assertion that the sempiternal force of poetry surpasses that of lavish monuments, which are not exempt from the final terms of death (nec . . . | mortis ab extrema condicione uacant, Prop. 3.2.21–22). Finally, Vergil marks the conclusion of her speech with the inter- and intratextually laden word umbra (per umbras, through the shades, A. 12.881), conjuring the closural imagery of his com­mem­or­ation of Gallus in Eclogue 10 (umbra, | . . . umbra; . . . umbrae, E. 10.75–76), which informs the depiction of Turnus throughout the final act of the Italian Iliad (umbras, A. 12.859, shadows; per umbras, through the shadows, A. 12.864; sub umbras, down to the shades, A. 12.952). Though Juturna can no longer delay Turnus’ demise, her allusive commemorative lament, like the Catullan, Propertian, and Vergilian passages it resembles, offers her brother poetic immortality as pre-­emptive consolation for his impending mors.

Turnus’ Defeat and Death (A. 12.889–952) With Juturna eliminated, Aeneas intensifies his physical and verbal onslaught against Turnus. The Trojan warrior, brandishing his enormous spear, mocks the 176  I concur with Tarrant (2012) ad A. 12.872–84, who says of the speech that ‘its consistent high pathetic tone makes it seems almost a lament for T.’s death before the fact’. Tarrant (2012) 316 ad A. 12.882–84 provides evidence to support that identification of A. 12.882–84 as either an early interpolation or an alternative to A. 12.879–81 that was not cancelled in Vergil’s autograph. Hence my elimination of them in my discussion here.

From Amor to Mors  171 hesitation of his Rutulian enemy (A. 12.889): quae nunc deinde mora est? (Now what is the delay then?). Aeneas’ contemptuous words constitute a humiliating intratextual riposte to Turnus’ declaration of martial urgency at the beginning of Aeneid 12 (A. 12.11): nulla mora in Turno (there is no delay in Turnus).177 Turnus proves unable to counter Aeneas in deeds or words, as he fails to reach his target with an immense stone projectile and loses bodily strength and the capacity to speak (A. 12.911–12): non lingua ualet, non corpore notae | sufficiunt uires nec uox aut uerba sequuntur (the tongue has no power, the familiar strength in the body becomes insufficient and neither voice nor words follow). Turnus, overwhelmed by speechlessness and enervation, continues to exhibit the symptoms of a stricken elegiac amator (cf. A. 12.216–82),178 and his amatory impairment confirms the fears engendered by his wasted cheeks and pallor during his ritual supplication of the altar prior to battle (A. 12.220–21). Indeed, in the verses that follow, Aeneas swiftly overpowers Turnus, whose suppliant stance (ille humilis supplex, he as a humble suppliant, A. 12.950–51) and prayer for mercy (A. 12.931–38) stand in sharp contrast to his erstwhile prayer for furor (hunc, oro, sine me furere ante furorem, let me rage, I pray, with this madness before I die, A. 12.680). The defeated Rutulian now declares Aeneas’ victory in the battle for martial and amatory supremacy that has embroiled the two superlative warriors since the programmatic introduction of the Italian Iliad in the seventh book of the Aeneid (A. 12.936–37): uicisti et uictum tendere palmas | Ausonii uidere; tua est Lauinia coniunx (you have emerged victorious and the Ausonians have seen me, vanquished, extending my palms; my bride Lavinia is yours).179 But Aeneas’ mo­ment­ ary hesitation (cunctantem, A. 12.940) is shattered by the sight of Pallas’ belt, which triggers his savage grief (saeui monimenta doloris, the material reminder of his savage grief, A. 12.945). Aeneas, supplanting Turnus as the embodiment of fire and frenzy (furiis accensus, inflamed by the furies, A. 12.946), feverishly plunges his sword deep within his enemy’s breast (ferrum aduerso sub pectore condit | feruidus, A. 12.950–51) in a martial re-­enactment of the assault of Allecto (fumantis fixit sub pectore taedas, she planted the smoking brand beneath his breast, A. 7.457). The iron, piercing the locus of Turnus’ figurative amatory wound (saucius . . . pectus, wounded in his breast, A. 12.5), delivers him to death (A. 12.951–52): ast illi soluuntur frigore membra | uitaque cum gemitu fugit indignata sub umbras (but his limbs are slackened with the chill of death and his life flees indignantly with a groan down to the shades). Even the final moments of Turnus’ life are resonant of Dido’s amatory demise, recalling her desire to die (iuuat ire sub umbras, it pleases me to go down to the shades, A. 4.660), Iris’ release of her dying limbs (artus 177  Tarrant (2012) 319 ad A. 12.889 observes the ‘ironic echo’ of Aeneas’ taunting words. 178  See Glossary s.v symptoms. 179  On the sense of tua est Lauinia coniunx, see Tarrant (2012) 333 ad A. 12.937.

172  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid resolueret, she might release her limbs, A. 4.695), the withdrawal of her life into the winds (in uentos uita recessit, her life departed into the winds, A. 4.705), and her flight among the shades of the Lugentes campi (quem fugis?, whom do you flee?, A. 6.466). Moreover, the titular book of Turnus (Turnus, A. 12.1), like that of Dido (at regina, but the queen, A. 4.1) culminates in mors, the dire conclusion of their shared amatory trajectory. With the elimination of the miles amans, the pivotal conflict of the Italian Iliad is over, and the sepulchral vision of his death draws the Aeneid to a symbolic close.

Sub Umbras Vergil’s closural relegation of Turnus to the shades of the underworld (sub umbras, down to the shades, A. 12.952) intratextually connects the ending of the Aeneid to the final lines of the Eclogues (grauis umbra, E. 10.75; grauis umbra, E. 10.76; umbrae, E. 10.76).180 Thus, the allusion traces back from the martial epic cul­min­ ation of Vergil’s elegiac experimentation in the Aeneid to its pastoral beginnings. In Eclogues 2, 6, and 10, shady pastoral landscapes (umbrosa cacumina, E. 2.3; umbras, E. 2.8) provide the backdrop for the elegiac suffering of Corydon and Gallus, and dark shadows draw their amatory laments to a funereal close (umbras, E. 2.67; umbra, E. 10.75, 10.76; umbrae, E. 10.76). In the Georgics, Vergil gravitates even further towards sepulchral elegiac experimentation, as Orpheus’ frenzied passion causes the second death of his beloved Eurydice (umbras, G. 4.501). In the Aeneid, the final Vergilian incarnation of destructive amor wreaks amatory and funerary elegiac havoc in the divine and mortal spheres. Programmatic descriptions of Juno and Venus in Aeneid 1 establish the tension between the amatory irae of the regina deorum and the erotic potency of the genetrix Aeneadae and anticipate the intergeneric interventions of the goddesses and their divine agents (e.g. Allecto, Vulcan). The epitaphic commemoration of Caieta and invocation of Erato in the exordium of Aeneid 7 lay the intergeneric web of Vergil’s maius opus, throughout which experimentation with elegy articulates the inextricable themes of amor, arma, and mors. For Dido, Amata, and Turnus, the mortal doublets of Juno, amatory and sepulchral elegiac elements vividly depict their trajectories from erotic suffering (amor) to violence (arma) and death (mors). Turnus, the last victim of Vergilian amor, enters an intratextual underworld (sub umbras, down to the shades, A. 12.952) already inhabited by Eurydice (umbras, G. 4.501), Dido (sub umbras, A. 4.660; per umbras, A. 6.452; in nemus umbriferum, A. 6.473), and Camilla (sub umbras, A. 11.831). The intratextual resonance of the phrase sub umbras (A. 12.952) also connects the death of Turnus, Vergil’s miles amans, to the 180  I concur with Tarrant (2012) 2–3: ‘In short, despite the poem’s apparently abrupt conclusion, there can be no doubt that the Aeneid ends where and how Virgil meant it to end.’

From Amor to Mors  173 aetiological myths of amor and mors embedded within the martial catalogues of Aeneid 7 and 10: the resurrection of Diana’s beloved Hippolytus (ab umbris, A. 7.770) and his annihilating metamorphosis into Virbius; and the amatory grief of Cycnus, voiced beneath the shady boughs of Phaethon’s sisters (umbram, A. 10.190), that eliminates him from the earthly sphere. The stunning beauty, thematic complexity, and haunting characterization wrought by Vergil’s innovative elegiac experimentation leave an indelible impression. One cannot help but wonder what other remarkable innovations might have come to light, had Vergil not perished ante diem. Yet Vergil’s intergeneric conceptualization of destructive passion in the Aeneid endures through the ingenuity of his poetic successors, in whose works it becomes an intertextual shade in all places (omnibus umbra locis).181 181  Cf. Dido ad A. 4.386.

Epilogue Vergil and Elegy Beyond the Aeneid

Do you see that his eloquence is distinguished by a combination of aspects from all the styles? Which indeed Vergil seems to me to have intentionally mixed together not without some foreknowledge, because of which he was preparing himself to serve the advancement of all. – macrobius, saturnalia 5.1.18 By way of conclusion, I turn to a preliminary consideration of the enduring influ­ ence exerted by Vergil’s intergeneric maius opus on subsequent Roman poets. As the preceding chapters have shown, Vergil interweaves key episodes throughout Aeneid 7–12 with amatory and funerary elegiac material. Indeed, from the epi­ taphic address to Caieta and invocation of Erato in the opening sequence of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.1–45) to the death of Turnus, Vergil’s miles amans, in the final lines of the poem (A. 12.951–52), elegy proves essential to the thematic and aesthetic fabric of the Italian Iliad. The oscillation between epic and elegy sets in stark relief the inextricable central themes of amor, arma, and mors, underscoring the Vergilian incarnation of passion as a destructive and lethal force. Furthermore, Vergil’s mediation of Greek and Roman poetic predecessors through the lexicon and topoi of contemporary elegy produces an epic that pays tribute to its literary lineage yet approaches it with revisionary innovation. Through two case studies in miniature, I offer an initial consideration of the ways in which the radical elegiac contamination of the Italian Iliad engenders fur­ ther ingenuity and intergeneric play among Vergil’s poetic successors. My exam­ in­ation is finite by design, drawing into focus excerpts from the Flavian poet Statius and the late Augustan poet Ovid. By drawing attention to striking and suggestive evidence from these pivotal passages, I lend impetus to further con­ templation of the profound impact of Vergilian intergeneric poetics on the subse­ quent literary tradition. Poetic sensibility, rather than chronology, dictates my order of presentation. I begin by examining the programmatic opening sequence of Statius’ epithalamium for Stella and Violentilla (Stat. Silu. 1.2.1–23), before proceeding to the appropriately closural subject of Ovid’s embedded epitaphs for Phaethon and Caieta in the Metamorphoses (Ov. Met. 2.325–28, 14.441–44). The Statian and Ovidian case studies demonstrate how individual authors recognize

Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil’s Aeneid. Sarah L. McCallum, Oxford University Press. © Sarah L. McCallum 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192863003.003.0007

176  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid and respond to precise instances of Vergilian experimentation with amatory and funerary elegy in Aeneid 7–12.

Statius’ Reception of Vergilian Intergeneric Poetics (Siluae 1.2.1–23) In Statius’ first collection of Siluae, an epithalamium commemorating the nup­ tials of his friend and fellow poet L. Arruntius Stella occupies pride of place (Stat. Silu. 1.2), second only to a poem devoted to the equestrian statue of the emperor (Stat. Silu. 1.1).1 Composing a wedding ode for an accomplished elegist provides Statius with a unique opportunity for metapoetic play. As Llewelyn Morgan has shown, the marriage of Stella constitutes ‘a rejection of his elegiac life and poetry, in favor of more serious pursuits’.2 Thus, the shifting identity of Stella imbues the hexameter verse of the epithalamium with significance, as the ‘metrical blazon of the wedding and normative career to which the formerly feckless elegist is now devoting himself ’.3 Throughout Siluae 1.2, oscillation between the epic and ama­ tory elegiac registers aesthetically encaspulates the undercurrent of tension between Stella’s established generic affiliation and his new-­found role as husband. In the opening lines of the epithalamium, Statius announces his intergeneric artistic programme through a personified image of Elegy (Stat. Silu. 1.2.7–8): uultu petulans Elegea propinquat | celsior assueto (Elegy, immodest in appearance, approaches loftier than usual). Immediately following her emblematic appear­ ance, Statius allusively identifies the crucial poetic model for his elevated treat­ ment of amatory elegy in the wedding ode. Appearing in close succession are intertextual references to two episodes from the Italian Iliad that exemplify Vergil’s experimentation with erotic elegiac material, as we have already seen: the encounter between Venus and Vulcan in Aeneid 8 (A. 8.370–406; see Chapter 3); and the blush of Lavinia in Aeneid 12 (A. 12.64–69; see Chapter 5). First, Statius follows his portrait of Elegea with the image of Venus escorting Stella’s bride (Stat. Silu. 1.2.11): ipsa manu nuptam genetrix Aeneia duxit (the mother of Aeneas herself led the bride). The phrase genetrix Aeneia recalls the rhetorical emphasis placed by the Vergilian Venus on her maternal aspect during her initial speech to Vulcan (arma rogo, genetrix nato, I ask for arms, a mother for her son, A. 8.383). Statius subsequently describes Stella embracing the snow-­ white limbs of his desired spouse Violentilla (Stat. Silu. 1.2.20): amplexum niueos optatae coniugis artus (having embraced the snowy limbs of your desired spouse). 1  For an introductory overview of the Siluae, see Conte (1996) 481–4. Newlands (2004) 88–118 discusses how Siluae 1.2 explores ‘social and sexual identity through the domestic space of a grand house’. 2  Morgan (2012) 215. 3  Morgan (2012) 216.

Epilogue: Vergil and Elegy beyond Aeneid  177 This intensely allusive image features the synthesis of amplexus (embrace), niuei artus (snow-­white limbs), and coniunx (spouse), thereby evoking the amatory powers of Venus, who enfolds Vulcan, her divine coniunx (carissime coniunx, A. 8.377), in her snowy arms (A. 8.387–88): niueis hinc atque hinc diua lacertis | cunctantem amplexu molli fouet (as he hesitates the goddess warms him with a soft embrace on this side and that in her snowy arms). Moreover, Statius’ colloca­ tion of amplexus (embrace) and the participle optatus (desired) calls to mind Vulcan’s reciprocal embrace of Venus during their sexual union at the end of the encounter (optatos dedit amplexus, he gave her desired embraces, A. 8.405). Every element of Statius’ depiction of the entwined newly-­weds derives from Vergil’s intergeneric characterization of the embraces exchanged by Venus and Vulcan. Second, as Stella enfolds the snowy limbs of Violentilla, the personified forms of Amor and Gratia sprinkle him with blossoms reminiscent of Lavinia’s telling blush in Aeneid 12 (Stat. Silu. 1.2.22–23): tu modo fronte rosas, uiolis modo lilia mixta | excipis (you receive on your brow now roses, now lilies mixed with vio­ lets). Statius replicates the roses and lilies (rosas . . . lilia mixta) of the second of two similes used by Vergil to illustrate the contrasting red-­and-­white hues of Lavinia’s flushed complexion (A. 12.68–69): aut mixta rubent ubi lilia multa | alba rosa (or as when white lilies, mixed with many a rose, redden). Yet Statius devi­ ates from the Vergilian model, enhancing the mixture of roses and lilies through the emphatic addition of violets following the penthemimeral caesura (uiolis, Stat. Silu. 1.2.22) This marked innovation constitutes a learned allusion to the vio­ let (uiolauerit) concealed within the first Vergilian simile that compares Lavinia’s blush to stained ivory (A. 12.67–68): Indum sanguineo ueluti uiolauerit ostro | si quis ebur (just as if someone spoiled the purity of Indian ivory with blood-­red crimson). Statius thus demonstrates his nuanced understanding of the ­corresponding Vergilian similes, which underscore the complexities of Lavinia’s amatory situation through the intergeneric fusion of epic, epithalamic, and ele­ giac elements. Statius’ penetrating intertextual references to Vergil reveal his extensive aware­ ness of the complex generic framework of the Italian Iliad, which pro­gram­mat­ic­al­ly underpins his own experimental epithalamium. In the proem of Siluae 1.2, allusions to Venus’ seduction of Vulcan (A. 8.370–406) and Lavinia’s blush (A. 12.67–69) implicitly identify the Vergilian episodes as illustrative models for Statius’ artistic vision of a loftier incarnation of elegy (Elegea . . . | celsior assueto, Stat. Silu. 1.2.7–8). Thus, the marked citations point to Statius’ astute literary crit­ic­al assessment of specific passages from Vergil’s maius opus as paradigms for the productive integra­ tion of the conceptually antithetical genres of epic and elegy. Through the proemial allusions, moreover, Statius establishes Siluae 1.2 as an intense locus of emulative engagement with Vergil’s distinctive treatment of elegy in Aeneid 7–12. Indeed, an extensive examination of elegiac contaminatio in Statius’ epithala­ mium has the potential to uncover further allusive evidence of his response to

178  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid Vergilian intergeneric experimentation. A comprehensive analysis, however, would far exceed the bounds of this volume. I therefore conclude this initial investigation of Siluae 1.2 with a tantalizing glimpse of other compelling testimonia that are revealed by even a cursory glance at its contents. As he prepares to recount the amor of Stella and Violentilla, Statius invokes Erato, the program­ matic erotic Muse of Aeneid 7 (hic, Erato iucunda, doce, here, delightful Erato, teach me, Stat. Silu. 1.2.49; see Chapter 1). His description of Stella’s desirability (quamuis Ausoniis multum gener ille petitus | matribus, although he was much sought as son-­in-­law by the Ausonian mothers, Stat. Silu. 1.2.76–77) is a remarkable adaptation of Vergil’s Cydippean characterizations of Lavinia (multi illam magno e Latio totaque petebant | Ausonia, many were seeking her from great Latium and all Ausonia, A. 7.54–55; see Chapter 2) and Camilla (multae illam frustra Tyrrhena per oppida matres | optauere nurum, many mothers throughout the Tyrrhenian towns desired her as daughter-in-law in vain, A. 11.581–82; see Chapter 5). Later in the poem, Statius compares Violentilla, awaiting Stella, to the Vergilian Lavinia, blushing under Turnus’ gaze (Stat. Silu. 1.2.244–45): non talis niueos tinxit Lauinia uultus | cum Turno spectante rubet (not like this did Lavinia colour her snowy cheeks when blushing under the gaze of Turnus). As Damien Nelis has observed, ‘the exemplum only works if Lavinia and Turnus are understood as a couple’.4 Thus, Statius’ intertextual analogy evinces his recognition of and response to Vergil’s amatory characterization of the relationship between the Italian princess and her miles amans. A thorough tracing of these striking examples is bound to reveal fur­ ther uestigia of the Italian Iliad in Siluae 1.2, shedding new light on Statius’ artistic process and the development of Vergil’s intergeneric legacy after his death.

