Language in Vergil's Eclogues (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte - Volume 60)

(see on

translates a Callimachean expression literally, alluding at the same time to the 390 M. Grondona. 'Gli epigrammi di Tibullo e il eongedo delle elegie (su Properzio e Virgilio)' Latomus 36 (1977). 29; ef. also Tib. 1 .5.60; [Tib.] 3.6.4; Qv. rem. 260. 462. 391 Conte 1986. 124 n. 27 for more arguments in favour of a Gallan influence here.

5. Callimachus, Euphorion, Parthenius, Gallus

109

different (i.e. sepulchral) context of the Callimachean passage (see on condere soles ' "f)..l.OV 1Ca'taouro at 9.51). He may render a Callimachean metapoetic . sense (see on tenuis avena I Moooa AEIt'taAEt, at 1 .2, tenuis harundo I term In M oii't'tt , 1tCtXt
393

�

I restrict myself here to the linguistic influence of CP!lima�hus. Cup u?lo 1969, 93 pointed the second out another Callimachean trait in tenns of metre: VeIgd aVOids the comcldence of metrical or third metrical foot with a word, the sole exception being 2.53. On further 94. similarities and differences between the Eclogues and Callimachus ibid., . easily be rendered There arc other more unspecific passages in the Eclogues that could directly in Greek, see Norden 1927, 1 83.

H. Adaptations

1 10

Euphorion (through Gallus?) may have channelled certain themes from earlier authors to Vergil, including specific vocabulary, so a theme from Euripides (see on Phaethontiades [taken from Euripides?] at 6.62). (c) Parthenius. If Parthenius was, indeed, Vergil's grammaticus in Greek - as Macrobius asserted and there seems to be no reason to doubt394 - , the absence of any obvious reference to him in the Eclogues apart from the Parthenii saltus (see on 1 0.57) would be inexplicable, unless it is due to the almost entire loss of Parthenius' poetic work. Judging from what remained, Vergil's use of the adjective form Gryneus may go back to him (see on 6.72), possibly also the adjective Sithonius (see on 1 0 66) . It may be no coincidence that Parthenius' traces in the Eclogues are restricted to proper names: the only verifiably Parthenian line in Vergil recalls exactly this feature of the adaptation of proper names, georg. 1 .437: Glauco et Panopeae et Inoo Melicertae (rendering f).atl1(Cfl 1I::at Nt]pij.t 1I::a1 'IvcOq> M £A.l11:: ep't1J).395 This observation would well fit Parthenius' role as consultant in learned Greek matters during the actual composition of the Eclogues, as recently suggested.396 .

(d) Gal/us. Vergil apparently adapts notable Gallan words (see on formosus at 2. 1 ; labor at 10 . 1 ; cura [in the sense of arnica] at 1 0.22; Juror at 10.38; exclamatory a at 10.46-49; spelaea at 10.52; medicina at 10.60; see also fiscella at 10.71 [po 14], cantare [po 22]) or expressions (see on Daphnin I iudice te metuam at 2.26f. [possibly Theocritean]; omnia vincit amor at 10.69). Especially conspicuous is Vergil's adaptation of the Hamadryades from Gallus' poetry where they possibly had a metapoetic function (see on 10.62f.), the adaptation of Mt Parthenius, which is a simple toponym and a homage to Parthenius, Vergil's teacher and Gallus' friend, at the same time (see on 10.57), and, above all, Vergil's frequent use of the word amores in Eel. 10, presumably playing with the synonymous title of Gallus' collection of love elegies (see on 10.6). Finally, the importance of external beauty, expressed by the Vergilian key wordformosus, may possibly be influenced by Gallus (see pp. 9f.). In terms of syntax and style Vergil may imitate the Gallan repetition of words (see on the exclamatory particle a at 10.47-49, on the fourfold repetition at 3.56f. and elsewhere, and on amores at 1O.53f.), a peculiar word order (see on the postponed sine at 10.48) or a special kind of an inserted apposition (noun in the plural + apposition consisting of possessive pronoun and noun in the singular, see on 1 .57). Vergil may mark a reference to Gallus by putting a characteristic word at the same prominent position in the line (see on formosus at 2.1). GaIlus may mediate a Greek word (see on Sithonius at 10.66; plus, all expressions here which are attributed to Euphorion) or possibly a whole story: thus the Hylas topic which may ultimately go back to Apollonius (see on 394 Macr. Sat. 5.17. 1 8 with Francese 1999. 395 Macr. Sat. 5.17.18. 396 Francese 1999, 71.

6. Others

111

6.43f.), the topic of the Grynean Grove going back to Euphorion (see on 6.72f.) and the story of Acontius and Cydippe as originally recounted by Callimachus (see on 1 0.52-54). 6. Others Vergil apparently did not refer systematically to any author other than those discussed in the previous chapters. He was, of course, influenced by a countless number of other literary sources, not least Greek and Roman tragedy, comedy and Greek epigram. But where the models are preserved, the similarities lie rather in theme and structure, not language, and are thus excluded from this investigation. Some scattered evidence for linguistic influence of Hellenistic aIrl Roman sources other than those dealt with previously forms the topic of this chapter. a. Greek Homer Direct influence of Homer on the Eclogues is rarely traceable, no doubt due to the (un-Homeric) genre. Three linguistic parallels may be noted: • At 4.26f. Vergil speaks of the heroum laudes et f acta parentis I iam legere ... The expression seems to be influenced by ll. 9.524f. e1tw96p. e9a lC A. Ea av oprov f 'J\prorov. The combination of the plural of laudes, reflecting the plural of lC A. Ea,397 with a verb implying the acquisition of information (em:u96p.£9a f legere ) point to a Homeric link.398 • At 5.43 the text of Daphnis' epitaph is referred to as Daphnis ego in silvis, hinc usque ad sidera notus . . . The flfst part of the line is clearly Theocritean,399 the second seems to reflect a Homeric expression. At Od. 9.20 Odysseus boasts leat JlW 1CA.ro; oupavov t1C£l. 400 • On Bianor at 9.59f. and Il. 1 1 .92 see pp. 174f. Hesiod • At 1 .44f. Tityrus, who had gone to Rome, was instructed by the unnamed iuvenis of line 42: hie mihi responsum primus dedit ille petenti: I 'pascite ut ante hoves, pueri; summittite tauros. ' The questions of why Tityrus is addressed

397 398

Cf. Quintinsl. 1.10.10: laudes heroum ac deorum. . . Cartault 1897. 248. For the possible influence of the language of Hellemsbc aretaIogy see Clausen 1994. 136. 39 9 See p. 45. 400 Du Quesnay 1977. 22.

H. Adaptations

1 12

in the plural (pueri) here and what the meaning of primus is in this context have received different answers. HansliIc401 was the first to suggest that the plural and

the employment of primus may be explained by an imitation of Hes. Th. 24-26: 'Covoe Oe }le 1tpro'Cto-'Ca Seat 1tpOs }luSOV EEt1tOV / Moooat 'OA.t>}l1ttaO r..; 402 lwUpat Atoe; ai:ytoxow' / '1tOt}l�r..; u'Ypat>A.ot • Alpers403 argued that sponte sua at 4.45 translates Hesiod's au'Co}la'Cl] at ...•

'.

Op. 1 1 8 in the same position of the line and a similar context. • For Hes. Th. 22-34 having influenced 6.64-73 see p. 98.

Aratus • Twice in Eel. 3 Vergil refers to Aratus. At 3.40-42 Aratus' name is likely to be the solution of a Vergilian riddle (see p. 175). At 3 .60f. we read: ab love

principium, Musae: lovis omnia plena; / ille colit terras, illi mea carmina curae.

As already remarked by Servius ad loc., a similar wording is found at Arat. If.

b, Atoe; apxro}looSa 'Cov oME1tO'C' uvopr..; E6>}lev / UpPl]'tOv. }loo'Cat Oe AWe; 1tIio-at }lEv a'Ytltai . . . Three aspects were imitated by Vergil, (a) the phrase b, Awe; apxro}looSa which i s similarly found a t Theoc. 17. 1 (both based o n a common source or the one influencing the other?), (b) the motif of abundance (plena / }loo'Cai),404 (c) the aspect of universality (omnia / 1t ao-at) .40 5 • The phrase pura ... sub nocte at 9.43 is surprisingly close to Arat. 323 lmSapij E7tl (Q U1to) Vt)K'Ct. The Latin phrase may have been mediated by Cicero's Aratea.406

40 1 R. Hanslik, 'Nachlese zu Vergils EJdogen I und 9' WS 68 (1 955), 14-18, accepted by Fedeli 1972, 284 and others; contra e.g. La Penna 1962, 225 n. I; Du Quesnay 1983, 175 n. 627. 402 For thematic links between the Eclogues and Hesiod cf. La Penna 1962, 216-225 [on Eel. 4 and 6].

403 Alpers 1979, 1 85. 404 Cartault 1897, 141 ; Traina 1 986, 162. 405 1. Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, 'De Cicerone poetarum Graecorum interprete', in:

Atti del I congresso internazionale di studi ciceronialli II (Rome 1961), 172f. argued that Vergil was influenced here not so much by Aratus directly, but by Cic. Arat. fr. 1 [SoubiranJ. Given the absence of convincing verbal parallels between Cicero's Aratea and the Eclogues such an

assumption is un1ikely.

406 Wherever Aratus uses the Greek Ka9ap6c; to indicate the notion of clear sky. Cicero in his

translation is at pains to avoid the adjective PUTUS, as far as our evidence goes: Arat. 40 [Soubiran] (on the constellation of Helice) /:i),),.' it 11h> ICa9ap", Kat bUlppaaaaa9al hoil111 with Cic. Arat. 7.2 sed prior ilia magis mllis distincta rejulget, Arat. 469f. r!i KO"CE 'tOl VUKWc; Ka9apijc;, /h:e lIaV1:ac; uyaooix; J l«J-cEpac; av9plblwtc; bl6&tICyu"Cal oupavill NUl; and Cic. Arat. 33.245f. [SoubiranJ at si noctumo convise/l.f tempore caelum, J cum neque ca/igaru detergit sidera nubes. Arat. 383 has I:U.).: 01. !le., ICa9apoic; Evapll pO"C£C; eUiwMnal where Cicero leaves the whole passage untranslated (see Cic. Arat. 33.166f. with Soubiran's note [po 176 n. I]).

6, Others

1 13

Apollonius Rhodius • Silenus' song is introduced at 6.30-33: ... lsmarus Orphea. / Namque canebat uti magnum per inane coacta / semina terrorumque animaeque marisque fuissent / et liquidi simul ignis .. The similarity with Orpheus' song in Apoll. Rhod. 1 .496-498 has long been noticed:407 iletoev 0' � 'Yat:a lCat oup� .

';OE SaAaO'O'(x' / 'to 1tptv bc' aAA1\MtO't p.t'ij O'uvapllPo'ta JIOpcpfj. / VdlC£O� e� OAooio OtElCptSev ap.
in this passage of the Eclogues, the fact that Vergil clearly adapts the same passage of Apollonius at Aen. 1 .742-746 point to a direct adaptation. • On Apollonius as a possible model for the Hylas story at 6.43f. see pp. 96f. • At 10.31-33 Gallus laments: tristis at ille 'tamen cantabitis, Arcades: inquit / 'montibus haec vestris, soli cantare periti / Arcades ... Wills408 pointed out that even if the words were Gallan in character, the basic model may have been Apoll. Rhod. 4.263 5: o1ot 0' wav 'AplCao� 'A1ttoavfj �. / 'AplCao�, Ot lCat 1tpoO'Se O'M.llva{ll� uowv'tat / Sroetv,
..

Phanocles At 2. 1 -5 the wretchedness of Corydon, the unfortunate lover, is described. His lonely visits to the forests appear as follows (2.3f.): tantum inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos / adsidue veniebat. These lines seem to be influenced by Phanocles' description of Orpheus' longing for Calais (phanocles 1 .3f. [P.]): 1toAAalCt oE O'lCtepoiO' tv f.v iD.O'rotv El;E't' adOrov / ov n:690v.409 Apart from the general situation of a forlorn lover seeking isolation in his despair [in both cases homosexual relationships] parallel aspects are the shady trees (densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos / O'lCtepounv f.v aAtTrotv), the emphasis on the repeated visits by the imperfect of the verb and a temporal adverb (adsidue veniebat / 1tOAAalCt . . �E't'), and the enjambment.41O .

407 Slewart 1959, 1 86; Schrnidt 1 972, 27lf. (comparing also Theoc. 7.72-77). 408 Wills 1 996, 148f. 40 9 Cf. Papanghelis 1 995, 47f. These lines by Phanocles possibly influenced also Aen. 10.190f., see Hartison 1991, 1 1 9-121; Hollis 1992, 277.

4 1 0 For similarities between this Vergilian passage and Propertius see F. So\msen, 'Three Elegies

of Propertius' First Book' CPh 57 (1962), 73f Du Quesnay 1 979, 49-5 1 saw the so�rce �f 2. 1 5 in Theoc. 1 1.7- 1 8. But he cannot, as he admits, offer any verbal parallels and his pomts of .

comparison seem to me either far-fetched or trivial.

1 14

U. Adaptations Philetas (?)

At 1 .5 Meliboeus remarks to Tityrus: formosam resonare doces Amaryllida silvas. Leo41 1 had already pointed to the similar line in Longus' romance Daphnis 01Id Chloe, commonly dated to the 2nd century AD or, at least,

certainly post-Vergilian: t1t1jvo'Uv 't1!V 'HXID -cO 'A}lap'UA.A.iOo<; ovo}la }l£'t' £}l£ KaA.oiicrav (2.7.6). Later scholars added other similarities between the Eclogues and Daphnis and Chloe, not all of them equally convincing.41 2 One may explain these similarities in three ways: a. They are due to the similar setting and theme of the Eclogues and Daphnis and Chloe, in other words, coincidence. An argument in favour of this seems to me the fact that some Vergilian passages resemble two passages in Longus (see 5, 6, 7). It is, of course, possible that Longus adapted the same model twice, but it is at least equally possible that a similar theme imposed a similar terminology. The latter assumption is even more likely when similar passages can be provided from elsewhere.413 b. Vergil influenced Longus. This very natural explanation has been unduly ignored by those who wanted to construe a common model for Vergil and Longus (see c.). For example Bowie remarked: "That Longus used Vergil is hard to credit".414 Quite the opposite is true. The strongest argument for Longus' knowledge of Latin is his Latin name. Even if he was not a native speaker (or not a Latin speaker at all), his name clearly shows that he lived in a Roman­ oriented society. True, not every educated Greek native speaker knew Latin, but Plutarch and Lucian, both living in the 2nd century AD, did and so dii

4 1 1 F. Leo, 'Vergils erste und neunte Ekloge' Hermes 38 (1903), 3 n. 1. 41 2 Du Quesnay 1979, 60; Hunter 1983, 76-83; Bowie 1985, 80·82; Clausen

1994, 76; Fabre­ Serris 1 995, 128 and n. 42. I mention the most striking similarities as collected by these scholars: (1) The bucolic characters Daphnis, Tityrus, Chromis and Amaryllis appear in both Vergil and Longus. (2) 1 .1: sub tegmme fagi with Longus 2.5.3: npo-; 'role; �1J'Yoi-;. (3) 1. 1 1f.: undique tons I usque adeo turbatur agris with Longus 2.11.3: (perhaps Daphnis and Chloe would have continued their amorous adventure) cl Jlf! Q6pu�-; 1:Ot6aO£ naaav ';f! V u'Ypoudav EKeiv1Jv Ka,;£).alk. (4) 2.31 : mecum una in silvis imitabere Pana canendo with (a) Longus 2.37.1: 0 d�Vt<; nava EJltJlei1:O; (b) 3.23.4: (the limbs of Echo) JltJl£Oi'rot Kat amav wv auphwv,;a nava. (5) 2.32f.: Pan primum calamos cera coniungere pluris I instituit + 2.36f. est mihi disparibus septem compacta cicutis Ifistula with (a) Longus 2.35.2: (scil. aupt1'\'a) nv 0 nay nprowv £nill;a1:O; (b) 2.34.3: (Pan invented the syrinx when he) 1:Oix; KaAaJlO� EJl1tVei K1JPcP auvoilaa-; uviao�. (6) 2.37f.: fistula, Damoetas chno mihi quam dedit olim, I et dixit moriens: 'te nunc habet ista secundum' with (a) Longus 1.29.3: xapi1;;oJlat oe aot Kat "tftV aUpt1'\'a aU-r;,iv. � 2IOlloix; q,11;wv l(ai JWuK6A.o� EviK1Jaa Kat atn6M� ; (b) Longus 2.37.3: 0 �tA.1J"tci-; ••, "tijv a.upt1'\'a 1api�e,;at

413

414

�tA.ilaa-; Kat eI5x=t l(at M�vtV Ka"taAtneiv aiwqv OJloUp Ota&61.

Vergilian passages resembling two passages are parallels nos. (4), (5) and (6), BB mentioned in the previous footnote. In addition. the fagus motif (2) appears at TI!coc. 12.8 and Prop. 1.1 8.20, the echo-motif (4) is found at Lucr. 4.572-79 and Prop. 1.1 8.3lf., the motif of the shape of the pan-pipe (5) occurs at Tbeoc. 1.128f., 4.28. and [Theoc.J 8.18f. BB well as at Tib. 2.5.3lf. Bowie 1985. 8 1.

6. Others

1 15

others.415 Besides. Vergil was not any bucolic poetaster, but the Roman bucolic poet par excellence. received as such also in areas of strong Greek influence like southern Italy.416 Moreover, it must be strongly stressed that Vergil need not have reached Longus in Latin. Polybius, manumitted by the emperor Claudius, wrote a paraphrase of Vergil in Greek and Homer in Latin and others may have done so as well.417 Hence, one cannot a priori exclude the possibility that the Eclogues were accessible in some Greek fonn. c. Both Vergil and Longus go back to a common model. This model has been supposed by Bowie, Du Quesnay and others418 to be the Alexandrian poet Philetas (or better Philitas).41 9 The main argument is that the above-mentioned similarities occur in passages in Longus where an old cowherd figures whose name is Philetas. This argument cannot be refuted, as we do not have any substantial remains of Philetas' poetry.420 But is Philetas the most likely source? It is at least alarming that the four names of bucolic characters that link Vergil and Longus (Daphnis, Amaryllis, Tityrus, Chromis) are all found in Theocritus. Even more alarming is that Vergil makes Theocritus - and not Philetas - the founder of the tradition in which he places himself.42 1 As to Longus, it should be stressed that while his debt to Philetas may be still in doubt. his debt to Theocritus is not. To take just one example: at 2.7.7 Longus writes: "Epco'tO� yap O'Obev cpap�a1WV, oil 1ttVO�E:VOV, Ot)''' 009tO�E:Vov, Ot)," Ev q,OIl� Aw..o\>�E:VOV. This is unmistakably a paraphrase of Theoc. l 1 .lf. OUOEv 1tO't"tov epco'Cll 1tE'KEt cpapJiIl'Kov aAAo, / Nt'Ktll, om' EyXPtO''tOv, EJi\V 00'Kil, ou'C' E1ti1t1l0''Cov . 422 Some of the similarities mentioned above may thus be attributed to Theocritus' preserved (or unpreserved) works. After these considerations it should be clear that we have hardly proceeded much further from where Leo started a century ago: in my opinion all the above­ mentioned similarities could be easily explained either by a common theme or by Theocritus, with one exception: the echo motif in connection with the name Amaryllis and the wording at Longus 2.7.6 reflects 1 .5 so closely and is so unparallelled in Theocritus that we have to assume either a common source or a direct adaptation of Vergil by Longus. It should, however, be pointed out that even by rejecting a direct adaptation of Vergil by Longus one does not prove Philetas to be Vergil's or Longus' model. 4 1 5 For Greeks demonstrating a knowledge of Latin see the prosopography in Rochette 1997, 211-256, especially 239-241 [Plutarch] and 243f. [Lucian].

41 6 For quotations from Vergil in Pompeiian graffiti see Gigante 1979, 163-168. 417 For Polybius see Sen. diaL 1 1 .8.2, 1 1 .1 1 .5, for Vergil's impact on Greek literature Rochette 41 8 419 420

1997 , 269-279. Hunter 1983, 76f. rightly pointed out that an influence of Vergil on Longus cannot be ruled out a priori. Du Quesnay 1983, 39f.; Bowie 1985. . The exact form of the name is arguable, sce Bowie 1985, 72 n 27. Bowie 1985 68-80 and others have tried to trace back certain features of Theoc. 7 to PhiJetas, not�bly the character of Lycidas. Whatever the case may be, it cannot be proven that these features have any bearing either on Vergil or Longus.

42 1 See 6.lf. 42 2 For other such Theocritean adaptations in Daplmis and Chloe cf. Hunter 1983, 59-63.

11.

1 16

Adaptations

Anonymous Model • At 7.2-4 Thyrsis and Corydon, the two contestants in the singing competition, are described as compulerantque greges Corydon et Thyrsis in

unum, I Thyrsis ovis, Corydon distentas /acte capellas I ambo jlorentes aetatibus, Arcades ambo. It has been suggested by a wide range of scholars that Vergil is here translating the Greek phrase 'Ap"KaOFJ; &�
here. I am not wholly convinced that such an assumption is necessary.423 The Anthologia Graeca (6.96) has preserved a poem by Erycius (a poet "in his prime in the second half, perhaps the third quarter" of the 1 51 century BC)424 which begins as follows: fA.a{ncrov "Kat Ko pulirov oi Ev oUpBn �,\}"KOA.€ovtFJ;, I Ap"KaOFJ; alUllQ-tEpc)t . . Two features link this passage with 7.2-4: (a) a singing shepherd called Corydon and (b) the phrase Ap"KaOFJ; a�
.

'

423 Jenkyns 1989, 33f. pointed out that the foonation

424 42 5 426 427

Arcades is basically Greek. He also observed that the ending of the nom. plur. of Arcades is scanned in the Greek manner, i.e. short. He concluded that there was a Greek model involved. What Jenkyns did not mention, is that Arcas is the nonnal word for 'Arcadian' in the Eclogues (4 times) and the rest of Vergil (18 times) and that the nom. I ace. plural of this word is always scanned in Greek manner, i.e. with short ending (18 times). Gow I Page, Garland /1, 279. U. v. Wilarnowitz-M611endorf, Die Textgeschichte der griechischen BuJcoliker (Berlin 1906), I I I n. 1, cf. also Hunter 1983, 76f. R. Reitzenstein, Epigramm wrd SkDlion (Gie6en 1893), 132 n. 2 with Jenkyns 1989, 33 n. 29 and cf. here p. 1 15. R. Reitzenstein, RE 6 (1909), s.v. Erykios, 565.

6. Others

1 17

(E'OOtJ.L� + infinitive), but cantare pares seems to a clear Grecism 42 8 otherwise uncommon in Latin, which might suggest that also 7.3 is also en from our supposed Greek model. Again, of course, this is a hypothesis. One may ask what such a common model would look like. With some c�mfidence one could argue that it would contain a singing shepherd Corydon (I.e. a Theocritean figure), a verse with 'Ap1CaO� &J.L
be

tak

b. Latin Though Vergil avails himself of many expressions found in earlier Latin authors other than those dealt with in the preceding chapters (notably the comic poets), these expressions are hardly ever specific enough to be classified as adaptations. I mention some exceptions:

Naevius At 3.49 Menalcas challenges Damoetas to a singing competition threatening

him:

numquam hodie effugies; veniam quocumque vocaris. The expression numquam hodie effugies was found thus in Naev. trag. 1 3 [R.3]): numquam hodie effugies quin mea moriaris manu. Vergil here combines a colloquial with a comic element: the phrase numquam hodie is colloquial, as is demonstrated by

the numerous occurrences of it in comedy,429 The dramatic colour and the le arnedness of Vergil's source in the mouth of a shepherd are comic elements.4 3o

It should be pointed out that while Vergil adapts the first part of Naevius' line literally, he also reflects the second part by repeating the sound of moriaris in

vocaris.

Ennius •

•

quae

On tegmen at 1.2 see pp. 17f. At 4.34f. Vergil announces the Golden Age: alter erit tum Tiphys et altera vehat Argo I delectos heroas. Clearly a close parallel is afforded by Enn.

428 Hofrnann I Szantyr 35Of.; the construction is perhaps analogous with bJ1oio� + infinitive (see 2 LSJM s.v. B 4). 4 9 1TL s.v. hodie 2851.14.36; Hofmann 1951, 41f., 81; Wigodsky 1972, 35; R. 1. Tarrant, Seneca. Agamemn on (Cambridge 1976), 354f.; Han�ley 198�, 168 n. 9. 43 0 Pace Cartault 1 897, 146 who denies a connection With Naevlus and argues for COinCidence. On the transfonnation from one metre into another (as would have to be presupposed here) see R. Kassel. 'Dichterspiele' ZPE 42 (1981), 11-20 id K/eine Schrijten (Berlin 1991). 121· .

=

130; Handley 1988. 168·170.

.•

.

11. Adaptations

1 18

trag. 212f. [J.] : Argo, quia Argivi in ea deleeti viri I veeti . . , (see especially vehat Argo deleetos heroas I Argivi ... deleeti viri ... veeti).43 1 • The Vergilian expression terrasque tractusque maris eaelumque profundum at 4.5 1 similarly appears at Lucr. 5.417 terram et eaelum pontique profunda.

The common model of both passages seems to be Ennius, because, on the one hand, the same tricolon appears in Ennius (ann. 556 [Sk.] omnia per sonitus areet, terram mare eaelum),432 and, on the other, the Vergilian expression

eaelum profundum finds its (only) precedent in Ennius' eaelus profundus (ann.

559 [Sk.]).433 • At 7.65f. Vergil singles out the beauty of certain trees within a priamel. The passage seems to be directly influenced by Enn. ann. 177-179 [Sk.], where the cutting of trees is described.

Fraxinus in silvis pulcherrima, pinus in hortis, populus in fluviis, abies in montibus altis (7.6Sf.) Fraxinus frangitur atque abies constemitur alta, pinus proceras pervortunt: omne sonabat arbustum etc. (Enn. ann. 177-179 [Sk.]) Ennius' lines are referred to by Macrobius at Sat. 6.2.27 as a model of Aen. 6.179- 182 (the felling of trees to prepare for the cremation of Misenus), ani they may also have influenced Aen. 1 1 . 1 35-8 (the felling of timber for the

cremation of the slain Troians and Italians). Ennius was obviously influenced by Homer's description of the cutting of trees for Patroclus' pyre at Il. 23. 1 17-120. But though all these passages repeat a similar theme in a similar context,434 in linguistic detail no passage is so close to Ennius as the two lines of the Eclogues. Points of comparison between these lines and Ennius are: ( 1 ) Wording. The trees fraxinus, abies and pinus are singled out (Vergil adding the populus). This is the only Vergilian passage where the three Ennian trees are found together. No preserved author before Vergil combined them in this way (Lucretius does not even have one of them, Catullus only pinus). 'The distribution of fraxinus in Vergil and authors before him is especially noteworthy: out of four references in Vergil three (7.65, 68; Aen. 1 1 . 1 36) may claim an Ennian origin due to the context in which they are found (the exception is georg. 2.66). Furthermore, the abies (== u.6;'Ct'I) was apparently regarded as an 43 1 Similarly Catull. 64.4 (cum kcti iuvenes, Argivae robora pubu) may be influenced by Ennius,

but Vergil certainly referred to Ennius directly, because his wording is closer to Ennius than to Catullus. 43 2 Slrutsch 1985, 7fYl. with more references. 433 Pace Ramorino 1986, 3 16f. who regards the Vergilian line as Lucretian (disregarding the Ennian precedent). TIle expression caelum proftmdum may ultimately go back to a Greek model such as l}ae� «ie"p (Bacchylides 3.85f. [Sn.]), cf. Trains 1986, 215-217. The whole phrase (slightly modified to c�lum, mare, terra) is explicitly said to be poetic by Cic. fin. 5.9 . 434 Cr. also the felling of trees at Varto Men. 389-392 [context unknownJ.

6. Others

1 19

unbuco�ic tree, occurring nowhere in any Greek bucolic poet (though attested as a plant In Greece). Accordingly, in the Eclogues it is absent with the exception of our passage. Finally, Vergil's abies in montibus altis is suspiciously close to Ennius' abies constemitur alta. Apart from the similar wording both lines are metrically identicaL One could add that the Ennian line-end omne sonabat (line 178) may have directly or indirectly influenced a similar expression at 6. 44

'Hyla, Hyla' omne sonaret.

(2) Metrical position. Mynors435 noticed that in Vergil jraxinus is always found at the beginning of the line, abies always after the caesura This position is no poetic convention: Ovid, for example, has jraxinus occasionally within the line and abies always before the caesura.436 However, both Vergil and Ovid agree in that their favourite position of jraxinus is the first foot, thus reflecting Ennius' placing of the word in the passage above. In short, though 'chain comparisons' (priamels) as at 7.65f. are frequent in Theocritus,437 the language of our priamel here draws directly and extensively on Enn. ann. 177-179. Laevius (?) In a longer passage preserved under the name of Livius (Andronicus), but conventionally attributed to Laevius,438 the text runs (Laevius fr. 32. 1 [FPL]): et iam purpureo suras include cothurno .... This line is apparently reflected by Vergil at 7.32: puniceo stab is suras evincta cotumo. Apart from the wording both the metre (hexameter) and the context (Diana as hunting deity) coincide. It is worth pointing out that Vergil amplified the poetic colour of Laevius' line by replacing the stylistically unspecific verb includere by the poetic evincire (inclusa would have been equally possible in Vergil's context).439 L. Varius Rufus At 9.35f. Vergil points out that his poetry does not yet match that of Vari�s . and Cinna. By this he refers to Varius' poem De Morte presumably wntten In the second half of the forties.44o The following fragment from De Morte (Varius carm. fr. 4 [FPL]) is particularly important for a comparison with the Eclogues: 435 Mynors 1990, 108. 43 6 Porfraxinus not at the beginning of a line see Ov. after the caesura but before ibid. 10.94, epist. 5.41.

IMt.

. 7.677, 10.93, 12.122; for ab,es not

43 7 See p. 43. 43 8 Courtney 1993, 128-130. . . 439 Vergil is the first poet to use the verb. Outside poeuy the word is fOWld only In CasSIUS s.v' TLL cf. Hemina (fr. 37 [Peter]) and later in Tacitus and Gellius, . . by A. 440 A. Rostagni, '11 De MotU di L. Vario Rufo' RFIC 37 (1959), 380-83 (slightly modified

S. Hollis, 1... Varius Rufus. De Morte (FRS. 1-4 Morel)' CQ n.s. 27 (1977), 187-190) dates 39 (date of the Varius' De Morte between 43 (charges against Antony in fr. I and 2) and

120

5

H. Adaptations ceu canis wnbrosam lustrans Gortynia vallem, si veteris potuit eervae deprendere lustra, saevit in absentem et cirewn vestigia lustrans aethera per nitidwn tenues seetatur odores; non amnes' Warn medii, non ardua tardant, perdita nee serae meminit deeedere noeti.

Thematically, this passage resembles Eel. 8.85-89 which is mainly (but not exclusively, as I will now show) modelled on Lucretius 2.355-366 (see pp. 76f.). In terms of diction the passage frequently resembles Vergilian wording. Umbrosam vallem (line 1) reappears at georg. 3.331 with vallem at the same verse position.441 Striking is the (otherwise unique) parallelism of saevit in absentem (line 3) with Aen. 9.63 saevit in absentes. Varius offers ardua for 'steep mountain slopes' as often in Vergil (georg. 3.3 15), but never in Ennius, Lucretius or Catullus.442 The rhythm and part of the wording of tenues sectatur odores (line 4) reappear at 2.55 suavis miscetis odores.443 Moreover, in line 5 Varius employs a pattern of verse structure which Vergil himself was very fond of in contrast to earlier dactylic poets, i.e. a full sentence divided into two cola with the first colon starting with non, which is taken up by a second non after the hephthernimeral caesura, e.g. 4.40 non rastros patietur humus, non vinea falcem.444 Remarkable is the phrase vestigia lustrans (line 3), repeated exactly at 2. 12.445 Finally, and most strikingly, line 6 of Varius reappears word for word at 8.88.446 publication of the Eclogues). He convincingly argues that it was written under the influence of Lucretius, who never developed death as a topic in its own right in De Rerum Natura (Ioc. cit. 384), cf. also M. Gigante, Philodemus in Italy. The Booksfrom Herculaneum (Ann Arbor 1995), 44f. 441 The acc. sing. vallem appears only here in Vergil at line-end. The phrase umbrosa vallis, natural though it seems, is not attested before Varius. 442 11L s.v. arduus 493.52-54. The word in this sense never occurs in Lucretius (it is used metaphorically in the only instance in Lucretius, Lucr. 1.659). It is attested neither in Ennius nor in Catullus. 443 Catull. 64.284: iucundo risit odore. 444 Cf. also georg. 2.200 non liquidi gregibus tomes, non gramina deerum al. This non-non pattern of a sense unit in one line is not attested in Eonius, Lucretius or Catullus, but see Prop. 2. 1 . 1 9 non ego Titanas canerem, non Ossan Olympo. For the emphatic initial non see Catull. 23.9f. non incendia, non graves ruinlls, ! non/acta impia, non dolos veneni with A. GuiIIemin, 'L'evolution d'un cliche p06tique' REL 19 (1941), 101-1 12. 445 Courtney 1993, 274 (followed by FPL) argued for the emendation latrans on the grounds that after the wordplay lustrans (line 1) - lustra (line 2) a further lustrans would be stylistically tasteless, and he may well be right. Two reasons could be put forward to support such an assimilation: either the foregoing forms lustrans ! lustra caused a scribe to change latrans to lustrans, or he remembered the Vergilian vestigia lustrans, cf. Slrutsch 1985, 3 1 , 41 for such assimilations. The latter alternative shows the closeness of both phrases and makes it quite plausible that Vergil, even if he found vestigia latrans in Varius, consciously changed it more in sense than in tone (if not Varius is the imitator here). 446 Following Cartault 1 897. 323 and others I cannot convince myself that the unanimous reading of the manuscripts perdita is corrupt, pace Cova 1989, 75f. and HolIis 1996, 25-27 (who wants to change perdita into scrupea ['composed of sharp rocks']); for the different meaning of perdila in Vergil and Varius see H. Dahlmann, 'Zu Fragmenten rllmischer Dichter',

6. Others

121

A;

lthough Macro�ius quotes this fragment of De Morte t o show how Vergil was mfluenced by his predecessor, the chronological relationship between the Ecl�gues an Varius' De Morte is far from clear. An intimate friend of VergiJ, Vanus certamly knew the Eclogues at every stage of their existence and hence might himself have imitated certain phrases of the Eclogues in De Morte well before their final pUblication. Nevertheless, it is rightly assumed that Varius lm finished De Morte when Vergil wrote Ecl. 9.35 nam neque adhuc Vario videor ne.c dicere Cinna I digna. For how could Vergil mention Varius along with Cmna, the famous neoteric, if the former had not finished at least one major work? It is most likely that this work was De Morte.447

�

Licinius Calvus • At 6.47 Silenus sings: a, virgo infelix, quae te dementia cepit. Five lines later (6.52) Silenus almost repeats himself: a, virgo infelix, tu nunc in montibus erras. DServ. informs us that the first part of the two Vergilian lines are adaptations from Calvus' a, virgo infelix, herbis pasceris amaris (= carm. fr. 9 [FPL]).448 Apart from the first three words Vergil copies Calvus' one-line pattern. Though Vergil could have adapted the whole Calvan line at 6.47 and 52 (the context of both Vergil's and Calvus' passages is very similiar), at 6.47 he substituted the second part by a reference to 2.69 and ultimately to Theocritus.449 It is thus reasonable to assume that he applied the same technique to 6.52: hardly coincidentally, a parallel to the second part of 6.52 is found again in Ecl. 2, at line 21 ... errant in montibus agnae. Not only do these words reflect almost literally Silenus' words tu nunc in montibus erras, both referring to livestock (though a cow in the one case and sheep in the other), but 2.21 (like 2.69) is also based on a Theocritean passage.450 Why then did Vergil at 6.47 and 52 refer to both Calvus and Theocritus at the same time? Perhaps he

Akademie der Wissenschaften und der literarur. Mainz. Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1 982), no. 1 1 , 3 1 n. 46. Similarly, Vergil took up a whole line from Varro Atacinus (fr. 22.4 [FPL]) at georg. 1.377, see, however, Wills 1998, 286 n. 18. For Vergil taking up whole lines cf. also Knecht 1963, 504-506 [sceptical].

447 The chronology of Varius' works is based on weak grounds. Porph. ad Hor. carm. 1 .6.1 states fu it autem L Varius et epici (ipse coli) carminis et tragoediarum et elegiorum auctor, Vergilii contubernalis. That there was only one epic poem (as Porphyrio himself remarks), i.e. De Morte, i s convincingly shown b y Wimmel 1 983, 1 577-1 583 (followed by Cova 1989, 85-89; contradicted by HoUis 1996, 2If.). Only one tragedy by Varius is known

to

us, the f�ous m 29 BC (cf. Winunel 1983, 1 603f.). For other tragedies and elegies Porphyrio is the only source which _ given this surprisingly scanty evidence -: are unlikely to . have existed at. all (cf. . Wimme1 1983, 1568f.). Apart from this a Panegync to Aug�tus IS likely to have eXisted, cf. 1 2 �). 996, Wimme1 1983, 1 605-1613 (sceptical Cova 1989, 82-84; Hollis . Ovid took up the second half of the line at met. 1 .632: (of 10) frondibus arborels et amura pascitur herba, on this adaptation see B. Otis, Ovid as an Epic Poet (Cambridge 1 966), 354356. See pp . 36f. and Stewart 1959, 190; Wills 1998, 286. See pp. 33f.

Thyestes. If a note preserved in two manuscripts is right, the Thyestes was performed

448 449 45 0

1 22

11. Adaptations

regarded the Calvan phrase herbis pasceris amaris as itself an adaptation of Theocritus: [Theoc.] 9.4 may have given a possible model for Calvus in Vergil's eyes (again on cattle): lOt J.lEv a.J.lCf !3OOlCOWro Kat tv fPv.uoun nlt.avq) V't"O. 45 1

• At 8.2 a young cow is described as stunned by the appearance of the two shepherd singers, immemor herbarum. The application of immemor to animals is taken up by Vergil at georg. 3.498 (equus) immemor herbae and Hor. carm. 1 . 1 5.30 (cervus) graminis immemor, this being the fIrst evidence for such a use of immemor.452 Nisbet / Hubbard453 regard Calvus' 10 as a possible source for Horace's phrase, unless Horace was directly influenced by Vergil. • At 8.4 Vergil uses the verb requiescere in a possibly transitive sense: et mutata suos requieruntflumina cursus. DServ.454 refers to a similiar use of the verb in Calvus' 10: sol quoque perpetuos meminit requiescere curs us. The transitive use of an inchoative verb is attested already in Lucretius455 and it becomes frequent in later Latin.456 But in the 1 SI century BC it seems to be restricted to poetic diction and is used predominantly, if not exclusively, with compounds of -suescere.457 Hence one might prefer to refer suos cursus to

mutata. This construction, with an accusative referring to a past participle of an originally medial force, is not infrequent in the &logues.458 • On formosus as a possible Calvan key term see pp. 8_ 10.459 Cinna Cinna is conspicuous by his absence in the Eclogues. Though he is mentioned with high praise at 9.35, nothing can be ascribed to him with certainty. However, we have to assume that like Varius, who appears together with Cinna at 9.35 and is known to be a model of at least one longer passage i n the Eclogues (see pp. 1 19-12 1), Vergil will have paid tribute to him somehow. The almost complete loss of Cinna's poetry is very likely the reason for the distorted picture. 45 1 For a different interpretation cf. R. F. Thomas, 'Theocritus, Calvus and Eclogue 6' CPh 74 (1979), 337-339. Both CaIvan quotations frame lines 6.48-51 . Jt is natural to Jook for some

CaIvan elements within these lines, too, though, of course, such elements remain speculative: thus, the words turpis and pecudum are remarkable (line 49). Turpis appears nowhere else in the Eclogues and its meaning is hardly congenial with the general concept of external beauty in the bucolic world, whilst pecudes is here applied to cattle for the first and last time in Augustan poetry (see pp. 151£.). Con cubitus is found only here in the &logues, but this may mther be coincidence. 452 1ZL s.v. 448.48-55. 453 Nisbet I Hubbard 1 970, 199f. 454 DServ. ad loc. 455 E.g. Luer. 4.1282; 6.397 with Munro 1 873, 566f. 456 Uifstedt I, 239f. 457 Munro 1 873. 566f.; Ulfstedt I, 239f. [with bibliography]. 458 See above p. 93 n. 309. 459 For influence of Calvus on the later Vergil cf. Wigodsky J 972, 102.

7. Conclusions

123

In short, minor adaptations of Greek and Latin authors are scattered over the Ecl?�ue� wit�o�t any apparent structural function or predilection in terms of

p OSItIOnIng wIthin a poem. Notably, their appearance is not perceptibly stronger In Ecl. 6 than elsewhere, which is a strong argument against the old theory that the latter poem represents a catalogue of different stories taken from different sources (though, of course, one has to take into account the scarcity of our comparative material). Vergil's minor Greek models are predominantly Hellenistic, clearly for generic reasons. Linguistic references to archaic Greek poets like Homer aJXl Hesiod are exceptional. References to Hellenistic poets like Apollonius, Phanocles and possibly Philetas may be intended to display erudition and to reinforce the general Greek colour as provided by the Theocritean adaptations. It should, however, be stressed that the references to these models are far from frequent or even striking and it would perhaps be just to call most of them reminiscences rather than allusions. Though Vergil's Greek models are preserved only scantily, one may, I believe, assume that deliberate references were made only to a very restricted canon of Greek authors, i.e. (apart from Theocritus) Callimachus, Euphorion (via Gallus?), Parthenius and possibly Philetas. Comparatively more palpable is the presence of minor Latin models in the literal quotation of a full line from Varius and a double quotation of a Calvan half-line. It should be stressed that in both cases the quotations apparently evoke the context of their respective models. Vergil thus anticipates here a technique found similarly in the Aeneid, whereby a "Leitzitat" points the reader to a typical Homeric scene, which is adapted - less characteristically - also in structure and theme and would remain unnoticed without the "Leitzitat".46o If this also applies to quotations of Varius and Calvus in the Eclogues, one may assume a similar procedure in the case of the literal quotation of Naevius at 3.49, though the context of Naevius' fragment is unknown.

7. Conclusions If we summarize Vergil's technique of linguistic adaptations in the Eclogues, we find three reference patterns. Vergil can adapt with � ome ge�eric or (a) no specific passage, but rather a specific w . conceptual connotations (e.g. 1 . 1 sub tegmine [Lucretius ' EnDIus - Latin ep�c], . . 1.2 tenui [Callimachus 'subtlety']). He may InstrumentalIze such an adaptation or his, own purposes and thus make a rather cru:ual term in his �odel a key te� . In the Eclogues (e.g. 1 .2 Musa silvestris, 1 .5 sJivae both mspIred by Lucretius [see pp. 66f.] :jormosus inspired by Calvus or Gallus [see pp' 8-10]). . (b) one specific passage in a model. He may do so y. usmg only one word or a short expression that evokes the context of the ongmal (e.g. 3.63, 1 06f. hyacinthus [Euphorion] ) or by adapting a whole passage (e.g. 2.19-22 [Theocritus], 8.85-89 [Lucretius]).

o:ct

�

_

,

�

460 Knauer 1964.

335 with p. 60 in this book.

124

n. Adaptations

(c) numerous passages from the same or various models at the same time. I give some examples: at 2.23f. Vergil adapts two un-Theocritean lines (Euphorion?) to amplify a Theocritean line (see pp. 91f.); at 2.26f. Vergil refers to a Gallan phrase within a Theocritean adaptation (see pp. 34f., 92f.); at 3.60 Vergil conflates the beginning of a (non-bucolic) Theocritean Idyll with the beginning of Aratus' Phaenomena (see pp. 41, 112); at 3.64-67 Vergil conflates three Theocritean passages (see p. 42); at 7.2-4 Theocritus and an anonymous model may have inspired the scene (see pp. 47, 1 16f.); at 8.52f. Vergil reflects both a Lucretian and a Theocritean adynaton at the same time (see p. 76); at 8.85-89 Vergil appears to be influenced by Varius and Lucretius simultaneously (see pp. 76f., 119-121). The technique of conflating two or more models in one passage is a trait typical of Vergil's adaptations also in his later works.461 Vergil's main characteristic in adapting the language of his model is his ability to leave the model's wording recognizable and simultaneously to reshape it, where it contravenes Vergilian word usage or leaves room for stylistic improvement. In so far as Vergil's modifications aim not only at adjusting the adapted passage to the new content but at improving on the underlying model in terms of sophistication (rhetorical structure, sound, etymology etc.), one may speak: more precisely of an 'integration by stylization'. Vergil's main characteristics in adapting the content of his model are amplification and clarification. It should be pointed out that amplification is almost exclusively apparent in Theocritean adaptations, for it is Theocritus whom Vergil self-admittedly imitates (i.e. - in Roman terms - tries to improve upon). The different ways in which Vergil attempts to amplify Theocritus are discussed above in detail (see p. 62f.). Vergil clarifies his model, wherever it is extremely obscure or simply careless in terms of content. A good example is 1.59f., where Vergil adapts a Lucretian adynaton but omits the obscure Lucretian phrase non aequore in alto I nubes esse queunt (see pp. 69f.). Given that Vergil adapted a wide range of different Greek and Latin models in the Eclogues, his linguistic consistency as a whole is remarkable. This consistency may be explained on the one hand by the fact that his language in the Eclogues follows relatively fixed principles, regardless of content or underlying model (e.g. avoidance of diminutives [see pp. 11- 16], of obscure technical terms [see pp. 168f.], of vulgar or highly poetic expressions [see pp. 128, 144] etc.). An impression of consistency is also evoked by a number of key words like jagus, silvae, formosus and others. Although most of them are inspired by a specific source (jagus by Theocritus [po 31], silvae by Lucretius [pp. 66f.], jormosus by Calvus or Gallus [pp. 8-10]), it is Vergil who renders them into distinctly bucolic key terms in the Eclogues. By referring to them and Ennius] at georg. 2.505f.; ibid. 18f. for a conflation of a Latin and a Greek passage [Varro Atacinus and Homer] at georg. 1.383f.: Thomas I, 9 1 for a conflation of two Greek passages [Homer and Callirnachus] at georg. 1 .138 al.

461 Pasquali 1951, 17 for a conflation of two Latin passages [Varius

7. Conclusions

125

frequ�nt1� eve? within an adaptation, the line between an adapted and a Vergilian wordIng IS delIberately blurred. As the most striking example one may compare 5 .43 f. with Theoc. 1 . 120f.: Daphnis ego in silvis, hinc usque ad sidera notus formosi pecoris custos, formosior ipse. (S.43f.) MqlV� EYroV ooe 'tijvoc; 0 't� [}6� cboe VOJl.eUcov. MtqlV� 0 Wc; 'ta,,� Ka1. 1t6pnoc; 6>oe 1tO'tto-fuov.

(Theoc. 1 . 1 20f.)

It becomes immediately apparent that the Vergilian key terms silvis . . . / formosi ... formosior are all Vergilian additions to the Theocritean original. H�nce, though these lines are basically Theocritean, they also look Vergilian,

beIng marked by typically Vergilian key terms. A similar case is 3.70f. am Theoc. 3 . l Df. : Quod potui, puero silvestri ex arbore lecta aurea mala decem misi; cras altera mittam. (3.70f.) TJvioe 'tOt o£Ka Jl.aMx Jl.' h: EA.£\\ Ka9eA.eiv W' Kat wpwv lJ).')...a 'tOt OtO"ID.

(Theoc. 3.10f.)

Again Vergil adds silvestri ex arbore, which is not found in Theocritus, in order to make the Theocritean adaptation look more like a Vergilian phrase (cf. Vergil's key word silvae). Finally, one may compare 2.3f. with Phanoc1es fr. 1 .3f. [P.]:

tantum inter densas, umbrosa cacumina, fagos adsidue veniebat. (2.3f.) nO��aKl. o£ O"Kl.epoiO"l.V £V /XAO"EO"l.V Bv n690v

£/;£'t'

aei&.>v

(Phanocles fr. 1.3f. [P.])

Vergil translates ev aA.aeaw by inter ... fagos, thus adding the key term fagus (see 1 . 1 sub tegmine fagi al.). The result is a Vergilian colouring. Vergil

himself underlines at the most notable position of his collection what his major . models are. He thus defines his own position within the poetic tradition: at 1 1 tegmine he adapts the Theocritean name Tityrus, and the Lucretian phrase sub fagi. At 1 .2 he alludes both to Callimachus (tenuis avena) and to Lucretius (silvestris Musa). At 1.5 again he adapts Lucretius (silvas). Similarly, 6.1 alludes to Theocritus (prima Syracosio dignata e�t ludere versu), .6.2 and 6.8 �o Lucretius (silvas / agrestis Musa) and the whole mtroductory section of 6. 1- IS modelled on the prologue of Callimachus' Aetia. In �ho�, Theocntus, Callimachus and Lucretius are strikingly present at the begmmng of the two halves of the Eclogues. They are the key models through which Vergil defines

?

126

H. Adaptations

his own work: he represents himself as writing Lucretian, Le. non-epic, Latin hexameter poetry with Callimachean subtlety on a Theocritean topic. It is remarkable that all linguistic models identified in this study are also found in the later Vergil. However, there is a notable shift of emphasis. Thus, Hesiod and Lucretius become the major models in the Georgics, Homer and Ennius in the Aeneid. On the other hand, Theocritus appears in Vergil's later works on a par with other Hellenistic poets, referred to already in the Eclogues, such as Callimachus, Euphorion, Parthenius and Phanoc1es. Catullus remains present in Vergil's later work. Only Gallus disappears, especially if we believe that the laudes Galli at the end of the Georgics belong to the realm of fiction. Of course, the shift of emphasis in the later Vergil is mainly due to the different genres of the Georgics and the Aeneid. But it is also a shift of sophistication, i.e. from more sophisticated models to more simple ones in terms of language: if one was to evaluate Vergil's models in terms of linguistic sophistication, one would presumably start with Lucretius I Callimachus I Theocritus (Eclogues), then Lucretius I Hesiod (Georgics) and finally Ennius I Homer (Aeneid). The decreasing sophistication of Vergil's major models in terms of language may well be reflected - amongst others - in an increasing admission of what Axelson called 'unpoetic' terms.462

46 2 Axelson 1 945. 144.

rn.

Stylistic Level

1.

Introduction

earlier

Naturally, the Eclogues share many particular words and phrases with or contemporary authors. Where specific sources of these words or phrases are recognizable or at least likely to have existed (though the models may have been lost), I have dealt with them above in section n.

Still, a large number of characteristic phrases and words in the Eclogues is unlikely ever to have been associated with a specific author, and even where Vergil adapts one or more clearly identifiable models, his choice of words is restricted rather than predetermined by the latter. Thus the question arises of how far phrases and words in the Eclogues carry connotations that go beyond references to specific models, in other words, the question of stylistic connotations .! In the following section I shall investigate the stylistic connotations of words in the Eclogues by dividing the material into four different (but, of course, not mutually exclusive) categories: poeticisms, colloquialisms am prosaisms, synonyms and technical terms. I categorize the language from the viewpoint of function, not history. For example, I call cuium at 3.1 a colloquialism, because I believe that Vergil here wanted to picture spoken rustic language; still, from the historical viewpoint the form was an archaism in Vergil's day .2 Since the stylistic connotations of a word are often inextricably tied up with syntactical and morphological features, I will pay more attention to syntax am morphology in this section than in the rest of this book.

2. Poeticisms Vergil follows normal poetic practice in his avoidance of

ita in favour of sic

(10 times) and in shunning such stock prosaic words as etsi, haud, interesse,

cena / cenare and many others, as pointed out in detail by Axelson.3 On the 1

Cf. Lyne 1989, 1-19; Horsfal1 1995, 219-222.

the gene�al 2 See p. 136 and Marouzeau 1970, 170 [on the ambivalence of 3.1]; 184-186 [on problem of vulgar-rustic I archaic language]. The illicit use of an archaism for a colloqwal expression seems also to be the point of Numitorius' criticism ?f 3.1, quoted on p. �8 n. . 52. For the interrelation of archaisms and rustic language cf. Cic. de oral. 3.42; Qumt. /lIS1. 3 1 1 .3.10. Axelson 1945, especially 120-122 [ita I sic], 88 [dS/1, 9IC. [!laud, with Hofmann

passim,

1 951 , 79], 99f. [in/uelle], 107 [cellO] .

128

Ill.

Stylistic Level

other end of the poetic scale Vergil avoids many words common in the stately heroic style of the Aeneid, for example particles such as ceu, pone (,behind'), ilicet, ast etc., nouns such as caelicola (for deus), longaevus etc. and archaisms such as oUe, gen. sing. of the ftrst declension in -ai etc.4 An interesting case is the avoidance of navis in the Eclogues: words for ship in the Aeneid include the latter (46 times), which, however, is replaced in the Eclogues by the metonymic ratis (4.32, 6.76) and nautica pinus (4.38).5 Ships are not part of the bucolic world and thus it does not come as a surprise that the notion of 'ship' is found only in the unbucolic Eclogues 4 and 6. Moreover, in these Eclogues the straightforward appearance of ships would contravene the otherwise elevated, mystic tone of these Eclogues. In the case of nautica pinus (4.38) Vergil was even prepared to use the prosaic I technical adjective nauticus> in order to eschew the straightforward navis. Where Vergil uses a poetic word or expression, he normally follows poetic convention. The number of such more or less conventional poeticisms is legion. For the sake of argument one may single out aerius for altus vel. sim. ( 1 .58, 3.69, 8.59), aequor Ifreta for mare vel. sim. ( 1.60, 8.7, 9.57), contagium for contagio ( 1.50, metrical pressure!), rupes for mons vel. sim. (5.63, 6.29),1 parcite + inf. for nolite + inf. (3.94)8 and others. Vergil does not usually admit words of the high poetic style into the Eclogues, with few exceptions, e.g. vero at 6.27: in Vergil the word is common in high poetic style only (44 times in the Aeneid, 1 1 times in the Georgics), while 'lower' poetry in general, most notably elegy, avoids the word.9 It is hardly coincidence that the word occurs in Eel. 6, which (together with Ecl. 4) is perceptibly remote from the 'low' rustic style. Furthermore, at 5.25f. Vergil uses the words amnis and quadripes. These two are unique in the Eclogues, am both are typical of elevated poetic style. 1 O Their occurrence so close to each other attests to a deliberate act of high epic colouring, or, possibly, an adaptation from a different (epic?) context. Finally, one may point to the poetic conium, which - characteristically of the bucolic world, where 'married women' were generally absent - appears only in the two 'magic' songs of Eel. 8) I Of special interest are the poetic terms that may be Vergil's own creations. The methodological problem here lies in the fact that the ftrst occurrence of a word gives only the terminus ante quem for its creation. As a prime example illustrating this problem one may refer to the Vergilian words for 'cave', antrum For a list of such archaisms often used by later poetry to produce stylistic elevation see Leumann 1947, 126f. 5 Cf. Axelson 1945, 50. 6 Marouzeau 1970, 172. 7 See pp. 159f. 8 TU S.v. parco 332.36-56 with Axelson 1945, 135; also Kilhner I Stegmann 1, 673. 9 Axelson 1945, 86f. 10 See p. 149. Coniunx 8.18; coniuncta viro 8.32; uxor 8.29 with Adams 1972. 252-255.

4

11

129

2. Poeticisms

and spelaeum, both first attested in the Eclogues. Still, the frequency of the former (6 times in the Eclogues, 27 times in the rest of Vergil) strongly suggests that it was already well established in Vergil's day. Given its Greek origin (uv'tpov) and the importance of 'caves' in Hellenistic literature, Norden's suggestion that it was a neoteric creation is highly attractiveP The same applies to spelaeum ( 1 0.52), which again was suspected by Norden not to be Vergilian, but Gallan (modelled as it was on Greek O"1t1lAatov).13 Vergil himself apparently considered spelaeum to be alien to his poetic vocabulary, for he (and practically all other poets) later avoided it.1 4 One may 00d a third example: although there is no apparent semantic difference between saetosus am

saetiger and both appear in Vergil, saetiger was traditionally associated with sus already before Vergil.1 5 Hence the complementary synonym saetosus is very unlikely to be a Vergilian invention, despite being fIrst attested in the Eclogues (at 7.29).

It remains uncertain whether Vergil invented a number of other formations

vivax (7.29f.), the three adjectives in -eus castaneus (2.52), croceus (4.44), pampineus (7.58), the two adjectives in -osus dumosus ( 1 .76) and saxosus (5.84), the (diminutive?) adjective luteolus (2.50), the verb motare (5.5, 6.28) and others. Sometimes no reason for such a creation is apparent, so for croceus, where crocinus was at hand and sanctioned by Catullus, 1 6 or (the diminutive?) luteolus, where luteus was a common adjective frrst attested in the Eclogues such as

7 used by Vergil elsewhere.1 In other cases the fIrst appearance of a word may be due to the innovative subject matter of the Eclogues rather than Vergilian word creation.

Frequently, Vergil does not create a new word, but uses a word in a new characteristic way: so gravis for gravidus at 1 .49,18 or avena, harundo am stipula for tibia (see below pp. 154-156) etc. Sometimes one may suppose an underlying source: the erotic vocabulary of Ecl. 10 appears to be - at least partly - a Gallan creation and as such adopted by Vergil, so cura (10.22) in the sense of 'mistress' (with a considerable afterlife)1 9 and furo r (10.38, cf. 10.60) metonyrnically in the sense of 'the beloved'. 2o By replacing a word Vergil may give a certain poetic colour to a prosaic expression: for instance, Fedeli has conclusively shown how Vergil replaces the prosaic conjerre by componere in the proverbial phrase parvis componere magna 1 2 For a (hypothetic) collection of pastoral verse by Parthenius entitled Av,;plX sec Prop. 1 . 1 . 1 1 ParlMniis in antris with Lightfoot 1999. 76. 1 3 Norden 1927. 1 19. loc. found the word worth 1 4 There are a few exceptions: Ciris 467; Claud. 26.354. Serv. ad explaining. 1 Luer. 5.970. 6.974; Verg. Atn. 7.17 al. with Bmout 1949. 27f. 5 1 6 Catull. 68.134. 1 7 Atn. 7.26. H

TU s.v. gravis 2276.73·2171.6. 2 TU s.v. cura 1466.57-81. o 7U s.v.juror 1632.80-84.

��

130

Ill. Stylistic Level

solebam at 1 .23. This appears to be a deliberate VergiIian poeticization, especially since not only the word choice but also the syntax (construction of componere with the dative) here is distinctly poetic.21 A further example is the use of infindere at 4.33. Virgil here speaks of the vestiges of sin (scil. vestigia fraudis) quae iubeant telluri injindere sulcos. The tone of the passage is solemn and elusive, the diction poetic (personification of vestigia fraudis, periphrasis of arare by telluri injindere sulcos). The prosaic expression would have been sulcos imprimere.22 Such an 'inexact' use of a similar word instead of the precise one is mentioned as a rhetorical device by Cic. orat. 94, where he gives the phrase minuto animo instead of the normal parvo animo as an example.23 Generally speaking, Vergil's use of lexical poeticisms in the Eclogues is restrained. He avoids the patently artificial colour of excessively poetic vocabulary. Striking new creations of words are missing in the Eclogues, (though neologisms in general are a common feature of Latin poetry).24 In the rare cases where Vergil avails himself of 'high' poetic words he uses them for a deliberate contrast and I or playfully adapts a source that is stylistically incongruous with the bulk of the Eclogues. It is not so much the poetic colour of single words that singles out Ecl. 4 and 6 as sublime and deeply poetic in tone but the unconventional collocation and strongly metaphorical usage of words and more particularly verbs, so nascitur ordo (4.5), toto surget gens aurea mundo (4.9), discludere Nerea ponto (6.35), stupeant lucescere solem (6.37) al .