Ovid’s Reception of Vergilian Intergeneric Poetics (Met. 2.325–38, 14.441–44) In his epic Metamorphoses, Ovid delivers a masterful poetic transfiguration of sources drawn from poetry, history, and philosophy, consonant with his pro­ grammatic declaration (Ov. Met. 1.1–2): In noua fert animus mutatus dicere formas | corpora (My mind drives me to speak of forms changed into new bodies). As the first Roman epic produced after the Aeneid, the Metamorphoses is a remarkable source of evidence for Ovid’s interpretative response to Vergil. Stephen Hinds has shown how Ovid’s treatment of the Aeneid is itself an act of conceptual metamorphosis, as he retroactively transforms Vergil’s epic into a ‘a hesitant precursor to the Metamorphoses’ by subjecting its ‘fragmented, scattered, [and] unresolved’ myths to innovative reformation.5 Thus, the Metamorphoses

4  Nelis (2001) 308.

5  See Hinds (1998) 104–7.

Epilogue: Vergil and Elegy beyond Aeneid  179 contains significant intertextual testimonia for Ovid’s perceptive engagement with the Aeneid, revealing his tendency to challenge, emend, and overturn Vergilian material. One wonders, then, how Vergil’s intergeneric maius opus informs Ovid’s polyphonous epic,6 which is (to borrow the phrase of his own Meleager) ‘a greater work of great emulation’ (maius opus magni certaminis, Ov. Met. 8.328).7 For my second case study, I turn to the funerary facet of elegy, focusing on Ovid’s epitaphic commemorations of Phaethon (Ov. Met. 2.325–28) and Caieta (Ov. Met. 14.441–44). These embedded inscriptions encapsulate Ovid’s reaction to Vergilian experimentation with sepulchral material in the Italian Iliad. What these two particular selections demonstrate is that Ovid, recognizing the funerary elegiac alignment of corresponding passages in Aeneid 7 and 10, ­subjects the Vergilian material to corrective revision. In each case, Ovid answers Vergil’s allusive integration of epitaphic elements with authentic embedded inscriptions. Bridging the first and second books of the Metamorphoses is an extended account of Phaethon’s disastrous attempt to steer the chariot of his divine father Helios (Ov. Met. 1.747–2.400). Vergil, as we have already seen, treats the story of Phaethon in the mythological digression that embellishes the Etruscan catalogue of Aeneid 10 (A. 10.185–97; see Chapter 4). Focusing on Phaethon’s lover Cycnus, Vergil articulates his love and lament through marked amatory and funerary ele­ giac topoi. In the Metamorphoses, however, Ovid subverts the erotic aspect of Vergil’s version of the story by making Phaethon and Cycnus kinsmen (Ov. Met. 2.368), as has long been recognized.8 Ovid’s pointed elision of amor stands in opposition to his magnification of mors, which conforms to the general pattern observed by Stephen Hinds: ‘wherever Virgil is elaborate, Ovid is brief, and wher­ ever Virgil is brief, Ovid elaborates’.9 The Ovidian narration of Phaethon’s death and the metamorphoses of his grieving sisters and Cycnus spans over sixty verses (Ov. Met. 2.319–80), dwarfing Vergil’s Alexandrian treatment of the same narra­ tive in five verses (A. 10.189–93). Furthermore, in his intergeneric emulation of the Italian Iliad, Ovid is overt where Vergil is covert. In my discussion of Vergil’s Ligurian digression, I identi­ fied his allusive integration of sepulchral elements: he introduces the episode with an inversion of the ‘passer-­by’ motif (non ego te, Ligurum ductor fortissime bello, | transierim, Cinyre, et paucis comitate Cupauo, I could not pass you by, Cinyrus,

6  On the concept of generic polyphony within Ovid’s Metamorphoses, as exemplified by the love song of Polyphemus (Ov. Met. 13.719–897), see Farrell (1992) 238–40. 7  In the immediate context, the phrase refers to the ‘greater task of great contention’ that urges on Meleager, namely the hunt of the Calydonian boar. 8  See Bömer (1969) 334 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80; Barchiesi (2005) 268 ad Ov. Met. 2.367–80. 9  Hinds (1998) 106. Though I choose the spelling Vergil, I maintain Virgil when it occurs in the citation of another author.

180  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid leader of the Ligurians bravest in war, and (you) Cupavo accompanied by few, A. 10.185–86); and he evokes the consolatory rhetoric of Roman funerary ­commemoration through the image of catasterism (linquentem terras et sidera uoce sequentem, as he left the earth and sought the stars with his cry, A. 10.193). Ovid, by contrast, commemorates the death of Phaethon with an emphatically authentic embedded inscription, underscoring its materiality by means of a preceding description of the physical place of burial and stone monument (Ov. Met. 2.325–28): Naides Hesperiae trifida fumantia flamma corpora dant tumulo signantque hoc carmine saxum: hic · situs · est · phaethon · currus · avriga · paterni quem · si · non · tenuit · magnis · tamen · excidit · ausis [The Hesperian Naiads give his body, smoking from the three-­forked flame, to the tomb and mark the stone with this poetic inscription: here is buried Phaethon, driver of his father’s chariot, over which though he did not have con­ trol, nevertheless he fell with great things having been dared.]

Thus, Ovid’s explicit epitaphic gesture intertextually reflects the sepulchral char­ acter of the Vergilian model, while transporting it from the allusive sphere into the realm of the literal. In his reception of the Vergilian Caieta, Ovid exhibits precisely the same pro­ pensity for expansion and emendation seen with Phaethon in Metamorphoses 2. At the end of Aeneid 6, Vergil describes Aeneas, having just emerged from the underworld, sailing to the port of Caieta (A. 6.900): tum se ad Caietae recto fert limite portum (then he proceeds along a straight course to the port of Caieta). A corresponding passage at the beginning of Aeneid 7, the epitaphic address of the Aeneia nutrix, explains how the port comes to bear her name, while also pro­ gram­ mat­ ic­ al­ ly signalling his engagement with funerary poetics, as we have already seen (A. 7.1–4; see Chapter 1): Tu quoque litoribus nostris, Aeneia nutrix, aeternam moriens famam, Caieta, dedisti; et nunc seruat honos sedem tuus, ossaque nomen Hesperia in magna, si qua est ea gloria, signat. [You too, nurse of Aeneas, to our shores gave everlasting renown by dying, Caieta; even now your honour remains in your place of burial, and your name marks your bones in great Hesperia, if that be any glory.]

Epilogue: Vergil and Elegy beyond Aeneid  181 When Ovid describes Aeneas’ emergence from the underworld in Metamorphoses 14, he depicts the subsequent voyage of the hero in emulation of Vergil (Ov. Met. 14.157): litora adit nondum nutricis habentia nomen (and he approaches shores that do not yet have the name of his nurse). But his innovative reception, as Stephen Hinds has shown, offers a pointed correction of Vergil, who incongru­ ously attaches the name of Caieta to the port at the end of Aeneid 6 before it is bestowed by her burial at the beginning of Aeneid 7.10 Furthermore, though Ovid, like Vergil, fashions a funerary commemoration of Caieta to correspond with the description of the port that bears her name, he withholds it for nearly three hun­ dred verses.11 His narrative expansion constitutes a radical reformation of Vergil, as Stephen Hinds has observed: ‘Where Virgil had sought to close the Aeneid’s most obvious structural break with a virtuoso narrative bridge, Ovid, with equal virtuosity, forces back open the gap between Aeneid 6 and 7.’12 After the lengthy disruption, Ovid resumes his commemoration of Caieta with an embedded epitaph (Ov. Met. 14.441–44): Finierat Macareus, urnaque Aeneia nutrix condita marmorea tumulo breue carmen habebat: hic · me · caietam · notae · pietatis · alvmnvs ereptam · argolico · quo · debvit · igne · cremavit [Macareus had finished, and the nurse of Aeneas, interred in a marble urn, began to have a short poetic inscription on her tomb: here me, Caieta, snatched from Argive fire, my nursling of renowned devotion consumed with the flame that was my due.]

In his address to Caieta, Vergil incorporates elements from Latin funerary inscriptions to create an authentic epitaph to mark her tomb in the realm of the imaginary. Ovid takes the impulse even further, transforming the Vergilian apos­ trophe into a speaking epitaph, giving voice to the deceased Caieta herself. By prefacing the embedded inscription with a description of Caieta’s marble cinerary urn and burial mound, Ovid accentuates the materiality of the breue carmen, applying the same technique seen in the Phaethon episode. Ovid fashions for Caieta and Phaethon embedded epitaphs that bear the traces of their intergeneric Vergilian antecedents yet offer insightful reinterpretations of the source material through expansion and exegesis. The vast size and scope of Ovid’s poetic corpus offer seemingly endless oppor­ tunities to explore his recognition of and response to Vergil’s treatment of ama­ tory and funerary elegy in the Italian Iliad. In addition to the Ovidian passages interwoven throughout the chapters of this volume, for example, one might look 10  See Hinds (1998) 107–11.

11  See Hinds (1998) 110–11.

12  See Hinds (1998) 110.

182  Elegiac Love and Death in Vergil ’ s Aeneid to the elegiac and epic appearances of Virbius in the Fasti (Ov. Fast. 6.737–62) and the Metamorphoses (Ov. Met. 15.497–546), together with Phaedra’s poetic epistle to Hippolytus in the Heroides (Ov. Her. 4). The inevitable intertextual con­ nection between these passages and Vergil’s Hippolytus/Virbius digression in the Italian catalogue of Aeneid 7 (A. 7.765–77; see Chapter 4) has enormous poten­ tial. A comparative analysis would allow us to view Ovid’s nuanced response to Vergilian elegiac experimentation across the boundaries of genre, offering new insights into his artistic process throughout his career.

Conclusion The Statian and Ovidian case studies presented here, as already stated, are slender in size and scope. Yet these examples of reception gesture towards the broader significance of the findings presented in each of the preceding chapters. My philo­ logical approach has yielded compelling evidence for Vergil’s esoteric experimen­ tation with amatory and funerary elegy in Aeneid 7–12, thereby enhancing our understanding of the artistic and narrative programme of his maius opus. As the seal to the entire volume, this epilogue demonstrates in paruo the impact of Vergil’s generic interplay on his poetic successors. Thus it points the way forward by offering a glimpse of the insights to be gained by applying my philological per­ spective on Vergilian intergeneric poetics to eclectic avenues of inquiry. The potential application of my findings within the vast post-­Vergilian literary trad­ ition, for example, offers virtually limitless scope for further philological analysis. Experts in the fields of ancient philosophy, political ideology, and conceptions of gender and sexuality, moreover, could contemplate Vergil’s treatment of genre in relation to the cultural preoccupations of his time. To borrow the words of the Sibyl, the monumental task of exploring every possibility could not have been accomplished here, even if I had one hundred tongues, one hundred mouths, and a voice of iron (non mihi si centum linguae centum sint oraque centum, | ferrea uox, A. 6.625–26). But my illumination of vital aspects of Vergil’s artistic process and vision has the capacity to spark new questions and revelations about the Aeneid and its enduring legacy.

Glossary Elegiac Concepts

amor  in the lexicon of elegy, amor refers to passionate desire, the object of passionate, love affairs, lovemaking, and/or the amatory deity (Amor ≈ Cupido).1 It can also signify amatory verse and functions in this capacity as a generic signpost for engagement with erotic elegiac discourse.2 The plural form amores evokes the title of Gallus’ four books of elegies (Amores) and serves as a marker for inter­text­ual allusions to Gallan poetics.3 anagram  Latin poetry, particularly elegy, commonly features anagrammatic paronomasia between amor, mora, and Roma.4 The amor–Roma palindrome reflects the popular belief that Amor was the occult ritual name (ὄνομα τελεστικόν) of Rome,5 leading to etymological play involving other signifiers of the city (e.g. patria, urbs).6 Propertius illustrates the conceptual association between amor and mora (delay, belatedness; obstruction, detention; lingering, staying) in his elegies through anagrammatic wordplay (e.g. in amore moras, delays in love, Prop. 1.3.44).7 bones/marrow  in ancient thought, the bones and marrow (e.g. medulla, membra, ossa) are con­sidered to be connected intimately with the brain, and thus the locus of vitality, strength, and the genius (≈ anima).8 Elegiac imagery of burning, melting, or feverish heat in the bones or marrow underscores the consuming force of amor, the furor amoris, and/or sexual arousal (see also fever/fire/heat, symptoms).9 cura  in elegy, cura can denote the affection and/or concern of the amator for the object of desire, the various types of physical and mental anguish engendered by amor (see also symptoms), and/or remedies or treatments formulated to alleviate amatory suffering 1  See L–S s.v. amor I–II; OLD s.v. amor 1–2, 4; Pichon s.vv. amans, amare, amatores, amor. 2 See OLD s.v. amor 5; Ross (1975) passim; Kennedy (1993) 24–5, 50–5. 3  See Servius ad Verg. E. 10.1; Ross (1975) 73 and passim; Courtney (1993) 261; Cairns (2006) 230–2, with further bibliography; Hollis (2007) 220, 226–7. 4  For a general discussion of anagrammatic wordplay in Latin poetry, including examples from various authors, see Ahl (1985) 44–54. 5  See Stanley (1963) 238–9; Skulsky (1985) 449–50; Cairns (1989) 118; Reed (2007) 43. 6  For example, Skulsky (1985) 449–50 identifies hic amor, haec patria est (this is desire, this is home, A. 4.347) as an allusion to Amor as the city’s occult ritual name. See also O’Hara (2017) 156 ad A. 4.347. 7  See Pucci (1978) 52–73; Keith (2001) 309–12. Propertius extends the wordplay to include syn­ onyms (e.g. cura for amor): see Pucci (1978) 69n.3. 8  Onians (1973) 149–52. 9  See Pichon s.vv. medullas, ossa; Onians (1973) 150–2; Cairns (1989) 148. Cf. Lucr. 4.1114 (membra uoluptatis dum ui labefacta liquescunt, while the limbs become liquid shaken by the force of sexual pleasure) and Cat. c. 64.92–93 (quam cuncto concepit corpore flammam | funditus atque imis exarsit tota medullis, than she caught fire deep within her whole body, and burned entirely in her deep marrows).

184  Glossary: Elegiac Concepts (see also medicina amoris).10 The Gallan origins of the technical sense of cura as ‘beloved’ are supported by an abundance of compelling evidence Vergil’s Eclogues, Propertian elegy, and Statius.11 Gallus, as Francis Cairns has shown, also developed the topos of medicina amoris/furoris (cure/remedy for love/frenzy), which frequently fea­ tures cura in its medical sense (remedy, cure).12 dolus/deception  the concept of deception (dolus) in elegiac discourse frequently refers to the wiles or deceptions used by an amator to trick the wary husband or guardian of the desired puella.13 Accusations of deception, treachery (fallere), and perfidy (perfidus) are also conventional to the rhetoric of elegy (see also querela).14 durus  in its ancient literary-­critical sense, durus signifies the poetics of genres con­ sidered to be weighty or serious, as exemplified particularly by epic. Poets engage in self-­conscious contemplation of durus epic as the antithesis to leuis/mollis elegy when characterizing the generic affiliation of literary rivals and their works and/or delineat­ ing/differentiating their own artistic programme for a collection/poem/work (see also mollis).15 Francis Cairns has suggested that the conceptual juxtaposition of durus/mollis derives from Gallus and may have been widely recognized as emblematic of his work.16 In elegiac discourse, durus is also a technical term for the insensitivity, harshness, or unresponsiveness of the object of desire (as extended also to the threshold).17 e e legein  Latin elegy features the persistent thematic and aesthetic interplay between the sepulchral and amatory facets of elegy, which derives from the perceived origins of ele­ gia in funeral lament (ἔλεος, εὖ λέγειν, ἒ ἒ λέγειν).18 In order to articulate the intertwined themes of love and death,19 elegists engage in wordplay with amor and mors and experi­ ment with conventional vocabulary and imagery from cultural practices of mourning and sepulchral inscriptions (see also amor, mors). erotodidactic  an erotodidactic text professes to offer instruction and directions (praecepta) on the subject of ἔρως/amor, including techniques for avoiding, diagnosing, and treating

10  On the elegiac use of the term cura, see Pichon s.v. cura; Fedeli (1980) 87 ad Prop. 1.1.36; 357 ad Prop. 1.15.31; Navarro Antolín (1996) 132–3 ad Lygd. 1.19; 477 ad Lygd. 6.7; Maltby (2002) 250 ad Tib. 1.5.37–38; Harrison (2007) 211; Fulkerson (2017) 90 ad [Tib.] 3.1.19; 201 ad [Tib.] 3.6.7; 208 ad [Tib.] 3.6.29. See also L–S s.v. cura; OLD s.v. cura. 11  See Ross (1975) 59; Navarro Antolín (1996) 496 ad Lygd. 6.29; Cairns (2006) 115–16, with fur­ ther bibliography. See also Fabre-­Serris (2014) 14n.34. 12  See Cairns (2006) 100–1, with further bibliography. 13  See Pichon s.v. doli. 14  See Pichon s.vv. fallere, perfidus. See also James (2003b) 111. 1 15  See Pichon s.vv. durum, leuis; TLL s.vv. durus 5 .2310.55–60, leuis 72.1211.75–80. See also Hinds (1987) 21–2; McKeown (1989) 22 ad Ov. Am. 1.1.19; Kennedy (1993) 32–3; McKeown (1998) 16 ad Ov. Am. 2.1.21; Weber (2019) 33–4. 16  See Cairns (2006) 89–90, 111–13, 232–3. 17  See Pichon s.v. durus; Fedeli (1980) 73 ad Prop. 1.1.10; Navarro Antolín (1996) 152 ad Lygd. 2.3; Maltby (2002) 142 ad Tib. 1.1.56; 144 ad Tib. 1.1.63–64; James (2003b) 124; Fulkerson (2017) 97 ad [Tib.] 3.2.3. 18 On the ancient etymology, see LALE s.vv. elegeus, elegia, elegiacus; Luck (1969) 109; Hinds (1987) 103–4; Hinds (1998) 31; James (2003b) 108, 288n.3; Keith (2011b) 2; Maltby (2006) 160; Nelson (2019). 19  For further discussion of the themes of love and death in Propertian and Tibullan elegy, see Papanghelis (1987) passim; Maltby (2006) 160–4; Ramsby (2007) 50–71, 77–82; Dinter (2011) 16–18; Keith (2011c) 108–9; Maltby (2011) 91.

Glossary: Elegiac Concepts  185 the symptoms of love (see also cura, medicina, symptoms), strategies for gaining the favour of and/or access to the object of desire, and tactics for competing successfully with amatory rivals. Elegiac verse configures the amator both as a recipient of erotodi­ dactic advice, particularly from concerned male friends, and as a self-­proclaimed erotic expert and/or teacher love (praeceptor amoris), endowed with a masterful knowledge of amor informed by personal experience.20 The elegist’s profession of technical expertise in amor also functions as a metapoetic declaration of artistic mastery over poetic amores (see also amor). exclusus amator  the topos of the shut-­out lover comes to Roman amatory elegy by way of New Comedy and Hellenistic verse. It conventionally features the procession of the drunken amator through the streets, his subsequent vigil by the locked entrance of the beloved’s residence, and his serenade (paraclausithyron), in which he laments his ama­ tory predicament and attempts to persuade the beloved to grant him entry.21 In elegy, the amator frequently describes his vigil at the threshold (limen) as a martial assault or siege (see also militia amoris).22 fever/fire/heat  the description of ἔρως/amor as fever, fire, and/or heat is a standard figure of Greek and Latin erotic discourse. In Roman elegy, imagery of fever, fire, and/or heat (e.g. ardere, ardor, flamma, ignis, etc.) describes fervent erotic passion and lovemaking, underscores the deleterious effects of consuming amor (see also bones/marrow, symp­ toms), and metapoetically emblematizes the thematic and aesthetic character of the elegiac genre.23 Vergil makes frequent use of this topos in passages of marked generic experimentation that emphasize the destruction potency of amor.24 fouere  in elegy, the verb fouere signifies the warming of cold skin, flattery, per­

suasion, erotic physical interaction, or may embody more than one of these meanings.25

hunting  in Greek and Latin erotic discourse, the theme of hunting (extending to fishing, fowling, and natural predation as well) conceptualizes various aspects of the amatory experience.26 The analogy of hunter and prey illustrates different facets of erotic pursuit, 20  See Wheeler (1910) 28–40. 21  See Copley (1942) 96–107; Copley (1956) passim; Thomas (1979a) 184–99; McKeown (1989) 121–2; James (2003b) 136–41, with further bibliography. 22  For the limen (threshold) as a key feature of the topos, see Pichon s.v. limina, as well as Copley (1956) passim; Pucci (1978) 52; Lyne (1987) 14; Debrohun (2003) 118. 23  See Pichon s.vv. aestus, ardens, ardere, ardor, calere/calescere, flagrare, flamma, ignis, flagrare, urere. Cf. Lucretius’ use of fire imagery in his diatribe against love: namque in eo spes est, unde est ardoris origo, | restingui quoque posse ab eodem corpore flammam (for there is hope in this, that the fire can also be extinguished by the same body, whence is the origin of the flame, Lucr. 4.1086–87); ardoris uiolenti (of the violent flame, Lucr. 4.1116); mutuus ardor (mutual flame, Lucr. 4.1216); see Brown (1987) 134. Propertius’ use of ardor illustrates the conceptual flexibility of the topos (e.g. Prop. 1.7.23–24, 1.10.10, 1.13.28). 24  On Vergil’s use of the ‘love as fire’ topos in connection with Dido, see Lyne (1987) 118–20; Cairns (1989) 148–9; Harrison (2007) 211. 25 See OLD s.v. fouere 4; Pichon s.v. fouere; TLL s.v. fouere 61.1219.32. For Vergilian examples of fouere in its erotic sense, see E. 3.4, A. 4.193, A. 8.388. 26  Murgatroyd (1984) 362–8 offers an examination of this common amatory figure from its earliest appearance to the sixth century ce, and provides examples from most of the major genres of Greek and Latin literature, including elegy. See Pichon s.v. uenari.

186  Glossary: Elegiac Concepts including the lover striving for an object of desire or being ensnared by love, amatory deities, or the physical attraction of the beloved. In elegy, the act of hunting also appears as a means of alleviating the suffering of love,27 of filling time in the absence of the beloved,28 or of securing proximity to the beloved and gaining approval or access through acts of submissive service (see also medicina amoris, submission/ supplication).29 Through a comparative analysis of the figure of Gallus in Vergil’s tenth eclogue and Propertius’ treatments of Milanion (Prop. 1.1) and Acontius (Prop. 1.18), Francis Cairns has concluded that the hunting topos featured prominently in Gallus’ elegiac collection.30 infelix/miser  in the lexicon of sepulchral poetics, the adjectives infelix (ill-­fated, unhappy, wretched) and miser (wretched, unfortunate, grievous, pitiful) frequently describe both the deceased and the living who mourn the passing of the commemorated loved one.31 In Roman elegy, infelix and miser have programmatic value as the defining terms for the unhappy, wretched state of the amator (e.g. Cynthia prima suis miserum me cepit ocellis, Cynthia first captured wretched me with her little eyes, Prop. 1.1.1), and thus serve as signposts for elegiac experimentation in other generic contexts (see also e e legein, mors).32 injury/wound  physical injury is a common metaphor in Roman elegy for the pain and suffering caused by amor (e.g. iniuria, laedere, saucius, uulnera).33 The noun uulnus, for example, denotes the figurative wounds endured by the amator and/or the blows inflicted by hostile amatory deities, emblematizes the curae (see also cura) and dolores (pains, sorrows) of the amator, and functions as a virtual synonym for amor.34 In the elegiac lexicon, the noun iniuria (injury) encapsulates the reaction engendered by erotic offences, particularly violations of fides (faith, trust, promise).35 insanity  the conceptual equation of desire (amor) with insanity or madness (amens, demens, furor, rabies) is common in erotic verse and elegy, in particular (see also symptoms).36 In the developing Latin literary tradition of the first century bce, the insanity topos comes to elegiac discourse by way of Lucretius, whose diatribe against 27  e.g. Prop. 1.1.9–14. 28  e.g. Prop. 2.19.17–22. See Fedeli (2005) 569–73 ad Prop. 2.19.17–22. 29  e.g. Tib. 1.4.49–50. See Putnam (1973) 94 ad Tib. 1.4.49–50; Maltby (2002) 229 ad Tib. 1.4.49–50; James (2003b) 148. 30  See Cairns (2006) 110–12, 140–3, who develops the hypotheses of Skutsch (1901) 15–16 and Ross (1975) 83, 85, 90n.1. 31 See CCLE s.vv. infelix, miser. 32  See Pichon s.vv. infelix, miser. See also Allen (1950) 260; Fedeli (1980) 64 ad Prop. 1.1; Cairns (2006) 148, 228; Maltby (2002) 264–4 ad Tib. 1.6.2; James (2003b) 110, 114–21. Cairns (2006) 228 suggests that ‘the evolution of miser in Augustan poetry from “wretched in love” to “lover” simpliciter owes at least something to Gallus’. On the neoteric origins of the influential phrase uirgo infelix, which conspicuously appears twice in Vergil’s bucolic tribute to Gallus (E. 6.47, 6.52), in Calvus’ Io and Gallan elegy, see Cairns (2006) 136–7; Hollis (2007) 62 ad Calvus fr. 20. 33  See Pichon s.vv. iniuria, laedere, medullas, ossa, saucius, uulnera. On Vergil’s use of the injury/ wound metaphor in relation to Dido, see Newton (1957) 37–44; Putnam (1965) 154–5; Cairns (1989) 148. 34  See L–S s.v. uulnus III; OLD s.v. uulnus 1d; Pichon s.vv. dolor, uulnera. 35  See Pichon s.v. iniuria; Fedeli (1985) 690 ad Prop. 3.24.27–28; Fedeli (2005) 491 ad Prop. 2.16.31. 36  See Cairns (1974) 102–7; Fedeli (1980) 70 ad Prop. 1.1.7; Cairns (1989) 148; Gale (1997a) 84; James (2003b) 110. See also Pichon s.vv. amens, demens, furor, insani.

Glossary: Elegiac Concepts  187 amor describes the mental disturbance, raving delirium, and outright insanity of ­lovers.37 The insanity topos seems to have been a prominent feature of Gallus’ Amores, based on its prevalence in Vergil’s tenth eclogue and its appearance in Propertius’ ­programmatic depiction of Milanion in the first poem of the Monobiblos.38 medicina amoris  in Theocritus and Bion, the word φάρμακον (healing remedy) denotes the cap­acity of song to alleviate the suffering of desirous lovers.39 In Roman philo­soph­ic­al prose and poetry, the conceptual association of amor with illness underscores the deleterious impact of unrestrained passion.40 The Roman elegiac poets develop the concept of medicina amoris (remedy for love), which is a consistent feature of elegy from its early development in Gallan elegy41 to its symbolic death with the emergence of Ovid’s Remedia Amoris.42 Elegiac poets conventionally depict the suffering amator seeking alle­ viation for the symptoms of love, often to no avail (see also cura, symptoms).43 Passages featuring the contemplation of the desperate lover and/or erotodidactic advice propose various medicinae amoris (see also erotodidactic), including magical rites (see also Venenum); medical treatment (see also cura); sexual gratification devoid of emotional attachment; and spending time away from the object of desire, often involving travel, outdoor pursuits, and the companionship of male friends (see also hunting).44 militia amoris  the comparison of love and war has a long tradition in Greek lyric poetry, tragedy, New Comedy, and Hellenistic poetry. In Roman elegy, the conceptual juxta­pos­ ition of amor and arma effloresces into a programmatic feature of the genre.45 Through the figurative comparison of amatory and martial pursuit, tactics, and hardship,46 the elegiac amator presents his subversive, erotic lifestyle as a viable alternative to a respect­ able career. The figurative declarations of the miles amoris (soldier of love), moreover, function as metapoetic statements, by which the elegist differentiates his artistic pro­ gramme and aesthetic preferences from that of epic predecessors or contemporaries.47

37  See Brown (1987) 133, 212 ad Lucr. 4.1069; 226 ad Lucr. 4.1083; 246 ad Lucr. 4.1117. 38  See Cairns (2006) 111–12, with further bibliography. 39  See Reed (1997) 10, 143–5; Lipka (2001) 106–7, with examples and further bibliography. 40  See Brown (1987) 133–4; Caston (2006) 271–98. 41  Francis Cairns, building on the observations of Hermann Tränkle and David O. Ross, has shown that Gallus developed the medicina amoris/furoris complex: see Tränkle (1960) 22–3; Ross (1975) 67–8, 91; Cairns (1983) 84–8; Cairns (2006) 100–1, 111–12. 42  Conte (1996) 344: ‘A work such as the Remedia, teaching how to heal oneself of love, represents the extreme development of elegiac poetry and brings to a symbolic close the brief period of its intense existence.’ See also Fulkerson (2016) 8–9. 43  e.g. Prop. 1.2.7, 1.5.28, 2.1.57, 3.17.4; Tib. 2.3.14. 44  See Caston (2012) 34–45, with examples and further bibliography. 45  On elegiac militia amoris, see Murgatroyd (1975) 59–79; Lyne (1987) 14; McKeown (1989) 258; Gale (1997a) 77–91; Maltby (2006) 158–60. Cairns (2006) 87–90 discusses the Gallan origins of ele­ giac verbal complexes focused around militia and imperium. 46  See Pichon s.vv. arma, bella, proelia. 47  Propertius, for example, programmatically affiliates his sexual encounters with the composition of epic narratives (tum uero longas condimus Iliadas, then indeed we compose lengthy Iliadic narra­ tives, Prop. 2.1.14) and declares that his narrow bed is the site of Veneris certamina (nos contra angusto uersamus proelia lecto, we in turn wage battles on the narrow bed, Prop. 2.1.45). See Fedeli (2005) 55 ad Prop. 2.1.13–14; 83 ad Prop. 2.1.43–46.

188  Glossary: Elegiac Concepts mollis  in its ancient literary-­critical sense, mollis and its cognates signify ‘soft’, ef­fem­in­ate, Callimachean elegy in opposition to ‘hard’, masculine, Homeric epic (see also durus).48 Poets engage in self-­conscious contemplation of mollis elegy as the antithesis to durus epic when characterizing the generic affiliation of literary rivals and their works and/ or delineating/differentiating their own artistic programme for a collection/poem/ work. Francis Cairns has suggested that the conceptual juxtaposition of durus/mollis derives from Gallus and may have been widely recognized as emblematic of his work.49 In moralizing discourse, mollis and its cognates also appear in accusations of ‘softness’ or ‘effeminacy’ against males.50 mors  in Latin elegy, the thematic preoccupation with mors (death) and the in­corp­or­ation of sepulchral poetic material derive from the perceived origins of the genre in funerary lament and commemoration (see also e e legein). The theme of mors, intertwined with amor (see also amor), emerges in the conventional ideal­iza­tion of mutual love that endures beyond the grave, the contemplation of ageing and mortality, the envisioned death and/or lamentation of the lover or beloved, and the conviction that poetic com­ memoration thwarts the annihilating force of death.51 Elegiac poets develop and express these themes through aesthetic experimentation with the language and topoi of funerary lament and sepulchral inscriptions,52 using the word mors itself as a generic signpost for engagement with funerary poetics. querela  the term querela denotes the lover’s rhetorical stance of complaint or lament, which is informed by funerary poetics (see also e e legein, mors).53 Characteristic themes of the querela include the overpowering potency of amor (see also amor); the sorrow, tears, and wretched state of the lover (see also infelix/miser, tears); the phys­ic­al and mental anguish caused by amor (see also cura, insanity, symptoms); the lover’s submission, supplication, and/or amatory enslavement (see also servitium amoris, submission/supplication); and the harshness, cruelty, faithlessness, or refusal of the beloved (see also durus).54 The omnipresent complaint or lament of the lover defines the genre of elegy to such a degree that querela and its cognates come to function as ­signifiers for the act of writing elegy and for elegiac poetics.55 red (see also white)  in the sermo amatorius, shades of the colour red are associated with different aspects of the erotic experience, including the blush as a physical manifestation of pudor during sexual awakening; the fiery heat and flushed skin of heightened emotion

48 See LALE s.vv. mollis, mulier; OLD s.v. mollis 8; Pichon s.v. mollis; TLL 8.1376.80–1377.10 s.v. mollis (de poesi elegiaca). On mollis as the programmatic term for ‘soft’, ‘effeminate’ elegy, see Ross (1975) 57–8; Kennedy (1993) 32–3; Cairns (2006) 89. On the adjective mollis as an aesthetic signpost for neoteric stylistic mannerisms in Vergilian verse, see also Weber (2019) 33–41. 49  Cairns (2006) 89–90, 111–13, 232–3. 50  See Edwards (1993) 63–97; Williams (2010) 139–40. 51  See Pichon s.v. mori. On the theme of death in Propertius, see Papanghelis (1987) passim; Maltby (2006) 160–4. 52  See Ramsby (2007) 50–71, 77–82; Dinter (2011) 16–18; Keith (2011c) 108–9; Maltby (2006) 160–4; Maltby (2011) 91. 53  For a detailed breakdown of the querela, including its characteristic language and topoi, see James (2003a) 99–122; James (2003b) 108–21. See also Pichon s.vv. queri, querelae. 54  See James (2003b) 110–11. 55  See Saylor (1967) 142–9; Kennedy (1993) 32, 51; James (2003b) 108–9.

Glossary: Elegiac Concepts  189 and sexual arousal; and the coloration of the body, face, lips, breasts, and nipples.56 The poetic juxtaposition of red and white evokes the different thematic associations of each colour and illustrates the alternation between the presence and absence of erotic response.57 seruitium amoris  the slavery of love (seruitium amoris) is a distinctive generic trait of Roman elegy, in which the amator self-­identifies as a seruus amoris (slave of love), subject to the object of desire, amatory deities, and/or amor itself (see also submission/ supplication).58 By proclaiming his figurative enslavement, the amator transgresses class and gender norms by subversively privileging amor and the object of desire over elite, male power.59 Within the metaphorical construct of seruitium amoris, the lover endures being bound in chains of love (uincula),60 suffers verbal abuse and physical torture,61 and performs acts of obedience and compliance (obsequium).62 submission/supplication  in Latin elegy, the lover characteristically adopts the posture and rhetoric of submission and/or supplication, particularly when delivering speeches of complain or lament (see also querela, exclusus amator, servitium amoris).63 The lover’s self-­proclaimed submission to and/or supplication of the object of desire,64 the amatory deities,65 and/or amor itself 66 is conventional to elegy from its earliest stages of development in Gallus’ Amores.67 symptoms  in Greek and Latin erotic discourse, the lover endures characteristic symptoms that illustrate the ravaging effects of ἔρως/amor on the body and mind. The conventional array of symptoms experienced by the suffering lover include sleeplessness and/or weariness;68 pallor or blotchy complexion;69 trembling;70 emaciation or wasting;71

56  See Pichon s.vv. purpureus, pudor, rubere, rubor, roseus; Onians (1973) 153; Rhorer (1980) 79; Clarke (2003) 96 §1.17 (erubesco), 154–60 §1.40 (purpura, purpureus), 164–6 §1.42 (roseus), 166–73 §1.43 (rubeo, ruber, rubor). 57  See Rhorer (1980) 79–88; Clarke (2003) 223–6 §3.4.2. 58 For discussion of seruitium amoris, see Copley (1947) 285–300; Kennedy (1993) 7; James (2003b) 145–50; Maltby (2006) 156–58, all with further bibliography and examples. See Pichon s.vv. domina, obsequium, seruire. 59  Copley (1947) 295: ‘the Roman elegist reduces the lover to a social level to which in real life he could not have condescended without suffering humiliation and disgrace, or at least keen embarrassment’. 60  See Pichon s.v. uincire. 61  Copley (1947) 296 observes that the lover is tortured with fire, steel, lashes, and the rack. 62  See Pichon s.vv. indulgentia, obsequium. 63  See Pichon s.vv. domina, imperium, obsequium, seruire, subcumbere, submissus, supplex. 64  e.g. Prop. 1.9.3–4, 2.14.11; Tib. 1.3.13–14, 2.6.33. 65  e.g. Prop. 1.1.3–4; Ov. Am. 1.2.9–10; Tib. 1.4.71–72. Cf. also Verg. E. 10.69. 66  e.g. Prop. 1.10.27, 2.34.49–50. Cf. also Verg. E. 10.69. 67  See Gallus fr. 145.6–7 Hollis: tandem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae | quae possem domina deicere digna mea (finally the Muses have made poems which I could call worthy of my mistress). On the elegiac term domina (mistress) as a Gallan invention, see Cairns (2006) 91–3, 190–1; Hollis (2007) 247. Francis Cairns has demonstrated the Gallan origins of the key phrases uincit amor/Amor (love/ Love conquers) and cedamus amori/Amori (let us yield to love/Love), which appear in Vergil’s tenth eclogue and throughout Latin elegy: see Cairns (2006) 107–8, with further bibliography. 68  e.g. Ov. Am. 1.2.1–4; Prop. 1.5.11–12. See Pichon s.vv. fessi, lassus. 69  e.g. Sappho fr. 31.14; Prop. 1.1.22, 1.5.16, 1.5.21. See Pichon s.v. pallor. 70  e.g. Sappho fr. 31.13–14; Prop. 1.5.15. See Pichon s.vv. tremere, trepidare. 71  e.g. Prop. 1.5.22, 1.15.20; Ov. Met. 4.259. See OLD s.v. tabes 1; Pichon s.v. tabescere.