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms Vergil's language is - hardly surprisingly - essentially poetic. The poetic foundations may lie uncovered or topped by other stylistic layers, most notably colloquialisms and prosaisms, which will form the subject of this chapter. By colloquialisms I mean words that are "restricted to, or much more typical of, the spoken tongue (e.g. 'basium')".25 A word may be called a prosaism, if it occurs predominantly in genres "agreed by scholars most to reflect the spoken language" (e.g. comedy, letters, satire).26 By prosaisms I mean words that are 2 1 FedeJi 1 972. 281. 22 Cic. div. 2.50 with AJpers 1 979. 1 67; Vergil uses injindere

a second time at Aen. 5.142, where he says metaphorically of the oars infindlUlt pari�r sulcos. TIle verb infindere is attested only once before Vergil, in Accius' Annale.r (fr. 4 [FPL]): jraxlnJl.f jixa ferox infensa injinditur ossis. Here the use of injinditur is due to the desire to produce the alliteration infensa infinditur in order to reinforce the prevailing aIliterational character of the line and I or as a homeric reminiscence (cf. 11. 4.46Of., 6.10£.: lItp1)ae 11' &p' 6adov &reo J aiX I'Tt xaA.1CE(1). 17.599f. ypa1jlEV 5£ oi oot:oov &Xp� J aiXiLn noul.uMiLavw�). Vergil does not betray influence by Accius here. 23 Cf. Rhet. Her. 4.45. 24 Marouzeau 1 970, 1 77f. 25 Lyne 1989, 8. For an extensive discussion of the term 'colloquialism' and its relation to orality cf. Adams I Mayer 1999, 5-10. 26 Lyne 1989, 8.

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

131

predominantly found i n informative prose, i.e. prose whose major ai m i s to provide pieces of information and I or discuss certain issues, addressing thereby a larger, educated audience (treatises, speeches, descriptive as opposed to dramatic historiography),21 As a typical colloquial term one may refer to bucca for the stylistically neutral os,2 8 as found occasionally in Cicero's letters,29 as a typical prosaic term one may refer to peritus for the neutral MeWS, gnarus or a paraphrase by a form of scire.3 0 As for the difference between colloquialisms and prosaisrns, Cicero remarked (Jam. 1 8 8 . 1 [So B .]) that the stylistic level of his letters (senna plebeius, verba quotidiana colloquialisms) differs markedly from that of his court speeches ( =-

=­

prosaisms). Though there thus seems to have been a clear consciousness of the

difference between these two stylistic levels, for us it is frequently impossible to draw a satisfactory line between them due to the virtual lack of 'colloquial' literature contemporary with Vergil. I have therefore decided to deal with these two categories in one chapter. At any rate, for generic reasons the number of 'pure' prosaisms in the Eclogues is very small and their inclusion here will hardly distort the general picture, even if not approved of by all readers. I begin with some general colloquial features of the language of the Eclogues: the pronoun iste is - hardly surprisingly given the fact that it

indicates closeness to the addressee - particularly typical of speech, and so also of the Eclogues.3 ! As to interjections, Vergil makes relatively restricted use of them : the affective I colloquial vae occurs only once in his whole work (9.28)3 2 and heu is poetic (archaic?) rather than colloquial.33 The repeated use of nihil instead of non is a colloquial feature.3 4 A colloquial term is occasionally preferred by the poets and thus looses its particular colloquial colour. A classic example is imus, which though being originally colloquial appears 66 times in Vergil (in the Eclogues at 3.54, 8.98), while (prosaic) infimus is completely absent. Though metrical reasons may play a role, this extreme avoidance of infimus can only be explained by stylistic considerations.35

27 Lyne 1989. 9f. call s it "business prose".

28 For 'neutral' tenns see Adums I Mayer 1999, 3f. 2 9 TU S.V. bucca 2226.34-37.

3 0 The word is almost exclusively encountered in prose. cf. Axelson 1945, 1 02 with 11L s.v.

1500, 69f. �; 3 1 KUlmer I Stegmann I, 619: " ... besonders in Reden, Dialogen und Briefen vorkomroe�d Axelson 1945 71f. It occurs 6 times in the Eclogues (1.18, 2.38, 3.7, 5.54, 9.55, 1 0.21). It IS absent from the GeorgiCl (due to the limited amount of direct speech?) and found in the Aeneid 3 1 times. 32 Cf. Nisbet I Hubbard 1970, 172; Hofmann 1951. 13. 3 3 Harrison 1991. 272f. . 3 4 Nihil is thla attested with curare (2.6, 8.103 [twice]). misereri (2.7) and With projicue .a (8.19f.), cf. in general Hofmann 1951, 80. However, ni�l projicere seems to be al�st ip stelWtypical (colloquial?) expression, see 17L s.v. projiCIO 1695.20-37. For the relationsh nihil-nil see Will. 1996. 463f. 35 cr. LOrstedt 11, 345-350; AxellOn 1945, 33f.

1 32

HI. Stylistic Level Eclogue 1

Ecl. 1 is essentially an amoebaean Eclogue. As will be shown below, amoebaean Eclogues nonnally display perceptibly more colloquial elements than non-amoebaean Eclogues. It is thus surprising that in Ecl. 1 colloquialisms are notably rare and, where they occur, often motivated by considerations which go beyond stylistic 'atmosphere'. At 1 . 1 8 Vergil writes: iste deus qui sit, da, Tityre, nobis. A similar use of dare in the sense of dicere connected with an indirect clause is found in Terence and the satires of Lucilius and Horace.36 Construed with an object, which implies verbal communication (e.g. da melius [sciI. vocabulum] at Cic. A tt. 425.3 [So B.D, dare is found only rarely in pre-Vergilian prose outside comedy and satire.37 In our passage there are three reasons why Vergil discards dic for da: (a) the avoidance of a harsh accumulation of i-sounds (iste ... qui sit dic Tityre ... nobis) ;38 (b) the employment of the verb dicere in the next line ( 1 . 19: urbem quam dicunt Romam); (c) the colloquial tone of dare in the sense of dicere, which ties in well with the onomatopoetic nature of the next word, Tityre, as the latter connotes among others the bungling of the inexperienced piper (see pp. 1 82f.) and thus has a comic note. Two lines later (1 .20) Tityrus uses the colloquial deliberative question quid facerem?39 and describes himself as 'stupid' (stultus): the latter word belongs to the 'lower style' of spoken language (e.g. frequent in comedy).40 These two colloquialisms may underpin the preceding da. At 1.36f. VergiI writes: mirabar quid maesta deos, Amarylli, vocares, I cui pendere sua patereris in arbore poma, where the use of the colloquial quid (in the sense of cur)41 may be explained by the desire to avoid an anaphoric cur ... cui, quite possibly in order to eschew an unwanted paronomasia, but certainly to display variation. Some more colloquialisms should be mentioned, e.g. at 1 . 1 1 the use of magis in the sense of 'but' ,42 or the parenthesis fatebor enim at 1.3 1 or quid

36 Ter. Haut. 10; Lucil. 758 [M.]; Hor. sat. 2.8.4f. 37 TU s.v. do 1687.55.1688.7. 3 8 Bomer 1957, 3f. 39 Cf. Ter. Ad. 214, Eun. 831 with Hofmann 1951, 44f., also 7.14. 40 Axelson 1945, 100. 41 Cf. 10.22 and Hofinann I Szantyr 458. 42 Cf. Aen. 12.45f.: haudquaquam diem lIiolentia Tumi Ifleetitur; exsuperat magis aegrescitque

medendo. This phenomenon, being as old as Plaut. Baceh. 130, is caused by an ellipse of sed from the phrase sed magis comparable to potius as a short fonn of sed potius (for sed magis see Lucr. 1 .480 al., for sed potius Lucr. 1 .942 al.). It is a common colloquialism that is found in - apart from Plautus - Catu\lus, Cicero (but not in his speeches) and Sallust, but seems to have been conciously avoided by purists (Caesar) and some poets (Horace), cf. 1lL s.v. magis, 58.63-78; 60.22-44; O. Hey, 'Bin Kapitel aus der lateinischen Bedeutungsgeschichte. Bedeutungsverschiebung durch sprachlicbe Faktoren' ALL 13 (1904), 204f. For its afterlife in the Romance languages cf. W. Meyer-Lilbke, Romanisehes Etymologisches Wlirterbuch (Heidelberg 191 1), 378.

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

fa:�rem? at

133

1 .40.43 Sarcasms like VltIS (1 .73) belong to the colloquial sphere.44 On the other hand, I cannot find a . �nlfest colloquial notion for the otherwise apparently colloquial and at � .6945 in the admittedly quirky phrase

insere nunc, Meliboee, piros, pone ordine prosaic post aliquot, mea regna, videns

al�quot mlrabor anstas?

Eclogue 2 Eel.

2 begins with a remarkable colloquialism: at 2.1 ardere appears in the sense and with the construction of ardebat According to the TLL entry Vergil is apparently the first to use this constructi on.47 A similar case with a different verb is afforded by Prop. 1 . 13.23: nee As with the usage of ardere at 2 1 this bold construction of in the sense of with an accusative : did not find a successor. Trankle4 explains this construction by the replacement 8 of with stronger colloquial expressions that adopted the accusative from even if otherwise intransitive (apart from ardere in Vergil andflagrare in Propertiu s, one may compare 'transitive' and since Plautus). Hofmann offers more parallels for this phenomenon in colloquial Contexts.49 At 2. 14- 1 6 Corydon laments: I atque I . . These two lines exhibit a number of unpoetic features: is generally prosaic, and where it appears in poetry, it does so normally in the phrase (especially in Lucretius and elsewhere in Vergil).50 But not only does it appear remarkably in a different phrase, Vergil does not even hesitate to repeat this uncommon word.51 Both the employment of and the emphatic repetition serve to reflect unpoetic language. Moreover, a colloquial colour is afforded by Vergil's expression + inf., which can be parallelled occasionally in Plautus and Terence am

amare: formosum pastor Corydon

Alexin.46

sic caelestemflagrans amor Herculis Heben. flagrare amare amare amare, pereo, depereo

demorior

nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidis iros superba pati fastidi.a? nonne Menalcan ? nonne nonne vides .

nonne

satius

esse

43 For the latter see below on 7.14. 44 Hofmann 1951, 69f. (with 191), also 149-152 [on irony, sarcasm]. 4465 Axelson 1945, 74. 4 Cf. 5.86. . . 7 TU s.v. ardeo, 486.74-79. Ter. Phorm. 82 is a conjecture by Arruntius Celsus, while the

48 manuscripts' unanimous and convincing reading is arnare.

4 Trllnkle 1960, 69f. 9 Hofmann 1951. 156f., but also Papanghelis 1987. 59. The 1U entry gives Ho� .carm. 4.9: 13 .

as the next case of such a construction of ardere, but this may well be a Jlllsmterpretation caused by the improper stripping of the context from this quotation, see Hor. carm. 4.9.13-16: non sola comptos arsit adu/teri I crines et aurum vestibus ilIitum I mirata reg?lesque cultus I et comites Htlene Lacaena ..• The words comptos crines constitute an accusative .presumably 10 be connected with mirata raiher than anit, pace Kilhner I Ste� I, 263; T� e 1960, 6 al. (all following the 7U). Mart. 8.63 .1 is clearly an adaptation of our yergIiian passage. Thestyloll Aulus amat, sed nec minus ardet Alexin. Gell. 6.8.3 �d Aug.. sol!loq. 1.22.1 appear to be the only authors in antiquity to use the colloquial construction agam. SO georg. 1.56, 3. 103, 3.250; Axelson 1945, 89f. SI For s uch repetition see e.g. Plaul. Amph. 405-407; Ter. Andr. 238f.

�

III. Stylistic Level

134

once later in Petronius.s2 Finally, fastidium (always plural in dactylic poetry):5 3 the word has a technical and prosaic colour, and the only pre­ Vergilian reference in poetry is, not surprisingly, found in comedy (Plaut. Mil. 1 034), where it is used metaphorically ('disdain'), as here in Vergil. As a medical term it appears again in Vergil at 4.6 1 (applied to the physical sickness resulting from pregnancy).54 The lines 2.22-2.27 have a distinct colloquial colour. At 2.22 Vergil writes: lac mihi non aestate novum, nonfrigore deftt. One may ask why Vergil did not choose a form of deesse (in poetry normally with synizesis) to render the (stylistically indifferent) verb ).e\1tE\ of the corresponding Theocritean passage ( 1 1.36, see pp. 33f.).55 The verb defieri here has been correctly recognized by Leumann as an archaism. 56 Yet this archaism is not used in its own right, but to provide a comic and eventually jovially colloquial or rustic colour. It may thus well be compared with euium at 3 . 1 (see p. 136). It is followed by nee sum adeo informis at 2.25: outside prose nee / neque + adeo is found only in comedy in pre-Vergilian literature.57 Finally, at 2.27 Vergil uses the phrase si numquam fallit imago with numquam possibly a colloquial substitute for non. Stultus at

2.39 belongs to plain colloquial language.58 Occasionally, Vergil collocates

two or more colloquial expressions to highlight the plain rustic language. At 2.43f. Corydon laments iam pridem a me illos (scii. eapreolos) abducere Thestylis orat; / etfaciet, quoniam sordent tibi munera nostra. Facere taking up a preceding verb is "no doubt colloquial in origin " .59 Moreover, sordere appears to belong essentially to colloquial language (see stultus above at 2.39).60 The 52 Plaut. Poen. 552; Ter. Ad. 29; Petron. 61 .4. But it is also found at Lucr. 5.1 129 and Aen. 10.59.

53 TIL s.v. 31 3.70. 54 The history of the word might be reconstructed as follows: though found in the metaphorical sense ('disdain') already since Plaut. Mil. 1034 (cf. 71L s.v. 316.84-317.2), it originated as a medical term ( o.vopEl;ia) attested as such frequently since Cic. inv. 1 .25 (ut cibi satietas et fastidium aut subamara aUqua re relevatur aut du/Ci mitigatur, cf. 71L s.v. 3 1 3.66f., ibid. II). Cicero was the first to introduce the word into prose in a wide range of senses whereas all =

Augustan poets still regarded it a medical term and hence used it very cautiously (Horace 8 times [never in the Odes], Ovid 4 times, in both authors also as a medical term [Hor. sat. 2.4.78, 2.6.86; Ov. Pont. 1 .10.7, lb. 427]; Tibullus once [1 .8.69], Propertius never). 55 Some inferior manuscripts offer desit. 56 Leumann 1947, 133; also Trlinkle 1960, 42f. But the word is still found twice in Lucretius (2.1 141, 3.220), at Prop. 1.1 .34, Vitro 5.9.8, 8 prtUf, 3 and Aetna 166 in contexts apparently not drawing on each other. 57 Plaut. Capt. 348, 519 al. with 7U !.v. adeo 613.72-614.8. The exception is Acc. carm . fr. 1 7

[FPL], later e.g. Ov. trUL 2.1.351. The word combination is also rare in good prose, e.g. Caes. civ. 1.8.3. 58 See above p. 132. 59 Coleman Im, 100. See also TLL s.v.jacio 102.45-52, 107.31-50; OW B.V. 26a; Lewis f Short S.V. n.B; Lodge I, 5�592 (listing all passages in P1autu& where 'facere locum verbi antecedentiJ occupaf). For such a usage offacere in the Vindolanda tablets cf. J. N. Adarns, 'The Language of the Vindolanda Writing Tablets: An Interim Report' JRS 85 (l99S), 123. 60 Plautus employs it three times, alwllYI playing with the meanina 'to be llexualiy polluted· (which may also be relevant here): PIaut. Poen. 1 178f. haud Jorrore viJlUt f fut/U elks, Venus, nee tllOmfanum. At Plaut. TTIIC. 379 the courlelan 1'brooeaium asb Diniarchus num

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

1 35

iteration in the highly affective clause heu, heu quid volui misero mihi is. of c�urse, colloquial in tone, while heu itself rather belongs to poetic language.6 1 Fmally, the line quin tu aliquid saltem potius, quorum indiget usus (2.71) has a colloquial shading, most notably the use of the verb indiget,62

Eclogue 3 Horsfall considers Eel. 3 as "richest in colloquialisms".63 The following observations will substantiate this claim. Eel. 3 consists of two parts, an 'off stage' dialogue, as it were, between Menalcas and Damoetas (1-54) and the actual amoebaean singing contest (551 1 1). It should be observed that the two parts differ not only in theme but also in style. In fact, the introductory part consists of a series of bantering exchanges and the placing of stakes and is written in a jovial, joking tone. Hence, it does not come as a surprise that it displays strongly colloquial features. By contrast, the language of the second part is poetic almost throughout, no doubt illustrating the fact that here both herdsmen feature as poets. I quote the heavily colloquial lines 1-20:

5

10

IS

M.: Die mihi, Damoeta, cmum pecus? an Meliboei? D.: Non, uerum Aegonis; nuper mihi tradidit Aegon. M. : Infelix 0 semper, oues, pecus! ipse Neaeram dum fouet ac ne me sibi praeferat illa ueretur, hie alienus ouis custos bis mulget in hora, et sucus pecori et lac subducitur agnis. D. : Parcius ista uiris tamen obicienda memento. nouimus et qui te transuersa tuentibus hircis et quo (sedfaciles Nymphae risere) sacello. M. : Tum, credo, cum me arbustum uidere Miconis atque mala uitis incidere falce nouellas. D.: Aut hie ad ueteresfagos cum Daphnidis arcum /registi et calamos: quae tu, peruerse Menalca, et cum uidisti puero donata, dolebas, et s i non aliqua nocuisses, mortuus esses. M.: Quid dominifaciant, audent cum taliafures? nee ego te vidi Damonis, pessime, caprum

tibi sordere videor? Diniarchus answers at 380f. verum tempestas, memini, quondam etiam fuit, I cum inter nos sordebamus alter de altero (with 1. N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary [London 1982], 199). Accius knows it simply as 'to be polluted' (Ace. trag. 23 [R.3J cui l1UlIIUS funditus sordet sparsa sanguine). Sordere in the sense of 'to displease' is first used by Carol. 61.129: sordebant libi vi/icae. Sordere is not attested in pre-Vergilian 'higher poetry', e.g. not in Ennius, Lucretius, or the remainder of Catu11us and Vergil; for its colloquial character cf. also Hofmann 1951, 154 with 201; T�e 1960. 137f. ; R. M. Ogilvie. A Co�ntary 0/1 Livy Boolc.r 1·5 (Oxford 1965). 575 [on Liv. 4.25.1 1], 6 1 Hofman I Szantyr 809f.; Wills 1996, 121-123; intrOduction p. 131 . . . . 6 2 Apart from a few occurrences in early comedy and satire (e.g. Plaut. GISt 31. Lucil. 308. 760 [M.]) the word is exclusively prosaic until the imperial period, see TU S.v. 63 Horsfall 1 995. 51 .

1 36

20

Ill. Stylistic Level excipere insidiis multum latrante Lycisca? et cum clamarem 'quo nunc se proripit ille? Tityre, coge pecus', tu post carecta latebas.

The two introductory lines (3. lf.) are one of the closest renderings of a

Theocritean passage in the Eclogues (see pp. 37f.). The diction here is motivated

by the Theocritean model and the desire to picture colloquial speech at the same time: so the expression dic mihi translates the Theocritean E1.1tE !.lOt and at the same time is typical of Roman comedy,64 cuium pecus translates

'ttvo<; at

but the morphological archaism cuium (instead of cuius) serves among others to give a colloquial (Plautine) colour to the line (see pp. 3 7f.). Finally,

�6F.<;,

the elliptical syntax with the repeated omission of the copula enhances the impression of quick dialogue: M.: ... cuium pecus (sciI. est)? an Meliboei (sciI. est) ? I D.: Non, verum Aegonis (sciI . est) .65

Lines 3-20 comprise three major themes, typical of 'lower' literature (notably comedy): theft (3-6, 1 0f. , 16-20), unrestrained sexual behaviour (7-9) and envy ( 1 2- 1 5). These themes

are

represented in the corresponding 'lower'

style: Menalcas begins his observation that Damoetas cheats Aegon for the milk of his sheep with the word ipse (3.3), which may be taken in the sense of 'master' , a word-use typical of comedy.66 The following allusion

(3.7-9) by

Damoetas to Menalcas' sexual escapade is characterized by an incomplete sentence, in which an obscene verb is omitted. Influence of both Greek literary models and Latin colloquial pmctice account for this stylistic figure, as shown by Adams.67 Subsequently, Menalcas counters Damoetas' attack by a number of colloquial features: ellipse of the obscene verb omitted already by Damoetas, strong irony ( 1 0 : tum [sciI. futui vel. sim.], credo, cum me . . . videre = "then [sciI. "I had intercourse"], when they saw me . . . " here meaning "then, when they saw you . . . ),68 and colloquial diction, i.e. parenthetic credo.69 Damoetas'

reply again shows a stylistic colloquialism (hyperbole, mortuus esses).1o Menalcas' words begin with an adaptation from the Catullan Berenice poem (3.16; cf. p. 82): quid domini jaciant, audent cum talia fures? But despite the

elevated context of Vergil's model, the self-contained, tag-like character of the Vergilian line makes its colloquial origin (or at least inspiration) equally likely, as is also born out by the following observation: Servius already felt that fures here stood for servi (which would also have been interchangeable metrically ). Such a word use of fur would be well and exclusively documented in early

64 Clausen 1994, 92. 65 For such ellipses see Hofmann 1951, 46-49, also 1 68-170. Plaut. Aut. 814 al. with TU S.v. ipse 344.13-29. 67 J. N. Adams, 'A Type of Sexual Euphemism in Latin' Phoenix 35 (1981). 120-124; for the aposiopesis in general see Hofmann 1951, 53-SS. 6 8 Cf. Hofmann 1951, 150-152. 69 Such a parenthesis, though found once in Lucretius (5.175) and occasionally in the Aeneid (1.187 al.), is essentially colloquial: notably, it is very common in the comedians and Cicero's speeches and letters, cf. TU s.v. credo 1 1 37.1 9-65; Hofnwm 1951, 106. 7 0 Cf. Plaut. Cas. 622; Hofmann 1 951. 3 1 .

66

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

137

comedy and satire71 (and the contrast between dominus and servus resulting from such a word use was a cherished theme of early comedy, anyway).72 In other words, if Servius is right, Vergil was thinking of Roman comedy when creating this tag (if it was not actually directly adapted from comedy or another colloquial context). In doing so, Vergil would have melded an elevated Catullan (eventually perhaps Callimachean) line with a colloquial tag. Be that as it may, to strengthen the colloquial colouring of the passage, Vergil employs the Plautine vocative pessime in the next line (3.17)13 and perhaps also the expression multum latrante (3.18),74 the stereotype semantically weakened nunc75 and the phrase se proripit (3.19).76 Colloquialisms are again strongly represented in the second part of the introductory section (3.21-3.59). Si nescis at 3.23 belongs to the group of polite phrases typical of colloquial speech.77 The phrase cantando tu illum? at 3.25 is colloquial in its omission of the main verb. Indocte at 3.26 has a distinctly colloquial or prosaic colour,78 which fits the joking tone of 3.26f. well. Ausim (for Ciceronian ausus sim) at 3.32 may reflect colloquial speech.79 The neuter pronoun id at 3.35 is prosaicso and tute ipse in the same line bears a strongly colloquial mark,sl foreshadowing the taunting remark in the next line (3.36: insanire quoniam libet tibi). After a long passage (3.32-48) written in a distinctly Hellenistic mannerB2 Vergil uses adaptation from a comedy of Naevius with a strikingly colloquial nuance (3.49, see p. 117), clearly in contrast to the preceding elevated style and undoubtedly for comic effect. Some an

71 Serv. ad 3.16: pro servofurem posuit:furta enim specialiter servorum sunt, with 11L s.v· fur 1608.64-74. 7 2 TIL s.v. dominus 1913.30-62. 73 Clausen 1994, 96: "a Plautine vocative of objurgation (TU s.v. malus 219.50 'in conviciis'); in 74

non dramatic �try first here, and only here in V., then in Hor. sat. 2.7.22, Pers. 2.46. See Theocr. 5.12 ID ltUlt£ •••, 75 KaKla1:E". The use of multum to indicate an intensification of the verbal action (= valde ! saepe) is hardly found in pre-Vergilian poetry except in comedy (where it is very common, cf. IlL s.v. multus 1616.72-1617.4 with 1617.53-59). In two cases in pre-Vergilian poetry the plural multa is found in this sense (Liv. Andr. cann. fr. 20 [FPL]?; Enn. ann. 48 [Sk.]), but here the reason is likely to be Greek influence, cf. TLL S.v. 1617.41-47 with Coleman 1975, 125f. Enn. ann. 625 [Vahlen], mentioned by 11L S.v. 1617.58, is shown by Skutsch 1 985, 790 to be spurious.

75 Hofmann 1951, 42. 7 6 The phrase may have had a colloquial ! prosaic colour, see the pre-�ergilian 77 78 79

80

8

1

reference� : Plaut. Capt. 533 (also Petron. 129.2); Cic. fin. 2.73, har. resp. 2; Caes. c/v. 2.1 1 .4; Sall. CanL 32.1 with om s.Y. prori�re 2. Hofmann 1951, 134, 200. The word is frequent in Plautus and Cicero, but completely absent in e.g. Ennius, Lucretius, Catullus, Ovid (met. 5.308 is corrupt) or Horace's Odes. For the distribution of these fonns sce :TU S.v. 1251.68-1252.19. A fonn of the pronoun is, ea, id appears only here and at 9.37 in the Eclogues, for its prosaic character sce Axelson 1945, 7Of.

TU s.Y. ipSo! 358.4-13.

82 See the very learned reference to Conon and the following �ddle (3.40-42,

� �

17 with pp. 8 or the reference to Orpheus (3.46). But colloquial colour IS not absent, cf. 3.40: qu/S fuit alter? with Plaut. AIlL 655 and luy. 7.95.

Ill. Stylistic Level

138

more colloquial features mark the following lines and give Menalcas' attack am Damoetas' reply (3.49-54) a colloquial ring as a whole: in terms of syntax we find an anacoluthon (3.50), an ironic address (3.53: vicine Palaenwn) and a parenthesis (3.54). Colloquial in terms of diction are posthac (3.5 1)83 and quin age, si quid hahes (3.52).84 In terms of language the actual amoebaean singing contest between Menalcas and Damoetas (3.60-1 1 1) contains perceptibly fewer colloquial elements. The use of the preposition apud in the phrase apud me ... esse at 3.62 is prosaic (perhaps to reflect some rustic clumsiness here), as is the whole phrase.85 Quod potui (3.70) and possibly sectari (3.75) may have had a slight colloquial shading.86 A colloquial note may be provided by the iterated interjection heu heu at 3.100.87 Plautine, though not in form, are riddles such as that at 104-107 with a colloquial sentence structure at 104.88 The colloquial colour of nescio quis (3.103) and a few other cases89 may be arguable. Eclogue 4

Given the elevated tone of Ecl. 4 it hardly comes as a surprise that colloquialisms are almost absent here. At 4.1 Vergil announces: paulo maiora canamus. Paulo in this context may have a Lucretian origin, it is colloquial in stylistic terms.90 Its use here is clearly motivated by the supposedly 'low' character of Vergil's Eclogues, as expressed by the author himself in the succeeding line: non omnis arbusta iuvant humilesque myricae. Very striking is the use of the prosaic term incrementum at 4.49, with which I have dealt extensively elsewhere.9 1 Besides, Vergil is the first to use the combination of pronouns huic ... huic where one would expect huic . . . illi (4.56): he may be unconsciously colloquial here or possibly reflecting an underlying (Greek?) source.92 83 The word is colloquial and prosaic, see TU s.Y. 223.20-24. 84 Cf. 9.32; Plaut Epid. 1%; for the stereotype age see Hofmann

1951, 37. For quin age see georg. 4.329; Laus Pis. 32; Ov. epist. 14.57 al. 85 Interestingly Horace uses the preposition once, again in the phrase apud me ... esse (carm. 3.29.5), see Axelson 1 945, 77f. [on apud] ; Hofmann 1 95 1 , 166 [on apud + essel . 8 6 The flrst examples o f elliptic quod potui are found i n Terence (Haut. 416, 1038; Eun. 214, Phonn. 478 al.), later in e.g. Cicero (Jam. 6.6 [So B.]), Catullus (68.149), followed by Virgil (only here) and Ovid (epist. 8.5, rem. 167 al.). The phrase belongs to the category of ellipses with quod meaning 'as much as' so common in colloquial speech (so actually here quod potui [sciI. mittere], . misi), for the full construction cf. e.g. Plaut. Asin. 138: male quod potero jacere jaciam. For sectari see p. 25. 8 But see p. 131. 88 Clausen 1994, 1 1 6; Hofmann 1951, 1 10. 89 E.g. 3.84 quamvis est nutica with C1ausen 1977, 121 but also C1ausen 1994, 1 1 1 ; 3.102 (where the reading of his [archaism7] is doubtful) with CIausen 1994, 1 15. 90 See p. 72. TU S.Y. paulo 832.40 with H. C. Gotoff, 'On the Fourth &logue of Virgil' Phi/ologus 1 1 1 (1%7), 67f. 9 1 See p. 19. 9 2 Hofmann I Szantyr 181 for the colloquial character of this construction.

.

.