190  Glossary: Elegiac Concepts speechlessness;72 debilitation of the senses;73 fever and/or sweat (see also bones/marrow, fever/fire/heat);74 and the loss of mental faculties (see also insanity).75 Erotodidactic passages commonly feature instruction on the diagnosis and treatment of amatory maladies (see also cura, erotodidactic, medicina amoris). tears  the act of weeping relates conceptually to the intertwined themes of amor and mors in elegy, and the genre is suffused with tears arising from both amatory and funerary lament (flere, lacrima/lacrimare).76 Elegiac poets frequently depict the lover and/or beloved shedding tears over illness, death, separation, rejection, faithlessness, etc. Tears and weeping are also crucial to the performative rhetoric of the lover intent on arousing pathos to secure the favour or compliance of the object of desire (see also querela).77 uenenum  in erotic contexts, the term uenenum (≈ φάρμακον; poison, potion, venom, love-­philtre) appears in connection with the magical rites undertaken by desperate lovers,78 the noxious arrows of Amor,79 the lover’s envisioned suicide,80 and the lover’s proclamation that taking poison would be a preferable alternative to sep­ar­ation from the beloved.81 Though uenenum (poison, potion, venom) and Venus derive from a common etymological word root, the connection receives no explicit recognition in the ancient testimony.82 Roman poets, however, engage in wordplay with Venus and uenenum, thereby underscoring the link between the erotic goddess and the use of pharmaceutical concoctions in the amatory sphere.83 white (see also red)  in the sermo amatorius, shades of the colour white are associated with different aspects of the erotic experience, including the absence of sexual feeling and/or the chill of erotic refusal; the purity and innocence of virginity or chastity; the pallor of anxiety, fear, or lovesickness; the whitening of hair with age; the gleam of beauty; and the colouration of the body, face, breasts, and teeth.84 The poetic juxtaposition of red and white evokes the different thematic associations of each colour and illustrates the alternation between the presence and absence of erotic response.85

72  e.g. Sappho fr. 31.9; Cat. c. 51.7–9; Prop. 1.5.17–18. 73  e.g. Sappho fr. 31.11–12; Cat. c. 51.5–6, 10–12. 74  e.g. Sappho fr. 31.9–10; Cat. c. 51.9–10; Prop. 1.9.17–18. 75  e.g. Prop. 1.5.18; Verg. E. 2.60, 10.21, 10.44. 76  On tears and weeping in elegy, see Pichon s.vv. flere, lacrima, lacrimare; James (2003a) 99–122; James (2003b) 110–11, 121–8. 77  See James (2003b) 110, 119, 121–8. 78  e.g. Ov. Am. 3.7.27; Ars 2.415–16; Pont. 6.131; Tib. 2.4.55; Verg. E. 8.95; A. 4.514, 7.190. 79  e.g. Prop. 2.12.19. 80  e.g. Prop. 2.17.14 81  e.g. Prop. 2.34.13. 82  See Ernout–Meillet s.v. uenenum; LALE s.v. uenenum. See also Hinds (2006), who discusses the ancient etymological connection of the name Venus to uincire, uincere, uis, uenire, uendere, uenia, uenerari, and uenenum. 83  e.g. Lucr. 5.895–900, 5.1009–17; Verg. A. 1.688–89. See Snyder (1980) 106; Paschalis (1997) 255; O’Hara (2017) 128 ad A. 1.688–89. 84  See Pichon s.vv. albus, candidus, eburneus, lacteus/lacteolus, marmoreus, niueus, pallor; Rhorer (1980) 79; Navarro Antolín (1996) 311 ad Lygd. 4.29; Clarke (2003) 13–20 §1.2 (albesco/albico, albus), 59–72 §1.8 (candeo/candesco, candidus), 92–3 §1.15 (eburnus), 114–15 §1.25 (lactens/lacteolus), 137–45 §1.35 (niueus), 146–51 §1.37 (palleo/pallesco, pallidus, pallor); Fulkerson (2017) 146–7 ad [Tib.] 3.4.29. 85  See Rhorer (1980) 79–88; Clarke (2003) 223–6 §3.4.2.

Bibliography Acosta-Hughes, B., Lehnus, L., and Stephens, S. A. eds. 2011. Brill’s Companion to Callimachus. Leiden: Brill. Acosta-Hughes, B., and Stephens, S.  A. 2012. Callimachus in Context: From Plato to the Augustan Poets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adams, J. N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Adkin, N. 2012. ‘Laocoon’s Shot: A Note on Aeneid 2.50–53’, Maia 64: 424–8. Adkin, N. 2014. ‘Read the Edge: Acrostics in Virgil’s Sinon Episode’, ACD 50: 45–72. Adkin, N. 2015a. ‘On a New Virgil Acrostic: Aen. 6.77–84’, Mnemosyne, ns 68: 118–19. Adkin, N. 2015b. ‘Quis est nam ludus in undis? (Virgil, Ecl. 9, 39–43)’, ACD 51: 43–58. Adkin, N. Forthcoming. ‘A Political Acrostic in Virgil Ecl. 6.14–24’, Museum Helueticum. Ahl, F. 1985. Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Allen, A.  W. 1950. ‘Elegy and the Classical Attitude Toward Love: Propertius 1.1’, YCIS 11: 255–77. Allen, T. W., ed. 1906–11. Homeri Opera. 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J., and Nisbet, R. G. M. 1979. ‘Elegiacs by Gallus from Qaṣr Ibrîm’, JRS 69: 125–55. Anderson, W. S. 1957. ‘Vergil’s Second Iliad’, TAPA 88: 17–30. Austin, R.  G., ed. 1966. P.  Vergili Maronis Aeneidos: Liber Quartus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austin, R. G. 1968. ‘Ille ego qui quondam’, CQ 18: 107–15. Austin, R.  G., ed. 1971. P.  Vergili Maronis Aeneidos: Liber Primus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bailey, C., ed. 1947. Lucreti De Rerum Natura: Libri Sex. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ball, R. J. 1975. ‘Tibullus 2.5 and Vergil’s Aeneid’, Vergilius 21: 33–50. Ball, R.  J. 1983. Tibullus the Elegist: A Critical Survey. Hypomnemata 77. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Barber, E. A., ed. 1960. Sexti Properti Carmina. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Barchiesi, A. 1979. ‘Palinuro e Caieta: Due “epigrammi” Vergiliani (Aen. VI 870 sg.; VII 1–4)’, Maia 31: 3–11. Barchiesi, A., ed. 2005. Ovidio Metamorfosi: Volume I (Libri I–II). Milan: Fondazione Lorenzo Valla / Arnoldo Mondadori Editore. Basson, W. P. 1975. Pivotal Catalogues in the Aeneid. Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert. Batstone, W. W. 2019. ‘Virgilian Didaxis: Value and Meaning in the Georgics’, in F. Mac Góráin and C.  Martindale (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 193–215. Batstone, W. W., and Tissol, G., eds. 2005. Defining Gender and Genre in Latin Literature. New York: Peter Lang. Bauer, B. L. M., and Pinault, G.-J., eds. 2003. Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bing, P., and Höschele, R. 2014. Aristaenetus, Erotic Letters. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

192 Bibliography Bleisch, P. R. 1996. ‘On Choosing a Spouse: Aeneid 7.378–84 and Callimachus’ Epigram 1’, AJP 117: 453–72. Boltwood, R. M. 1952. ‘Turnus and Satan as Epic “Villains” ’, CJ 47: 183–6. Bömer, F. 1969. P. Ovidius Naso, Metamorphosen: Buch I–III. Heidelberg: C. Winter. Bonfante, G., and Bonfante, L. 1983. The Etruscan Language: An Introduction, rev. edn. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Bonfante, L., and Sebesta, J.  L., eds. 2001. The World of Roman Costume. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Boucher, J.-P. 1966. Caius Cornelius Gallus. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Bowie, A. M., et al. 1977. ‘Topics in the Aeneid’, LCM 2: 129–43. Bowra, C. M., ed. 1935. Pindari Carmina Cum Fragmentis. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Boyd, B. W., ed. 2002a. Brill’s Companion to Ovid. Leiden: Brill. Boyd, B.  W. 2002b. ‘The Amores: The Invention of Ovid’, in B.  W.  Boyd (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Ovid (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 91–116. Boyle, A. J. 1986. The Chaonian Dove: Studies in the Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid of Virgil. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Breed, B.  W. 2006. Pastoral Inscriptions: Reading and Writing Virgil’s Eclogues. London: Duckworth. Breed, B.  W. 2018. ‘Some Second Poems: Theocritus, Virgil, Tibullus’, in P.  Knox, H. Pelliccia, and A. Sens (eds.), They Keep it All Hid: Augustan Poetry, Its Antecedents and Reception (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 117–29. Brenk, F. E. 1999. Clothed in Purple Light: Studies in Vergil and in Latin Literature. Stuttgart: F. Steiner. Briggs, W.  W.  Jr 1980. Narrative and Simile from the Georgics in the Aeneid. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Brown, R.  D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura IV, 1030–1287. Leiden: Brill. Burke, P. F. 1976. ‘Virgil’s Amata’, Vergilius 22: 24–29. Butler, H. E. 1920. The Sixth Book of the Aeneid. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Butteto, A., and Albrecht, M. von, eds. 1991. Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco. 4 vols. Palermo: Università di Palermo. Cairns, D.  L., and Fulkerson, L., eds. 2015. Emotions between Greece and Rome. BICS Supplement 125. London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London. Cairns, F. 1969. ‘Propertius i.18 and Callimachus, Acontius and Cydippe’, CR 19: 131–4. Cairns, F. 1972. Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Cairns, F. 1974. ‘Some Observations on Propertius 1.1’, CQ 24: 94–110. Cairns, F. 1979. Tibullus: A Hellenistic Poet at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cairns, F. 1983. ‘Propertius 1,4 and 1,5 and the “Gallus” of the Monobiblos’, PLLS 4: 61–103. Cairns, F. 1989. Virgil’s Augustan Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cairns, F. 1993. ‘Imitation and Originality in Ovid’s Amores 1.3’, PLLS 7: 101–22. Cairns, F. 2003. ‘Propertius 3.4 and the Aeneid Incipit’, CQ 53/1: 309–11. Cairns, F. 2006. Sextus Propertius: Augustan Elegist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cairns, F. 2007. Papers on Roman Elegy 1969–2003. Bologna: Pàtron Editore. Califf, D. J. 1997. ‘Amores 2.1.7–8: A Programmatic Allusion by Anagram’, CQ 47: 604–5. Casali, S. 2006. ‘The Making of the Shield: Inspiration and Repression in the Aeneid’, G&R 53/2: 185–204.

Bibliography  193 Caston, R.  R. 2006. ‘Love as Illness: Poets and Philosophers on Romantic Love’, CJ 101/3: 271–98. Caston, R.  R. 2012. The Elegiac Passion: Jealousy in Roman Love Elegy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clare, R. J. 2002. The Path of the Argo: Language, Imagery and Narrative in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clarke, J. 2003. Imagery of Colour & Shining in Catullus, Propertius & Horace. New York: Peter Lang. Clarke, W. M. 1976. ‘Intentional Alliteration in Vergil and Ovid’, Latomus 35/2: 276–300. Clausen, W., ed. 1994. A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Coleman, K. M. 1988. Statius, Silvae IV. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coleman, R. 1962. ‘Gallus, the Bucolics, and the Ending of the Fourth Georgic’, AJP 83: 55–71. Coleman, R., ed. 1977. Vergil, Eclogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conte, G. B. 1986. The Rhetoric of Imitation: Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and Other Latin Poets. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Conte, G. B. 1992. ‘Proems in the Middle’, YCIS 29: 147–59. Conte, G.  B. 1996. Latin Literature: A History. Trans. J.  B.  Solodow. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Copley, F.  O. 1942. ‘On the Origin of Certain Features of the Paraclausithyron’, TAPA 73: 96–107. Copley, F. O. 1947. ‘Seruitium amoris in the Roman Elegists’, TAPA 78: 285–300. Copley, F.  O. 1956. Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry. Madison: American Philological Association. Courtney, E., ed. 1990. P. Papini Stati Silvae. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Courtney, E., ed. 1993. The Fragmentary Latin Poets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crabbe, A.  M. 1977. ‘Ignoscenda quidem . . . Catullus 64 and the Fourth Georgic’, AJP 83: 55–71. Davies, C. 1973. ‘Poetry in the “Circle” of Messalla’, G&R 20/1: 25–35. Davis, G. 2012. Parthenope: The Interplay of Ideas in Vergilian Bucolic. Leiden: Brill. Debrohun, J.  B. 2003. Roman Propertius and the Reinvention of Elegy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. de Grummond, N.  T. 2006. Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Della Corte, F. 1980. Tibullo, Le Elegie. Milan: Fondazione Valla. Dewar, M. 1996. Claudian, Panegyricus De Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Dexter, J.  P. 2013. ‘The Reception of Phanocles at Georgics 4.607–27’, Mnemosyne 66: 303–11. Di Cesare, M.  A. 1974. The Altar and the City: A Reading of Vergil’s Aeneid. New York: Columbia University Press. Dinter, M. 2005. ‘Epic and Epigram—­Minor Heroes in Virgil’s Aeneid’, CQ 55/1: 153–69. Dinter, M. 2011. ‘Inscriptional Intermediality in Latin Elegy’, in A. M. Keith (ed.), Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), 7–18. Du Quesnay, I. M. Le M. 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: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 35–69. Dyson, J.  T. 1999. ‘Lilies and Violence: Lavinia’s Blush in the Song of Orpheus’, CPh 94/3: 281–8.

194 Bibliography Eden, P. T. 1975. A Commentary on Virgil, Aeneid VIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Edgeworth, R. J. 1992. The Colors of the Aeneid. New York: Peter Lang. Edmondson, J. 2008. ‘Roman Dress and Social Control’, in J. Edmondson and A. M. Keith (eds.), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008), 21–46. Edmondson, J., and Keith, A. M., eds. 2008. Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Edwards, C. 1993. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, M. W., ed. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary; Volume V: Books 17–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Enk, P. J. 1962. Sex. Propertii Elegiarum, Liber Secundus. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff. Fabre-Serris, J. 2008. Rome, l’Arcadie et la mer des Argonautes. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. Fabre-Serris, J. 2014. ‘La Réception d’Empédocle dans la poésie latine: Virgile (Buc. 6), Lucrèce, Gallus et les poètes élégiaques’, Dictynna 11. Fantham, E., ed. 1998. Ovid, Fasti IV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fantuzzi, M., and Hunter, R. 2004. Tradition and Innovation in Hellenistic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farrell, J. 1991. Vergil’s Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic. New York: Oxford University Press. Farrell, J. 1992. ‘Dialogue of Genres in Ovid’s “Lovesong of Polyphemus” (Metamorphoses 13.719–897)’, AJP 113/2: 235–68. Farrell, J. 2004. ‘Ovid’s Virgilian Career’, MD 52: 41–55. Farrell, J. 2019. ‘Virgil’s Intertextual Personae’, in F. Mac Góráin and C. Martindale (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 299–325. Faulkner, A. 2008. The Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fedeli, P., ed. 1980. Sesto Properzio, Il Primo Libro Delle Elegie. Florence: Leo  S.  Olschki Editore. Fedeli, P., ed. 1985. Properzio, Il Libro Terzo delle Elegie. Bari: Adriatica Editrice. Fedeli, P., ed. 2005. Properzio, Il Libro Secondo. ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 45. Cambridge: Francis Cairns Publications Ltd. Feeney, D., and Nelis, D. 2005. ‘Two Virgilian Acrostics: Certissima Signa?’, CQ 55/2: 644–6. Ferrari, G.  R.  F. 1987. Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foley, H.  P. 1999. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, Commentary, and Interpretive Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fontenrose, J. E. 1939. ‘Apollo and Sol in the Latin Poets of the First Century B.C.’, TAPA 70: 439–55. Fontenrose, J. E. 1940. ‘Apollo and the Sungod in Ovid’, AJP 61/4: 429–44. Fordyce, C. J. 1961. Catullus: A Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fordyce, C.  J. 1977. P.  Vergili Maronis Aeneidos, Libri VII–VIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foster, J. C. B. 1977. ‘Divine and Demonic Possession in the Aeneid’, LCM 2: 117–28. Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of Literature: An Introduction to the Theory of Genre and Modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Fowler, D.  P. 1987. ‘Vergil on Killing Virgins’, in M.  Whitby, P.  Hardie, and M.  Whitby (eds.), Homo Viator: Essays in Honor of John Bramble (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press; Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci, 1987), 185–98.

Bibliography  195 Fowler, W. W. 1919. The Death of Turnus: Observations on the Twelfth Book of the Aeneid. Oxford: B. H. Blackwell. Fraenkel, E. 1945. ‘Some Aspects of the Structure of Aeneid VII’, JRS 35: 1–14. Fränkel, H., ed. 1986. Apollonii Rhodii Argonautica. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Fratantuono, L. 2007. Madness Unchained: A Reading of Virgil’s Aeneid. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Fratantuono, L. 2008. ‘Laviniaque uenit litora: Blushes, Bees, and Virgil’s Lavinia’, Maia 60: 40–50. Fratantuono, L., and Smith, A., eds. 2018. Virgil, Aeneid 8: Text, Translation, and Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Frazer, J.  G. 1955. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. One-vol. abridged edn. New York: Macmillan. Fulkerson, L. 2016. Ovid: A Poet on the Margins. Classical World ser. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Fulkerson, L. 2017. A Literary Commentary on the Elegies of the Appendix Tibulliana. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaertner, J. F., ed. 2005. Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto, Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gaisser, J. H. 1977. ‘Tibullus 2.3 and Vergil’s Tenth Eclogue’, TAPA 107: 131–46. Gale, M. R. 1997a. ‘Propertius 2.7: Militia Amoris and the Ironies of Elegy’, JRS 87: 77–91. Gale, M. R. 1997b. ‘The Shield of Turnus (Aeneid 7.783–92)’, G&R 44/2: 176–96. Gale, M. R. 2000. Virgil on the Nature of Things: The Georgics, Lucretius, and the Didactic Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galinsky, K. 1981. ‘Vergil’s Romanitas and His Adaptation of Greek Heroes’, ANRW 31/2: 985–1010. Gamberale, L. 1991. ‘II cosiddetto preproemio dell’Eneide’, in A.  Butteto and M.  von Albrecht (eds.), Studi di filologia classica in onore di Giusto Monaco (Palermo: Università di Palermo, 1991), 963–80. Garrod, H. W., ed. 1912. Q. Horati Flacci Opera. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Garstang, J. B. 1950. ‘The Tragedy of Turnus’, Phoenix 4: 57–58. Gillis, D. 1983. Eros and Death in the Aeneid. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Giusti, E. 2018. Carthage in Virgil’s Aeneid: Staging the Enemy under Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gold, B., ed. 2012. A Companion to Roman Love Elegy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Goldschmidt, N. 2013. Shaggy Crowns: Ennius’ Annales and Virgil’s Aeneid. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gransden, K.  W., ed. 1976. Virgil, Aeneid: Book VIII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gransden, K. W. 1984. Virgil’s Iliad: An Essay on Epic Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gransden, K. W. 1991. Virgil, Aeneid: Book XI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Griffin, J. 1979. ‘The Fourth “Georgic,” Virgil, and Rome’, G&R 26/1: 61–80. Grishin, A. A. 2008. ‘Ludus in undis: An Acrostic in Eclogue 9’, HSCP 104: 237–40. Günther, H.-C., ed. 2006. Brill’s Companion to Propertius. Leiden: Brill. Gutzwiller, K. 2007. A Guide to Hellenistic Literature. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gutzwiller, K. 2015. ‘Eros and Amor: Representations of Love in Greek Epigram and Latin Elegy’, in D. L. Cairns and L. Fulkerson (eds.), Emotions between Greece and Rome. BICS Supplement 125 (London: Institute of Classical Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London 2015), 23–44. Hainsworth, J.  B., Heubeck, A., and West., S., eds. 1988. A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey: Volume I, Introduction and Books I–VIII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

196 Bibliography Halperin, D.  M. 1983. Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press. Harder, A. 2012. Callimachus, Aetia. 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harder, M.  A., Regtuit, R.  F., and Wakker, G.  C., eds. 1998. Genre in Hellenistic Poetry. Hellenistica Groningana 3. Groningen: Egbert Forsten. Hardie, P. 1986. Vergil’s Aeneid: Cosmos and Imperium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hardie, P. 1989. ‘Flavian Epicists on Virgil’s Epic Technique’, Ramus 18: 3–20. Hardie, P. 1993. The Epic Successors of Virgil: A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hardie, P., ed. 1994. Virgil, Aeneid: Book IX. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hardie, P. 1998. Virgil. Greece and Rome New Surveys in the Classics 28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harrison, E. L. 1989. ‘The Tragedy of Dido’, EMC 33: 1–21. Harrison, S. J. 1991. Vergil, Aeneid 10. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Harrison, S.  J. 2007. Generic Enrichment in Vergil and Horace. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heinze, R. 1993. Virgil’s Epic Technique. Trans. H.  and D.  Harvey and F.  Robertson. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Hejduk, J. Forthcoming. ‘Voices on the Edge: Acrostic Conversations in Latin Epic.’ Henderson, J., ed. 2000. Virgil, Aeneid: Books 7–12, Appendix Vergiliana. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hershkowitz, D. 1998. Madness in Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heslin, P. 2010. ‘Virgil’s Georgics and the Dating of Propertius’ First Book’, JRS 100: 54–68. Heslin, P. 2018. Propertius, Greek Myth, and Virgil: Rivalry, Allegory, and Polemic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Highet, G. 1972. The Speeches in Vergil’s Aeneid. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hill, T. 2004. Ambitiosa mors: Suicide and the Self in Roman Thought and Literature. New York: Routledge. Hinds, S. 1987. The Metamorphosis of Persephone: Ovid and the Self-Conscious Muse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hinds, S. 2006. ‘Venus Varro and the vates: Toward the Limits of Etymologizing Interpretation’, Dictynna 3. Hollis, A. S. 1992. ‘Hellenistic Colouring in Virgil’s Aeneid’, HSCP 94: 269–85. Hollis, A.  S. 2006. ‘Propertius and Hellenistic Poetry’, in H.-C.  Günther (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Propertius (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 97–125. Hollis, A.  S., ed. 2007. Fragments of Roman Poetry c.60 bc–ad 20. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hope, V.  M. 2009. Roman Death: The Dying and the Dead in Ancient Rome. London: Continuum. Hopkinson, N., ed. 1988. A Hellenistic Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornsby, R.  A. 1970. Patterns of Action in the Aeneid: An Interpretation of Vergil’s Epic Similes. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Horsfall, N. 1986. ‘Virgil and the Inscriptions: A Reverse View’, LCM 11: 44–45. Horsfall, N. 2000. Virgil, Aeneid 7: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill. Horsfall, N., ed. 2001. A Companion to the Study of Virgil (Second Revised Edition). Leiden: Brill. Horsfall, N. 2003. Virgil, Aeneid 11: A Commentary. Leiden: Brill.