7

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

139

eclogue S

Though the Eclogue is not particularly colloquial in tone as a whole Vergil . at p ns to give its beginning (5.1-19) a modest colloquial shadi'ng: the IS . elhpse m Mopsus' answer (5.4) tu maior (sciI. es); tibi me est aequum parere, Menalea I?ay be m� tivated partly by the discursive form of the passage,93 partly by the deSIre to aVOld two forms of esse in the same verse. The use of quid in e phrase quid si idem eertet (5.9) is certainly colloquial,94 as is the expression Immo haec (5 . 1 3, see below p. 142 [on 9.26]). An interesting correspondence of colloquialisms is found at 5.15 and 5.19. Mopsus ends a passage by saying: tu de.inde iubeto, eertet Amyntas (5.15). This particular use of iubeto + subj. WIthout ut may be considered a colloquial element adapted by poetry.95 In his answer Menalcas matches this colloquialism with another, the ellipse desine plura (sciI. loqui) at 5.19,96 again at the end of his statement. Vergil apparently planned the correspondence of the two colloquialisms. After the introductory passage (5.1-19) colloquialisms become rare in Eel. 5 , apparently because - as exactly in the second part of Eel. 3 here the two herdsmen figure as poets. As noteworthy one may single out the colloquial I archaic aequiperare at 5.48,97 the use of which Clausen compared with the employment of Uro<papi1;E1.v at Theoc. 7.30 (in a similar context). But the latter verb has a much stronger poetic tone and no colloquial colour at all. Finally, one should note 5.65f. where Vergil writes: ... en quattuor aras: I eeee duas tibi, Daphni, duas altaria Phoebo. Eeee construed with the accusative is virtually unique in the classical period. But it is normal in (pre-cIassical) literature, especially comedy,98 and latter Latin. Thus Kohler, followed by Kiihner I Stegmann, tried to explain the accusative in Vergil here as influenced by en

:u

�

-

9 3 For such ellipses of verbs see Hofmann 1951, 46-49. 169f.

94 E g

Plau!. Poen. 330 'eunt hae'. 'quid si adeamus?' 'adeas'; ibid. 728. For a similar use of quid see p. 142 [9.44]. 95 For the reading here without ut see H. Wieland. 'iubeto (zu Verg. Eel. 5.15)' MH 23 (1966), 212-215; for the colloquial character ibid. 214. claiming that this construction is found .

96 97

.

"zunachst gerade in der Komlldie und bei den Dichtem" (with references), for the omission of ut in such cases in general cf. Kilhner I Stegmann H, 227-230 (especially s.v. iuhea). So Coleman 1 977, 158, but also 11L s.v. desino 729.28-48 (taking desina as transitive and comparing it to 8.61). See the same construction at 9.66.

The verb is attested from early on in Plautus, Ennius and Pacuvius. In the archaic period it is frequent in passages rendering spoken language, with one or two exceptions in Ennius (see Enn. fr. var. 22[Vahlen]; at Enn. ann. 133 [Sk.] the text is corrupt). Later poets seem to have avoided the word because they regarded it as archaic and I or colloquial: Lucretius shuns the word, and in Vergi.l and Ovid - the only two Augustan poets who employ it - the word appears in the stylistically 'lower' Eclogues (as opposed to the Georgics and the Aeneid) and tbe Letters/ram PontIU (Ov. Pant. 2.2.92. 2.5.44). Ovid has only the participle aequiperans, y Terence lacks the word, � do the using it as an equivalent of par = 'matching'. A neoterics and certain prose writers, most notably Clcero, Caesar and Sallust (as agamst rare appearances in Livy and Nepos). Jim Adams kindly out to that the acc� ative originally depended on a verb of 'seeing', omitted later on (but still frequently found ID early comedy, TU. s.v. ecce. 25.1634).

�

98

points

me

see

140

Ill. Stylistic

Level

employed in the preceding line (which is normally construed with an accusative).99 However, the distribution of the construction eeee + nom. in pre­ and post-classical literature makes it more likely either that Vergil regarded this construction as strongly colloquial and used it deliberately for this purpose, or that he regarded it as archaic and employed it for a comic effect, or both. Eclogue 6

The elevated topic of EeL 6 does not allow for colloquialisms and may thus be compared to Ecl. 4. Notable is the use of the strongly prosaic oportet at 6.5, perhaps to give the essentially Callimachean passage a colloquial I rustic colour.' oO Eclogue 7 Ecl. 7 is the amoebaean Eclogue with the fewest colloquialisms. One may mention some scattered, perhaps partly unintentional cases: hue odes at 7.9 may be jokingly colloquial (see p. 143 [on 9.39]), quid facerem at 7.14 is colloquial; 1 0 I posthabui (7.17) and possibly igitur (7.18) and pro tempore (7.35) are prosaic in tone 1 02 and si non possumus omnes (7.23) may be reminiscent of a (colloquial) proverb mentioned in its fuller version at 8 .63 . 1 03 The lines 7.35f. have a colloquial and naive shading in terms of content; so does the (elliptic) expression si quis pudor (sciI. est) at 3.44 which is normally used in "mild or playful remonstrance". 1 04 Eclogue 8

Throughout the poem Vergil largely avoids a colloquial colouring. ' os It is only at the very end with the arrival of the long-desired Daphnis (8.105-109), that the poem becomes highly emotional and notably colloquial: A. Ktlhler, 'Die Partikel ecce' ALL 5 (1 888), 23f.; Kllhner I Stegmann I, 273f. Axelson 1945, 13f.; Ross 1969, 69f.; Clausen 1994, 1 80. 1 0 1 Cf. 1.40; Ter. Ad. 214, Eun. 831 al. with TIL s.v.facio 1 02.66-69; OW S.v. 22a. 1 02 Posthabui: first at Ter. Phorm. 908; Vergil here (and at Aen. 1 . 1 6) is the fl1'Bt and last Augustan poet to use the word (which, however, is found occasionally - though not frequently - in Cicero, Caesar. Livy al.), cf. 71.L s.v. posthabeo 221 .82-84; igitur: Axelson 1945, 93; pro tempore: cf. TIL s.v.pro 1432.71-1433.33. especiaIly 1433.27-30. 1 03 Otto 1 890, 254f. 104 Housman I, 335; cf. P. FedeIi, Sesto Properzio. It primo libro delle elegit! (Florence 1 980), 250. 10 S One may cite as exceptions the transitive desinere at 8.61 (cf. 71.L s.v. desino 729.28-48 and

99 1 00

p. 139 [on 5.19]), the colloquial colour of which is supported perhaps by the proverb non omnia possumus omnes shortly after at 8.63 (see above p. 72); the use of unpoetic uxor instead of the synonym coniunx (for which see 8.18) at 8.29 (see Axelson 1945. 57 and

3. Colloquialisms

and Prosaisms

141

'aspice: eorripuit tremulis altaria jlammis sponte sua, dwn ferre moror, eilll's ipse. bonwn sit!' nescio quid eerte est, et Hylax in limine /atrat. eredimus? an, qui amant, ipsi sibi somnia jingunt? parcite, ab urbe venit, iam parcite eannina, Daphnis.

To begin with, bonum sit (8.106) was a religious fonnula and as such already played with by Plautus.l 06 The phrase neseio quid eerte est is colloquial or Catullan or both1 07 while the wordplay Hylax latrot adds a comic note (see p. 187). Furthennore, the highly elliptical self-address at 8.108 (eredimus [sciI. Daphnim venturum esse]?) has a colloquial colour. Finally, the last line of the poem (8.109): parcite in the sense of 'be silent' is colloquiall 08 and iam in connection with an imperative is virtually absent in pre-Vergilian poetry (exception: Luer. 2.333) apart from comedy, where it is strikingly frequent. I 09 In short, at the end of Eel. 8 Vergil changes tone, thus picturing the emotional climax of the poem, i.e. the arrival of Daphnis. -

Eclogue 9 Eel.

5

9 begins in a strongly colloquial manner. I quote 9.1-6: L.: Quo te, Moeri, pedes?, an, quo via ducit, in urbem? M.: 0 Lycida, vivi pervenimus, advena nostri (quod numquam veriti sumus) ut possessor agelIi diceret: 'haec mea sunt,' veteres migrate colonf'. nunc, vieti, tristes, quoniam fors omnia versat, hos illi (quod nee vertat bene) mittimus haedos.

The double ellipse in the words spoken by Lycidas at 9.1 (quo te, Moeri, pedes [sciI. dueunt] ? an, quo via ducit, in urbem [sciI . ducunt] ?) is undoubtedly colloquial in nature, though stylized. I I O The parenthesis at 9.3 (corresponding to the parenthesis at 9.6), and the diminutive agelli at 9 .3 00d to the impression of colloquial speech. I 1 1 Finally, at 9.6 we encounter the parenthesis quod nee vertat bene: the phrase bene veriere is strikingly frequent in comedy.1 1 2 Vergil, however, goes beyond this apparent colloquial shading: by using nee = non as it .

Adams 1 972, 252f.); the use of the preposition propter at 8.86 which is employed here in a Lucretian phrase and context (see p. 76; Axelson 1 945, 78f.); for� .at 8.101 which is classified as particularly colloquial by TU s.v.joras 1 034.74-79, but strikingly frequent (and

106 1 07 I 08 1 09

: :01

1 12

therefore adopted from?) Lucretius (see p. 77). Plaut. Cas. 382, Trin. 41 with TLL s.v. bonus 2092.42-56. Catull. 80.5, Pets. 5.51; cf. p. 85, Hot. sat. 1.9.67. Plaut. Poen. 250 al. with TLL s.v. parco 337.72-338.3. TU s.v. jam 104.6-105.1 1 , especially 104.59-74. Occasionally, this word combination occurs in Augustan poetry, e.g. in the Aeneid at 3.41, 12.693 al. Hofmann 1951, 170; Nisbet 1995, 331 . For tbe diminutive see pp. 1 3f. . E g . Ter. Ad. 191 with m s.v. bonus 2121.72-2122.13.

III.

142

Stylistic Level

is characteristically found in religious speech1 1 3 and by the employment of a metrical archaism (fourth foot spondee consisting of a single word)1 1 4 he attempts to give bene vertere an emphatic and exotic (i.e. rustic) colour. In Ecl. 9 colloquialisms are notably frequent at the beginning of the interlocutors' statements. After Moeris' reply quoted above Lycidas begins (9.7): eerte equidem audieram, where eerte equidem is again a colloquialism, possibly with an archaic touch in Vergil's day.m Colloquial, too, is the elliptical style of Moeris' answer at 9. 1 1: audieras, et fama fuit. After Lycidas' highly emotional answer Moeris begins his speech with immo haee . . . (9.26) where immo is colloquial.1 1 6 After Lycidas' reply Moeris goes on (9.37): id quidem ago .. . , where ago may be colloquial, 1 1 7 underlined by the rare elision of _ em. 1 1 8 After Moeris' words Lycidas begins with the question quid, quae . . . audieram (,what about the words that I heard ... . ' [9.44f.]) where quid in the sense 'what about?' reflects an ellipse of colloquial speech. 1 1 9 These colloquialisms at the beginning of the interlocutors' statements give the Eclogue a notably conversational tone. A considerable number of interspersed colloquialisms support this impression: so incidere in the sense 'to end' or possibly 'to cut short' (9. 1 4), 120 the demonstrative noun hie used with reference to the speaker himself at 9 . 1 6, 1 21 sublegi at 9.21 , 1 22 and the Theocritean lines 9.23-25, where dum redeo (9.23) and two parentheses (9.23, 1 1 3 Uifstedt I, 339. 1 1 4 Housman I, 269. 1 1 5 Before Vergil the word combination appears at Plaut. Mil.

433; Persa 209; Lucr. 3.1078. Vergil is quoted by Quint. inst. 8.6.46, the word combination disappears thereafter. 1 1 6 Immo is frequent in all kinds of discourse, most notably in Plautus (more than 200 times) and Cicero (more than 120 times). But it is virtually absent in pre-VergiJian higher poetry, so it is never found in Lucretius, Eonius and not even in TIbuIlus and Propertius, while only twice in Catullus (73.4, 77.2), cf. also above on 5.13. 1 1 7 Ago in this sense is particularly frequent in Cicero's letters, cf. 11L s.v. ago 1380.79-1381 .8. For the prosaic colour of fonns of is, ea, id see p. 137 [on 3.35]. 1 1 8 Cf. Aen. 10.514 with Soubiran 1966, 222-224. 1 1 9 See OUJ s.v. quis 1280 also above on 5.9, besides Mynors 1990, 222 [on georg. 3.258]. 1 20 The verb incidere is relatively frequent in the Eclogues (four references as compared to none in the Georgies and two in the Aeneid). It always has its ordinary meaning of 'to cut (into)', with one exception, 9.14-16: quod nisi me quaeumque novas incidere lites I ante sinistra cava monuisset ab iliee eomix, I nee tuus hie Moeris nee viveret ipse Menaleas. Incidere must be taken here as equalling finire 'to end' or possibly abrumpere 'to cut short' (TIL s.v. incido, 909.57; the technical tenn, however, was not litem abrumpere, but litemfinire, see PIin. epist. 7.7.2 and 11L s.v. lis, 1497.33-35. cf. also Pest. p. 1 03 [L.J; litis eeeidisse dicitur, qui eius rei, de qua agebat, eQUlam amisit with 11L s.v. lis, 1497.63-65). The use of ineidere in this sense is first attested three times in Cicero, always - as in our passage - in direct speech (Cic. Phi!. 2.47; de orat. 2.336; ad Q.fr. 3 . 1 .1 1). The Ciris, written perhaps in the fltst half of the first century AD, has incidere once in this SCJllie again in direct speech, and so does Horace (Ciris 276 with R. o. A. M. Lyne, CIris. A Poem Anributed to Vergi/ (Cambridge 1978), 218; Hor. epist. 1 .14.36.). All !hill suggests that /neidere finire I abrllmpere was a colloquialism of Vergil's dllY. 'The only writer of the first century BC who used incidere thus in normal narrative, was apparently Livy (2.15.7 al.). 12 1 TIL s.v. hie 2703.38-68. The position of hie here makes it unlikely that Vergil meant the adverb. 1 22 Cf. Plaut. Mil. 1090 al with OUJ I.V. 2. =

=

=

.•

3. Colloquialisms and Prosaisms

143

25) are reminiscent of colloquial speech,1 23 as is the exclamatory particle vat at 9.28.124 Si quid habes at 9.32 (with pregnant habere .. si carmen composuisti), which appears elsewhere in the Eclogues, is no doubt colloquial.I2S One may add the colloquial line 9.39: hue ades, 0 Gaiatea; quis est nam ludus in undis. The request hue ades, found also at 7.9 (see p. 140) and repeated here at 9.43, is jokingly colloquial in tone. Besides, Plautus offers scores of parallels for nom placed at a distance from the interrogative noun. 1 26 However, by the time of Terence nom is already restricted to the position immediately before or after the interrogative pronoun.127 In other words, Vergil avails himself here of a colloquial archaism (it would give the line a particular piquancy if Vergil was actually adapting [or imitating] a Plautine model here). The stereotypical use of sine at 9.43 is colloquial.1 28 Finally, one should single out the parenthesis at 9.64, the (elliptical?) phrase desine plura at 9.66129 and ipse possibly in the metaphorical sense 'master' at 9. 67,130 all three colloquial elements notably at the end of the Eclogue. Eclogue 10

According to 10.19 herdsmen and swineherds came to console the love-sick Gallus: Vergil here uses the terms upilio ('herdsman') and subulcus ('swineherd') respectively. Klingnerl31 observed the low prosaic character of both terms am Whitaker took this observation a step further by remarking that "these are distinctly not the sort of persons with whom the urban Gallus would normally associate ". 1 3 2 It is exactly this tension between the humble bucolic setting am the sophisticated literary world (and language) of Gallus that Vergil plays with in Ecl. 10. And it is this tension that may explain the otherwise unsystematically scattered colloquialisms in Ecl. 10: the periphrastic expression moramfecere for morari (10.12)133 may be prosaic or colloquial in colour. 'The use of quid for cur at 10.22 is a colloquial element found also elsewhere in the Eclog ues,1 34 while at 10.28 the emphatic interrogatory pronoun ecquis is typical of colloquial contexts I speeches.m Peritus (10.32) is prosaic in 1 23 Plaut. Rud. 879; Ter. Ad. 196 with TU s.v. dum 2216.81-2217.47. 1 4 2 See p. 1 3 1 . 1 25 Cf. 3.52; 5.10f. is similar; for such a use of 'trivial' veros see Hofmann 1951, 165. 26 Lodge Il. l04f. (s.v. nom 11) with Kilhner I Stegmann 1, 656 and Leumann 1 977, 473. 27 P. McGlynn, Lexicon Terentianum, vot. 1 (London 1 963), 378f. 8 Hofmann 1951, 39. 9 See above p. 139 [on 5.19]. 1 30 See above p. 136 [on 3.3}. 13 1 KIingner 1967, 167. 132 R. Whitaker 'Did Gallus write "Pastoral" Elegies?' CQ 38 (1988), 457. 133 Hofmann I zantyr 754-756 (with secondary Iitemture); cf. facta silentia for siletur at Aen.

: :;

S

13 4 13S

1.730, 1 1 .241. See p. 132 [on 1.36]. · missing e.g. from Homce s Carmlno TU.. s.v. with Ki1hner I Stegmann 11, 515; the word is Caesar. t

an d

Ill. Stylistic Level

144

tone. 1 3 6 The exclamation 0 mihi tum quam molliter ossa quieseant! is colloquial in tone through the employment of the sympathetic dative.137 Lines reflect vivid emotional speech framed by a colloquial parenthesis at and wording typical of comedy at (ibo et ... modulabor). 1 3 8 Tamquam at unique in Vergil, and very rare in 'higher' poetry, is

(10.33)

10.46-50 10.46

10.50

10.60,

partiCUlar frequent in comedy (normally in the form tam ...

quam) and prose.139

If we look at colloquialisms in the Eclogues as a whole, the amoebaean Eclogues (especially 3, 5, 7, 9) are more liable to contain colloquialisms than the narrative Eclogues. The reason is clearly that the discursive structure offers more opportunities to display colloquial elements.140 Among all the Eclogues, Ecl. 3 is by far the most colloquial, followed by Ecl. 9. The least colloquial is Ecl. 6, hardly surprisingly, given its elevated, cosmogonic and monologic character.

One may wonder how stylized / selective Vergil's colloquialisms are aOO thus how far they actually reflect the colloquial speech of his day. In order to answer this question, some preliminary remarks are necessary: Vergil is notable in avoiding some of the most characteristic features of colloquial language as reflected in the comic poets: his use of diminutives is extremely restricted, 14 1 swearwords and similar vulgar expressions (like edepol, hercle a1.) are completely absent, 1 4 2 as are formations of adjectives with an amplifying per_. 1 43 It is thus fair to call the colloquialisms in the Eclogues strongly selective. It should be added that the Eclogues share their avoidance of the three colloquial features just mentioned with the overwhelming part of Augustan poetry (with some notable exceptions in Horace's Satires). But it is not only in his omissions that Vergil betrays remoteness from actual colloquial Latin: there is not much comparative material to verify how far Vergil's colloquialisms actually reflect the colloquial language of the Augustan period. Even so, the use of a number of colloquialisms, which are unlikely or uncertain to have been in use still in Vergil's day (defieri at 2.22; heu at a1 .; euium at ausim at eerie equidem at nam at suggests that at least some are based on literary studies rather than Vergil's own linguistic experience (a fact hardly surprising in the case of an Alexandrian poet). 1 44 This again indicates how artificial the occasionally strong colloquial flavour of the Eclogues really is.14S

3.1;

1 36 1 37 1 38 1 39 1 40 14 1 1 42 1 43 144

3.32;

9.7;

9.39),

2.58

See p. 131. Hofmann 1951, 136f.; LOfstcdt H, 366f. TIL s.v. eo 631 .20-32. Axelson 1945, 88f. For the relationship between dialogue and colloquial language ace Hofmann 1951, 3f. See pp. 1 1-16 and Hofmann 1951, 139-141; VlilInllnen 1981, 80, 89f. CL AxelsOD 1945, 94. Axelson 1945, 37f.; Marouzeau 1970, 133f. For Vergil's use of comic writers cf. H. MacL. Currie, 'The Third Eclogu and the Roman Comic Spirit' Mnemo8Jnt 4010 ser. 29 (1976), 412-416. 1 4 S For VergiJ's stylization of archaic folk material in the Georgia cf. Thomas 1995, 202-207.

4. Synonyms

] 45

4. Synonyms By synonyms I mean words that cover a similar or identical semantic area and c� thus be exc?anged in a given context without a palpable change of mearung. Yet, even In the case of a complete semantic agreement they almost never coincide in terms of stylistic connotations (poetic style, prosaic style etc.) or metrical convenience. Hence, in what follows my aim is twofold: (a) to es�ab ish to what som� seeming synonyms in the Eclogues actually . comcIde In semanUc and metncal terms by analyzing their occurrences in the Eclogues in detail; (b) to elucidate their stylistic connotations by reviewing the main features of their pre-Vergilian usage. I 46 I shall deal with the synonyms in the following order: adjectives, nouns am verbs. My approach is selective, though, I trust, representative.

!

�gree

a. Adjectives

dulcis - gratus - suavis Dulcis occurs five times in the Eclogues, I 47 gratus three times l 48 am suavis four times.149 Hence, Vergil does not show a predilection for any of these adjectives in the Eclogues. All three adjectives are well attested in early Latin. However, in opposition to dulcis and gratus the poetic occurrences of suavis virtually end in the early Augustan period, as already pointed out by Axelson. I 50 After the Eclogues the word appears once more in Vergil, at georg. 4.200, again (as at eel. 2.49) in the phrase suavibus herbis, and seven times in Horace (all apart from epist. 1.8.4 in the Satires [irony?]). It is not found in the Aeneid or in Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, Seneca, Lucan and others. The conclusion can only be that poets from the Augustan period on considered the word as 'unpoetic'. . One may explain the occurrences of suavis in Vergil in two ways: (a) Vergil deliberately used an unpoetic, colloquial term. This would be in a line with his extensive use of colloquialisms in the Eclogues. However, it would explain less convincingly the appearance of the word in the Georgics. (b) Vergil may have followed the custom of earlier Latin poets in rendering Greek l!o\}- / et>- by suavis.151 So suave rubens (3.63, 4.43) may well be an

146

For the importance of the context in detennining synonyms see Marouzeau 1970, 196-202.

::� 1.3; 3.82. 1 10; 5.47; 7.37. 1 4 6.1 1f., 7.61. 9

2.25, 49; 3.63, 4.43. Axelson 1945, 35-37. . 3 1 S 1 Whe they n Naevius (!rag. 20 [R.3 l) and Accius (trag. 572 [R. )) employ the term suaVlSonllS, . 1 13 [S�. l ann . Enn also (cf. are c learly thinking of (poetic) Greek no\ljlFl.1\� I n�vo� suayis sonus). When Ennius has the compound SUQviloqulIns (Enn. .ann. 304) and L�crelius SUQyidicllS (Lucr. 4.1 80, 9(9), both are no doubt reflecting the (poe�c) Greek nO\l�T\�. The recent development use of dulcis I sratus in such compounds seems to have been a relatIVely

I SO

Ill. Stylistic Level

146

attempt to render a Greek adjective 1(O'l>2tOp2tOpq>'lipa = 'a kind of 1tOpq>'lipa', see Arist. fr. 304 [Rose]),I S2 and suavibus herbis (2.29, georg. 4.2(0) may be inspired by Theoc. 3.23 eOO0Jl.0un O'M.ivotc; (at line-end as in Vergil, cf. also Theoc. 17.29). Even the last instance of the use of suavis in Vergil may be explained along these lines: when Vergil says at 2.55 suavis miscetis odores, he may want to render the Greek noun Ei>ooJl.ia, just as Catullus at 6 1 .7 rendered the adjective clSooJl.o� by suave olens (amaracus).

opacus - umbrosus Scholars have nonnally taken the two words as poetic synonyms. Two aspects are important for their relation to each other and their stylistic value: (a) Meaning. Opacus appears first in two passages in Cicero's Aratea (33.20 1 , 450). Here opacus denotes something like 'darker than the surroundings' obscurus / niger, thus not necessarily connoting shade. A glance at the evidence supports this view. It clearly shows that while opacus can always replace umbrosus, umbrosus only occasionally replaces opacus. The relative vagueness of opacus may be easily explained by the non-existence of a related noun, while umbrosus naturally evokes umbra. (b) Usage / Distribution. By equating opacus with umbrosus scholars generally fail to take account of the semantic difference between the two words as expounded in (a) above. For example, it is not enough to claim that in Lucretius opacus appears three times and umbrosus never, when in two cases (2. 1 15, 6 .524) opacus has the notion of obscurus I niger, not umbrosus. In other words, to demonstrate the stylistic value of opacus is to demonstrate that opacus appears predominantly in high-poetic contexts where umbrosus could have been used in tenns of content. Though this approach does not change much in the case of Vergil, it does so in the case of his predecessors. For example, Pacuvius' nunc primum opacat flora lanugo genas (trag. 362 [R.3 ) may well be parodied by Catull. 37. 19 Egnati, opaca quem bonum tacit barba, but is it the aspect of shade that is important here or the aspect of darlc colour? I would prefer the latter, I S 3 even if ""

]

the question cannot be settled definitely. The first finn evidence for a replacement of umbrosus by opacus goes back, it seems, to two passages in Catullus,ls4 one passage in Lucretius,lss Varrol S 6 and to Ciceronian prose. I S 7

in Vergil's day, cf. dulciorelocus at Lacv. cann. fr. 9 [FPL] as quoted by Gell. 19.7.13, which, however, is said by Gellius to belong to prose style. IS2 Especially noteworthy is 4.43f.: ipu ud in pratis ariu iam suav� rub�nJi I muric�. iam croceo murabit vellera luro. Not only suav� rub�nti. but also croceo has a Greek colour (cf. 1(pOlCitW�). IS3 The aspect of colour is norma1ly underlined in similar passages, e.g. A�n. 10.324 jlav�nr�m prima lanu8in� malos. IS4 Catull. 63.3. 32. I SS Lucr. 4.575. I S6 Var. M�n. 322.

4. Synonyms

1 47

This means that the replacement of umbrosus by opacus may have been a relatively recent development in Vergil's day. At any rate, it was not very marked even in Vergil until the Aeneid: umbrosus is replaced by opacus in the Eclogues once (1 .52), in the Georgics once (1.156, for the sake of variation, . umbra bemg employed in the next line). Only in the Aeneid is it substituted some 10 times (in three cases to avoid a repetition of umbra or one of its derivatives). 1 58 Variation is also a major factor in replacing umbrosus by opacus in later authors. Where Horace uses umbra or one of its derivatives, he never repeats it or one of its derivatives close by. If he wants to express the notion of 'shady', he prefers expressing it by opacus. 1 59 In Propertius and Tibullus the number of occurrences is too small to allow generalizations. Ovid seems to follow Vergil's

more flexible practice in the Aeneid (replacing umbrosus with opacus without any apparent reason), but again he occasionally employs opacus purely for variation . 1 60

present participle - adjective In the Eclogues Vergil is particularly fond of employing the present participle of a verb to describe plants. In many of these cases he could have used a corresponding adjective. But this would have entailed a shift of emphasis from the dynamic (e.g. 'greening' � status nascendl) to the static aspect (e.g. 'green' � status quo). Thus, the fact that Vergil preferred the present participle is indicative of the dynamic nature of Vergil's bucolic landscape. In what follows I shall briefly consider some more striking examples of such participles and their corresponding adjectives in the Eclogues. (a) florens - floridus. The present participle jlorens employed as an adjective is attested from early on.1 6 1 But it does not seem to be applied to plants before VergiL 1 62 In Vergil there are four instances of the adjectival use in this sense: at 1 .78 and florens cytisus, at 9.19 florentes herbae and at 10 . 5 jlorentes

2.64

2

1 57 Cic. de orat. 1.28, 3.18, leg. 1 .15 al. . . , , . 1 58 Opacus appears 17 times in the Aeneid. In the followmg passages the connotation of shade IS 2.725; arguable): sufficiently strong to allow for a substitution by umb�o�us (some c�e� are 3.508 (next to umbrantur, variation); 6.136 (umbrae Ibid. 139, varIation), 208, 283 (umbrae ibid. 289, variation), 673; 7.36; 8.107; 1 1.851, 905. In the foUowing cases the connotation of 'darkness' prevails: 3.619, 4.123, 6.633, 7.84, 8.658, 8.21 1 , 10.161. 1 59 Hor. epist. 1 . 1 6.5 / 1.16.10, carm. 3.4.46 (with Bentley's conjecture umbras, accepted by Shackleton Bailey) 1 3.4.51. The only exception is Hor. carm. 2.15.15. . . 1 60 Ov. met. 10.12, 16, 2Of.: umbras ... umbrarum domilllU11 ..• opaca Tartara, also Ibid. 3.434 / 438, 14.1 17 1 122. 1 6 1 E.g. Plaut. Pusa 770. . 6 1 2 The pre-Vergilian cases mentioned by 11L s.v. jloreo 920.67-71 have a predommantly a verbal force and cannot be replaced by floridus I floreus.