Bibliography  197 Horsfall, N. 2013. Virgil, Aeneid 6: A Commentary. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Hubbard, T.  K. 1998. Pipes of Pan: Intertextuality and Literary Fiction in the Pastoral Tradition from Theocritus to Milton. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Hudson-Williams, A. 1978. ‘Lacrimae Illae Inanes’, G&R 25/1: 16–23. Hunter, R. L., ed. 1989. Apollonius of Rhodes, Argonautica: Book III. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, R.  L. 1993a. The Argonautica of Apollonius: Literary Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, R. L. 1993b. ‘Callimachean Echoes in Catullus 65’, ZPE 96: 179–82. Hunter, R. L. 2006. The Shadow of Callimachus: Studies in the Reception of Hellenistic Poetry at Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hunter, R. L. 2018. The Measure of Homer: Ancient Reception of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jacobson, H. 1998. ‘Violets and Violence: Two Notes’, CQ 48: 314–15. James, S. L. 2003a. ‘Her Turn to Cry: The Politics of Weeping in Roman Love Elegy’, TAPA 133: 99–122. James, S. L. 2003b. Learned Girls and Male Persuasion: Gender and Reading in Roman Love Elegy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Jocelyn, H. D. 1984. ‘Cicero, Philippic 13.24 and the Uses of gremium in Classical Latin’, LCM 9: 18–21. Johnson, W. R. 1976. Darkness Visible: A Study of Vergil’s Aeneid. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Kaster, R. A., ed. 2012. Macrobii Ambrosii Theodosii Saturnalia. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Katz, J. T. 2008. ‘An Acrostic Ant Road in Aeneid 4’, MD 59: 77–86. Keith, A.  M. 1992. The Play of Fictions: Studies in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Book 2. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Keith, A.  M. 2000. Engendering Rome: Women in Latin Epic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keith, A. M. 2001. ‘Etymological Wordplay in Ovid’s “Pyramus and Thisbe” (Met. 4.55–166)’, CQ 51/1: 309–12. Keith, A. M. 2008. Propertius: Poet of Love and Leisure. London: Duckworth. Keith, A. M., ed. 2011a. Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Keith, A. M. 2011b. ‘Introduction: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome’, in A. Keith (ed.), Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), 1–18. Keith, A. M. 2011c. ‘Latin Elegiac Collections and Hellenistic Epigram Books’, in A. Keith (ed.), Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), 99–115. Keith, A. M. 2020. Virgil. Understanding Classics Series. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Kennedy, D.  F. 1993. The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Latin Love Elegy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenney, E. J. 1983. ‘Virgil and the Elegiac Sensibility’, ICS 8: 48–52. Kenney, E.  J., ed. 1994. P.  Ovidi Nasonis Amores, Medicamina Faciei Femineae, Ars Amatoria, Remedia Amoris. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kermode, F. 2000. The Sense of an Ending: Studies in the Theory of Fiction (With a New Epilogue). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kirk, G.  S., ed. 1985. The Iliad: A Commentary; Volume I: Books 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klingner, F. 1963. Virgils Georgica. Zurich: Artemis Verlag.

198 Bibliography Klingner, F. 1967. Virgil: Bucolica, Georgica, Aeneis. Zurich: Artemis Verlag. Knauer, G.  N. 1964. Die Aeneis und Homer: Studien zur poetischen Technik Vergils mit Listen der Homerzitate in der Aeneis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Knox, P., ed. 2006. Oxford Readings in Ovid. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Knox, P., Pelliccia, H., and Sens, A. eds. 2018. They Keep It All Hid: Augustan Poetry, Its Antecedents and Reception. Berlin: De Gruyter. Krier, T. M. 1988. ‘Sappho’s Apples: The Allusiveness of Blushes in Ovid and Beaumont’, CLS 25: 1–22. Kyriakidis, S. 1994. ‘Inuocatio ad Musam (A. 7.37)’, MD 33: 197–206. Kyriakidis, S. 1998. Narrative Structure and Poetics in the Aeneid: The Frame of Book 6. Bari: Levante Editori. Lada-Richards, I. 2006. ‘ “Cum Femina Primum . . .”: Venus, Vulcan, and the Politics of Male Mollitia in Aeneid 8’, Helios 33: 27–72. La Follette, L. 2001. ‘The Costume of the Roman Bride’, in L. Bonfante and J. L. Sebesta (eds.), The World of Roman Costume (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), 54–65. Laguna, G. 1992. Estacio, Silvas III: Introducción, Edición Crítica, Traducción y Commentario. Madrid: Fundación Pastor de Estudios Clásicos. La Penna, A. 1967. ‘Amata e Didone’, Maia 19: 309–18. Lattimore, R. 1962. Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Leach, E. W. 1978. ‘Vergil, Horace, Tibullus: Three Collections of Ten’, Ramus 1: 79–105. Leonard, W.  E., and Smith, S.  B., eds. 1942. T.  Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Levin, D.  N. 1983. ‘Reflections of the Epic Tradition in the Elegies of Tibullus’, ANRW II.30/3: 2000–127. Levitan, W. 1993. ‘Give up the Beginning? Juno’s Mindful Wrath (Aeneid 1.37)’, LCM 18: 14–15. Lightfoot, J.  L. 1999. Parthenius of Nicaea: The Poetical Fragments and the Ἐρωτικὰ Παθήματα. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lindsay, W. M. 1902. M. Val. Martialis Epigrammata. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lipka, M. 2001. Language in Vergil’s Eclogues. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Littlewood, R.  J. 2006. A Commentary on Ovid’s Fasti: Book VI. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lonsdale, S. H. 1990. Creatures of Speech: Lion, Herding, and Hunting Similes in the Iliad. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner. Luck, G. 1969. The Latin Love Elegy. 2nd edn. London: Methuen. Luck, G. 1976. ‘An Interpretation of Horace’s Eleventh Epode’, ICS 1: 122–6. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1983. ‘Lavinia’s Blush: Vergil Aeneid 12.64–70’, G&R 30/1: 55–64. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1987. Further Voices in Vergil’s Aeneid. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1989. Words and the Poet: Characteristic Techniques of Style in Vergil's Aeneid. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lyne, R. O. A. M. 1995. Horace: Behind the Public Poetry. New Haven: Yale University Press. McCallum, S. 2015a. ‘Elegiac Amor and Mors in Virgil’s “Italian Iliad”: A Case Study (Aeneid 10.185–93)’, CQ 65.2: 693–703. McCallum, S. 2015b. ‘Heu Ligurine: Echoes of Vergil in Horace Odes 4.1’, Vergilius 61: 29–42. McCallum, S. 2016. ‘Primus Pastor: The Origins of Pastoral Programme in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, in A. Keith and J. Edmondson (eds.), Roman Literary Cultures (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2016), 124–39. McCallum, S. 2019. ‘Rivalry and Revelation: Ovid’s Elegiac Revision of Virgilian Allusion’, in G. McIntyre and S. McCallum (eds.), Uncovering Anna Perenna (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), 19–36.

Bibliography  199 McGill, S. 2020. Virgil, Aeneid: Book XI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mac Góráin, F. 2017. ‘The Poetics of Vision in Virgil’s Aeneid’, HSCP 109: 383–427. Mac Góráin, F., and Martindale, C., eds. 2019. The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McIntyre, G., and McCallum, S. eds. 2019. Uncovering Anna Perenna: A Focused Study of Roman Myth and Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Mackail, J. W. 1930. The Aeneid of Vergil. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McKeown, J.  C. 1987. Ovid, Amores: Text, Prolegomena and Commentary. Vol. 1. Leeds: Francis Cairns. McKeown, J.  C. 1989. Ovid, Amores: Text, Prolegomena and Commentary. Vol. 2. Leeds: Francis Cairns. McKeown, J.  C. 1998. Ovid, Amores: Text, Prolegomena and Commentary. Vol. 3. Leeds: Francis Cairns. McNelis, C. 2006. Statius’ Thebaid and the Poetics of Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Maltby, R. 2002. Tibullus, Elegies: Text, Introduction and Commentary. ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 41. Cambridge: Francis Cairns. Maltby, R. 2006. ‘Major Themes and Motifs in Propertius’ Love Poetry’, in H.-C. Günther (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Propertius (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 147–81. Maltby, R. 2011. ‘The Influence of Hellenistic Epigram on Tibullus’, in A. Keith (ed.), Latin Elegy and Hellenistic Epigram: A Tale of Two Genres at Rome (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2011), 87–97. Mankin, D., ed. 1995. Horace, Epodes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martindale, C. 2019. ‘Green Politics: The Eclogues’, in F.  Mac Góráin and C.  Martindale (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 173–92. Mayer, R., ed. 1994. Horace, Epistles: Book I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Merkelbach, R. 1971. ‘Aeneia Nutrix’, RhM 114: 349–51. Mitsis, P., and Ziogas, I. eds. 2016. Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Monteleone, C. 1977. ‘Eneide, 7, 37: L’invocazione Ad Erato Come Segnale’, AC 46: 184–91. Morelli, A. M., and Tandoi, V. 1984. ‘Un probabile omaggio a Cornelio Gallo nella seconda ecloga’, in V.  Tandoi (ed.), Disiecta Membra Poetae (Foggia: Atlantica Editrice, 1984), 101–16. Morgan, K. 2004. Myth and Philosophy from the Presocratics to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, L. 1999. Patterns of Redemption in Virgil’s Georgics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morgan, L. 2012. ‘Elegiac Meter: Opposites Attract’, in B.  Gold (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 204–18. Morrison, 2011. ‘Callimachus’ Muses’, in B.  Acosta-Hughes, L.  Lehnus, and S.  Stephens (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Callimachus (Leiden: Brill), 329–48. Moskalew, W. 1982. Formular Language and Poetic Design in the Aeneid. Leiden: Brill. Moulton, C. 1977. Similes in the Homeric Poems. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Murgatroyd, P. 1975. ‘Militia amoris and the Roman Elegists’, Latomus 34: 59–79. Murgatroyd, P., ed. 1980. Tibullus I. Bedminster: Bristol Classical Press. Murgatroyd, P. 1984. ‘Amatory Hunting, Fishing and Fowling’, Latomus 43: 362–8. Murgatroyd, P., ed. 1994. Tibullus: Elegies II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Myers, K.  S., ed. 2009. Ovid, Metamorphoses: Book XIV. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

200 Bibliography Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1958. C. Valerii Catulli Carmina. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1969. P. Vergili Maronis Opera. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mynors, R. A. B., ed. 1990. Virgil, Georgics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Navarro Antolín, F., ed. 1996. Lygdamus, Corpus Tibullianum III.1–6. Leiden: Brill. Nelis, D. 2001. Vergil’s Aeneid and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius. Leeds: Francis Cairns. Nelson, T. J. 2019. ‘Most Musicall, Most Melancholy: Avian Aesthetics of Lament in Greek and Roman Elegy’, Dictynna 16. Newlands, C. 2004. Statius’ Siluae and the Poetics of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Newman, K. 2006. ‘The Third Book: Defining a Poetic Self ’, in H.-C. Günther (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Propertius (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 319–52. Newton, F. L. 1957. ‘Recurrent Imagery in Aeneid IV’, TAPA 88: 31–43. Nicholson, G. 1999. Plato’s Phaedrus: The Philosophy of Love. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Nisbet, R. G. M., and Hubbard, M. 1970. A Commentary on Horace, Odes: Book I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ogilvie, R. M. 1965. A Commentary on Livy: Books 1–5. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ogilvie, R. M., ed. 1974. Titi Livi Ab Urbe Condita, Vol. I: Libri I–V. Oxford: Clarendon Press. O’Hara, J. 1989. ‘Messapus, Cycnus, and the Alphabetical Order of Vergil’s Catalogue of Italian Heroes’, Phoenix 43/1: 35–38. O’Hara, J. 1996. ‘Vergil’s Best Reader? Ovidian Commentary on Vergilian Etymological Wordplay’, CJ 91/3: 255–76. O’Hara, J. 2017. True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay. New and expanded edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Olsen, B. A. 2003. ‘Fresh Shoots from a Vigorous Stem’, in B. L. M. Bauer and G.-J. Pinault (eds.), Language in Time and Space: A Festschrift for Werner Winter on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2003), 313–30. O’Rourke, D. 2011. ‘The Representation and Misrepresentation of Virgilian Poetry in Propertius 2.34’, AJP 132/3: 457–97. O’Rourke, D. 2012. ‘Intertextuality in Roman Elegy’, in B.  Gold (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012), 390–409. O’Rourke, D. 2014. ‘Lovers in Arms: Empedoclean Love and Strife in Lucretius and the Elegists’, Dictynna 11. Onians, R. B. 1973. The Origins of European Thought: About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Otis, B. 1963. Virgil: A Study in Civilized Poetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Page, D. L., ed. 1968. Lyrica Graeca Selecta. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Page, D. L., ed. 1981. Further Greek Epigrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page, T. E., ed. 1923. The Aeneid of Virgil: Books I–IV. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd. Page, T. E., ed. 1931. The Aeneid of Virgil: Books VII–XII. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd. Palmer, R. E. A. 1969. ‘Cupra, Matuta, and Venilia Pyrgensis’, ISLL 58: 292–309. Panoussi, V. 2009. Greek Tragedy in Vergil’s ‘Aeneid’: Ritual, Empire, and Intertext. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papaioannou, S. 2005. Epic Succession and Dissension. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Papanghelis, T.  D. 1987. Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paschalis, M. 1997. Virgil’s Aeneid: Semantic Relations and Proper Names. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pavlock, B. 1992. ‘The Hero and the Erotic in Aeneid 7–12’, Vergilius 38: 72–87.

Bibliography  201 Peirano Garrison, I. 2012. The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake: Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peirano Garrison, I. 2019. Persuasion, Rhetoric and Roman Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Perkell, C. 1999. Reading Vergil’s Aeneid: An Interpretive Guide. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Pfeiffer, R., ed. 1949–53. Callimachus. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pöschl, V. 1961. ‘The Poetic Achievement of Virgil’, CJ 56: 290–9. Pöschl, V. 1962. The Art of Vergil: Image and Symbol in the Aeneid. Trans. G. Seligson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Postgate, J. P. 1885. Select Elegies of Propertius. London: Macmillan. Powell, J.  U., ed. 1925. Collectanea Alexandrina: Reliquiae minores Poetarum Graecorum Aetatis Ptolemaicae 323–146 a.c. Epicorum, Elegiacorum, Lyricorum, Ethicorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pucci, P. 1978. ‘Lingering on the Threshold’, Glyph 3: 52–73. Putnam, M.  C.  J. 1965. The Poetry of the Aeneid: Four Studies in Imaginative Unity and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Putnam, M.  C.  J., ed. 1973. Tibullus: A Commentary. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Putnam, M.  C.  J. 1986. Artifices of Eternity: Horace’s Fourth Book of Odes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Putnam, M. C. J. 1995. Virgil’s Aeneid: Interpretation and Influence. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Quinn, K. 1968. Virgil’s Aeneid: A Critical Description. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Quinn, K., ed. 1973. Catullus, The Poems, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Ramsby, T.  R. 2007. Textual Permanence: Roman Elegists and the Epigraphic Tradition. London: Duckworth. Reckford, K. J. 1961. ‘Latent Tragedy in Aeneid VII, 1–285’, AJP 82.3: 252–69. Reckford, K. J. 1996. ‘Recognizing Venus (I): Aeneas Meets His Mother’, Arion 3.2: 1–42. Reed, J. D. 1997. Bion of Smyrna, The Fragments and the Adonis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reed, J.  D. 2007. Virgil’s Gaze: Nation and Poetry in the Aeneid. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Reed, J.  D. 2016. ‘Mora in the Aeneid’, in P.  Mitsis and I.  Ziogas (eds.), Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2016), 87–105. Rhorer, C. C. 1980. ‘Red and White in Ovid’s Metamorphoses’, Ramus 9: 79–88. Richards, H. 1873. ‘Notes on the Aeneid’, Journal of Philology 5: 134–41. Richter, W. 1957. Vergil, Georgica. Munich: Hueber. Robinson, M. 2019. ‘Looking Edgeways. Pursuing Acrostics in Ovid and Virgil’, CQ 69.1: 290–308. Rosen, R. M., and Farrell, J. 1986. ‘Acontius, Milanion, and Gallus: Vergil, Ecl. 10.52–61’, TAPA 116: 241–54. Rosenmeyer, P. 1996. ‘Love Letters in Callimachus, Ovid and Aristaenetus or the Sad Fate of a Mailorder Bride’, MD 36: 9–31. Ross, D. O. 1975. Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ross, D. O. 2007. Vergil’s Aeneid: A Reader’s Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rostagni, A. 1942. Da Livio a Vergilio e da Vergilio a Livio. Padua: Casa Editrice Dott. Antonio Milani. Sandy, G. N. 1971. ‘Catullus 63 and the Theme of Marriage’, AJP 92: 185–95.