148

Ill. Stylistic

Level

ferulae. Floridus as applied to plants appears before Vergil in Catullus (6 1 .21, 63.66) and Lucretius (5 .785 , 943).1 63 (b) pallens - pallidus. Vergil is apparently the first to apply the verb pallere to plants. In the Eclogues pallere occurs exclusively in this way, so at 2.47 pallentes violae, at 3.39 hedera pallens, I 64 at 5.16 pallens oliva and at 6.54 pallentes herbae. The alternative pallidus was provably applied to plants since Varro ,1 65 but it never occurs in the Eclogues and, where it appears elsewhere in Vergil, it is never applied to plants. (c) rubens - ruber. The verb rubere appears four times in the Eclogues, always as a participle and twice applied to plants: at 3.63 suave rubens hyacinth us and at 4.29 rubens uva.1 66 Though ruber is applied to plants already by Cato.1 67 Vergil never uses ruber in this sense, while once (georg. 1 .297) he has rubicunda Ceres (= 'golden red grain'). I 68 The dynamic aspect of Vergil's landscape is reflected in his predominant use of the present participle in qualifying his scenic inventory. This dynamic aspect is, no doubt, a Vergilian invention. While it is deliberately and consistently employed in the Eclogues as well as in later Vergil, it is not found in earlier authors: in the case of those adjectives found in the Eclogues (jlorens, pallens, and rubens) Vergil is in any case apparently the first to apply the present participle to plants.1 69 The stress on the dynamic aspect of the landscape ties in well with the more general phenomenon in the Eclogues of ascribing human emotions I actions to normally inanimate objects ('pathetic fallacy' I 'sympathy of nature').1 70 Vergil's example left casual traces in later authors, namely in later bucolic and elevated hexameter poetry (while e.g. Horace and Propertius do not show any influence). I give some examples: Tibullus has pallentibus herbis once 0 .8.17). Manilius adapts Vergil's pallentis violas (2.27) at 5.257. Stat. Theb. 7.653 takes up hedera pallens (3.39, georg. 4.124), and Calp. eel. 7.9 has pallente corymbo.171 Ovid applies the participles pallens, rubens and florens to plants I fruits and is apparently the first to use albens in a similar context.l 72

1 63 TIL s.v.floridus 92521-37. 1 64 Cf. georg. 4.124. 1 65 Varro rust. 1.67;TIL s.v. pallidus 131.6-24. 1 66 The other two occurrences are at 4.43 and 10.27. 167 Cato agr. 6.2. 1 68 The anthropomorphism of Ceres I grain here suggested rubicundus (cf. Plaut. Pseud. 1219 ore rubicundo) excluding both ruber and rubens.

1 69 TIL s.v. floreo, 920.67-80; s.v. palleo 125.47-60 (also 1 24.1 6-25). 170 For 'pathetic fallacy' I 'sympathy of nature' see Posch 1969, 92-101 [Eclogues, Theocritus]; C.

Schmitz, Die kosmisclre Dimension in den Tragodien Semcas (Berlin 1993), 1 2f. n. 33, 52 n. 131 and R. Jenkyns, Virgil's Experience. Nature and History: Times, Names and Places (Oxford 1998), index s.v. 'pathetic fallacy' [Vergil in general]. 171 Cf. 3.39: ... lredera vestit pallente corymbos. 172 Forflorens see Dv. met. 14.764, for pal/ens medic. 69, for rubens met. 10.101, for albens ars 3.182.

4. Synonyms

149

b. Nouns

amnis -jlumen -jluvius A m � is, jlumen and jluvius may have originally denoted different things. According to Van der Heyde amnis denoted the topographical tenn (,river'), while jlumen and jluvius indicated a verbal aspect connected with fluere.1 7 3 At any rate, all three words are used as synonyms for 'river' in the classical period. As to their distribution, amnis is attested since Naevius in poetry, since Cato in prose. 1 74 The word is mainly poetic; in hexameters it is attested, for example, in Ennius' Annates (once) and Lucretius (14 times). l7 5 Elsewhere in poetry it appears in Plautus (five times) and Catullus (twice). l 1 6 Cicero has it occasionally (18 times), Livy frequently (some 160 times), but stylistic 'purists' like Caesar and Terence avoid the word. The use of the word in Vergil is clearly linked with generic considerations. Out of 56 Vergilian references only one is found in the Eclogues, 5.25f.: nulla neque amnem I libavit quadripes nee graminis attigit herbam. The epic tone of the phrase amnem libavit quadripes is suggested by the fact that neither the solemn libare nor poetic quadripes occur again in the Eclogues, while the former is common in both the Georgics and the Aeneid and the latter at least in the Aeneid.l 77

Like amnis, jluvius appears first in Naevius in poetry, in Cato in prose.l7 8 The word occurs five times in Plautus, twice in Ennius' Annates and 13 times in Lucretius. In Cicero it is found only 6 times, always in his philosophical works. Terence and Caesar avoid jluvius, as do others, Catullus among them, and later Propertius and Tibullus. With some reservations one may state that the word was poetic and had an archaic colour at least by the first century B C.1 7 9 It was the poetic colour that made Vergil use the word quite extensively ( 1 1 times in the Georgics, 25 times in the Aeneid). It appears twice in the Eclogues, at 5 .76 and 7.66. In both cases it is found in a priamel, i.e. an elevated context; in other words, it does not denote a river as merely a scenic detail of the bucolic

landscape. The normal word for 'river' in Vergil is jlumen, which occurs 1 1 times in the Eclogues. I SO The word normally denotes a river as a bucolic scenic detail,

1 73 V an Der Heyde 193 1, 135f. Naev. trag. 39 [R.3] ; Enn. fr. var. 12 [Vah!en]; Cato agr. 1.3 al. Enn. ann. 581 [Sk.]; Luer. 1.15 aI. 1 7 6 Plaut. Mer. 859 al.; Catull. 29.19, 34.12. . 1 77 For of such qlladripes cf. also Harrison 1991, 2S0; Coleman 1999, 62; for the poet!.c colour . compounds see Marouzcau 1970, 134-138, especially 137; for a poSSible Theocntean 19. aIIusion hen: see Du Quesnay 1977, I 7 8 Naev trag. 62 [R.3]; Cato orig. 5.5 [Chassignet] al. 17 clearly 9 The fact that Caesar employs jlumen more than 200 times and never uses jluvius shows that he n:garded the two words as synonyms; otherwi� he co�d not �ave omitt� 50 completely the one word in favour of the other, cf. E. W6ifflin, 'FlUVIll5, RuVla, Rumen AIL 7 ( 1 892), 589. 1 0 1. IO.1S. 8 5 1, 3. 96, 5.21, 5.25, 5.S4, 6.64, 7.52, 7.56, S.4, 9.40,

g;

.

Ill. Stylistic Level

150

but may also be used in a more general sense. 1 8 ! It is attested from Ennius onwards alongside fluvius, than which it is normally more frequent (with the exception of Cato and Plautus, where it is not attested). 1 82 It was the normal term for 'river' in Vergil's day. 1 8 3 The avoidance of fluvius may have been especially characteristic of neoteric poets and their successors due to its likely archaic shading. 1 84 Such an assumption would explain the distribution in major pre- and post-Vergilian authors. The ratio amnis:flumen:fluvius is 2:4:0 in Catullus, 4:3:0 in Tibullus,

4:24:0 in Propertius and 71: 100:4 in Ovid. By contrast, in Lucretius, Lucan,

Valerius Flaccus, Statius and Silius ltalicus the ratio between amnis + flumen

on the one hand andfluvius on the other is almost constantly around 3 : 1 , i.e. fluvius is here perceptibly more frequent. If the avoidance of fluvius is indeed

indicative of closeness to the neoterics, Vergil here surprisingly shows himself as non-neoteric.

armentum - hos - pecus(-udis) 1 8 5 Within poetry armentum (usually in the plural) 1 8 6 belonged to the elevated style: the feminine plural form armentae is represented in Pacuviusl 8 7 ani Ennius, 1 8 8 the neuter appears five times in Lucretius. 1 8 9 Plautus, Terence, Lucilius, Catullus and Caesar avoided the word , all apparently for the same reason: they saw in it an (archaic) poeticism of the high, mainly epic style. In

accepting the term Vergil followed Lucretius, as becomes strikingly clear by the fact that armentum is one of his favourite terms - not in the Eclogues or the

Aeneid - but in the Georgics, which accounts for 16 out of 3 1 references

overall. This general stylistic characterization is confirmed by Vergil's use of the word in the Eclogues.

(a) At 2.23f. Corydon says: canto quae solitus, si quando armenta vocabat, I Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho. Pacuvius is a possible model for

2.23, 1 9 0 as is Euphorion for the next verse.1 9 1 At any rate, both lines strike a 1 8 1 E.g. 7.51 f. hie IiJntum Boreae euramusJrigora quantum I ... torrentiaflumina ripas. 1 82 Enn. ann. 26 [Sk.J al. 1 8 3 Perrot 1961, 105f. 1 84 Van Der Heyde 1931, 141, 144. 1 8 5 On the meaning of these three tenns see also Cartault 1 897, 438-440. 1 8 6 It should be pointed out that armentum could indicate both a single piece of cattle and a herd of cattle. The distinction can rarely be drawn safely, for in poetry the word nonnally appears in the plural. Only in the former meaning, of course, is Ql7fU!ntuJII strictly speaking a synonym of hos and peeus. On the plural of nouns in -mentum see Perrot 1%1, 263 -267. 1 8 7 Pacuv. trag. 349 [R.3]. 1 8 8 Enn. ann. 604 [Sk.J. 1 89 Luer. 1.163, 2.343, 2.922, 4. 1 197, 5.228. 1 9 0 Pacuv. trag. 349 [R.3l: tu eomifrontes paseue al7fU!ntas soles. 1lIe similar theme (tending the flocks) and wording (al7fU!ntas soks I solitus ... al7fU!nta) make a Pacuvian influence

conceivable.

4. Synonyms

1 51

heavily poetic note through their vocabulary (annentum I learned Greek names). The use of armentum in the mouth of a herdsman here serves - as does the next line translated from Greek - to create a comic effect. (b) At 4.2 1 f. the Golden Age after the child's birth is described: ipsae /acre domum referent distenta capellae I ubera, nee magnos metuent annenta leones. The prophetic tone of Eel. 4 suggests the elevated armenta. Another reason was a striking paralle1ism in sound and 1ine position: metuent annenta in 1ine 22 answers referent distenta in 1ine 2 1 . (c) Twice in Ecl. 6 armentum appears in connection with the myth of Pasiphae, at 6.45f.: et fortunatam, si numquam armenta fuissent, I Pasiphaen nivei solatur amore iuvenci and at 6.59 (on which see below on bos). In both passages the elevated mythological theme as well as the elevated tone of Silenus' prophecy play an important role in the selection of armentum. The most important characteristic of all four passages in the Eclogues containing armentum is that it never denotes the cattle of the actual bucolic world. It is either applied to mythical cattle (so in (a) and (c)) or to cattle of the Golden Age in general (so in (b)).I9 2 It should be noted that in pre-Augustan poetry armentum was conventionally used in the plural, thus indicating exclusively a collective group, never an individual animal.1 93 There was an increasing tendency in the major poets before Vergil to use bos in the more elevated style. Thus we never find the word in Ennius' Annales, though it is very common in daily speech (e.g. 1 9 Plautine references). Both Terence and Catullus avoid the word, but Lucretius admitted it reluctantly into his poetry (5 times) and Vergil sanctions its use in hexameter poetry by using it 3 1 times. Within Vergil the term is most frequently employed in the Georgics proportionally, clearly because of the latter's topic. In the Eclogues bos occurs four times. I94 Especially noteworthy is 6.58-60: . . errabunda bovis vestigia; forsitan ilium I aut herba capturn viridi aut armenta sec utum I perducant aliquae stabula al Gortynia vaccae. Two major cons iderations may have contributed to Vergil's choice of bos: on the one hand Vergil l ooked for a variant for armenta in the next line, on the other for a word denoting an individual animal. This passage may suggest that bos in the Eclogues lays stress on the notion of an individual animal, even where it appears in the plural (1 .9, 1.45). In marked opposition to armenta it always .

denotes the cattle found as part of the actual bucolic world. At 6.49f. Vergil uses pecudes in the sense of cattle': (about asiphae) �t non . tam turpis pecudum tamen ulla secuta I concubltus. This specIfic usage IS first attested in Varro,19S and is otherwise rare and unique in Vergil. One may ask

:

�

191 See pp. 91f. 192 Cartault 1897. 438 (on armtntum): "Virgile ne s'en sert qu'a propos d'6pisodes mythologiqucs" . . 1 93 The singular in poetry is first attested at gt!org. 3.71; Hor. carm. 3.3.41; t!Plst. 1 .8.6. 194 1.9, 1 .45, 5.25, 6.58. 1 % VIUTO rust. 2.5.7.

Ill. Stylistic Level

152

why Vergil did not use the (metrically equivalent) form of pecus, -oris, for the latter was more widely applied specifically to cattle196 and had also a Vergilian parallel in this sense.197 The answer may be that the genitive singular pecoris (and pecudis) would have resulted in an ill-sounding homoioteleuton (turpis pecoris I pecudis) and the genitive plural pecorum would be surprising, because 19B in the Eclogues. Vergil consistently avoids the plural of pecus, -oris Besides, the feminine gender of pecus, -udis, if felt by Vergil as depicting the natural gender of the cattle (in opposition to pecus, -oris), would fit the context well (talking, as he is, of the daughters of Proteus as compared to Pasiphae). By using armentum predominantly in elevated poetic contexts Vergil

(4

follows traditional lines. Later on the word appears occasionally in Rorace times), Tibullus (once) and Propertius (once), always to provide an elevated tone. Ovid seems to be the first to make more general use of it in non-elevated contexts (3 1 times). By contrast, Vergil's full admittance of has into the elevated hexameter was an innovation readily adopted, it seems, by subsequent authors. Rorace, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid use the word without any apparent stylistic restriction. Finally, pecus (-udis) in the sense of 'cattle' is found occasionally in Columella and Valerius Flaccus to vary hos. The context, however, does not suggest a Vergilian influence. 1 99

astrum - sidus Astrum was a relatively recent word in Latin: in poetry it is first attested in Cicero's Aratea, in prose not much later.2oo It may well be a Ciceronian creation.

If

so, it was introduced in order (a) to add some Greek colour to (=> aO'-cpov), (b) to increase the number of

Cicero's translation of Aratus' text

terms for 'star' in a poem in which that term naturally appeared very often. In poetry sidus is first attested in Accius, in prose in Caesar and Varro . 20 1 In

Cicero's A ratea the proportion between astrum and sidus is 2:6, in Catullus 0:9, in Lucretius 2:16 and in Vergil 30:77. In other words, Vergil uses astrum in

relation to sidus more frequently than any other earlier known poet. 'The predominance of sidus may be partly explained by the fact that the dactylic shape of the inflected cases of sidus (sideris etc. - U u) made it a convenient word for the fifth foot, in which sidus is normally found (so always in the Eclogues). It 1 9 6 TU S.v. 1. pecus 951.70-952.14. 1 97 georg. 3.155 (scil. oestrum) arcebis gravido pecori, armenraque paacu. 1 9 8 The plural is attested rarely in the Georgics and the Aeneid, cf. georg. 2.517, Aen. 4.158 at. In contrast, pecus, -udis is found in the plural also on its second appearance in the Eclogues, at 2.8. See the table in TU S.v. 1. pecus 946 for the general distribution of singular and plural

in certain major Latin authors.

1 9 9 Colum. 1 .9.2, 2.10.22; VaI. Ft. 4.363 al., for further refen::nces

see

30. 200 Cic. ATat. 32.4; 33.162 [Soubiran]; Verr. 2.5.27. Varro ling. 9.25. 2 0 1 Acc. !rag. 679 [R.3]; Cic. rep. 3.3. Varro ling. 7.14 al.

1IL s.v. 2. pecus 958.20-

4. Synonyms

1 53

is hardly coincidental that Lucretius knows only the form sidera ( 1 6 times) aOO that in Vergil the inflected forms outnumber the form sidus by more than 10 to 1 (in the Eclogues there is no example of the form sidus). As to frequency in the Eclogues, astrum is found almost as often as sidus while in the remainder of Vergil's work the relation of astrum to sidus is 1 :3 (thus matching Cicero's Aratea).202 The relative frequency of astrum is ex�licable, if we assume that astrum still had a Greek colour in Vergil's day, which was, of course, particularly suitable for the Greek, notably Theocritean, scenery of the Eclogues. As mentioned above, Greek colouring may have been a reason already for Cicero to employ the word. As to meaning in the Eclogues, on its five occurrences astrum indicates the divine nature of a star:203 at 5.23 we read atque deos atque astra vocat crndelia mater, where atque deos atque astra appears to be a hendiadys for astra divina. At 5 . 5 1 f. (Daphninque tuum tollemus ad astra; I Daphnin ad astra feremus) the phrase ad astra points to catasterism, i.e. acceptance of Daphnis among the stars due to his divine nature (see 5 .56f.). 204 At 9.47f. Vergil refers to the star into which Caesar was transformed on his deification: ecce Dionaei processit Caesaris astrum, I astrum quo etc. In contrast, sidus in the Eclogues denotes the physical object, normally with the connotation of great distance, so at 5 .43 (Daphnis ego in silvis, hinc usque ad sidera notus), 5.62f. (voces ad sidera iactant I intonsi mantes), 6.84 ([sciI. verba] pulsae referunt ad sidera valles) or 9.29 ([sdI. tuum nomen] ... ferent al sidera cycm). The two other occurrences of sidus in the Eclogues lay emphasis on a realistic detail of the fictitious world (5.57 videt nubes et sidera Daphnis, 10.68 versemus ovis sub sidere Cancri). Given the divine aspect of astrum in the Eclogues, astrum seems to have been regarded by Vergil as slightly more 5 elevated than sidus.2 0 It is characteristic that Tibullus, the 'purist' among Augustan poets, never has astrum, while sidus appears five times . This distribution may indicate that in Tibullus' day the word astrum was not yet generally regarded as 'proper Latin'. Other Augustan poets are not so strict. In both Horace and Propertius sidus is almost exactly twice as frequent as astrum, while in Ovid the former appears 20 2 The relation betwe{ln astrum and sidus in the Eclogues is 5:6, in the Georgics 5:14 and in the Aeneid 20: 57. 2 0 3 On this general tendency of astrunt see TU s.v. astrum 969.13-15. 204 For Greek expressions like Ell; -c.x a(n:pa 't1.9I;va� etc. in Latin see 1lL s.v. astrum 977.1743.

20 5 Notable here is the absence of mlla in the Eclogues, though Vergil uses the word 5 tiIrn;s in . the Georgics and 7 times in the Atneid. Perhaps in hexam�te� poetry Vergli re�arde� It as too indicative of the grand epic style: in Erurius' Annales It .IS attested thre� ti�, m the , phrase (scil. caelum) 3tellir julgtlltibus aplUm. thus rendenng t� Homenc (oupavov) a see Enn. apta, ardentibus stellis '!". aa-.ep6evta , and in the almost synonymous (scil. nox) 27, 145. 3 48 [Sk.J with Skutsch 1985 ad locc. This phrase was taken up once by LucretJus and three times by Vergil himself in the Aeneid, see Luer. 6.357 and Am. 4.482, 6.797, 1 1 .202. But outside hexameter poetry stella apparently did not possess a particular elevated colour, e.g. Plaut. Men. 175, Cic. de Drat. 1.69.

154

Ill. Stylistic Level

almost five times as often as the latter. It is only in the work of some imperial poets (Seneca tragicus, Statius, Martial) that astrum outnumbers sidus. But the fact that prose authors like Seneca philosophus and the Elder PIiny virtually avoid astrum in favour of sidus, warns us against assuming that both terms were by then regarded as virtually interchangeable.206

(i.) avena - harundo - stipula - tibia (ii.) calamus - cicuta -fistula The terminology of the bucolic musical instruments occurring in the

Eclogues is to some degree uncertain. In what follows two presuppositions are

made, (a) that VergiI is consistent in his terminology and (b) that he is accurate in his use of epithets. Two instruments are characteristic of VergiI's bucolic world, the aulos and the syrinx (= 'pan-pipe') . Smith207 has analyzed the

differences of both in great detail, I summarize what is essential to the following argument:

• of the different types of the aulos (Lat. tibia) only the monaulos is relevant here, which consisted of a tube (sometimes made of reed), and a vibrating mouthpiece (sometimes made of straw). Its shape was oblong, stick­ like . • the syrinx (Lat. fistula) in bucolic poetry denotes a series of reed pipes joined together, normally by wax. Among other differences from the aulos, the pipes had no mouthpiece. The shape of the syrinx was raft-like and its width varied according to the numbers of joined pipes.

(i.) Twice in the Eclogues avena denotes an instrument. At 1 .2 Vergil writes : silvestrem tenui Musam meditaris avena, at 1 0.51 carmina pastoris Siculi modulabor avena. Three aspects of avena clearly show that a monaulos is meant: The basic meaning: avena originally meant 'oatstraw' which for purely technical reasons cannot denote a syrinx tube (which is made not of straw but of

reed), but could welI denote the mouthpiece of an aulos that could be made of straw (:::} synecdoche).2 08

The number: where avena denotes an instrument in the Eclogues, it is found in the singular. If the word indicated a syrinx, avena could be taken only as a poetic singular (denoting a reed as synecdoche). Though a poetic singular would not be startling in the case of a traditional term (see below on calamus), its employment in the case of a synecdoche just created - like avena - would be bewildering for the reader, to say the least. It should be pointed out that in

addition to avena all other terms denoting an aulos in the Eclogues appear 20 6 See the statistics in TLL s.v. rutrum 969.18-27. Macr. :10/7111. 1 .14.21 also indicates a semantic difference: t!I a�p :ltella una est, /ic"l'pov signlUll :lte11is COQctIII7I, quod 110:1 silius "YocamSIS. 207 Smith 1970, 498-504 with Cartault 1 897, 484-4&6. 208 Smith 1970, 499f., 502, 506.

4. Synonyms

1 .55

2 exclusively in the singular, 09 while the two synecdochic terms for syrinx (calamus, cicuta) also occur in the plural. e c �ntext: at the avena is described as tenuis. Vergil is obviously : pla�In g wIth two notions, a metapoetic one (Callimachean A.e!t't6 't'TJ�)210 and a . �eahstic one. As to the latter, tenuis cannot denote the sound produced by an Instrument; its conventional notion is that of tender, fragile texture.2 1 1 Hence,

1?

12

no Latin reader could have possibly visualized the shape of a syrinx when reading 'oatstraw' next to tenuis. Tenuis must either refer literally to the shape of the 'oatstraw' (as part of the instrument) or to the whole instrument synecdochically indicated by the term 'oatstraw'. In either case stands for monaulos.

avena ultimately

The question remains why Vergil mentions the monaulos in such a prominent position at Two major reasons are conceivable: (a) a reference to the name Tityrus: several ancient sources report that 'Ct'cvpwo.; denoted a KaA.av-.tVo.; ai>A.6.; or something similar.21 2 In other words, avena in the sense monaulos would playfully echo the name of the protagonist of Ecl. (b) originality: Vergil may have felt that the syrinx was characteristic of

1.2.

1.

Theocritus' bucolic world. But, though the syrinx was the dominant instrument in Theocritus' bucolic poetry, indeed,2 1 3 the aulos was not absent.2 1 4 Yet more important is the following: we do not know the sequence of the Idylls in the Theocritean collection Vergil used. But we can say almost certainly that the first

Idyll was, as in modem editions, Thyrsis, because all three families of the Theocritean manuscripts and the papyri have this poem at the beginning.2 l s Now, the crucial instrument at the beginning of Theoc. 1 i s the syrinx (see If in Vergil's edition Theocritus began his collection with a reference to the syrinx, and Vergil started with a reference to the aulos, the poetic message is that of 'originality'. This claim to originality is underlined by the fact that

1.3,

14, 16).

Vergil did not choose the ordinary Latin term tibia for aulos, but the unprecedented avena, 2 1 6 which pointed to rustic life in marked contrast to tibia. Once in the Eclogues the term harundo appears as a musical instrument, at agrestem tenui meditabor harundine Musam. The li�e - placed programmatically at the beginning of the second half of the collection - clearly takes up in wording and programmatic function. This relation to and in

6.8:

1.2

1.2

209 This is a marked difference between Vcrgil and Ovid. The latter uses avena and harundo in s only bucolic the plural. (deliberately?) misinterpreting Vergil. cf. Smith 1970. 509: Ovid 2 1 0 instrument is the syrinx". 2 1 1 See pp. 90. 94-96. 76. 2 1 2 OLD S.v. and Alpers 1979, IV 176 C; Bust. ad [1. 18.495 Artemidorus EphesiUll Bp. Ath. IV 182 D; Amerias Bp. Ath. [Van der VaIk IV 233.1 -3], see also pp. 182f. 21 3 al. 2 1 4 Theoc. 1. 14. 128. 4.28. S.4f., 6.9; [Theoc.] 8.18. 21 2 1 5 Theoc. 5. 1 , 7, 6.43f., 7.41 al. 2 1 6 Gow I. Ixviii f.; Gutzwillet 1996, 124·128. 17.L S.V. QW!M 1 309.33. "

'

Ill. Stylistic Level

1 56

particular - as in the case of avena the use of the singular and the specification of harwuio by tenuis point to the monaulos. The only difference is that here Vergil chose the reed tube (harwuio), not the oaten mouthpiece (avena), as synecdoche for the monaulos. Again the aspect of originality is underlined by the usage of harwuio unprecedented in Latin,2 1 7 though the term was clearly inspired by Greek oova�.2 1 8 Stipula at 3.27, apparently unique in the sense aulos, is a direct translation of the similar Theocritean term 'KaAaP:l1 , see p. 39. Tibia, the ordinary word for aulos, appears in the Eclogues only in the refrain in Ecl. 8 (21 etc.), in a part that very much resembles an urban mime and in which the innovative aspect and the strong rural connotation of avena and harundo would clearly be out of place.2 1 9 -

(ii.) Apart from the aulos, the syrinx is found in the Eclogues. Its Latin equivalent fistula appears indiscriminately in several passages in the Eclogues (for its outward appearance see 2.36f., 3.25f.).22o The most frequent term for syrinx in the Eclogues is calamus.22 1 The fact that we are dealing with the syrinx becomes clear from (a) the usual appearance of the word in the plural, (b) 2.32f.: Pan primum calamos cern coniungere pluris I instituit, and 2.34 nec te paeniteat caiamo trivisse labellum. Moreover, the latter passage proves that the singular can denote the same instrument as the plural. The plural calami in the sense of syrinx seems to have been introduced' into Latin poetry a generation or so before Vergil. Lucretius attests to this sense of the word in the plural twice.222 Though preferring the plural, Vergil seems to have been the first in Latin to use the poetic singular of calamus for the syrinx.223 The word had a strongly Greek colour, which may have been the main reason for its employment by Vergil in the Eclogues.224 21 7 TLL s.v. harundo 2543.68. 21 8 It should be pointed out that in technical teans harundo I I\6va� in the plural (and

as a synecdoche even in the singular) could equally well denote the syrinx in later times. Thus, harundo clearly denotes the tube of a pan-pipe at Tib. 2.5.31 fistula cui semper decrescit harundinis ordo, cf. Prop. 2.34.67f. al. Where 1i6va� denotes the syrinx in Greek, normally either the plural (e.g. Pi. P. 12.25) or !he context (e.g. A. Pr. 574 1C1]p6KAacr't0c; ". oova1;) suggest this meaning. Unclear to me is the distinction made at [Theoc.] 20.28f. ixM 0& j10\

'Cb ll&).tcrj1a. Kat liv mip\yYl llu.icrOw. / ICilv m>A.q> AaA£.<.>. nAay\ai>Mp. For the tibia in !he Eclogues see Putnam 1970, 261-263.

ICilv Oa>valC\. lCi; v

21 9 220 Thefistula is mentioned also at 3.22.7.24, 8.33, 10.34. 22 1 1.10, 2.32, 34, 3.13, 5.2, 48, 6.69, 8.24. 222 Lucr. 4.588, 5.1407. 223 1 .1 0, 2.34f. Once in CatuIIus the singular denotes an auws-type, see Catull. 63.22: tibicen ubi canit Phryx CUrIIO grave calamo. The singular is not poetic, for Catullus is refening to a tibia

(cf. tibicen) .

224 The word seems to be first attested in AIc. fr. 1 15(8) 9 [PLFJ, where the context is doubtful.

Already in Pindar the word always denotes a musical instrument (whether syrinx or auIos is not discernable), in one case in connection with Zeus (Pi O. 10.84 ), in another with Poseidon (N. 5.38), in the third with 'some divine figure' (Pae. 9.36 [lIalJLovicp nvi]). The

4. Synonyms

I S7

5.1 382f.

Cicutae in the sense of syrinx was first used by Lucretius at This Lucretian passage describes the invention of the syrinx as follows: et zephyri, cava per �alam�rum, sibila primum 1 agrestis docuere cavas inflare cicutas. 1be use of cl�utae In �e sense of calami (syrinx) here instead of its ordinaty . meamng hemlock, IS unprecedented. The Lucretian context shows that having used calami already in the previous line Lucretius needed a synonym to avoid excessive repetition (see the repeated cava - cava). He chose cicuta, because the

meaning was unambiguous due to the preceding calami and the hollow, tube­ like stalk of the cicuta allowed for such an equation. 225 Cicuta occurs twice in Vergil, at and It is remarkable how closely

2.36 5.85. 2.36: having just mentioned calami twice

Vergil followed Lucretian practice at

(2.32 / 34)

he was grateful for the Lucretian synonym which, like Lucretius, he placed at line-end. At Vergil shows more independence: the word is not a variant for another term and it appears - as calamus does occasionally (see above) - in the poetic singular (but still at line-end).

5.85

Vergil in a sense created the terminology of Latin bucolic musical instruments. All later Latin poets dealing with this topic are directly or indirectly indebted to him, as elucidated by Smith.22 6 I select some marked

2.1.53: 10.51,

features. Tibullus says at et satur arenti primum est modulatus avena. This phrase reflects eel. which ends with the words modulabor avena. Tibullus' arenti avena here may, of course, plainly suggest a dry oat-straw. But,

in addition, Tibullus may intend to mark the instrument as not being the syrinx calamis cera iungitur). The author of [Tib.] j oined with wax (see betrays direct knowledge of both Theocritus and Vergil when he translates the Theocritean 'tPTl'ro� Mva1; as perlucens avena. Propertius regarded the avena as typical of Vergil's bucolic, as his only reference to the word shows Ovid is the first to have (deliberately [?] rnis-) understood the avena as syrinx, as is shown by the fact that the plural of the word occurs first in his works.22 7

2.5.31

3.4.71

(2.34.75).

Similarly, Ovid is the first to use harundo in the plural for a bucolic instrument, thus indicating that harundo in his poetry denotes the syrinx .228 Finally, Ovid 9 inve nts the term cannae for the pan_pipes . 22

225 22 6 227 22 8 22 1}

passa?e in lCaA.UIlOo; is fIrst associated with Pan by Aristophanes and Euripides. The weIJ establIShed. Aristophanes gives the sttong impression that this connection was already . In cf. Eur. El. 702, rr 1 1 26; Ar. Ra. 230: lCai lCEpojla'tao; IIav " lCaA.u�6cpeoY'Ya nai�6)v thus clearly any case, Euripides seems to be the first to use the plural fonn for the Instrument, 1981 , 175). indicating tbe syrinx, see Eur. El. 702, also An/h. Graee. 9.823.3f. [Plato] (= Page Smith 1970, 500. Smith 1970, 507-S I0. TIL s.v. avena I309.20-59. " d . Already Tib. 2.5.31 ;fistulll cui semper tUeresell hanuuJUI/S O� O. TIL s. v. canna 262.2-8.

Ill.

158

Stylistic Level

Camena - Musa - Pieris

Only once in Vergil are the Muses called Camenae, at 3.59: altemis dicetis: altema Camenae. The old-fashioned synonym for Musae, which is first attested in Livius Andronicus,230 is remarkable in this context. There are four explanations for the replacement of Musa by Camena here. (a) Variation: the tenn Musa is mentioned in the following line (3.60). (b) Sound: amant altema Camenae seems to be a deliberate series of 'a'-sounds, for whatever reasonP 1 (c) Etymology: in antiquity Camena was regularly derived from canere / carmen.232 Such a connotation would not only fit well in this context, but the word carmina also appears immediately afterwards in the text to underline it (3.61). (d) Self-demarcation from Catullus: as in the case of the un-neoteric incrementum (see p. 19) Vergil may indicate self-demarcation from Catullus by using the un­ neoteric (old-fashioned) word Camenae in a typically neoteric line (see p. 83 for the typically neoteric features of this line). It is possible that Horace regarded the Vergilian use of Camenae here as noteworthy, for he seems to refer to it at sat. 1 . 10.44f.: molle atque facetum / Vergilio adnuerunt gaudentes rure Camenae (again playing with the connotation of carmina?). The use of the word by Calpurnius at ecl. 3.42 and 4.46 may well be inspired by Vergil's passage. A further synonym for Musa was Pieris (in the Eclogues always Pierides). Though the word is attested in Lucr. (1.926, 4.1), Vergil seems to have considered it as generically bound. It only appears in his bucolic poetry, where it is frequent (partly for metrical reasons, see p. 1 1).

amant

cycnus

-

olor

The common word for 'swan' in classical Latin is cycnus (Greek 'KU'Kvo�). The word appears first in Lucretius (2.824 al.) but its repeated use there and in Cicero at roughly the same time (Cic. nat. deor. 2.183 al.) strongly suggests that it was already well established in Latin by the middle of the first century BC. In Vergil the word appears 10 times, three times in the Eclogues. Olor is first attested at Lucil. fr. 268 [M.], which may betray a colloquial colour. It then appears at ecl. 9.36. The latter case shows Vergil's reluctance to use the word, because it is only admitted as a variant for cycnus, which appears slightly earlier in the same poem (9.29).233 On its second appearance in Vergil see

230 Liv. Andr. carm. fr. 1 [FPL]. For the connotations of the word Skutsch 1985 on Enn. ann. 1 and Hinds 1998, 58-61. 2 3 1 For the alliteration here Merone 1961, 205. 23 2 TU onomastikon s.v. Camena 1 16.62-78; 1. H. Waszink, 'Camenae' C<1M 17 (1956), 14(}.142 id., Opuscu/a Selecta (Leiden 1979), 90-92.; Maltby 1991, 99. 233 Robert Maltby kindly points out to me that CJCIlILf at 9.29 and olor at 9.36 occur at the end of see

=

consecutive stanzas. Vergil may have playfully taken up the Greek tenn by ita Latin correspondence. A similar wordplay is found at Tib. 1.1 .43f. where kcto (associated with J..£K'tPOV according to Varro ling. 5.166) at line-end corresponds to toro in the following

4. Synonyms

I S9

1 1 .? 80)

(Aen. the poet is less reluctant to use the word in its own right (rather than varymg another word). Vergil thus reflects the general tendency of an increasingly wiclu acceptance of olor, though cycnus remains dominant. Horace has cycnus and olar twice �ach, Propertius once each. Qvid prefers cycnus times compared to olar 5 times). In the imperial period olor is attested also in prose (e.g. Plin. nat. 1 .63 al.). OZor used as a synonym for cycnus to avoid repetition of the latter is fOlUld at Qv. met. 7.37 l f.; Sen. Ag. 67 f. al.

(10

0

8

mons -

rupes

Rupes is well-attested since Accius.234 It appears twice in Lucretius am thre� times in Catullus, but does not occur in Plautus or Terence. Vergil is particularly fond of it, employing it 28 times. The word was not necessarily poetic in character, as its use by Caesar shows (pace Clausen).235 In the Eclogues rupes is found 6 times,23 6 twice as a synonym for mons.

At 5.63 Vergil uses rupes (plural) to vary montes which occurs earlier in the same line. At 6.29 Vergil writes nee tantum Phoebo gaudet Pamasia rupes. 1be phrase Pamasia rupes - i.e. the combination of a geographical term and an apparently superfluous explanatory noun - is rare in the Eclogues.23 7

Comparable phrases involving a geographical term + rupes (in its synecdochic sense of 'mountain') are not attested before Catullus in Latin,238 though the Greek equivalent of a georaphical term + (synecdochic) aT1tO� is common from the fIrst appearance of a\1to�, i . e. since Aeschylus' Agamemnon.2 3 9 In other

2 2

��

23 6

line, again at line end, see H.-C. GUnther, 'Tibullus Ludens' Eikasmos 5 (1994), 256f. Robert Maltby suspects that this technique is Catull an. A neoteric origin is certainly more than likely. Ac c. trag. 505 [R .3l and Triinkle 1960, 13. Clausen 1 994, 188 with Caes. Gall. 2.29.3, civ. 1.70.3. 1 .56, 76, 5.63, 6.29, 10.14, 5 8

. 237 In the Eclogues VergiI as a rule does not explain even very learned geographical

terms, e.g. he expects his reader to know that the Araris (1 .62), Oaxes (1.65) and Timavus (8.6) are rivers, that Aracynthus (2.24), Oeta (8.30) and Tmarus (8.44) are mountains and that the Garamantes (8.44) are tribesmen of tbe eastern Sahara. Where be adds an explanatory word, he does so normally to stress a certain aspect not contained in the name, e.g. in the phrase Grynei nemoris (6.72) the aspect of Apollo's grove, in saxa Timavi (8.6) the aspect of the borderland of the river, in the phrase Parnasi I Pindi iuga (10. 1 1 ) the aspect of the . mountain peaks. Apart from our passage, only in three cases does Vergd seem to b� unnecessarily elaborate, at 1.19 (urbem Romom for Romam): at 1O.15 I.fleverun! saxa .Lycael forflevit Lycaeus) and 10.57 (Parthenios saltus for Parthemurn). But � close ms�on the diction here is explicable: at 1.19 the word urbs does not so muc� SpecIfy .Romom (which, of course, is unnecessary) as it forms an opposition to � ruraI se�g, �smg the othemess �f . the city (possibly also having a comic note, pomtiDg to rustle n8JVlt�); �t 10.15 !l1Xa IS necessary for Lycaeus by itself could easily be misunderstood as an adjective denotmg Pan ( Lycae� deus), thus changing the sense completel�; at 10.57 Partheniu"'. by itself would omit the aspect of wilderness and, besides, was possibly regarded by Vergd as too blunt a pun on the homonymous poet; for this pun see p. 106. Catul!. 61 .27f. [TMspiae I rupis}, 68.53 [Trina:ria ngJesJ . A. Ag. 285 ['A9il.OV utlW�J, 309 ['ApuxvUtOV a1!w�]. =

2

2

;:

Ill. Stylistic Level

160

words, Catullus (the neoterics?) seems to have introduced into Latin the phrase geographical term + (synecdochic) lURes on the basis of the traditional Greek geographical term + (synecdochic) at1to� . Vergil made use of this Catullan (neoteric?) pmctice when translating the underlying Greek model of 6.29f. into Latin.240

Rupes replacing mons for reasons of variation is a traditional and widely spread poetic device from early on in Latin poetry, e.g. in Catullus, Lucretius, the later Vergil, Propertius and Ovid.241 However, the phrase-type consisting of geographical term + (synecdochic) lUpes is rarely found elsewhere in Augustan poetry, e.g. at Prop. 1 . 1 . 14 saucius Arcadiis lUpibus ingemuit,24 2 and never at the end of a hexameter line as in the Eclogues and Catullus. Possibly, its colour was regarded as too strongly Greek.

poeta - vates The literature on the meaning and semantic development of the term vates is extensive.243 But as far as the Eclogues are concerned, the situation seems to me mther simple: whatever role Varro244 or Lucretius245 may have played in mediating the term vates, in the Eclogues it is hardly much more than a device to avoid repetition of the word poeta. The normal word for 'poet' in the Eclogues is poeta.246 The latter may indicate a high degree of distinction: hence Gallus is exclusively termed poem (see 10.17, 10.70). In the two cases where vates appears in the Eclogues, poem always stands close by. At 7.25-28 Vergil writes: pastores, hedero crescentem

ornate poetam I .... I aut ... baccare Jrontem I cingite, ne vati noceat mala lingua futuro (possibly with a slight notion of amplification, i.e. 'now a poeta, but in the future even a vates [mantic aspect?]'). At 9.32-34 Vergil translates Theocritus:247 et me fecere poetam I . .. me quoque dicunt I vatem pastores. The structure of the l atter passage was picked up from Theocritus, and vates here simply translates

aotoo�

(without a clear mantic aspect).24 8

24 0 On this model see p. 96. 241 Catull. 68.53 / 57; Luer. 5.20lf.; Verg. georg. 2. I 86f., Aen. 3.644 1 647, 7.713, Prop. 1 . 1 8.27,

Ov. met. 5.612f., 9.210f., 13.785f., epist. 7.37.

242 Cf. Prop. 2.3Ob.36: Bistoniis oUm rupihus accubuit. 243 J. K. Newrnan, The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry (Brussels 1%7), especially 1 8-23; Nisbet 1 970, IS; Clausen 1 994, 278. 244 Cf. H. Dahlrnann, 'Vates' Philologus 97 (1948), 337-353 id., Kleine Schriften (Hildesheim =

1 970), 35-5 1 , against whom see 0, Skutsch, Studia Enniana (Oxford 1%8), 28f. n. 9. 245 Cf. P. R. Hardie, Virgil's Aeneid: Cosmos and Jmperium (Oxford 1986), 1 6-22. 246 5.45, 7.25, 9.32, 10.17, 70. 247 See p. 55. 24 8 Cartault 1 897, 489; pace Sehrnidt 1987, 189. Note also the etymological play fecere poetam (notciv =facere), as pointed out by Putnam 1 970, 312.

4. Synonyms

161

Vergil in the Eclogues is apparently the fIrst t o use vates as an equivalent of Outside the Eclogues Vergil never unambiguously repeats the substItutIOn of poeta for vates (but at Aen. 7.41 Vergil calls himself vates). In �he only case where poeta occurs outside the Eclogues (georg. 3.90), he does, Indeed, refer to 'poets'. Moreover, the synonymous relation between poeta 8IXi

?�

poeta 4

vates is not reversible: poeta never replaces vates, even where vates is mentioned twice in the same passage (see georg. 4.387 / 392, 45lf.; Aen. 6 78 / 82, 415 / While the later Vergil abandons the use of vates as a synonym for poeta, It IS taken up and widely applied by Horace and later poets (see Hor. carm. . . 35 al.).25 0 Vergil's practice of substiruting vates for poeta to avoid repetition, as first shown in the Eclogues, was also adopted at least occasionally .

�1?). 11

by later poets (e.g. Horace, Tibullus, Ovid).25 1

puella - virgo Puella is the normal term for 'young woman' in Vergil's bucolic world. Even where Vergil speaks explicitly of as notorious a virgin as Atalanta, he calls her Hesperidum miratam mala puellam (6.6 1 ,252 perhaps following a Gallan precedent?).253 Exceptionally, virgo appears twice in the Eclogues, at 6.47 and 52, both times in a quotation from Calvus (see pp. 12lf.). On the oilier hand, outside the Eclogues, especially in the Aeneid, puella occurs rarely as compared with virgo and normally because the corresponding form of virgo was metrically inconvenient or the diminutive force of puella was still fe1t.254

Watson undertook a detailed analysis of the relationship between puella am virgo, stressing the different connotations of the two words and showing that

their use as synonyms was more restricted than generally supposed.255 On our passage she remarked correctly: " ... the reference to Pasiphae as virgo in Ecl. 6 is the only clear example where the word is used of married women whos� marriage is kn own to have been consummated".256 In other words, VergIl sacrificed precision of expression to render the Calvan phrase literally.257 2 49 OW s.v. vates 2. 25 0 OLD s.v. vates 2. Hor. epist. 2.1 .247 I 249; Tib. 2.5. 1 1 3f.; Dv. am. 3. 1.16 I 19, ars 3.405 1 408. . For other cases where a virgo is referred to as puel/a WIthOut any apparent contextual reason see Watson 1983, 141. 2 5 3 Watson 1983, 136 with Prop. 1 . 1 .1 5 where Atalanta is referred to as velox puella. The passage was suspected to be Gallan for other reasons, see pp. 105f. 254 Axelson 1945. 58. Watson 1 983. 139 n. 75 doubts metrical considerations and prefers a strong diminutive character of pueI/a as the reason for the employment of the word: see also Coleman 1999. 60: "It may be that the epic preference for v ; go dates from a time when pue/la was still felt to be the diminutive of an obsolescent puera . 255 Watson 's argument, however. is in danger of running circ�ar: accordmg to herpuella I vIrgo other the On deduced. be n can connotatio occurs only in a certain context, from which its . hand, due to their connotations both words fit only into a certam context. 56 2 7 Watson 1983, 133. . . 25 Watson 1983, 1 3Of. for similar cases where virgo does not imply VtrgtDlty.

;��

:

•

.

.

Ill. Stylistic Level

1 62 Catullus already reserved

virgo for his more elevated poems (the word

appears only from poem 61 on), whereas puella is found throughout his work, notably in the polymetric poems, especially in his Lesbia poems. Hence, Catullus (and Gallus?) seem(s) to have been the fIrst to make puella a word typically associated with love poetry. Later love poets follow suit in their predilection for puella, so Vergil in the Eclogues (puella 4 times, virgo twice), Tibullus (puella 32 times, virgo once), Propertius (puella 1 23 times, virgo 5 times), avid in his love poems (i.e. his poems other than lb. , fast. , met. aOO trist. : puella 227 times, virgo 37 times).258 On the other hand, later hexameter poets of a more elevated epic style prefer

virgo, following the pre-Vergilian

practice taken up in the Aeneid.259 Most striking are the fIgures for the Aeneid (puella 2 times, virgo 47 times), Silius (puella once, virgo 36 times) aOO Valerius Flaccus (puella once, virgo 77 times) .260

c. Verbs

canere - dicere Dicere used for the sound of instruments as at 10.34 is as old as Ennius (see ann. 45 1 [Sk.] ).261 As a substitute for canere it is first attested in Catullus (see TLL s.v. dicere 977.65-978.3), but only in the two wedding songs 61 and 62 (see 6 1 . 39, 62.4, 62. 1 8). Characteristically, Catullus still knows only the expression carmen canere (64.383, 65.12), not dicere. In Vergil dicere has become a common metrical variant for canere (see 3.55, 59 al.) and both the expressions carmen canere (1 .77) and carmen dicere (6.5, 10.3) appear in the Eclogues. In short, Catullus made the first step towards a freer use of dicere, while Vergil proceeds even further in equating dicere aOO canere in his work. H the TLL entry is accurate, dicere in this sense is attested only once again in the Augustan Age, at Valg. carm. fr. 2 [FPL]. Very notably, this passage refers directly to Vergil's Eclogues (quoted on p. 186). Compound Verb - Simple Verb Most numerous are the examples where Vergil replaces a compound verb by a simple form. Still, some cases can be found where he replaces a simple verb by a compound form or even one compound by another compound. The reasons

258 Por the use of pue/la in the erotic sphere cf. Watson 1983. 135-1 37. 259 The same applies to educated prose writm, who seem to avoid puella. see Adams 1983, 345. 260 For the influence of the coMotation 'whore' on the di!lribution of the word see Adams 1 983, 344-348. 26 1 TU s.v. dicu 989.21-27.

4. Synonyms

1 63

for such a substitution may vary. I list some of them, including some selocted examples. (1) Poetic colour of the simple verb.262 At 1 .3 Vergil writes: dulcia linqu�mus arva. The simplex linquere is predominantly poetic. It is found only here In the Eclogues, though it is very common in Vergil's later writings. TIle more prosaic term is relinquere, which is found e.g. at 1 . 1 5, 30 al.263 Vergil prefers solari (see 6.46), where prose authors would normally choose consolari (ratio of �olari / consolari in Vergil 14 / 0, but in Caesar 0 / 6). A very striking �xample In the same vein is monstrare, found 18 times in Vergil (though never In the Eclogues), 12 times in Horace, 24 times in Ovid, while demonstrare is

absent in all three authors. On the other hand, Caesar has demonstrare 68 times 264 but never monstrare. (2) Metrical convenience. At 2.23 Vergil says of Amphion armenta vocahat. Amphion is not so much addressing his herd but collecting it; thus convocahat would be more fitting, though metrically impossible (like most forms of convocare). At 3.8 Vergil uses the phrase transversa tuentibus hircis. The use of tueri = intueri ('to look at') is strongly poetic, possibly with an archaic note.26 5 However, this stylistic colour of the word does not much fit the very colloquial context of this passage (see p. 136). I assume that Vergil employs tueri here

under metrical pressure (most forms of intueri are metrically excluded, as intuentibus would be). DServ. remarks on 5.34 that in postquam te fata tulerunt

the appropriate verb would be ahstulerunt (metrical shape: - u - -), but metrically impossible (unless one scans - u u - , again under metrical pressure). 266 (3) Avoidance of hiatus. At 1 . 1 5 Vergil says of a she-goat: spem gregis, et silice in nuda conixa reliquit. Servius ad loco remarked that Vergil here rejected

the 'correct' term enixa to avoid the hiatus. Vergil's use of coniti and eniti elsewhere confirms Servius' observation: eniti repeatedly denotes 'to give birth to' in the Aeneid, where Vergil could always have employed coniti in metrical terms (see Aen. 3.391 = 8.44, 7.320). In fact, according to the TLL the vox propria is eniti, while coniti in the sense 'to give birth' here is virtually unique .2 67 Furthermore, Servius provides a parallel for the use. of conit� at 1 . 1 5 : at Aen. 1 .562 Vergil writes solvite corde metum, Teucn, secludlte �uras. . According to Servius, Vergil replaced the proper word excludlte by sec!udlte to avoid the hiatus. Though this case is not as clear-cut as the preceding one, secludite in this sense seems to be unique, indeed.2 68 while one could point to Sen. epist. 1 1 6.3 in favour of excludite: (scil. odfectus) excluditur facilius quam

262 63 Leumann 1947, 133. 2 264 Marouzeau 1970. 131 -133. See the table in TU S.V. demonstro 503.64-504.9. 26S OLlJ S.V. tl/tor 1. 266 Leumann 1947. 127; Coleman 1 999, 44. 2 97.37-598.31. 2 TU I.V. conitor 319.66-72 111Jd ibid. s.v. tnitor5 OLlJ s.v. stcllldo s.v. Id.

:�

1 64

Ill. Stylistic Level

expellitur. In a similar vein Vergil occasionally chooses the poetic plural of a noun to avoid a hiatus.269 (4) Compound-simplex and simplex-compound iteration. A simple verb is occasionally followed by a synonymous compound verb or vice versa. This phenomenon is found in poetry and prose alike.27o In the Eclogues one may compare deponere at 3.3 lf. and ponere at 3.36, likewise ducere and deducere at 8 .68f. More doubtful is the employment of linquere at 1.3 and relinquere at 1 . 1 5, 30 (the great number of intervening lines and the different context make coincidence equally likely). (5) Influence of (Greek) model. In translating [Theoc.] 8.15 (see pp. 39f.) Vergil writes at 3.32: de grege non ausim quicquam deponere tecum. At 3.3 1 he uses depono in a similar way. This sense of 'to put up as a stake' for deponere in these two passages is virtually unique.271 But as Theocritus used ,tHlt')JLt as a variant of lCCl'tCl'tiBt')JLt in the same passage,272 so Vergil took depono as a variant of pono (see 3.36). (6) A number of cases may be explained by a combination of the previous explanations or simply as a predilection of the poet. At 1 .7lf. Vergil remarks: en quo discordia civis 1 produxit miseros? The meaning of the prefix pro- is not clear here, it may be a convenient device to fit the word ducere better into the line. At 1 .76 Vergil writes: ite meae, felix quondam pecus, ite capellae. The context is Meliboeus' renunciation of the world; thus ire here clearly stands for abire (though pastoral ite was somehow formulaic).273 Vergil is the first to employ jigere in the sense of transjigere (one of the many synonyms for 'to kill')274 and thus sets the precedent for subsequent poets.275 The first evidence for this use ofjigere is 2.29: atque humilis habitare casas et jigere cervos. Apart from a certain playfulness I cannot detect an internal reason for the use of jigere here (transjigere was not metrically impossible per se); one might consider an earlier (Ennian?) model.27 6 At 3 . 1 0f. the cutting of trees and young vines is described as arbustum 1 atque mala vitis inciderefalce novellas. The context shows that incidere here ...

269 27 0

Norden 1927. 409. Cf. in general now Wills 1996. 438-445; for occurrences in poetry C. Watkins. 'An Indo­ European Construction in Greek and Latin' HSCP 71 ( 1966), 1 15-117; R. Renehan, 'Compound-Simplex Verbal Iteration in Plautus' CPh 72 (1977). 243-248; for prose J. N. Adarns. 'Iteration of Compound Verb with Simplex in Latin Prose' Eikasmos 3 ( 1992), 295298. 1 27 TlL s.v. depono 582.31-35. 272 [Theoe,] 8.1 l f.. thus a1ready 11. 23.267. 273 Ire is the normal verb in the Eclogues (replacing ahire e.g. at 1.64), while abire is found only at 7.56. For the formulaic character of pastoral ite see Wills 19%. 99-102. 274 For such synonyms see Lyne 1989. 1 06-108, pointing out that poets norma1Iy avoid such plain prosaie words as intetjicere. necare and occidere; for the stylistic difference of interficere and occidere see also Uifstedt 11. 342·345. 275 TU s.v. 715.37- 716-32. 6 27 Cf. Enn. ann. 338 [Sk.] (scil. cura) ... in pectore fixa. Transjigere is only attested in the perf. part. in Vergil (Am. 1 .44, 1 1 .645).

4. Synonyms

1 65

has the meaning of abscidere I decidere. But Vergil avoided the latter two wocds until the last part of the Aeneid,277 while incidere is strikingly frequent in the Eclogues (4 times altogether, see especially 8.29: novas incUkjaces) .278 DServ. remarks on 8.68 that in the refrain ducite ab uroe domum, mea cannina, ducite Daphnin the verb ducite stands for adducite.279 To conclude, Vergil's use of synonyms in the Eclogues is characterized by a willingness to combine the use of traditional synonyms with the employment of new ones. In terms of tradition Vergil does not follow a particular predecessor, though neoteric influence is perceptibly stronger than in the Aeneid, for example. In his new creations Vergil regularly extends the meaning of a common poetic word to serve as a substitute for another common poetic word. Re does not form new words - nor does he employ previously unpoetic words - to enrich the number of synonyms. In short, his innovation does not consist of the introduction of previously uncommon words (be it in terms of word formation or generic connotation), but of the unprecedented usage of well-established poetic language. Wilkinson in particular has shown that such a practice may be observed not only in Vergil but also in Rorace and that it may thus be regarded as a typical trait of 'classical' Latin poetry .280

There are no synonyms in the Eclogues in the full sense of the word. We are always dealing with partial synonyms, i.e. words whose semantic areas partly overlap and partly differ. In this respect it is important (though rarely acknowledged by scholars) that synonymous relations are not necessarily reversible: thus while opacus can always replace umbrosus (umbrosus being more specific), umbrosus only occasionally equals opacus, and while vates is used as a synonym for poeta in the Eclogues, nowhere in Vergil (or anywhere else in Latin poetry, I assume) is poeta used as a synonym for vates. The reasons for employing a synonym in the Eclogues are manifold. Two reasons seem to be of major importance (for some more see above s. v. Camena - Musa - Pieris, p. 158). (a) Style: Vergil wishes to vary the vox propria found nearby in the text to avoid clumsy repetition and simultaneously to exhibit his poetic inventiveness and playfulness.

277

27 8

279 280

Both verbs are found only in the last three books of the Aeneid, decidere at Aen. 10.395, 1 1 .5, abscidere only at 12.511. At 10.53 incidere is the vox propria, no doubt At 9.14 lite� i�cidere stands for 'to cut . short quarrels', see TU s.v. 909.57. DServ. ad loco claims that mcldere .h�re stands for declde�e. , s.v. decldo But the latter would rather have the connotation of 'to bring to a deciSion (see TU 166.60-81), which was not necessarily intended here. see p. 142 n. 120. . d ID Numerous other instances of an interchange of simple verb I compound . can be fou? The Elegies of Vergil and later poets, cf. Norden 1927. 29 ; BlSmer 1 957, 4-7: K. F. Snuth, Albius Tibullus (New York 1913), 250 [for TlbullusJ. L. P. Wilkinson, 'The Language of Virgil and Horacc' CQ n.s. 9 (1959), 181-192 = S. ]. (Oxford 1990). 413-428. Harrison (ed.), Oxford Readings in Vergil's Aeneid

�

1 66

Ill. Stylistic Level

(b) Connotation: Vergil exploits the synonymous aspects of two or more partial synonyms, whilst simultaneously playing on their non-synonymous connotations (as defined by the usage of earlier authors). While it is easy to prove the former case by pointing to a synonymous expression in the immediate context of a word, it is much harder to demonstrate the latter. As typical examples of a stylistic reason one could quote Camena for Musa, vates for poeta and olor for cycnus: all of them seem to be used in the Eclogues for variation in the first place, even where they have other connotations, too. On the other hand, the best example of a connotative reason is perhaps avena. Being formally a synonym for tibia, it is never used to avoid repetition of the latter but rather serves - due to its manifold connotations - as one of the key metapoetic terms in its own right in the Eclogues. 5.

Technical Terms

By technical terms I mean words or expressions which

are predominantly

used by - and thus typical of - a group of speakers pursuing the same trade or profession to describe activities and objects directly connected with this trade or profession. Thus an agricultural term is predominantly used by farmers to describe an activity or an object connected with agriculture (and not, say, fishing) etc. Naturally, technical language is not reserved for treatises dealing with the particular field of expertise. Rather, all literary texts need to employ a certain amount of technical vocabulary to describe various spheres and activities of human life. In what follows, I select only a few noteworthy aspects from the technical language employed in the Eclogues.28 1

a. Botanical Terms I start with the most obvious technical terms in the Eclogues, the botanical terms (names of plants and fruits): there are 78 such technical terms .2 82 This means that, on average, every ten lines or so Vergil employs a new name of plants or their fruits.

28 1 For a more general approach towards the use of technical language in Latin poetry cf. D. R

Langslow, The Language of Poetry and the Language of Science: The Latin Poets and "Medical Latin"', in: Adarns I Mayer 1999, 183-225; for Greek philosophical teml8 cf. D. Sedley, 'Lucretius' Use and Avoidance of Greek', ibid. 227-246.

282 Acanthus. alga, alium, alnus. amomum, tlMthum, apium, arbutus. arUta, avena, baccar,

carduus. carectum, casia, colocasium, corylus. corymbus. cllpressus. cytisus. ebubun, ervum. jagus, ferulo, jragum, jraxinus. glans, gramen, hedera, hibisc/Ulf, hordeum, IryacintJuu. ilex. iuncus. iWliperus. laurea. laurus. ligustrum, lilium, loIiJUn, mahun, morum, 7111UCUS. myrica. myrtus, narcissus, nux, oliva, ornus, paliurus, palmes. papaver, piluu, pirus, pomum, popuoo, prunum, quercus. (rosetum). rubus. ruscum, saJictum, salilUlCa, salix, Sardonial! herbae, sentis, serpuUum, spinetum, tilxus, thymum. tura, Idnuu. ulva, uva, vaccinium. viburnum, viola, virgultum, viru. For an identification oftheae fruit. I plant. cf. Sargeaunt 1920; AndIt

1985.