202 Bibliography Saylor, C. 1967. ‘Querelae: Propertius’ Distinctive, Technical Name for His Elegy’, AGON 1: 142–9. Schnapp-Gourbeillon, A. 1981. Lions, héros, masques: Les Représentations de l’animal chez Homère. Paris: Librairie François Maspero. Scioli, E. 2015. Dream, Fantasy, and Visual Art in Roman Elegy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Scott, W. C. 1974. The Oral Nature of the Homeric Simile. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Scott, W. C. 2009. The Artistry of the Homeric Simile. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Library and Dartmouth College Press; published by University Press of New England. Sebesta, J. L. 2001. ‘Symbolism in the Costume of the Roman Woman’, in L. Bonfante and J.  L.  Sebesta (eds.), The World of Roman Costume (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2001), 46–53. Senfter, R. 1979. ‘Vergil, Aen. 8, 589–91: Konnotationsraum und Funktionalisierung eines Vergleichs’, MD 2: 171–4. Skinner, M.  B. 1983. ‘The Last Encounter of Dido and Aeneas: Aen. 6.450–76’, Vergilius 29: 12–18. Skinner, M. B. 2003. Catullus in Verona: A Reading of the Elegiac Libellus, Poems 65–116. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. Skulsky, S. 1985. ‘ “Inuitus, Regina . . .”: Aeneas and the Love of Rome’, AJP 106: 447–55. Skutsch, F. 1901. Aus Vergils Frühzeit. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Skutsch, F. 1906. Gallus und Vergil. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner. Skutsch, O., ed. 1985. The Annals of Q. Ennius. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Smith, B.  H. 1968. Poetic Closure: A Study of How Poems End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Snyder, J. M. 1980. Puns and Poetry in De Rerum Natura. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner. Somerville, T. 2010. ‘Note on a Reversed Acrostic in Vergil Georgics 1.429–33’, CPh 105/2: 202–8. Spencer, F. A. 1932a. ‘The Literary Lineage of Cupid’, Classical Weekly 25/16: 121–7. Spencer, F.  A. 1932b. ‘The Literary Lineage of Cupid (Continued)’, Classical Weekly 25/17: 129–34. Spencer, F.  A. 1932c. ‘The Literary Lineage of Cupid (Concluded)’, Classical Weekly 25/18: 139–44. Stanley, K. 1963. ‘Rome, Ἔρως, and the Versus Romae’, GRBS 4: 237–49. Takács, S. A. 2008. Vestal Virgins, Sibyls, and Matrons: Women in Roman Religion. Austin: University of Texas Press. Tandoi, V., ed. 1984. Disiecta Membra Poetae. Foggia: Atlantica Editrice. Tarrant, R., ed. 2004. P. Ovidi Nasonis Metamorphoses. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tarrant, R., ed. 2012. Virgil, Aeneid: Book XII. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Theodorakopoulos, E. 2019. ‘Closure and the Book of Virgil’, in F.  Mac Góráin and C.  Martindale (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (2nd edn., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 226–39. Thomas, R. F. 1979a. ‘New Comedy, Callimachus, and Roman Poetry’, HSCP 83: 179–207. Thomas, R. F. 1979b. ‘Theocritus, Calvus, and Eclogue 6’, CPh 74/4: 337–9. Thomas, R.  F. 1985. ‘From Recusatio to Commitment: The Evolution of the Virgilian Program’, PLLS 5: 61–73. Thomas, R. F. 1986. ‘Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference’, HSCP 90: 171–98. Thomas, R. F., ed. 1988. Virgil, Georgics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, R.  F. 1998. ‘ “Melodious Tears:” Sepulchral Epigram and Generic Mobility’, in M.  A.  Harder, R.  F.  Regtuit, and G.  C.  Wakker (eds.), Genre in Hellenistic Poetry (Groningen: Forsten, 1998), 205–23.

Bibliography  203 Thomas, R.  F. 1999. Reading Virgil and His Texts: Studies in Intertextuality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Thomas, R.  F. 2001. Virgil and the Augustan Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, R.  F. 2006. ‘Ovid’s Reception of Virgil’, in P.  E.  Knox (ed.), Oxford Readings in Ovid (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 294–307. Thomson, D. F. S. ed. 1997. Catullus. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Thorsen, T.  S. ed. 2013a. The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thorsen, T.  S. 2013b. ‘The Latin Elegiac Couplet’, in T.  S.  Thorsen (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 367–78. Timpanaro, S. 1978. Contributi di filologia e di storia della lingua latina. Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo & Bizzarri. Todd, F. A. 1931. ‘Vergil’s Invocation of Erato’, CR 45: 216–18. Todd, R. W. 1980. ‘Lavinia Blushed’, Vergilius 26: 27–33. Toll, K. 1989. ‘What’s Love Got to Do with It? The Invocation to Erato, and Patriotism in the Aeneid’, QUCC 33: 107–18. Toynbee, J. M. C. 1971. Death and Burial in the Roman World. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Tränkle, H. 1960. Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition Der Lateinischen Dichtersprache. Hermes Einzelschriften 15. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Treggiari, S. 1991. Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tsagalis, C.  C. 2008. Inscribing Sorrow: Fourth-Century Attic Funerary Epigrams. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Van Nortwick, T. 1996. Somewhere I Have Never Travelled: The Hero’s Journey. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Sickle, J. 1978. The Design of Virgil’s Bucolics. Rome: Edizioni Dell’Ateneo. Veyne, P. 1988. Roman Erotic Elegy: Love Poetry and the West. Trans. D. Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Volk, K., ed. 2008a. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Vergil’s Eclogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Volk, K., ed. 2008b. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Vergil’s Georgics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Watson, L. C. 2003. A Commentary on Horace’s Epodes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, C. 1990. ‘Some Double Entendres in Ovid and Vergil’, CPh 85: 209–14. Weber, C. 2019. ‘Mollis and Its Stylistic Resonance in Vergil’, Vergilius 65: 33–41. Werner, D.  S. 2012. Myth and Philosophy in Plato’s Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, D. 1969. ‘Multiple-Correspondence Similes in the Aeneid’, JRS 59: 40–9. West, D., and Woodman, T. eds. 1979. Creative Imitation and Latin Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, M. L. 1966. Hesiod: Theogony. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wheeler, A. L. 1910. ‘Propertius as Praeceptor Amoris’, CPh 5/1: 28–40. Whitby, M., Hardie, P., and Whitby, M., eds. 1987. Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press; Wauconda, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci. White, D.  A. 1993. Rhetoric and Reality in Plato’s Phaedrus. Albany: State University of New York Press. Wickkiser, B. L. 2018. ‘Cupid’s Arrows’, Mnemosyne 71/1: 100–24. Williams, C. A. 2010. Roman Homosexuality, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

204 Bibliography Williams, F. 1978. Callimachus: Hymn to Apollo; A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Williams, R. D., ed. 1972. The Aeneid of Virgil: Books 1–6. London: Macmillan. Williams, R. D., ed. 1973. The Aeneid of Virgil: Books 7–12. London: Macmillan. Winterbottom, M., ed. 1970. M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri Duodecum, Vol. II: Libri VII–XII. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wiseman, T. P. 1979. Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Wissowa, G. 1912. Religion und Kultus der Römer, 2nd edn. Munich: C. H. Beck. Wolff, E. 2000. La Poésie funéraire épigraphique à Rome. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes. Woodworth, D. C. 1930. ‘Lavinia: An Interpretation’, TAPA 61: 175–94. Wray, D. 2007. ‘Statius’ Siluae and the Poetics of Genius’, Arethusa 40/2: 127–43. Wright, D. J. 2019. ‘Anna, Water and Her Imminent Deification in Aeneid 4’, in G. McIntyre and S. McCallum (eds.), Uncovering Anna Perenna: A Focused Study of Myth and Culture (London: Bloomsbury, 2019), 71–82. Yunis, H., ed. 2011. Plato, Phaedrus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zarker, J. W. 1969. ‘Amata: Vergil’s Other Tragic Queen’, Vergilius 15: 2–24. Ziolkowski, J. M., and Putnam, M. C. J., eds. 2008. The Virgilian Tradition: The First Fifteen Hundred Years. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Index Locorum For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Apollonius Rhodius Argon. 3.1  46 Argon. 3.1–5  43–4 Argon. 3.25–110  85–6 Argon. 3.39  85–6 Argon. 3.128–53  85–6 Argon. 3.291–98  147–8 Argon. 3.296–97  147–8 Argon. 3.297–98  147–8 Argon. 3.681–82  147–8 Argon. 3.725  147–8 Argon. 3.963  147–8 Argon. 4.603–05  113–14 Argon. 4.624–25  114 Callimachus Aet. 1–2  44–5 Aet. fr. 2 Harder  12–13 Aet. fr. 67.9–10 Harder  53–4 Aet. fr. 75b.20–21 Harder  54–5, 149 Aet. fr. 137a.8 Harder  42–3 Aet. frr. 67–75 Harder  149 Epigr. 1.9–10 Pf.  65–6 Epigr. 1.12 Pf.  65–6 Calvus fr. 20 Hollis  81 fr. 22 Hollis  81 Carmina Latina Epigraphica 53.5 17–18 54.1 33–4 57.6 17–18 68.12 30 98.3  17–18, 30–1 232.1 17–18 385.4 29 428.15 14–15 477.3 18–19 485.5 38 486.3 38 495.10 17–18 608.4 17–18 618.2–3 38–9 629.4 17–18 732.4 17–18

802.2 38 803.2 38 814.1 29 848.5 17–18 922.2 38–9 949.3–4 30 960.7 30–1 970.2 29 977.4 29–30 978.4 38–9 995b.1 17–18 1004.3 38 1055.9  14–15, 38–9 1068.1 29 1086.3 29 1105.1–2 29 1169.3 17–18 1214.2 38 1222.3  14–15, 38–9 1255.1 18–19 1266.4 30 1279.1  14–15, 38–9 1286.4 14–15 1327.14 14–15 1375.8 38 1439.8 38 1537a.5 17–18 1967.8–9 38–9 2001.3 17–18 2002.2 17–18 2106.4  17–18, 29–30 2106.9 30 2119.5–6 38–9 Cassius Dio 53.23.5–11 75–6 Catullus c. 61.22  152 c. 61.89  152 c. 61.187–88  152 c. 62.42  53–4 c. 62.42–44  152 c. 62.44  53–4 c. 62.53  53–4

206  Index Locorum Catullus (cont.) c. 62.55  53–4 c. 65.19–24  148–9 c. 66.39  33–4 c. 68.20  170 c. 68.92–93  170 c. 101.6  170 Cicero Fam. 10.32  4–5 Euripides Hipp. 215–22  103–4 Gallus fr. 145.8–9 Hollis  9–11, 115–16 Hesiod Th. 1–104  40, 42–3 Th. 22–34  12–13 Th. 37  6–7 Th. 44  6–7 Th. 51  6–7 Th. 63  6–7 Th. 63–74  42 Th. 65  6–7, 43–4 Th. 66  6–7 Th. 67  6–7, 43–4 Th. 68  6–7 Th. 70  6–7, 43–4 Th. 71  6–7 Th. 73–74  41 Th. 76–80  5–6 Th. 77–79  42 Th. 77–80  44–5 Homer Il. 1.1  22–3 Il. 1.488–530  84–5 Il. 4.141–44  150 Il. 4.143–44  150 Il. 4.146–47  150–1 Il. 6.410–13  143–4 Il. 6.464–65  143–4 Il. 14.153–362  85–6 Il. 14.329  93–4 Il. 17.5  113 Il. 18.368–461  84–5 Il. 20.164–75  125–6 Il. 22.80  143 Il. 22.82–89  143 Od. 5.59–62  48 Od. 6.34–35  53–4 Od. 8.266–366  85–6 Od. 8.277  85–6 Od. 8.337  85–6 Od. 10.220–23  48

Homeric Hymns Hymn. Hom. Ven. 53–199  85–6 Horace Epod. 1.16.30–31  57–8 S. 1.10.81–85  6–7 Isidore of Seville Orig. 11.2.21  71–2 Julius Montanus fr. 221d Hollis  6–7 Livy 1.2.1 135 Lucretius 1.1 86 1.31–40 86 1.32–33 94–5 1.34 94–5 1.473–75 131 4.1068–69  131–2, 139–40 4.1077 93 Macrobius 5.15.1 100 5.15.7–9 100 Martial 8.73.5–10 8–9 Ovid Am. 1.3.15–20  22 Am. 1.3.21–24  21–2, 81–2 Am. 1.15.29–30  105–6 Am. 2.17.1  98 Am. 2.17.5  98 Am. 2.17.14  98 Am. 2.17.19–22  97–8 Am. 2.17.23  98 Am. 3.9.63–64  4–5 Ars 2.15–16  45 Ars 3.333–34  4–5 Fast. 4.195–96  45 Fast. 6.737  105–6 Fast. 6.737–62  181–2 Her. 4  181–2 Met. 1.1–2  178–9 Met. 1.747–2.400  179 Met. 2.319–80  179 Met. 2.325–28  175–6, 179–80 Met. 2.368  179 Met. 8.328  179 Met. 14.157  181 Met. 14.441–44  175–6, 179, 181 Met. 15.497–546  181–2 Pont. 2.3.75  6–7

Index Locorum  207 Tr. 2.445–56  4–5 Tr. 4.10.45–50  6–7 Tr. 4.10.53–54  4–5 Phanocles fr. 1.3–4 Powell  118–19 fr. 1 Powell  15 Pindar Pyth. 9.107–08  53–4 Plato Phdr. 237b–241d  42 Phdr. 243e7–257b6  42 Phdr. 259c5–259d5  41–2 Phdr. 259c–259d  42–3 Propertius 1.3 61 1.4.1–2 133–4 1.5.3 93 1.11.30 116–17 1.12.19 133–4 1.16 61 1.18 61 1.19.1–2 163–4 1.21.9–10 138 1.22.8 138 2.3.9–12 153–4 2.3.32–40 153–4 2.10.25–26 12–13 2.12 166 2.12.5 166 2.12.18 167 2.12.19 167 2.12.20 167 2.13.3–8 12–13 2.18b  90–2, 98 2.18b.5 91 2.18b.7–19 91 2.22a  90–2, 98 2.22a.22 91–2 2.22a.37 91–2 2.22a.42 91–2 2.30.24 116–17 2.30b.25–40 21–2 2.30b.29–30 81–2 2.34.61–78 8–9 2.34.63–64 5 2.34.91–92 4–5 3.2.21–22 170 3.3.33–36 44–5 3.4.1 6 3.4.3 6 3.4.9 6 3.7.49 6

3.8.7 146–7 4.6.12–14 119–20 Servius ad A. 1.208  26–7, 61–2 ad A. 7.37  40 ad A. 7.57  57–8 ad A. 7.445  68–9 ad A. 7.463  71–2 ad A. 7.778  103–4 ad A. 12.31  135 ad E. 10.46  13 Severus, Cornelius fr. 219.11 Hollis  6–7 Sextilius Ena fr. 202 Hollis  6–7 Statius Silu. 1.1  176 Silu. 1.2  176 Silu. 1.2.1–23  175–6 Silu. 1.2.7–8  176–7 Silu. 1.2.11  176–7 Silu. 1.2.20  176–7 Silu. 1.2.22–23  177 Silu. 1.2.49  177–8 Silu. 1.2.76–77  177–8 Silu. 1.2.244–45  177–8 Theocritus 1.82 13–14 Tibullus Tib. 1.5.3–4  65–6 Tib. 1.5.5  65–6 Tib. 2.3.11–28  119–20 Tib. 2.3.13–14  108 Tib. 2.5  7–8 Vergil A. 1.1  2–3, 22–3, 52–3, 55–7, 70–1, 84–5, 87–8, 131–3, 164–5 A. 1.1–7  5–6 A. 1.2–3  52–3 A. 1.4  20, 81–2, 124–5 A. 1.5  84–5 A. 1.10  84–5 A. 1.11  20, 81–2 A. 1.12–24  20, 23 A. 1.12–33  59, 124–5 A. 1.25  22–3, 81–2 A. 1.25–28  20–1, 23, 32 A. 1.27  23, 81–2, 93–4 A. 1.28  20–1, 81–2 A. 1.29  22–4, 26–7, 30–2, 124–5 A. 1.36  22–3, 124–5

208  Index Locorum Vergil (cont.) A. 1.37  23 A. 1.37–49  22–3 A. 1.46–47  59 A. 1.47  93–4 A. 1.50  22–4, 32 A. 1.64  22–5 A. 1.72  22–3 A. 1.91  22–3 A. 1.184  73–4 A. 1.229–53  84–5 A. 1.314–20  27–8 A. 1.443  59 A. 1.657  107–8 A. 1.657–94  26, 73–4 A. 1.657–722  24 A. 1.658–60  24–5 A. 1.659–60  31–2, 63 A. 1.660  26–7, 69–70 A. 1.661  23–4 A. 1.662  23–4, 26–7, 30–1 A. 1.666  24–5, 88–9 A. 1.668  24 A. 1.670–71  24–5 A. 1.673  26–7, 31–2, 93–4, 134–5 A. 1.673–75  25 A. 1.675  24–5, 32 A. 1.678  25–6 A. 1.682  25, 93–4, 134–5 A. 1.683–84  25 A. 1.684  134–5 A. 1.687  25 A. 1.688  25–7, 31–2, 60–1, 63, 88 A. 1.712–22  25–6 A. 1.749  33–4 A. 2.782–83  58–9 A. 3.324  143–4 A. 3.525  87 A. 4.1  26–8, 32–3, 77, 141–2, 160–1, 171–2 A. 4.1–2  61–2, 128–9 A. 4.1–5  26–7, 128–9 A. 4.2  32–3 A. 4.4–5  128–9 A. 4.5  27–8, 32–3 A. 4.13  29–30 A. 4.65  27–8 A. 4.66  26–7, 31–2 A. 4.67  26–7, 69–70 A. 4.67–68  32–3 A. 4.68  26–7, 29–34 A. 4.68–69  64–5, 160–1 A. 4.68–73  77 A. 4.69–71  69–70 A. 4.69–73  27–8, 128–31

A. 4.70  69–70 A. 4.71–72  129–30 A. 4.72  32–3 A. 4.73  129–30 A. 4.78  27–8, 160–1 A. 4.95  93–4, 134–5 A. 4.99  126–8 A. 4.101  26–7, 31–2, 34, 128–9 A. 4.114  59 A. 4.129–72  27–8, 77 A. 4.134  128–9 A. 4.141  55–7, 73–4, 131–2 A. 4.169  128–9 A. 4.169–70  27–8, 161–2 A. 4.213–14  138–9 A. 4.214  78–9 A. 4.215  131–2 A. 4.215–17  129–30 A. 4.280  168–9 A. 4.283  27–8 A. 4.296  141–2, 160–1 A. 4.298  27–8 A. 4.305  63–4 A. 4.307  63–4 A. 4.308  160–1 A. 4.308–09  141–2 A. 4.314  32–4 A. 4.314–19  144 A. 4.316  138–9 A. 4.350  134–5 A. 4.362  34 A. 4.364  128–9 A. 4.366  63–4 A. 4.366–67  34 A. 4.370  32–3 A. 4.374  27–8, 160–1 A. 4.376  29–30 A. 4.386  34–5 A. 4.413  32–3 A. 4.414  88–9 A. 4.415  141–2, 160–1 A. 4.421  63–4 A. 4.424  88–9 A. 4.438  130–1, 168 A. 4.449  32–3 A. 4.450  29–30, 33–4, 64–5 A. 4.450–51  160–1, 164 A. 4.451  27–8, 30, 144–5, 164 A. 4.452  27–8, 144–5, 164 A. 4.462–63  168 A. 4.465  27–8 A. 4.469  160–1 A. 4.472  168 A. 4.473  168