5. Technical Tenns

167

According to Lembach's count, Theocritus offers 107 names of plants in some 1,2�0 l nes, almost twice as many as in the whole Iliad and Odyssey to�ether, l.e. m more than 20,000 lines. Theocritus does not make a single . terms of botanic realism.283 Vergil is different. Two cases in the Illlstake m E!clogues suggest that he did not always write as an eyewitness: so Vergil is hkely to have known only the balsam of the East Indian amomum (3.89, 4.25), not the plant.284 When Vergil talks ofjallax herba veneni (4.24), he is likely to refer to aconitum (cf. georg. 2.152), but in Italy the latter is attested only in the Ligurian mountain area and thus hardly known to Vergil by autopsy.285 Even more palpable is the lack of autopsy in the Georgics and the Aeneid: of taeda Vergil may have known only the wood, not the tree.286 Ruscum (Mynors: rustum) did not provide good withies for tying up vines as apparently indicated at georg. 2 .4 1 3 .287 When Aeneas piles up a pyre of picea wood for the am Misenus (Aen. 6 . 1 80), Vergil seems to overlook the fact that the tree does not grow at sea leve1.288 Of course, inaccuracy does not necessarily mean lack of botanical expertise. Poetic license may equally play a role. Besides, Vergil may deliberately be inconsistent, so at 4. l f.: Sicelides Musae, paulo maiora canamus I non omnis arbusta iuvant humilesque myricae. Lindsay argued that Vergil here ignored the nature of the tamarisk by calling it 'lowly'.289 But his remark misses the point: the context makes abundantly clear that the term forms a contrast to paulo maiora in the preceding line. Both humiles and paulo maiora refer to 'poetic' height. By forming the oxymoron humilesque myricae Vergil makes strikingly clear that humiles is not meant to be taken literally.290 These observations reflect two differences between Vergil and Theocritus in handling names of plants and I or fruits: (a) In opposition to Theocritus, Vergil's terms for plants and fruits are partly derived from scientific or other literature, not autopsy. Though the sources are normally impossible to recover, Theophrastus' Historia Plantarum would be a provider of technical details as good as any.291 Moreover, there is poetic influence, as becomes manifest at 3.63 and l 06f., where Vergil apparently adapts Euphorion's description of the hyacinth (see p. 93). (b) In opposition to Theocritus, Vergil's terms for plants and fruits � not only employed for the purpose of realis� but �ay have a symbolIc �r . poetological function. The classic example IS jagus, mstrumentahzed by Vergil

�

83 284 2 2 87 2 88

; Lindsell 1936 1 1937, 78-80; Lembach 1970, 11. Sargeaunt 1920, 16; Andrt 1985, 14. :� Sargeaunt 1920, 1 1 .

Sargeaunt 1920, 123. Sargeaunt 1920, 1 1 6. . . . ornos. For Sargeaunt 1920. 100; but two lines later (Am. 6.182): advolvunt Ulgenns mont/bus a further inaccuracy see Sargeaunt 1920, 4. 28 9 LindseIl 1936 / 1937, 80. . 290 For IS grouped wrongly under this use of Ju/TIulis sec 7IL s.v. 3109.8-72 [our passage 31 04.29f.l. 2 1970. 13-15. 9 1 For a number of other possible sources sce Lembach

168

Ill. Stylistic Level

to denote the bucolic setting par excellence. Another may be the tamarisks (myricae) at 4.2 as just mentioned, denoting Vergilian bucolic poetry (see 6 .l Of. : te nostrae. Vare. myricae. I te nemus omne canet). Furthermore, in the choice of his epithets Vergil shows that he is not exclusively concerned with plain descriptive realism: ridenti ... acantho (4.20), arguta ... ilice (7.1), candida ... populus (9.41) al. Occasionally, Vergil exploits not so much the terminological but the Greek dimension of a number of plant names. In these cases the plant name does not (only) serve the realistic description of the bucolic landscape but (predominantly) the creation of a Greek atmosphere, comparable as such to the Greek personal names in the Eclogues.29 2 The exploitation of the Greek dimension of plant names is most palpable at 4. 19f.: errantis hederas passim cum baccare tellus I mixtaque ridenti colocasia fundet acantho. Here the trias baccare (�(b;:xapt<; ), colocasia (lCo/.G1CaO"ta) and acantho (lh:aveo�) is chosen for its exotic Greek sound rather than realism. One may also compare expressions like narcissum . . . bene olentis anethi (= VaplC1.O'0"ov ... £Mop.otl cweeOtl) at 2.48, pro purpureo narcisso (= 1tOPGltlPEcv vaplC1.uO"{p) at 5.38f. and others. •

b. Other Terms Besides the plant names a great number of words found in the Eclogues may be called technical to a greater or lesser extent. Among the most striking agricultural terms one may quote attondere (1 0.7), caseus (1 .34), depellere ( 1 .21,

3 .82, 7. 15), fiscella (10.71),293 frondator (1 .56), gemma (7.48),294 libum (7.33), messor (2.10, 3 .42), muZctra (3.30), novale (1 .70), ovile (1.8), pascuum ( 1 .48), praesepe (7.39), ruminare (6.54), siccare (2.42),295 sinum (7.33), subulcus (10.19), summittere ( 1 .45),29 6 tugurium (1 .68), upilio (10. 19), vinitor (10.36) etc. In addition, there are medical terms like fastidium (4.61), fetus (1.2 1 al.), feta (1.49), fetura (7.36) and vena (6.15), philosophical terms like inane (6.3 1), semina (6 . 32),29 7 terms of artisanship like caelare (3 .37)2 9 8 or tomus (3.38), magical terminology like fascinare (3.103), magicis sacris 292 For the 'sweeter' sound of Greek names see p. 1 82 n. 73. 293 On the metapoetic concept of this word see p. 14. 294 For its technical character see Cic. orat. 8 1 . 295 Cf. Plin. llat. 10.179. 296 The order summittite tauros given by Augustus at 1 .45

297 298

allows various interpretations. Normally - and rightly in my view - it is taken as a technical term to mean 'to rear' or 'to raise' while tauros is supposed to be proleptic, see Coleman ad loc. with arguments. Additionally, one should point out that summittite reflects the Greek Uql{l1l11 that occurs in the sense 'put the young to the mother's teat' from Homer On (Od. 9.245, 309; B. Ph. 31) and namely in Theocritus where it is attested only in connection with young bulls (4.4; 9.3), see Wright 1983, 1 1 5. Cf. Stewart 1959, 1 84f. Cr. R. Faber, 'Vergil Eclogue 3.37, Theocritus I and Hellenistic Bkphrasis' AJPh 1 16 (1 995), 41 1-417.

6. Conclusions

1 69

(8.66), Ponto lecta venena (8.95) and even nautical terms like superrue at 8.6 (in the sense 'to sail past').299 To these one may add more. It is essential that all �ese terms constitute the vox propria and are not deliberately obscure; to put it dIfferently, none of them would have been incomprehensible to a modestly educated reader. This fact forms a stark contrast to the writings Vergil considered as Theocritean. For instance, one may doubt that even a well informed reader could have made much sense of EAA.01tteU£tV (Theoc. 1 .42), oa'Y� (Theoc. 2.1 10), P.iruAoC; ([Theoc.] 8.86), O''tO� ([Theoc.) 9.25), K6pfhl<; (Theoc. 10.46) and presumably a number of other terms in the bucolic Idylls. It should be stressed that Vergil could have easily made use of works such as Cato's or Varro's treatises on agriculture, had he wanted to pepper his poetry with rare technicalities. Clearly, their avoidance was a deliberate choice that ties in well with the observation made in the case of plant names that realism was only one consideration in the employment of technical terms in the Eclogues. Comprehensibility was another. It is telling that at 5.39 where Vergil considered a technical term likely to be misunderstood, he glossed it thoroughly: spinis surgit paliurus acutis (with spinis acutis glossing paliurus). Vergil can play with the meanings of a technical term: at 3.40 a pot is described as having two signa, the astronomer Conon and another unnamed astronomer. Signa is, of course, to be taken as 'figures engraved, figures in relief. This meaning is well attested (e.g. at Lucr. 5.1428; Aen. 5.267), but sign um could also denote a 'constellation of stars',3 oo and it is just that, a constellation of stars, that Conon detected in the heavens according to Callimachus.3 01 Furthermore, given that we are dealing here with an ecpbrasis, the reader could easily be led to recall the beginning of the most famous ecphrasis in ancient literature, the shield description of the Iliad, where again the 'cons tellation of stars' plays a prominent role, see ll. 18.483-486: E:v P.EV 'Yaiav E'tE'tl1;:. E:v o· oilpav6v. E:v OE Qw.aO'O'av. I TtEA.WV 't' IXKap.av'ta O' eA.ftVTJ v 't£ 1tA,1\QoOO'av. I E:v OE 't«X 'tE1.pea 1tav'ta. 'ta 't' oilpavO; £O''t apav£O'tat. I IIA,1'\tao� Q' 'Yao� 't£ 'to 't£ O'Qf:vOC; 'n �irov� :" Thus Vergil here plays with connotations ranging from an astronoIDlC detaIl to the Callimachean Berenice poem and the Homeric shield description.3 02 6. Conclusions

It is impossible to reduce Vergil's employment of stylistic l� v�ls to a simple formula, but the two most striking features of the u�e of st� bstic levels in the Eclogues are perhaps selectivity and variety (1totKtAta), which are found 299 Cf. D erv. Aen. 1.244 quoting Lucil. fr. 125 [M.] ; Nep. Them. 3.3; Liv. 26.�6 1 al. ? : S . SUSP'C'S ortus. I 30 0 Cr. Fisher 1982. 810 with 9.46f.: Daphni, quid antiquo! slgnorum

3

3

��

Dioooei processi, Caesaris as/Tllm ... See p. 175. For similar plays with technical tenns see p. 95 n. 317.

ecce

III. Stylistic Level

1 70

already in Catullus;303 as to the fonner, both Vergil's poeticisms arxI colloquialisms are not taken arbitrarily from poetry or daily speech, but the basic criterion for their eligibility is a set of well defined boundaries, which have been set out in detail above. In general, Vergil's poeticisms almost never reach the height of grand epic, while his colloquialisms never touch on vulgarisms. The result is a language without stylistic eccentricities, without extremes but still not monotonous: within the set confines, Vergil is at pains to combine poetic and colloquial language in countless different ways, by alluding to poetic models or using a word with a poetic colour and simultaneously balancing the phrase with strong colloquialisms, as, for example, at 2.12-22: 2.12 includes a Callirnachean (see p. 91), 2. 1 3 a Catullan (Ennian? Homeric?) phrase (see p. 81), 2.14f. is strongly colloquial (see pp. 133f.), 2. 16-22 adapts two Theocritean passages (see pp. 33f.), while 2.22 contains a remarkable archaism, used here as a rustic colloquialism (deftt). In other words, this passage wavers between sophisticated allusions to Hellenistic authors and marked colloquialisms. The insertion of the deeply prosaic incrementum into a purely Catullan / neoteric line at 4.49 (p. 19) or the equally strongly prosaic oporlet in a purely Callimachean context at 6.4f. (see pp. 96, 140) serves the same purpose of variety. Naturally, colloquialisms are found more frequently in amoebaean Eelogues: the more important the dialogic element, the more frequent the colloquialisms. But other parameters also come into play, most notably the scene / situation: thus the amoebaean character alone does not explain why in Eel. 3 and 9 the colloquial element is so strong, while in Eel. 7 it is much less so. Meanwhile, it is an uncontestable but by itself hardly self-evident fact that the characters within a poem always avail themselves of a language very similar in terms of stylistic level. In other words, in Eel. 3 it is the two protagonists (and not only one, as would be easily conceivable) who use a strongly colloquial language, likewise in Eel. 9. On the other hand, in Eel. 1 it is the two protagonists who are relatively restrictive in their employment of colloquialisms. In other words, the determinant of the stylistic level of a statement is not so much the herdsman who makes it, but the general scene of the poem. Or to put it differently, the stylistic level never serves to characterize individuals, but only scenes or situations. Or, in brief, Vergil's shepherds do not have a linguistic identity.

303 Fedeli 1972, 288 [for Vergii]; A. La Penna, 'Problemi di stile Catullano' Main 8 (1956), 155f. [for Catullus].

IV. Personal Names 1. Introduction The study of Vergilian personal names is generally characterized by two . ?Ifferent approaches. The allegorical interpretation of names and their characters In the Eclogues goes back to Vergil's lifetime. I It has been popular with scholars over the centuries and found its most extreme expression in the work of Leon Herrmann who discovered behind each character a (disguised) Vergilian contemporary.2 This long-lived but - I believe - generally fruitless approach was accompanied from early on by the search for historical, mythological am

etymologic al connotations of the names themselves. This approach is first �aceable in Servius.3 Paschalis and O'Hara have recently devoted great space to It, the former dealing with proper names in the Aeneid, the latter generally with

etymological wordplay in Vergil (and also elsewhere).4 Both scholars show the importance of names and their connotations for the understanding of Vergil's poetic technique. In what follows, my aim is twofold. First, I want to give a general survey of the appearance and function of personal names in the Eclogues; second, I want to uncover some historical, mythological and etymological connotations, along the lines of the second approach just mentioned. In doing so, on the one hand I reach beyond O'Hara's fundamental study, which concentrates on etymological wordplay only, on the other I am more restrictive than O'Hara in that I concentrate on personal names and on the Eclogues only. In order to avoid any unfavourable impression that I am adopting indiscriminately the partly very fanciful, even abstruse, explanations of bucolic names by later sources, notably Servius, I want to outline my position as clearly as possible: on the surface all personal names in the Eclogues are little . I For Valg. carrn. fr. 2 [FPL] inteqlrcting Codrus at 5.1 1 and 7 22 allegorically see Courtney 2 1993. 288 and here p. 1 86 . , . . L. Hemnann, us masques et les visages dons ks Bucoliques de VlTglle (Brussels 193?). For a bibliography of the allegorical approach cf. F. Michelazzo. EV I (1984). s.v. Bucollche. I Personaggi. 571 . . " . 3 E.g. Serv. prooem. ecL p. 4 ['Thilo]: etiam hoc sClendu,?,- et ptrsorw: hu/� ope� ex 1IIfl1O�e PO(!)V, id 'mIV mn:qI I £ pi).. If," Meliboeus. parte nomina de rebus rustlcis habere conjicUJ. ut est quia curam gerit boum. et ut Tityrus; nam Laconum lingua tityrus dicitur a�es mainr. qui gregem anteire consuevit: sicut etiam in comoediis invenimus; nam Pamphilus est totum amans, Glyctrlum quasi dulcis mulier. Philumtna amabilis. 4 O'Ham 1996; PaschaIis 1997 [authoritative for the Aentid]. Of older Iite�ture Wendel 1� remains fundamental, useful is P. Rasi. I personaggi di caratttre bucoli�o nelk Egloghe di Virgilio (Mllltull 1901); for the etymologizing of proper names cf. Van Sickle 1 978. 1 18-189

[footnotes].

IV. Personal Names

1 72

more than this, i.e. names denoting one partiCUlar character (who need not be and normally is not - the same in all Eclogues alike)5 of the bucolic (i.e. a fictitious) world. This bucolic aspect of the personal names is, I believe, omnipresent. When I am arguing in what follows that a name has a certain connotation, I always mean that it has this connotation secondarily. It is on this secondary level of connotations that the interpretation and even 'pseudo­ learnedness' of Servius as an educated native speaker carries considerable weight (because it must have been, at least partly, this audience that Vergil addressed in the Eclogues).6 Nevertheless, it should be stressed very strongly that primarily all names in the Eclogues, even the Latin ones, denote nothing but characters of Vergil's fictitious bucolic world.7 -

2. Non-Pastoral Names The personal names in the Eclogues may be divided into non-pastoral and pastoral personal names.8 I begin with the non-pastoral names that may again be divided into Latin and Greek personal names. (A) Eight Latin personal names can be found in the Eclogues.9 It is noteworthy that all these are historical figures, all contemporaries of Vergil and all men of letters. All of them apart from Varus were involved in active literary production.I° In fact, only Varus and Caesar are not mentioned for their literary production or taste. On the other hand, Vergil avoids personal names of purely political figures, most strikingly Octavian. Finally , it is remarkable that the 22 5 Coleman 1977, 25 mentions some plausible cases where the same name may depict the same

character in different Eclogues. As a rule, it does not, at least not to a verifiable degree (cf. Rumpf 1999, 1 69-1 74). For other views see F. Michelazzo, EV I (1984), s.v. Bucoliche. I

6

Personaggi, 57lf.

For criteria for ancient etymologizing cf.

R. Maltby, 'The Limits of Etymologizing'

Aevum(ant) 6 (1993), 257-275.

7 I pass over in silence a number of mythological and etymological connotations suggested by

others, which, though they cannot nonna1ly be proved to be wrong, seem to me irrelevant to the understanding of the Vergilian text. As for the material used, I exclude adjectives derived from personal names and patronymics (e.g. Alcides 8.61, Proetides 6.48, Sophocleus 8 . 1 0) and names of gods. Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the name of a person and a god (e.g. Nereus, names of nymphs). In these cases I am inclusive rather than exclusive. 8 By 'pastoral names' persons I mythological figures are meant who form an integral part of the pastoral world in the narrow sense (herdsmen I their lovers). By 'non-pastoral names' pecsons I mythological figures are denoted that are not or not predominantly part of the pastoral world in the narrow sense (this includes nymphs, naiads, etc.). 9 Bavius (3.90); Caesar (9.47); Cinna (9.35); Gallus (6.64; 10.2, 3, 6, 10, 22, 72f.); Maevius (3.90); Pollio (3.84, 86, 88; 4.12); Varius (9.35); Varus (6.7, 10, 12; 9.26f.). For the sake of completeness one should add 3.100 (heu, heu quam pingui macer est mihi taurus in ervo) where macer might well be a pun on Vergil's friend Aemilius Macer, cf. Springer 1983 I

1984, 132. 1 0 As an eminent jurist Varus certainly had his share in Roman intellectual life, though he is not known as a poet. For his career, culminating in the consulate in 39 BC, cf. Nisbet 1995, 406 412.

2. Non-Pastoral Names instances of Roman personal names are not

1 73

distributed evenly over the boolc

of

Eclogues, but occur in five Eclogues only, i.e. 3, 4, 6, 9, 1 0. Vergil obviously regarded some Eclogues as more apt for such open contemporary allusions than others. (B) There are 23 non-pastoral Greek names in the Eclogues.l I AII but two names (Bianor, Conon) denote more or less conspicuous figures of Greek mythology. It is noteworthy that each non-pastoral Greek name occurs in one passage only, and there - with two exceptions (Aegle, Hylas) - only once. . VergIl appare�tly took pains not to repeat himself in terms of mythology. Furthermore, If we exempt the two non-mythological names (Bianor, Conon), all these names occur only in the even-numbered Eclogues, with a remarkable preponderance of appearances in Ecl. 6 Cl 0 names out of 24!). This might easily be explained by the cosmogonic, unbucolic character of this poem and by its form of a literary catalogue. It also underlines the different tone of Eel. 6 as the opening Eclogue of the second half of the book of Eclogues. The use of some non-pastoral names is remarkable for their connotations that are not mythological or go beyond the mythological context. I shall deal with them in alphabetical order: • Arethusa. At. 10. 1 Vergil begins his description of Gallus with an invocation of Arethusa, the Arcadian nymph that, followed by the river-god Alpheus, fled beneath the Ionian Sea to Sicily where she sprang forth as a freshwater spring:l2 extremum hune, Arethusa, mihi eoncede laborem. The name Arethusa has several connotations here: (1) The story was referred to by Callimachus (fr. 407.45-50 [Pf.]), but apparently not in a bucolic context. (2) Theocritus introduced Arethusa into the bucolic world. In the Epitaphius Bionis she already seems to be the bucolic spring par exeellenee. 1 3 As such she may occur here in Vergil. This fact, however, leaves unexplained why Vergil refers to Arethusa only in his last Eclogue, and not, say, in the first. (3) It is hardly coincidental that Arethusa constitutes a geographical link between the bucolic II

An asterisk indicates that the name is also found in (pseudo-)Theocritus: Achilles (4.36)*; Aganippe (10.12); Aegle (6.20f.); Amphion (2.24); Arethusa (10.1)*; Arion (8.56); Bi�or (9.60); Circe (8.70)*; Conon (3.40); Doris (1 0.5); Hylas (6.43f.)*; Nereus (6.35); NISUS (6.74); Paris (2.61); Pasiphae (6.46); Philomela (6.79); Prome�us (6.42); Py�a (6.41 ); Scylla (6.74); Silenus (6.14); Tereus (6.78); Thetis (4.32)*; Tlphys (4.34); Ulixes (8.70; [Theoc. '05uC'£'lx;])"' . It has been argued that 3.40-42 puns on Acatus (see p. 175). that 10.57 Parthenios ... saltus puns on the poet Parthenius and that 1O.5�f. . . . li et Partha torquere

Cydonia cornu I spicula

. . . constitutes a gloss on the name Aconbus

�

(spicula

=

"iJc:oV'tEt; ,

(nI:6V'tlIX, sec p. 1(6). . 1 2 Qv. met. 5.572-641 , cf. Pi. N. l . l f. In the Aeneid Vergil betrays knowledge of � m�, ��. hs, 'Vi£!:!ls Pascha �. see Aen. 3.692-96; for a detailed discussion of Arethusa at 10.1 First Arethusa (&1. 1 0. 1 -6) and the Bucolic Tradition', in: Th. A. Papademetnou (ed.), Acta. Panhellenic onal Conference on Ancient Greek literature (Athens 1 997), 7 1 3-

13

and Internati

726. • , , ro • • IX At Theoc. 1 . 1 1 5-1 17 Daphnis bids the world farewell: � ).,)K01" � eiJJ ' ID ttV ' p � , , ttV UI..IXV ' OU £'t OUKe;!; &tt�V� I:ydl . � 1JlllllV �rMtt5Et; apK'W1. , 'XIXipdl" b j30UKOA.o<; s] Eplt. BlOn. ttV Cc 5 pU Il&<;, aUK aMn:a. 'XIXtp', 'Apt9011JIX ... , cf. The�. 16.102; [Moschu 10 and especi ally 77 [on Bion] 0 6' ExEV MIlIX 'tu<; 'Ap£e0 1C'�.

rx:

174

IV. Personal Names

landscape of Sicily, which is prominent in the remammg Eelogues, 14 and Arcadia, which is the real or imagined setting of Eel. 10 . • Bianor. The tomb of Bianor appears at 9.59f. as a landmark of the pastoral landscape: namque sepulcrum I incipit apparere Bianoris. The passage is modelled on Theoc. 7. 1Of. where a tomb of Brasilas is mentioned in a similar context. 1 5 Though Brasilas is otherwise unknown, Brasilas' tomb seems to appear in a realistic context and hence the tomb of Brasilas has normally and rightly, I believe - been regarded as a realistic feature in the Coan landscape.1 6 But who was Bianor? Servius (or his source) believed that Bianor was identical with Ocnus, the founder of MantuaP But if so, one wonders why Vergil does not mention Bianor later in the Aeneid where the prehistory of Mantua is referred to. I S Furthermore, and more importantly, " ... while Ocnus is a plausible name for the founder of an Etruscan (PUn. nat. 3 . 1 30) town, the Greek name Bianor is not." 1 9 Bianor i s attested a s the name o f various historical characters in many parts of Greece.20 L. Herrmann21 was the flrst to suggest that Bianor was a young man whose epitaph was composed by Diotimus: -

Tl. 1tJ...£ov E� cOoiva 1tOVEiv, 1:l. oe 1:Ex:va 1:ExEc:r9at tp..q 1:E.XOt et p.E.J...A.ott 1tatoo<; opiiv 9ava1:Ov ilt9Ecp yap afip.a Btlivopt XeUa1:O p.T!'tll P E1tPE1tE 0' EX 1tatoo<; p.1J1:E.pa 1:0i)OE -ruxEtv. (Anth. Graec. 7.261

=

Gow I Page lines 1735-1738)

1 4 We find a reference to Sicily three times at the beginning of Eel. 4, 6 and 10 (Sicelides 4.1 ;

Syracosio 6.1; SicaMS 10.4). Interestingly, these Eclogues as a whole are anything but Theocritean, as seen already by Donatus Vita Verg. 302-304 [Brummer]: 'numerus' eelogarum manifestus est, nam decem sunt, ex quibus proprie bucolicae septem esse creduntur. quod ex his excipiantur PoUio [Eel. 4], Sifenus [Eel. 6] et Gallus [Eel. 10], cf. Serv. prooem. Eel. p. 3 [Thiel]: sane sciendum, vii. eelogas esse meras rusticas, quas Theocritus x. habet; with Elder 1961, 124 n. 32; Jenkyns 1989, 34 (but Servius - in opposition to Donatus - may have thought rather of Ecl. 4, 6 and 8 [instead of 10] as not being bucolic, since he obviously regarded 1beoc. 2 as unbucolic and 1beoc. 2 is the obvious model of Eel. 8). Rather, Vergil deliberately located these Eclogues in a Theocritean landscape (and said so from the very outset to stress this aspect) to make their unbucolic content less palpable. 1 5 On the Theocritean model see p. 56. 1 6 At Theoc. 7.6 a spring named Burina is mentioned, which can be identified with reasonable certainty, even nowadays keeping its ancient name, cf. Gow 11, 133; Bowie 1985, n n. 47. Theocritus may mention it here to invoice Philetas, cf. Phi1etas fr. 24 [P.] with Bowie 1985, 77. There are other allusions to the historical Coan landscape, for which cf. Gow 11, 127. 1 7 Serv. ad 9.60. I S Aen. 10.198-201: ilfe etiam palriis agmen ciet Oenus ab oris, ! jatidicM Mantus et Tuscl filius amnis, ! qui muros matrisque dedit libi, Mantua, nomen, ! Mantua dives avis. sed non genus omnibus unum. 1 9 Coleman 1977, 271 ; the Greelcness of the nllIIlC is already emphasized by WJlliams 1 968 , 320. 20 LGPN 11 and IlIA S.v. 2 1 CRA! 1930, 335. Obviously independently the same idea wu repeated by S. Tugwell, 'Virgil, Ecloglle 9.59' CR n.s. 1 3 (1963), 132f.

2. Non-Pastoral Names

1 75

The mention of Bianor's tomb in a poem which Vergil might well have �ow�22 i s remarkable. Of course, Bianor in Diotimus' epigram could be a . histoncal character, otherwIse unknown. But the epigram could also be a

reference to Homer, Il. 1 1 .92: (sciI. Ara)1E)1V(oV) �e o· /fvopa Bt,;vopa, 1tot�Eva 'A a ro v (Bianor's only appearance in Homer). Vergil might then have been influenced by Diotimus and I or Homer directly.23 • Conon. At 3.40-42 Menalcas describes a cup he is about to stake: in medio duo signa, Conon et - quis fuit alter, I descripsit radio totum qui gentibus orbem, I tempora quae messor, quae curvus arator haberet? Conon (3.40) was a Samian astronomer who identified a cluster of stars in the heavens as Queen Berenice's missing lock of hair. The topic was taken up by Callimachus in a poem, which Catullus translated (Catull . 66).24 Hence, Conon here connotes Callimachean poetry. But the play with connotations continues. The Vergilian question . . . quis alter? has been answered convincingly by scholars with 'Aratus', the main argument being the pun created on Aratus by arator (3.42).25 If so, the persons actually alluded to in 3.40 are two Alexandrian poets, Callimachus and Aratus. O'Hara aptly called this kind of avoidance of the actual name 'suppression' and gave several examples of it also elsewhere in Vergil (cf. the next paragraph on Doris).2 6 • Doris. The poet addresses the Sicilian spring Arethusa at 10.4-6: sic tibi, cumfluctus subterlabere Sicanos, I Doris amara suam non intermisceat undam, I incipe. Doris, Nereus' wife, is used here metonymically for 'sea' (= mare). This meaning of Doris = mare is explained by the adjective amara that can be related to mare.27 Besides, 'Doris' may point to the Doric dialect of Theocritus' Idylls .28 Again O'Hara groups this example under 'suppression' .29 • Hylas. At 6.43f. Silenus sings of the story of Hylas, the beloved of Heracles, who is seized by a fountain nymph during the expedition of the Argon auts:3 0 his adiungit, Hylan nautae quo Jonte relictum I clamassent, ut 22 On the intricate question of the chronology of Diotimus see Gow I Page n, 27Of. At any rate, Diotimus (or possibly the two homonymous writers) fall either into the classical or early

Hellenistic period, i.e. certainly before Vergil's day.

,

23 The direct influence of the Homeric passage on Vergil has been argued by F. E. Brenlc, War and the Shepherd: the Tomb of Bianor in Vergil's Ninth Ecloglle' AJPh 1 02 (1981), 427-430; . S. V. Tracy. 'Sepulcrum Bianoris: Virgil Ecloglles 9.59-61' CP� 77 �1 �82), 328-3 �0. 24 Especially CaluU. 66.7f.: idem me ilk Conon caeksti in lilmme VI/lit I e Beremceo vertrce caesariem. . 2 5 Herrmann 1930, 149 ; Schmidt 1972, 295 (not mentioning the pun); Fisher 1982, espeCially 804 n. 8; Springer 1983 / 1984; O'HtllIl l996, 247.

2 6 O'Hara 1996. 79-82. . . . 27 Serv. ad 10.S: DORlS AMARA mater nympharum es� quam pro man PO�"lt. ISld. 13.14.1: 19�. 2� 1 . Hara O cf. s�t, amarae eillS proprie alltem mare appellatllm eo qllOd aqllQe . KeMedy 1987 49 pointed o ut that Vergil disparages his own achievement b y the adjectIve 1.1. 65, amara in o�ition to the noIorious sweetness of Tbeocritean verse (cf. e.g. Theoc. 145 and p. 182 n. 73). . . ' ' • .t. 2 8 Cf. [Moschua] £,pit. BiOll. If.: AiA.\Vu 110\ OWVUXIl\1;£ V(XM\ lCU\ uwp\.Ov 1550p. I lCUt with Schmidt 1972, 72 and Kennedy 1987. 48f. 29 ,":1;ItILO t lCA4W\1;I: WV \1lEjJ6EVUX Bu.va

O Hara 1996, 79-82.

3 0 For the 1(01)' see Apoll. Rhod. 1.207-272; Theoc. 13.58-60.