Index Locorum  209 A. 4.474–75  160–1 A. 4.475  27–8, 144–5, 164 A. 4.499  158 A. 4.504  141–2, 160–1 A. 4.514  60–1 A. 4.519  141–2, 160–1 A. 4.529  29–30 A. 4.535  88–9 A. 4.548  27–8 A. 4.595  27–8, 138–9 A. 4.596  29–30, 33–4 A. 4.597  63–4 A. 4.604  141–2, 160–1 A. 4.607–29  30 A. 4.610  168 A. 4.612–29  168 A. 4.615  34–5 A. 4.629  30 A. 4.644  158 A. 4.645–46  62–3 A. 4.650  30 A. 4.651–62  28–9, 33–4 A. 4.653  29 A. 4.655  31 A. 4.655–58  29–30 A. 4.657  33–4 A. 4.660  30, 32–3, 171–3 A. 4.661–62  30–1 A. 4.662  31 A. 4.663–705  30–1 A. 4.664–65  77 A. 4.666  162 A. 4.667  77 A. 4.668  162 A. 4.677  77 A. 4.687  77 A. 4.689  28 A. 4.692  77 A. 4.695  171–2 A. 4.696–97  160–1 A. 4.704  33–4 A. 4.705  30–1, 171–2 A. 5.1–7  31 A. 5.3–4  28 A. 5.4–7  31–2 A. 5.6  27–8 A. 6.93–94  153–4 A. 6.441  32–3 A. 6.442  32–3, 158 A. 6.444  32–3 A. 6.450–76  32–3 A. 6.452  172–3 A. 6.455  32–4 A. 6.460  33–4

A. 6.461  168 A. 6.465  33–4 A. 6.466  33–4, 171–2 A. 6.467–73  34 A. 6.473  172–3 A. 6.473–74  34 A. 6.476  34–5 A. 6.625–26  182 A. 6.713  87 A. 6.867  87 A. 6.900  180 A. 7.1–4  37–9, 101, 116–17, 180 A. 7.1–45  157, 175 A. 7.10–14  47–8 A. 7.10–20  47 A. 7.11  48–9 A. 7.25–26  50–1, 156–7 A. 7.25–28  49 A. 7.26  50 A. 7.27  50–1 A. 7.28  50–1 A. 7.29–34  50 A. 7.37  99 A. 7.37–45  37, 39–40, 52, 99, 116–17 A. 7.40  138, 158–9 A. 7.41  84–5, 138 A. 7.42  84–5 A. 7.42–44  99 A. 7.43  84–5 A. 7.44–45  138 A. 7.52–53  52, 71–2, 80–1 A. 7.53  55–7, 131–2 A. 7.54  54–5, 150 A. 7.54–55  53–4, 149, 153, 177–8 A. 7.55  55–7, 60–1, 79, 131–4, 138–9, 149 A. 7.55–56  54–5, 71–2, 103, 132–3 A. 7.56  58–9 A. 7.56–57  57–9, 79–81, 136 A. 7.57  59, 77–8, 137, 141–2, 161–2 A. 7.72  71–2, 80–1 A. 7.96–101  135 A. 7.97  135 A. 7.190  60–1 A. 7.286–340  60 A. 7.318  71–2, 80–1 A. 7.321  129–32 A. 7.324  166 A. 7.331  71–2 A. 7.339  77 A. 7.341  63, 167 A. 7.341–45  60–1 A. 7.342–43  60–1 A. 7.343  61 A. 7.344–45  61–2, 68

210  Index Locorum Vergil (cont.) A. 7.345  71–2 A. 7.346–47  69, 73–4, 167 A. 7.346–48  62 A. 7.347  69–70 A. 7.350  77–8 A. 7.350–51  63 A. 7.351  88 A. 7.354  63 A. 7.355  69–70, 77–8 A. 7.355–56  63, 71–2 A. 7.356  77–8 A. 7.357–58  63–4 A. 7.358–72  136 A. 7.359–72  80–1 A. 7.360  63–4 A. 7.361  63–4 A. 7.362  63–4, 71–2, 80–1 A. 7.365  63–4 A. 7.366  63–4 A. 7.371–72  80–1 A. 7.374–77  64 A. 7.376  64–5 A. 7.376–77  160–2 A. 7.378  160–1 A. 7.378–84  65, 68, 79 A. 7.379  65–6 A. 7.380  65–6 A. 7.385–405  66, 79 A. 7.387–88  136 A. 7.389  71–2, 80–1 A. 7.401  160–1 A. 7.406–11  67 A. 7.408  166 A. 7.411–12  67 A. 7.415–34  68 A. 7.438  59 A. 7.440–44  68 A. 7.445  68–9, 80, 132 A. 7.446  168–9 A. 7.447  68–9, 166 A. 7.448  68–9, 77–8 A. 7.448–49  68–9, 80 A. 7.449  68–9 A. 7.450  68–9, 166 A. 7.451  68–9 A. 7.455  68–9 A. 7.456  73–4, 80, 146–7, 167 A. 7.456–57  69 A. 7.457  69–72, 128, 171 A. 7.458–59  69–70 A. 7.460  70–1, 77–8, 80, 128, 163 A. 7.460–61  70–1, 155–6 A. 7.461  77–8, 80, 137, 159, 164–5

A. 7.462  77–8 A. 7.462–66  71–2 A. 7.468  71–2, 80 A. 7.472  71–2 A. 7.473  71–2 A. 7.474  71–2 A. 7.475–510  130–1 A. 7.477  73–4, 107–8 A. 7.477–78  73–4 A. 7.479  71–2, 77–8 A. 7.479–80  73–4 A. 7.481  73–4, 77–8 A. 7.481–82  73–4, 161–2 A. 7.483–92  74–5 A. 7.490–92  74–5 A. 7.493–94  75–6 A. 7.496  77–8, 161–2 A. 7.496–97  75–6 A. 7.496–99  167 A. 7.500–02  76 A. 7.544  77–8 A. 7.550  77–8 A. 7.552–60  77–8 A. 7.554  136–7 A. 7.572–76  78–9 A. 7.577–78  78–9 A. 7.579  78–9 A. 7.580–82  79 A. 7.582  136 A. 7.584–85  136 A. 7.591–600  136 A. 7.623  77–8 A. 7.623–31  67 A. 7.625  70–1 A. 7.632  129–32 A. 7.641  99–101 A. 7.641–817  99 A. 7.646  99–100 A. 7.647–54  101–2 A. 7.649–50  103 A. 7.656–57  103 A. 7.723–32  101–2 A. 7.761–64  101–3 A. 7.761–82  101–2 A. 7.761–92  101–2 A. 7.765  101–2, 117–18 A. 7.765–66  107–8 A. 7.765–68  105–6 A. 7.765–77  101–5, 181–2 A. 7.767  110–11 A. 7.767–68  109–10, 120–1 A. 7.769  107–8 A. 7.770  172–3 A. 7.770–71  109–10

Index Locorum  211 A. 7.772–73  108, 119–20 A. 7.773  109–10 A. 7.774  106–7 A. 7.775  106–7 A. 7.776–77  105–7 A. 7.781–82  101–2, 110–11 A. 7.783–84  79, 132–3 A. 7.783–92  79, 101–2 A. 7.786–88  80 A. 7.789  81–2 A. 7.789–91  81 A. 7.789–92  80–1 A. 7.791  80–1 A. 7.803–17  101–2 A. 7.815–17  122 A. 8.145  88–9 A. 8.369  97 A. 8.370  91–2 A. 8.370–72  84 A. 8.370–406  83, 176–7 A. 8.372–73  85–6 A. 8.373  88, 95–6 A. 8.374  84–5, 88 A. 8.374–80  84–5, 95–6 A. 8.374–86  92 A. 8.376  84–5, 88 A. 8.377  88–90, 176–7 A. 8.378  84–5, 88 A. 8.379–80  88–9 A. 8.380  84–5, 88–92, 95–6 A. 8.382  88–9 A. 8.383  84–6, 88, 176–7 A. 8.383–84  84–5, 89–90 A. 8.383–86  95–6 A. 8.386  84–5, 88 A. 8.387  97 A. 8.387–88  90–2, 176–7 A. 8.388  92, 97 A. 8.388–90  92–3 A. 8.389  95–6 A. 8.390  147–8 A. 8.393  93–4, 134–5 A. 8.394  87, 94–5, 98 A. 8.395–404  95–6 A. 8.397–400  95–6 A. 8.401–03  95–6 A. 8.404–06  87, 96 A. 8.405  97, 176–7 A. 8.408–11  147–8 A. 8.410  93 A. 8.414  93 A. 8.420  93 A. 8.423  93 A. 8.430  93

A. 8.608  97 A. 8.615–16  97 A. 8.701  166 A. 9.341  126 A. 10.41–42  74–5 A. 10.62  59 A. 10.76  55–7 A. 10.79  126–8 A. 10.135–37  6 A. 10.163–214  99, 111 A. 10.185  114 A. 10.185–86  115–16, 120–1, 179–80 A. 10.185–88  101–2 A. 10.185–93  111–12 A. 10.185–97  101–2, 179 A. 10.187  115–17 A. 10.188  115–18, 161–2 A. 10.189  101–2, 117–19 A. 10.189–93  116–17 A. 10.190  120–1, 172–3 A. 10.190–91  114, 118–20 A. 10.191  118–21 A. 10.192  118, 120–1 A. 10.193  120–1, 179–80 A. 10.194–97  101–2 A. 10.195  120–1 A. 10.196  120–1 A. 10.198–206  101–2, 112 A. 10.454–56  126 A. 10.489  126 A. 10.720  126–8 A. 10.722  126–8 A. 10.726  126–8 A. 10.774  129–32 A. 10.819–20  103 A. 10.906–07  126–8 A. 11.70  71–2, 80–1 A. 11.354–75  132 A. 11.361  161–2 A. 11.371  58–9, 132, 161–2 A. 11.376  132 A. 11.479  71–2, 80–1 A. 11.484  129–32 A. 11.536–38  109–10 A. 11.581–82  153 A. 11.591  151 A. 11.831  109–10, 172–3 A. 11.836–67  109–10 A. 11.848  151 A. 12.1–4  124 A. 12.1–80  123 A. 12.3  124–5, 128–9, 131–2, 159 A. 12.3–4  164–5 A. 12.4  128–9, 156–7

212  Index Locorum Vergil (cont.) A. 12.4–8  130–1 A. 12.4–9  126–31 A. 12.5  124–5, 128–9, 131–2, 139–42, 171–2 A. 12.6  129–30 A. 12.6–7  126–9 A. 12.6–8  125–6 A. 12.7  129–32, 137, 150–1 A. 12.8  126, 128–30, 140–1 A. 12.9  124–5, 128–9, 131–2, 139–40 A. 12.10–11  164–5 A. 12.11  137, 155–6, 170–1 A. 12.11–17  132 A. 12.13  132–3 A. 12.14–17  125–6 A. 12.18–53  132–3 A. 12.20  139–40 A. 12.22–23  132–3 A. 12.24–28  133–4 A. 12.26  134–5, 140–1 A. 12.28  133–5 A. 12.29  137 A. 12.29–31  136, 161–2 A. 12.31  135, 137 A. 12.32–45  138 A. 12.35–36  138, 151 A. 12.37  138–9 A. 12.41–42  138–9 A. 12.45  132 A. 12.45–46  139–40 A. 12.46  167 A. 12.48–51  140–1 A. 12.52–53  140–1 A. 12.54  160–1, 164 A. 12.54–55  141–2 A. 12.55  137, 141–2, 160–1, 164–5 A. 12.56–60  144 A. 12.56–63  142–3 A. 12.57–58  143–5, 167 A. 12.62–63  143–5, 160–2, 164 A. 12.63  146 A. 12.64–65  146–7 A. 12.64–66  145 A. 12.64–69  162, 176 A. 12.65  150 A. 12.65–66  146–8 A. 12.66  156–7 A. 12.67  150–2 A. 12.67–68  177 A. 12.67–69  149, 177 A. 12.68  151, 156–7 A. 12.68–69  151–3, 177 A. 12.69  71–2, 80–1 A. 12.70  137, 154–5

A. 12.70–71  164–5 A. 12.71  154–6 A. 12.72–74  155–6 A. 12.72–80  155 A. 12.76–77  156–7 A. 12.79–80  157 A. 12.216–17  158–9 A. 12.216–82  170–1 A. 12.219  158–9 A. 12.219–21  157–9 A. 12.220  158–9 A. 12.220–21  170–1 A. 12.222–56  159 A. 12.282  159 A. 12.289–553  160 A. 12.325  159 A. 12.421  63–4 A. 12.554–92  160 A. 12.595  160–1 A. 12.595–97  160 A. 12.598–99  160–1 A. 12.598–603  160 A. 12.600  161–2 A. 12.601  160–1 A. 12.602  141–2, 160–1 A. 12.604  162 A. 12.606–07  162 A. 12.620  164–5 A. 12.620–22  163 A. 12.646–49  163 A. 12.654  164 A. 12.659–60  164 A. 12.666–68  164–5 A. 12.670  164–5 A. 12.671  164–5 A. 12.676–79  164–5 A. 12.680  164–5, 170–1 A. 12.750  130–1, 156–7, 168–9 A. 12.752–53  130–1, 168–9 A. 12.791–842  166 A. 12.843–86  166 A. 12.845  166 A. 12.847–48  166 A. 12.849  168 A. 12.854  167 A. 12.856–59  166–7 A. 12.857–59  167 A. 12.859  170 A. 12.862–64  167–8 A. 12.864  168, 170 A. 12.865–66  168–9 A. 12.867–68  168–9 A. 12.870–71  169–70 A. 12.873–74  169–70

Index Locorum  213 A. 12.874  170 A. 12.875–76  169–70 A. 12.879–81  169–70 A. 12.881  170 A. 12.911–12  170–1 A. 12.930–38  170–1 A. 12.936–37  137, 171 A. 12.940  171 A. 12.945–46  171 A. 12.948–50  140–1 A. 12.950–51  171 A. 12.951–52  171–2, 175 A. 12.952  109–10, 140–1, 158, 170, 172–3 A. 1.657–58  24 A. 4.548  27–8 E. 2.3  172–3 E. 2.4–5  106–7 E. 2.8  172–3 E. 2.18  9–11 E. 2.26–27  9–11, 115–16 E. 2.58  9–11, 18–19 E. 2.60  9–11, 18–19, 34 E. 2.67  9–11, 14–15, 172–3 E. 2.68  9–11 E. 2.69  9–11, 13–14, 18–19 E. 6.47  81 E. 6.52  81 E. 6.61  120 E. 6.62–63  120 E. 6.64  12–13, 120 E. 6.64–73  11–13 E. 6.65  120 E. 6.70–71  12–13 E. 10.1  13 E. 10.1–6  16–17 E. 10.2  13 E. 10.6  13–14, 75–6 E. 10.10  13–15 E. 10.13–15  15–16 E. 10.21  13–14, 17–18 E. 10.22  13–14, 138–9 E. 10.28  13–14 E. 10.31  13–14, 18–19 E. 10.33  14–15, 38–9

E. 10.38  13–14 E. 10.40–45  13–14 E. 10.44  13–14, 77–8 E. 10.44–45  70–1, 155–6 E. 10.46–49  13 E. 10.47  13–14, 18–19 E. 10.48  18–19, 106–7 E. 10.48–49  13–14 E. 10.49  18–19 E. 10.50–51  106–7 E. 10.50–54  16–17 E. 10.50–69  13–14, 118–19 E. 10.52  13–14, 106–7 E. 10.53–54  13–14 E. 10.54  75–6 E. 10.55  75–6 E. 10.55–60  104 E. 10.55–61  75–6 E. 10.57  75–6, 167 E. 10.59  75–6 E. 10.59–60  167 E. 10.60  75–6, 119–20, 139–40 E. 10.67  14–15 E. 10.69  75–6, 119–20 E. 10.73  4–5, 13–14 E. 10.75  14–15, 172–3 E. 10.75–76  118–19, 167, 170 E. 10.76  14–15, 172–3 G. 1.497  138 G. 3.263  141–2, 160–1 G. 4.315–452  15 G. 4.453–527  15 G. 4.458  141–2, 160–1 G. 4.461–63  15–16 G. 4.464–66  16–17 G. 4.487–93  17–18 G. 4.488  16–17 G. 4.494–96  17–19 G. 4.497  17–18 G. 4.499–500  17–19 G. 4.501  17–18, 172–3 G. 4.523  18–19 G. 4.525  18–19 G. 4.526  18–19

General Index Note: asterisks indicate terms defined in the Glossary. For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. a (exclamatory, neoteric)  9–11, 13–14, 18–19 Abas  100, 115–16, 122 Achilles  23, 84–5, 125–6, 143 Acontius and Cydippe. See Callimachus acrostics nota 105–6 uae 122 Aeneas  1, 31, 63–4, 73–4, 80, 88–9, 93–4, 134–5, 141–2 and apparition of Dido  33–4 Carthaginian sojourn  23–4 combat with Turnus  35–6, 166, 170–1 correlation with Achilles  84–5 first Italian dawn  49–51 in the Iliad 125–6 and Lavinia  52–3, 63–4, 78–9, 123, 126–8, 131–2, 134–5, 137 physical beauty of  55–7 as second Paris  129–32, 150–1 See also Dido; Juno Aeolus 22–5 aetion  42–3, 53–4, 103–4 See also Callimachus Ahl, Frederick  113–14 Alexandrian poetics  8, 101–6 Alexis 9–11 Allecto  52, 71–2, 77–8, 80–1, 107–8, 167–8 assault on Amata (Verg. A. 7)  59–66, 69, 71–2, 79, 136–7 assault on Ascanius (Verg. A. 7)  71–4 assault on Turnus (Verg. A. 7)  59–60, 67–72, 128, 130–2, 141–2, 164–7 summoned by Juno (Verg. A. 7)  60 Amata  123, 136 captiua 143–4 correlation with Dido  62, 64–5, 141–2, 160–2 etymology of name  58–9 final speech  161–2 mirus amor for Turnus  52, 57–9, 62–3, 66, 79, 136, 141–5, 154–6, 161–2 moritura  141–2, 160–1

regia coniunx 58–9 suicide  141–2, 160–2, 164 amor*/Amor  35, 112, 123 deity (Amor)  13–14, 60–1, 65–6, 69–70, 73–4, 116–17, 166–7 destructive power of  3–4, 13–20, 22–4, 26–7, 35, 59, 61–2, 73–6, 83–4, 93, 107–10, 122, 137, 172–3 as generic signpost  57–8, 70–1, 116–17 insanity of  13–14, 17–19, 24–5, 27–8, 30–1, 62–6, 70–1, 75–6, 131–2, 139–40, 167 mutual and lasting  90–1 as weapon (of Venus)  19–20, 24–5, 87–9 See also arma; elegy; mors* anagram*  50–1, 126, 132, 138–9, 151–2, 155–6 Anchises 85–7 Andromache 143–4 Anna (sister of Dido)  30–1, 88–9, 130–1 Aphrodite  43–4, 55–7, 85–6 See also Venus Apollo  108, 119–20 Apollonius Argonautica  43–4, 46, 48–9, 85–6, 113–14, 147–8 Heliades 113–14 Aratus 1 Ardea  67–8, 166 ardor amantum 93 Arethusa 16–17 Argus 80–1 Aristaenetus 54–5 Aristaeus 15 arma  46, 51–2, 59–61, 70–1, 77, 87–8, 99, 101–2, 129–31, 154–5, 157–9 human cost of  46–7, 101, 103 arma Amoris 69–70 See also militia amoris* arrow imagery Aeneas  16, 26–7 Amor/Cupid  69, 77, 128–9, 167 the Dira  166–7

General Index  215 ars noua  73–4, 107–8 Ascanius  6, 25 and Allecto  72–4, 107–8 compared with Aeneas  73–4 Cupid disguised as  24–5 hunting Silvia’s stag  73–7, 107–8, 129–31, 161–2, 167 Asclepius 107–10 astral translation or deification  109, 120–1 See also catasterism Astur  100, 115–16, 122 Athene 85–6 Augustus 15–16 Aulestes  100, 115–16, 122 aureus 85–6 Aurora  89–91, 156–7 Aventinus  100, 103, 122 Berenice 33–4 blushing  50, 123, 138–9, 145–57, 177 See also Lavinia bones/marrow*  14–15, 24–5, 63, 69–72, 92–3 Caieta  47, 172–3 emblem of mors  37–8, 46–7, 50–1, 72–3, 77, 115–16, 122 epitaphic apostrophe to  37–9, 46, 101, 116–17, 172–3, 175, 180–1 in Ov. Met. 180–1 Cairns, Francis  22, 53–4, 61, 68–9, 81–2, 93, 105–6, 119–20 Callimachus  1, 4–5, 33–4, 65–6, 74–5, 99–104, 148–9 Acontius and Cydippe  13–14, 53–5, 148–9 Aetia  12–13, 42–5, 103–4 on Erato  42–3, 46 on the Muses  42–5 Calliope  40, 44–5 Calvus, C. Licinius  81 Calybe 68 Calypso 48 Camilla  100–2, 109–10, 122, 151, 153 Carthage  20, 29–32, 59, 124–5, 162, 168 Carthaginian hunt  27–8, 59, 77, 128–30, 161–2 Cassius Dio  75–6 catalogues conventional Homeric models  100–1 Etruscan heroes (Verg. A. 10)  79, 99–102, 111, 120, 122, 161–2, 179 Italian heroes (Verg. A. 7)  79, 99–104, 122, 181–2 Jupiter’s clandestine affairs  21–2, 81–2 Ligurian digression  101–2, 111–12, 115–17, 120–1

catasterism  109, 120–1, 179–80 See also astral translation or deification Catillus 100 Catullus  9, 15, 33–4, 53–4, 148–9, 152–3, 170 causa malorum 161–2 Chimaera, image of  80 chromatic imagery  50–1, 90–1, 97, 150, 152, 177 Cicero 4–7 Cinyrus  100–2, 111–12, 115–16, 122, 179–80 significance and variants of name  113–14 Circe  47–9, 60–1 Clausus 100 condere–solus–silua (Gallan verbal complex) 106–7 Conte, G. B.  46–7 coquere  61–2, 71–2 Coras 100 Corydon  2–3, 8–11, 13–14, 16–19, 106–7, 115–16, 172–3 Cupauo  100–2, 111–12, 115–17, 120–2, 179–80 significance of name  115 Cupid  24–6, 31–2, 88–9, 115, 146–7 See also amor*/Amor cura*  13–14, 23–4, 26–7, 32–3, 61–4, 68, 74–5, 95–6, 108, 140–1 Cycnus  101–2, 114–22, 161–2, 172–3, 179 Cyrene 15 Dardanus 81–2 Deiopea 22–3 Diana  106–10, 151, 172–3 Dido  26–7, 59–62, 72–3, 134–5, 168–9 amatory madness  138–9, 141–2, 144–5, 160–1 beguiled by Cupid/Ascanius  24–6 curses of  30–1, 34–5, 168 death of  19–20, 28, 30–1, 33–4, 160–2, 171–2 final soliloquy  28–31, 33–4, 164 funeral pyre  31–2 sexual union with Aeneas  27–8, 126–8, 161–2 in the underworld  32–5, 172–3 and Venus  19–20, 88, 93–4, 107–8 as wounded hind  69–70, 77, 128–31 Diomedes 4–5 Dionysius of Halicarnassus  55–7 Dirae 166 See also Turnus Dis 30–1 dolus* 134–5 Drances  58–9, 132, 161–2

216  General Index dum canit 119–20 See also tum canit durus*  8, 32–3, 79, 84–5, 88–90, 134–5 See also epic; mollis* Electra 81–2 elegy  35, 101–2, 157 amatory  9–11, 17–19, 23, 26, 35–6, 50–1, 59–60, 70–1, 75, 77, 87–8, 99, 111–12, 120–2, 172–3, 175–6, 179, 181–2 in ancient literary hierarchy  2 characteristic language, style, themes  13–14, 24–6, 29–30, 32–5, 44–6, 50, 61–2, 74–6, 88–9, 128–9, 144–5 conventions of  13–14, 24, 74–5, 103–4, 128–9, 133–4, 139–40, 144–5 elegiac deformazione  13–14, 54–5, 70–1, 103–4, 139–40 funerary/sepulchral  25–6, 32–6, 50–1, 59–60, 74–5, 77, 99, 111–12, 122, 144–5, 172–3, 175–6, 179, 181–2 Gallan, hallmarks of  119–20 inverted gender hierarchy of  83–4 lexical signifiers of  52–3, 69, 88–90 and Lucretian epic  94–5 motifs associated with  26–7, 32–3, 69–70, 128–9 personified (Stat. Silu. 1.2)  176 See also amor*/Amor; mollis*; mors* Ena, Sextilius  6–7 epic as genre  2 lexical signifiers of  84–5, 88 one-against-many trope  54–5 See also durus* epitaphic inscriptions  14–15, 29–30, 38–9, 50–1, 74–5, 109, 115–16, 120–1 ascension of the spirit  109 conventions of  38–9, 163–4 See also sepulchral poetics epithalamium  53–4, 151–2 Erato  72–3, 99, 172–3 in Apollonius  42–4 in Callimachus  42–3 emblem of amor  37, 46–7, 77, 115–16 etymology of name  58 in Hesiod  40–4 invocation of (Verg. A. 7)  37, 39–40, 46, 52–3, 99, 116–17, 175 in Ovid  44–5 in Plato  41–3 sphere of influence  41–4 Vergil’s choice of  40 Eros  55–7, 85–6 ἔρως/ἔραμαι  41–4, 46, 58, 147–8 erotodidactic*  83–4, 93, 133, 139–40

errans amator 75 See also wandering imagery Euphorion  4–5, 12–13 Euripides, Hippolytus 103–4 Europa 21–2 Eurydice  2–3, 15, 17–19, 29, 35, 141–2, 160–1, 172–3 exclusus amator* 78–9 Faunus 135 fever/fire/heat* erotic  26–7, 50–1, 69–72, 93, 146–8, 159 φλέγω 50 imagery  23–7, 30–2, 48–50, 60–2, 67–9, 71–2, 77–80, 93, 95–6, 124–5, 128–9, 131, 146–8 figura etymologica  58, 79 fire. See fever/fire/heat* flere 89–90 See also tears* floral imagery  9–11, 44–5, 151–3, 177 fouere* 90–2 Fulgentius 55–7 funerary inscriptions. See epitaphic inscriptions Gallus, C. Cornelius  22, 105–6 and aetiological verse  12–13 Amores  4–5, 13, 105 characteristic style, language, themes  9–11, 61, 68–9, 71–2, 75, 106–7 connection to Orpheus  15–18 and consolatory hunting  75–6 and East–West topos  16–17, 105–6 in elegiac tradition  4–5, 9–11, 13–14, 53–4, 72–5, 102–6 in Martial  8–9 in Ovid  105–6 and poetic consecration  11–13 Servius on  15–16, 68–9 Turnus and Gallan imagery  70–1 and Verg. E. 2  2–3, 13, 16–19 and Verg. E. 6  11–13, 104 and Verg. E. 10  2–5, 11, 13–19, 38–9, 70–1, 75–6, 103–4, 118–19, 167, 172–3 and Verg. G. 4  15–19 Ganymede  20–2, 81–2 gliscere  131, 139–40 Halaesus  100–2, 122 Hardie, Philip  54–5 Harrison, Stephen  55–7 heat. See fever/fire/heat* Hecuba 143 Helen  131, 153–4 Helicon  12–13, 21, 42–5, 99–100

General Index  217 Hephaestus 85–6 See also Vulcan Hera  85–6, 93–4 See also Juno heroes, eroticized  103 Hesiod  1, 12–13, 40–5 Th. 40–4 heu (cry of lament)  9–11, 17–18, 29–30 Hinds, Stephen  178–9, 181 Hippolytus/Virbius Ov. Fast. 6  105–6 transformation of  109–10 Verg. A. 7  101–9, 117–22, 172–3 Homer  114, 125–6 Il.  84–6, 93–4, 125–6, 143, 150–1 Od.  48, 53–4, 85–6 Homeric Hymns 85–6 Horace  6–7, 57–8 Horsfall, Nicholas  61, 69, 74–5, 103–4, 109–11 hunting*  26–8, 32–3, 69–70, 73–4, 128–31, 167 hunted animal similes  69–70, 77, 125–31, 140–1, 156–7 lover as prey  128–9 as remedy for amor (medicina amoris*)  75–7 See also medicina amoris*; militia amoris* Hyginus 67 hymenaei 126–8

Keith, Alison  116–17 κινυρός 113–14

Iarbas  78–9, 129–30 impar 158–9 Inachus 80–1 infelix*  25–6, 29–30, 33–4, 64–5, 81, 160–2 injury/wound*  124–5, 139–40, 151 amatory  19–23, 32–3, 59, 69–70, 77, 86, 124–5, 128–32, 139–41, 151 uulnera amoris  124–5, 150–1 Io  21, 80–2 irae (wrath)  20, 24, 61–2, 81–2, 172–3 Iris  30–1, 171–2 Isidore of Seville  71–2

Macrobius, Saturnalia 100–1 Maecenas  5–7, 55–7 Martial 8–9 Massicus  100, 115–16, 122 Medea  48–9, 85–6, 147–8 medicina amoris*/furoris  9–11, 13–14, 108, 119–20, 139–40 Menelaus 150–1 μῆνις 22–3 Messalinus 7–8 Messalla Corvinus  6–7 Messapus 100 metamorphosis Cycnus  111–12, 115, 118–21 Io 80–2 Phaethon’s sisters  120 Mezentius  100–2, 122, 126–30 μιαίνω 150–1 miles amator 125 militia amoris*  25–7, 32–3, 54–5, 94–5, 128, 155–6 mirus amor. See Amata mollis*  8, 14–15, 63–4, 74–5, 90 See also durus* Morgan, Llewelyn  176

James, Sharon  88–9 Jason  43–4, 48–9, 85–6, 147–8 judgement of Paris  20–4, 81–2, 93–4 Julius Montanus  6–7 Juno  26–8, 30–1, 93–4, 124–8, 172–3 as antagonist of Aeneas and Trojans  22–4, 60, 65–6, 77, 166 reasons for her wrath  20–4, 32, 59, 81–2 See also Hera Jupiter  20–1, 81–2, 109–10, 166–9 See also Zeus Juturna  159, 166–7, 169–70

lamentation  2–3, 9–11, 17–18, 29–30, 46–7, 89–90, 114, 120–1, 163–4 See also epitaphic inscriptions Latinus  52–3, 63–4, 123, 164 address of Turnus  132–9 Lausus  100–3, 122 Lavinia  52–3, 58–60, 71–2, 80–1, 123, 132, 157 betrothal to Aeneas  63–4, 78–9, 123, 126–8, 131–2, 134–5, 137 betrothal to Turnus  135 blushing cheeks  123, 138–9, 145–57, 177 as second Helen  153–4 suitors of  53–5 See also Latinus; Turnus Leach, Eleanor Winsor  7–8 Leda 21–2 leonine imagery  125–31, 156–7 Ligus  112, 114 λιγύς (λιγέως) 114 Linus 12–13 Livy 135 Lucretius  1, 83–4, 87, 93–5, 139–40 De Rerum Natura  86, 131–2 ludus 65–6 Lygdamus 6–7

218  General Index moritura  141–2, 160–1 See also Amata mors*  2–3, 9–11, 17–19, 23, 25–8, 30, 38–9, 46–7, 50, 99, 101–2, 108, 112, 130–1, 160–2 as signifier of sepulchral poetics  14–15, 17–18, 109–10, 120–1, 163–4 trajectory from amor to  31–5, 77, 93–4, 101–2, 107–8, 122, 126–8, 138, 141–2, 160–2, 168 See also amor*/Amor; arma; epitaphic inscriptions Muses  21, 40–5 Nelis, Damien  177–8 Nisus 126–8 nomen  79, 105–6, 119–20 notus 93 Ocnus  100–2, 115–16, 122 Oebalus  100, 122 O’Hara, James  58, 67 Olsen, Birgit Anette  71–2 Opis  109–10, 151 Orpheus  12–13, 15–19, 35, 172–3 Ovid  4–7, 9, 44, 105–6 Am.  21–2, 45, 97–8 Ars 45 epitaph for Caieta  175–6 epitaph for Phaethon  175–6 Fast.  45, 105–6, 181–2 Her. 181–2 Met.  175–6, 178–9, 181 Tr. 6–7 Page, T. E.  113 παρήιον 150 Parthenius of Nicaea  4–5 Paschalis, Michael  61, 113 Pasiphae 81 ‘passer-by’ motif  33–4, 115–16, 179–80 See also epitaphic inscriptions pastoral poetics  13, 74–5 petere  53–5, 60–1, 138–9 Phaedra  103–4, 107–8 Phaethon  110–11, 113–14, 118–19, 179–80 Phanocles  4–5, 15, 102 Ἔρωτες ἢ Καλοί 117–18 φοῖνιξ 150–1 Pindar 53–4 Plato, Phaedrus  41–4, 46 Pollio, Asinius  4–7 Pöschl, Viktor  124

Propertius  4–5, 8–9, 12–13, 45, 81–2, 105–6, 116–17, 119–20, 133–4, 167, 170 on Amor (2.12)  166–7 elegy 2.18b  90–2, 98 elegy 2.22a  90–2, 98 elegy 3.3  44–5 elegy 3.8  146–7 epitaphic language  2–3, 163–4 on Jupiter’s affairs  21–2 Monobiblos  61, 138 on the Muses (3.3)  44–5 polyamorous experimentation  90–2 puella of 2.3 as Vergilian model  146–7, 153–5 reproach to Bassus (1.5)  133–4 Proteus 15 Qaṣr Ibrîm papyrus  9–11 See also Gallus, C. Cornelius querela*  63–4, 144 Quintilian 4–5 Rome  1, 23–5, 30, 51, 124–5, 168 rubesco 50 Semele 21 Seneca 6–7 sepulchral inscriptions. See epitaphic inscriptions sepulchral poetics  2–3, 14–15, 17–19, 25–6, 28, 30, 109–10, 120–1, 172–3 See also epitaphic inscriptions serpent imagery  62–3, 68–9, 87, 166, 168 seruitium amoris*  94–5, 98 Servius  13, 15–16, 40, 57–8, 61–2, 67, 71–2, 103–4, 115–16, 135 Severus, Cornelius  6–7, 68–9 Sibyl 153–4 silua. See condere-solus-silua (Gallan verbal complex) Silvia (daughter of Tyrrhus)  74–5, 161–2 Skutsch, Franz  11 Socrates 7–8 solus. See condere-solus-silua (Gallan verbal complex) spelaea 13–14 spinning top simile (Verg. A. 7)  65–6, 79 stag (ceruus) 74–5 See also Ascanius; Silvia (daughter of Tyrrhus) stag simile (Turnus)  156–7 stained-ivory simile  150–2, 177 See also under Lavinia

General Index  219 Statius 175–6 elegiac contaminatio 177–8 Silu. 1.2  175–8 Stella, L. Arruntius  176 Sulpicia 6–7 Sychaeus  34, 168 tears*  63–4, 88–90, 144 See also flere thalamus 85–6 Theocritus  1, 13–14 Idylls 8–9 Thetis  84–5, 89–90 Thomas, Richard  8–9, 19 Tibullus  2–9, 65–6, 108, 119–20 Timpanaro, Sebastiano  113 Tithonus 89–91 Tolumnius 159 tum canit 120 See also dum canit Turnus  35–6, 52, 61–2, 83, 100–2, 122–3, 172–3 association with Acron  126–8 compared with seething cauldron  71–2 defeat and death of  46–7, 109–11, 137, 140–1, 172–3, 175 and the Dira  166–70 etymology of name  55–7 final day  156–7, 164–5 inciting fear among Italians  78–9 lineage of  55–7 and lion simile  125–31, 140–1 martial accoutrements  79–81 martial madness  70–1, 79 and Mezentius  126–8 and Pallas  126 physical attributes of  54–7, 79 preparation for combat  157–8 as prey of Aeneas  130–1 reflection on mors 163–4 as second Paris  131–2 suitor of Lavinia  54–5, 60–1, 80–1 violence (uiolentia) of  124–5, 131–3, 139–40, 146–7, 151, 155–7, 164–7 See also Allecto; Latinus; Lavinia Tyrrhus 74–5 uenenum*  25, 60–1, 63, 167 Ufens 100 uiolentia, Homeric  124–6 See also Turnus uirga/uirgea 71–2 umbra(e)  14–15, 120–1, 167, 170

Umbro 100 urere 61–2 See also fever/fire/heat* uulnera amoris. See injury/wound* Valgius Rufus  6–7 Venus  23–4, 45, 60–1, 107–8, 116–17, 134–5, 140–2, 147–8, 158, 160, 172–3 compared with Thetis  84–5 and Dido  19–20, 25, 31–2, 88 and elegiac-epic fluctuation  87–92, 95–8 as epic genetrix  84–5, 88–92, 97 erotic power of  19–20, 83, 94–5 and Mars  86–7, 94–5 Vergil’s models for  85–7 and Vulcan  81–4, 89–98, 176–7 See also Aphrodite Vergil aetiological narrative  23, 101–2, 107–8, 111, 122, 172–3 amor-arma-mors progression  35–6, 93–4, 99, 107–8, 122–3, 126–8, 130–1, 138–9, 141–2, 150–2, 164–5, 172–3 elegiac experimentation  2–4, 19–20, 51, 53–4, 59–60, 73–4, 101–2, 122, 141–2 and Gallan elegiac poetics  106–7, 119–20 generic heterogeneity in works of  1–2 use of alliteration  61–2, 88, 163–4, 166 use of intergeneric inversion  87–8 Vergil, Aeneid 8–9 A. 1  23, 26–7, 124–5 A. 4  26–7, 29–30, 32–4, 128–30 A. 6  26 A. 7  49–51, 122, 128, 132, 136–7, 149, 172–3, 181–2 A. 7–12  123, 157 A. 9  126 A. 10  6, 126–8 A. 11  132 A. 12  124–30, 132, 149 composition of  5, 90–1 intergeneric poetics of  2–4, 7–8, 23, 99, 101–2, 105, 138–9, 153–4 Vergil, Eclogues  1, 5 E. 2  2–3, 9–11, 16–19, 106–7, 115–16, 172–3 E. 6  8–9, 11–13, 15–16, 72–3, 81, 120, 172–3 E. 10  4–5, 8–9, 11, 13–19, 38–9, 70–1, 74–6, 103–4, 106–7, 118–19, 138–40, 155–6, 166–7, 170, 172–3 and elegiac poetics  13–15, 72–3, 106–7, 172–3

220  General Index Vergil, Eclogues (cont.) as models  7–8 Theocritean influences  1, 8–9, 13–14 Vergil, Georgics  1, 5, 8–9 and elegiac poetics  2–3, 172–3 G. 1  138 G. 4  2–3 Violentilla (bride of Stella)  175–8 Virbius, son of Hippolytus/Virbius (Verg. A. 7)  100–3, 110–11, 122 Vulcan seduced by Venus  83–4, 89–95, 147–8, 176–7

speech to Venus  95–6 See also Hephaestus wandering imagery  12–13, 32–3, 64–5, 75–6, 120 See also errans amator white*  50–1, 90–1, 120–1, 176–7 See also stained-ivory simile Yunis, Harvey  42 Zeus  41, 85–6, 93–4 See also Jupiter