1 76

IV. Personal Names

litus 'Hyla, Hyla' omne sonaret. Line 44 has two verbs of sound, clamassent and sonaret. Under these circumstances the repetition Hyla, Hyla does not seem to be merely a pathetic exclamation, but also an allusion to two similar sounding verbs of sound, Greek uA.aco ('to bark', also of persons 'to howl')3 1 and Latin ululo ('to how!'). The latter is all the more fitting, since it frequently denotes the mourning for someone lost, as required here.32 • Pasiphae. At 6.46 Silenus sings of the consolation of Pasiphae: Pasiphaen nivei solatur amore iuvenci. The juxtaposition of Pasiphae (Greek 1taO't<pa1\� = shining on all) and niveus (= snow-white) may well be deliberate. • Philomela. The mention of the story of Philomela at 6.78-81, literally 'she Who is fond of cattle I apples' (A.a� (= 'young dog') was already felt by Homer and frequently played on by Latin authors. But Vergil might have in mind a further connotation, the one of Greek O'lCW.A.co (= 'maltreat, molest'), recalled in the Vergilian vexasse (line 76).35

3. Pastoral Names All pastoral names in the Eclogues are Greek in origin. Almost half of them are already found in Theocritus. In what follows I shall first deal with these, then with those without a Theocritean precedent. 31 32

LSJM s.v.; Van Sickle 1978, 156 n. 23. Cf. Aen. 2.488 al. Coleman 1977, 188 makes the interesting point that the different quantities of Hyla, Hyla (long a I short a) have a fading effect and compares 3.79 vale, vale (long e, short e); for the phenomenon see especially N. Hopkinson, 'Juxtaposed Prosodic Variants in Greek and Latin Poetry' Glotta 60 (1 982), 1 62-177; Wills 1996, 1 37, 462f.; Coleman 1 999, 37f. A further point is remarkable: Theoc. 1 3.58-60 knows of three cries of Heracles (58: 1:P U; (LEv uYA.av UuaEV). The phrase Hyla, Hyla has only two, perhaps in order to recall Latin ululo as closely as possible. Still, Hylas is named altogether three times in the Vergilian passage, more frequently than any other non-pastoral name in the Eclogues (cf. Wills 1 996, 53 n. I I , 361). Apart from Hylas only Aegle (6.20f.) and Gallus (l O.72f.) occur more than once, and here purely for stylistic reasons (epanalepsis). The Theocritean passage would explain why Vergil here crammed the same name three times into two lines, for similar 'cramming' see 5.5lf., 8.83f. with Wills 1996, 274. 3 3 T. E. Page, P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica et Georgica (London 1 898), 148. 34 On the conflation here of the Megarian and the Homeric ScyUa see CIausen 1 994, 204f.; Thomas 1998, 669f., also 675 n. 1 1 ; on this typical Hellenistic technique see also Courtney 1 990, 1 12 [with further references]. 35 Od. 12.85f. with O'Hara 1996, 9, 94, 248f.; Paschalis 1997, 136, 1 86. According to Van Sickle 1978, 148 n. 8 Call. fr. 288 [Pf.) may indicate the playful connectiOn between I1XUA.Mx and 111C-6A.Mo , not very convincingly (cf. Pfeiffer ad loc.).

3. Pastoral Names

177

(A) Pastoral Names found in Theocritus

�

1 pastoral names with a Theocritean precedent occur in the Eclogue 36 s. In certam cases I find a connotation of some kind. I shall deal with these cases in alphabetical order. . • Aegon. At 5.72 the poet imagines himself to be accompanied by two smgers : cantabunt mihi Damoetas et Lyctius Aegon. Aegon is a speaking name (a!(� 'goat'), but neither Vergil nor Theocritus seem to have been particularly aware of this.37 Nevertheless there is a wordplay: Lyctus was one of the foremost towns in Crete, situated close to Mt Aegaeon, the birth-place of Zeus according to Hes. Th. 477. Vergil plays with the geographical connotations of the name Aegon. • Amaryllis. The name has apparently two connotations in Latin, (a) amarus (= 'bitter, harsh' often metaphorical == 'unbearable')3 8 and (b) amare I amor ( 'love'), both, I think, found in the Eclogues. 3 9 For the former one could compare Corydon's complaint at 2.14f. nonne fuit satius tristis Amaryllidis iras I atque superba pati fastidia and the remarkably similar wording at 3.80f. triste ... nobis Amaryllidis irae. In both cases the uncontrolled rage (ira) renders Amaryllis 'unbearable' (amara), leading to the despondency (tristitia) of her lover.40 One should note that in both cases Vergil underlines the bad connotations of Amaryllis here by homoioteleuta (tristis =

=

Amaryllis I nobis Amaryllis).

For the latter one might refer to 1.4f. tu, Tityre, lentus in umbra I formosam resonare doces Amaryllida silvas. The adjective fonnosam indicates 3 6 Adonis (Eel. 10 I Theoc. 1 . 3, IS, [Theoc.] 20); Aegon (Eel. 3, 5 I Theoc. 4); Alcippe (Eel.

7 I Theoc. 5) ; Amaryllis (Eel. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 1 Theoc. 3, 4); Amyntas (Eel. 2, 3, 5, 10 I Theoc. 7); Antigenes (Eel. 5 1 Theoc. 7); Chromis (Eel. 6 1 Theoc. 1); Corydon (Eel. 2, 5, 7 I Theoc. 4, 5) ; Damoetas (Eel. 2, 3, 5 1 Theoc. 6); Daphnis (Eel. 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 I Theoc. I, 5, 6, 7; ep. 2, 3 , 4, 5; [Theoc.] 8, 9, 27); Galatea (Eel. I, 3, 7, 9 I Theoc. 6, 1 1); Linus (Eel. 4, 6 I Theoc. 24) ; Lycidas (Eel. 7, 9 1 Theoc. 7; [Theoc.] 27); Menalcas (Eel. 2, 3, 5, 9, 10 I [Theoc.] 8, 9); Micon (Eel. 3. 7 I Theoc. 5); Thestylis (Eel. 2 1 Theoc. 2); Thyrsis (Eel. 7 I Theoc. 1, ep. 6);

Tityrus (Eel. 1 , 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 1 Theoc. 3, 7). . . 3 7 On his second appearance in the Eelogues (3.2) Aego� IS the owner Of . sh�p and ID

Theocritus (4.2, 26) he owns cows. The name Aegon IS attested as a histoncal name throughout Greece (cf. LGPN I-Ill A, s.v.). . 3 8 Cf. 7.41 immo ego Sardoniis videar tibi amarior herb/S ... 39 On the importance of long and short syllables for etymological wordplay see O'Hara .1996, 61 f. One should also note the traditional connection of ama/'US and amor, as reflected ID the 'vertical juxtaposition' at 3.l09f.: et vitula tu dignus et hie, et quis9uis .amores I aut ��et dulcis aut experietur amaros, ef. O'Hara 1996. 86-88, 247f. HI�toncally, ma'Jllls IS (­ diminutive (Kllhner I Blass 11 280) which may well be connected With Greek aJ1ap'OO(J� 'to sparkle'), but Vergil now re betrays awareness of this connection, pace Van Sickle 1 97 8, 120 n. 43. . 40 I . 1 .6 .58 [.Ira] ' Prop. 2.9.35, Tb The concept and vocabulary are elegiac in tone: see e.g. Prop. f e outc also Cf. . ] istis tr [ 1.5.9 � rib. 1 . 3 2.10, Tib. 2.4.1 1 [amarus]; Prop. 1.12.25. . ra lonely lover at Tib. 2.1 lf. (OIl QllUirllS _ tristis): nunc et a/Mra dies tI Mens amanor est: I omnia Mm tristi ttmpora/ellt madtnt.

�

�

he

�

�

1 78

IV. Personal Names

the positive notion of Amaryllis here.41 The position of the name (at the beginning of the whole collection) and the closeness to the metapoetic tenn silvae42 suggest a programmatic function. I therefore believe that Amaryllida here has the connotation of love (anwr). It is this word rather than Amaryllis' name that is repeated again and again (resonare) in Vergil's bucolic world

(silvae).43

• Amyntas is the homosexual lover par excellence in the Eclogues. In 6 out of occurrences in the Eclogues the name denotes a homosexual partner,44 nowhere in the Eclogues clearly a heterosexual partner. The source of this homosexual notion could be an ambiguous passage in Theocritus,4S but the extent and consistency of the homosexual aspect throughout the Eclogues let us think of a well established and traditional literary connotation in Vergil's day.46 • Chromis. See p. 46. • Corydon. Twice in Ecl. 7 Vergil plays with the name Corydon. At 7.63f. Corydon says: Phyllis amat corylos: illas dum Phyllis amabit, I nec myrtus vincet corylos ... The parqnomasia Corydon I corylus seems to be intended.47 At 7.69f. Meliboeus remembers how Corydon defeated Thyrsis in a singing competition: haec memini, et victum jrustra contendere Thyrsin. I Ex ilio Corydcn Corydcn est tempore nobis. Problematic here is the meaning of the second line.4 8 Two explanations have been proposed by scholars. Either the repetition Corydcn Corydon means "since then the Arcadians have heard nothing but 'Corydon, Corydon"', i.e. all people talk about him, or one Corydcn substitutes an adjective denoting some outstanding ability as a singer.49 In the ftrst case one has to interpret est .. nobis as 'he is talked about by us', a rather unparallelled usage and unnecessarily obscure for the plain message 'he is

11

41 42 43 44 4S

Onformosus see pp. 8-10. On silvae see pp. 30f., 66f. Cf. also the juxtaposition at 2.52: castaneasque nuces, mea quas Amaryllis amabat. 3.66, 74, 83; 10.37. 38. 41 (the last likely. not cogent). Theoc. 7.132 1(� 'AI1"'v'nxo� (for this diminutive cf. Kiihner I Blass 11. 280) with a possible homosexual connotation of KaM�. cf. K. J. Dover. Greek Homosexuality (London 1978). 1 14-122 [on KaMw;]; besides, for pederasty in Theocritus cf. Theoc. 5.9Of.; 7.52-77. 96-108 al. with B. Effe. 'Die Homoerotik in der griechischen Bukolik'. in: Stemmler 1992. 5567; for Theocritus' literary predecessors in pederastic poetry cf. also R. Hunter. Theocritus and the Archaeology of Greek Poetry (Cambridge 1996). 167-171. For pederasty in Vergil's Eelogues see Schmidt 1987. 141-144. For homosexuality in Rome during the Augustan period see J. Griffin. 'Augustan Poetry and the Life of Luxury' JRS 66 (1976), 100-102; W. Stroh. 'Musa puerilis: Die Knabenliebe in der Klassischen Dichtung der Rllmer'. in: Stemmler 1992. 69-87; in general C. A. Williams, Roman Homosexuality (Oxford 1999). passim. 46 Whether the homosexual aspect was felt later is not clear. Nowhere in Calpurnius (eel. 4.17, 78. 8 1), Nemesianus (eel. 3.1, 4.62) or a fragmentary bucolic papyrus mentioning Amyntas (A. S. F. Gow, Bucolici Graeci [Oxford 19521. 168 line 15) can a homosexual predilection of Amyntas be proved. nor can the opposite. l1Ie expression pulcher Anryntas (Nemes. eel. 3.1) could well point to homosexuality. 47 Poschl l964, 138; Van Sickle 1978, 125 n. 61. 4 8 Bettini 1972, especially 264f.; Wills 1996. 53; Harrison 1998. 49 Already Serv. ad loco interpreted the meaning of the phrase as victor. nobilis supra 017U\es, followed by modem commentators (e.g. Wills 1996, 53; HarrilOn 1998).

3. Pastoral Names

179

famous', in the se ond case one has to ask whethe r a lark's song could possibly � have the connotat:J.on of an agreeable sound to an ancient mind. In support of the latter it has been pointed out that at Theoc. 7. 1 4 1 the lark is fo nd within a locus amoenus: lfetOov Kopuo')'cOv support Gow's judgement, for the moaning of the turtle-dove was as merely persistent5 1 and, above all, O''tevro hardly ever denotes a pleasant sound.5 2 In short, the passage does not prove anything as to the ancients' conception of the lark's song. As a second witness for the euphony of the lark's sound scholars have referred to a passage in Marcellus' De Medicamentis from the first half of the fifth century AD (29.30) "corydallus avis, id est quae aIauda vocatur, quae animos hominum dulcedine vocis oblectat. " One may add Servius' remark on 2.1: avis quae corydalis [codd. : coridalis] dicitur, dulce canens. However, both passages are suspiciously late and the conception of the lark's sound may have ...

regarded

changed during the half millennium that had passed since Vergil's day.53 Thus, while there is only slight evidence to support the agreeability of the lark's song in the Augustan mind, there is some considerable evidence to contest it.54 The obvious source of the personal name in Vergil is Theocritus, where it occurs in the fourth and fifth Idylls.55 At 5.5-7 Theocritus plays with the connotation of the personal name: Comatas remarks scoffingly on Lacon's allegation that he had stolen his pan-pipes: 't&.v 1E01.aV O'upt'Y'Ya: .ro yap 1tOKa ,

OmA.e �t!3up'ta, / EK'taO'ro O'-Uptyya: 'ti 0' OUKf:tt O'uv KopuOffivt / apKet 'tOt KaA.a!lac; aUA.Ov 1E01t1tOOO£V exovn: Here KopuOffiv could be understood either

as the personal name or as a bird's name. Theocritus apparently introduced Kopuorov for the sake of this wordplay only, for nowhere else does Kop-uOffiv

�� Gow 11. 166.

.

Gow 11. 290. . 5 2 One could still argue that 1(6p'OO!n appears here in conjunction With a1(uvlhli£t;. On the sound of the latter Arist. HA 616b 30-32 remarks: ui Ii' chuv9iliec; xU1(6!}\o\ 1(ui 1(U1(6X POO \ . CPO>V1]V p.£vro\ )..\')"Opav ExO'OO' tV. and similarly Anth. G�aec. 5.292.5 [Agathias Scholasticus} )..\')"OpOv j}op.!}&ii
'

,

. Boeus (Ant. Lib. 7) 'AlCl1v9['OU}{(; is a daughter of Hippod�ia, w o, when the famaly were transfonned into birds, became lC6p'000�.· For acanthyllis m Latin cf. J. Andre, Les

�

noms d'oiseaux en latln (Paris 1967). 18.

�oes

.

.

not andicate as to the for the context remams obscure.

53 The inscription adduced by Bettini 1972. 272 as evidence

character of the singing of the Greek lark. 54 For the following cf. also Bettini 1972. 269-273. , 55 7.23). Theoc. 4.1. SO 58; 5.6. The bird appears in Theocritus as xopu6a:U.� (Theoc. , lC6p'000<; (TIIeoc. 7.141) and a:opu6� (Theoc. 10.50). never. as 1(o p� Ii(l}v though the t. HA. latter teon is attested elsewhere for the bird (LSJM only as IS co n Und oubtedly. the personal name was derived from the name 0 practice elsewhere in Theocritus. see Gow II. 77.

�: �

•

.

609a:m�'

IV. Personal Names

1 80

feature in the fifth Idyll. As to the connotation of Kopu&>v here, the tone of the whole passage and especially the verb Tt01t1tOO-OEV in this context (as already noted by the scholiast) are taunting. But even if one discards the Theocritean passage as ironic (there is no obvious reason to do so, of course), the negative verdict on the sound of the lark is corroborated by two poems of the Anthologia Palatina (one certainly pre-Vergilian), both of which set the sound of the lark unfavourably against the song of swans,56 as well as a proverb quoted by Eustathius.57 Finally, it is worth pointing out that in comedy the name K6� was derogatory: the fifth century tragedian Philocles was nicknamed K6p� according to Aristophanes (Av. 1295) and elsewhere in comedy K6� is a common parasite name, in either case hardly with flattering connotations, but admittedly perhaps only referring to outward appearance.58 There is some evidence that Vergil himself regarded the singing of the lark as somewhat unpleasant. At 2.4 the song of Corydon - admittedly produced in distress - is called incondita. The juxtaposition of the name Corydon and the epithet incondita might not be mere chance. But one should not press the evidence too far: perhaps incondita is just a rhetorical term or playful self­ disparagement.59 It should be strongly stressed, however, that even if we grant that there existed two kinds of larks in Italy and Greece respectively, Vergil is likely to allude to the Greek lark for it is the Greek term he is playing with.6o To conclude, if Vergil at 7.70 really wanted to imply that Corydon was the foremost singer, he did so against the connotations of lWPUOmV as they were likely to be conceived in his day. An average reader would have rather expected another bird to indicate outstanding singing, the swan, as Vergil knew well. 6 1 If then the lark really indicates mastery of song at 7.70, this would clearly be a paradox. Though this explanation is possible, a more attractive solution is conceivable when translating the Vergilian passage as follows: "This I remember and that Thyrsis competed in vain because he was defeated. I Since that time the lark has been a Corydon (i.e. the best singer among the birds) for me", i.e. "since that time I prefer the song of the lark to the song of any other 56 Anth. Graec. 9.380. 1 . 4 [anonymous] Et KUKWP Mva:Htl KOpOOoC; napanA:riawv &6&w I ... I taa mn&iv Kat btu, IIw..A.a6iq> 6uvallat; 1 1 .1 95.5f. [Dioscurides. circa second half of the 3'd century BC] ( Gow I Page lines 1695f.) ... I:v yup IllloUaOtc; I Kat Kopu6oc; xUKVOU qlebt1;I)1;' 1l0tOOUpov. 57 Ens!. ad 11. 16.492 [Van Der Falk m 889.2lf.]; Kat � I:v UlloUaotc; Kat Kopu6oC; qIe F:yy e-t;at 58 A. S. F. Gow. Machon. The Fragments (Cambridge 1 965). 59; W. G. Amott, Alexis: The =

•

Fragments. A Commentary (Cambridge 1 996). 166f.

59 Cf. Coleman 1 977. 92; Du Quesnay 1 979, 51 ; extensively Putnam 1970, 85-88; Sclunidt 1987, 1 46f.

6 0 Pace Bettini 1 972, 270-272. 6 1 The singing gift of the swan was famous in Greek as wel1 as in Roman literature (Otto 1 890. l04f.). Call. Del. 252 calls the swans aolOO-cawl n�E1JvillV , Theocritus knows of their charming sound (5. 136f.). likewise Lucretius (3.6f., 4.l Slf.). Vergil mentions it three times in the Eclogues (8.55; 9.29, 36). In many of these cases it is favourably contrasted with the song of another bird. most notably the lark in the two passages of the Anthologia Palatina mentioned above.

3. Pastoral Names

181

bird (in unexpressed opposition to the song of the swan)"' or less literally , "since Corydon's victory the lark is my favourite bird". • Daphnis. At 8.82f. the disappointed lover takes action against her belovccl Daphnis and addresses her assistant: sparge molam et fragilis incende bitumine lauros: / Daphnis me malus urit, ego hanc in Daphnide laurum. Line 83 is an adapta on from Theocritus.62 But Vergil changed the Theocritean Delphis to Daphms and could thus play with the notion of Greek oacpvn (= laurel), reoccurring in Latin as laurus, as already pointed out by Servius.63 TIle chiastic juxtaposition of the punning words (lauros: / Daphnis ... Daphnide laurum) am the framing of line 83 by Daphnis and laurum underline the wordplay.64 • Galatea. At 11.19f. Theocritus plays with the etymology of GaJatea, Le. the connection of the name with Greek "( 6.').a (= 'milk'). The tertium comparationis in this Theocritean passage is the colour, Le. the whiteness of milk. 65 Vergil takes up this pun on the white colour at 7.37f.: Nerine GaJatea ' " / candidior cycnis, hedera formosior alba. • Linus. See p. 98. • Micon. At 7.29f. Micon has the epithet parvus. Vergil is here punning on Greek !1t1Cp�, Doric !111C1C�.66 The Doric form of the adjective, underlying Vergil's pun, is perhaps intended to be a reminder of Theocritus' Doric dialect.6 7 The name itself, however, is historical and not restricted to the area of Doric influence.68 • Thestylis. In Eel. 2 Corydon is desperate about Alexis. It is midday, the flocks linger in the cool shade, the lizards seek refuge from the sun under the thicket of thorn-bushes (8f.). Quite unexpectedly after this introduction Corydon mentions Thestylis at 2.lOf. : Thestylis et ropido fessis messoribus aestu / alia

�

serpyllumque herbas contundit olentis.

The figure of Thestylis appears for the first time in a mime of Sophron (5th century BC). We do not know anything about this mime apart from that it provided Theocritus with the theme for Idyll 2 (magic incantation directed towards the unfaithful lover) and with the name of the maid of the jilted 6 2 See p. 53. 6 3 Theoc. 2.23 f.

I!

AEMpllh I)aq,vav I aiOro , cf. SeN. ad 8.83: IN D HNID LAURUM aut archaismos est pro 'in Daphnidem': auJ intellegamus supra Daphniru: ejJiglem .eam /aurum incendere propter nominis similitudinem; ibid. ad .5.20 hunc (scil. Daphnm) rms.,ores . Hara invenerunt inter /auros (et) Daphnin vocaverunl. See In general Lembach 1970, 60, 0 1 996. 250. . , 64 For this framing in Vergi1 see O'Hara 1 996, 82f., generally ibid. 250. _ 1UXIC 00; nO�ll)ew. raA.a;�a hints to 6 5 Theoc. 1 1 . 1 9f. � A.Il1JICtlt raA.a�ela .. ... l.�ICo:ep a) and th� 'milk' (= 'YMa ), streSsed by the double notion of 'white' (cf. milk-colo�d reference to 'curd' (= lIaIC�a.). For the associations of the adJe�!Jves mearung in Greek literature cf. G. R. Reiter. Die griechischen Bezelchnungen der Farben WelSS, Grau und Braun (Innsbruck 1962). 69f. 66 O'Hara 1996. 249. 7 6 Cf. Theoc. 5.66; [Theoc.) 8.64 al. 6th-5th century BC 68 E ' 1 3 (A�gtna, .g. lG III 6387 (Attica, 3'd_2t1d century BC); Pans. 5.25.10, I-IlIA s.v. On LGPN In ces referen the see [M'lICo)V) . More nonnal 15 ' the form M{IC(lC"'" """" , Hanssen 1951 , 240. such fonnations of personal names from words for 'small see

1�

int

, l.euICo1:tpa

1:

�eu�tlt

1 82

IV. Personal Names

Simaetha, Thestylis.69 Given the fact that the name ThestyIis is not attested elsewhere in antiquity70 we might assume that Thestylis was a stock character that an ancient reader would naturally associate with the situation depicted in Sophron and Theocritus, i.e. the servant of a jilted woman madly trying to recover her beloved.7 ! It seems that Vergil took account of this in Eel. 2 in the larger as well as in the narrow context: the larger context in Theocritus and Vergil is the jilted lover (Simaetha I Corydon) with ThestyIis as an attendant I friend (cf. also Greek 9fiaaa = 'servant-girl'). The narrow context is Thestylis handling magic (also in Vergil?) herbs.72 • Tityrus. Tityre is the fIrst word of the Eclogues and thus carries particular weight. Skutsch and others pointed out that euphony may play its role in the employment of the name at this position.73 As to its original meaning (if there is one), the ancient evidence is as ample as it is inconsistent. The word appears in connection with the auios,74 priests,75 satyrs and sileni,76 besides animals like he-goats,77 apes78 and birds.79 Occasionally, it is attested as a personal (as in Vergil and Theocritus) and topographical name.80 6 9 Schol. in Theoc. arg. (a) 'tflv M. 9ro-ruAloU b 9wxpt'tO<; (mEtp01C� EX 'tIDV EIDippovo<; 1l£'t-riVeyXE Mtll
different context (applied to historical persons) in Martial. Cf. Du Quesnay's (1979, 42) characterization of Eel. 2: " The subject of the poem. a rustic in love with an urban slave-boy, could be appropriately treated in a mime orfabula Atellana". 72 Theoc. 2.1 xq IlOt 'tal. oacpVUt; 'tU 9povu ( = <paplluxu) 'tauS' mrollu!;ov. The assumption that Vergil had the latter passage in mind is supported by the reference to the lizard (however, in a different context) shortly before (Theoc. 2.58), as in Vergil at 2.9; for the lizard here referring to Theoc. 7.22 see Rose 1942, 32. 73 Skutsch 1956, 200f.; Schmidt 1 972, 62; Thil1 1976, 202; Wright 1983, 108; Schmidt 1 987, 3 1 3 3 al. For the 'sweetness' o f Greek proper names in Latin poetry cf. Quint. inst. 12.10.33: itaque tanto est sermo Graecus Latino iucundior ut nostri poetae, qllOtiens dulce cannen esse voluerunt, illorum id nominibus exornent, with Adarns I Mayer 1999, 1 1 and generally Wilkinson 1%3, 1 1-13. Serv. ad 6.3 remarked that Vergil intended to write a poem on the Aiban kings but failed to do so due to the harshness of names involved (asperitnte nominum deterritus). This, even if invented, shows (a) the importance of sound for Vergil in Servius' eyes, (b) that - apart from Quintilian - also Servius regarded Greek names as sounding more pleasant (cf. Francese 1 999, 71 n. 31). For the musical pattern of 1 . 1 see Coleman 1 999, 2Sf. 7 4 According to Artemidorus Epbesius ap. Ath. IV IS2 D 'tlWpwo<; denotes a xUAallwo<; aOM<;, similarly Arnerias ap. Ath. IV 176 C, Eust. ad 11. 18.495 [Van
7!

3. Pastoral Names

1 83

Whatever its original meaning, the notion of sound seems to have been strong, not least due to the apparently repetitive formative structure of the name.8 I We may thus tentatively ask: what kind of sound, if any, does Tityrus stand for in Vergil? Does it possibly reflect the pleasant tune of the skilful

player or rather the amateur's bungling? In other words, does it indicate the playing of pleasant music in the pleasant bucolic world at the beginning of the Eclogues, or does it have a comic element by standing in opposition to the

tenuis avena ( 1 .2)?

At 8 . 55, in connection with an adynaton, Damon remarks certent et cycnis ululae, sit Tityrus Orpheus. It is self-evident that the contrast of Tityrus an:l Orpheus here points to the former's lack of skill. Vergil chose the name Tityrus, because in terms of sound it adequately expressed this lack of skill. The fact that at 8 . 55 Tityrus corresponds to the equally onomatopoetic Vergilian u/ulae,82 is a further argument that Vergil was well aware of the onomatopoetic force of Tityrus in this passage.83 In short, if we may generalize from 8.55, Tityrus stood for the amateur's bungling at 1 . 1 and thus in playful opposition to the

tenuis avena of 1 .2.

(B) Pastoral Names not found in Theocritus There are 19 pastoral names without a Theocritean parallel.84 In some cases further connotations are discernible. I list these cases, again in alphabetical order:

animal could be parallelled by [Theoc.] 8.49 and other Theocritean passages, see pp. 44,

54f. and SchOpsdau 1 974, 284. 78 Thphr. Char. 5.9. 79 Hsch. -rlwp� . . 8 0 Apart from Theocritus and Vergil Tityrus is attested as a pe�onal name a� �Uld: S.V to smd IS ' Theoc. 32 rt 'Elnxap Jlo� and IG IX 2.638 (Larisa, 3rd century BC). At schol.. m . ' . 0f �\'rop� rneanmg al ongm the ct reconstru to tried 23 1900, denote a Cretan city. Wendel as �payo<; • . . . 8 1 Cf. the onomatopoetic n'ml�il;(l) 'to twItter , Latin PIpIO.

S.V.

,

,

82 83

Cf. ululo, bMJ.UI;(l). � Iarge-scal e ' the author for consl'denng It is also notable that when at 6.4f. Apollo censures be a playful self-dlsp�gement epic. the latter refers to himself as Tityrus. This might well Jl ,,cf. also against the towering authority of large-scale _epiC poetry,

lCa�•

��. �:�!� ' ;�

_
6Jl .1... . """A, L J... 9 £"I:a� !le""" Il"r • ." ep Ellv\j I Io-ov "p� lCO�_... ... � lColClCu�on nia ' a I 56 b.o v � • XlaV lIOn 'QpoJl£lIo�, I lCCX\ Moto'uv opv�X� &ro� � �CX lloX9{!;oV'l:t. ( Alphesiboea at 84 A clmedon (Eel. 3); Alcon (eeL 5) . A exis (Eel 2 5 7)' A1phesiboeus but I I (EeL 3) Iollas (Eel. 2, 3); Lycoris . n (Eel. 3,' 8):' rlcli� Theoc. 3.45); Codrus (Eel. 5, 7); Darno ' oeri (Eel 8 9)' Mopsus (Eel. 5, (Eel. 10); Meliboeus (Eel. 1, 3, 5, 7); MnasYllust �6) M (Eei 3); Pbyllis (Eel. : 6 8)' USI(Ee H Orphe 8) ; NCIIelll (Eel. 3); Nysa (EeL 8); Lycisca (EeL 3.17; E name) 'dog's i07' 8 . i ( e y

3. 5. 7, 10); Stimichon (Eel. 5); see also

dog's name) .

ax

.

.

��n

'

IV. Personal Names

1 84 •

Alcimedon.

Alcimedon is

mentioned by

Vergil

as

an

outstanding

craftsman. Particularly important is 3.36-39, where Menalcas puts up beech­ wood cups as a stake: . . pocula ponam I fagina, caelatum divini opus .

Alcimedontis, I lenta quibus tomo facili superaddita vitis I diffusos hedera vestit pallente corymbos.8S To Coleman the name Alcimedon 'seems to be fictitious' and for Clausen Alcimedon has 'no separate identity'.86 Still, there is a mythological connotation: Pausanias narrates that close to Methydrium, a village in central Arcadia, there was a plain called Alcimedon. The homonymous hero Alcimedon was said to have lived nearby in a cave. According to tradition his daughter bore a child to HeracIes. After the birth Alcimedon exposed both the mother and the child. A jay (lCWcrU) heard the wailing of the exposed child and by imitating it drew the attention of Heracles. Heracles saved both. A nearby spring was called henceforth Kicrcru. 87

There are four aspects that suggest that Vergil here alludes to this myth: (a) The setting of the myth is Arcadia, the home of Pan and the bucolic landscape par excellence in Ecl. 1 O. (b) A1cimedon is said to live in a cave. It seems likely that in the full version of the myth (which Pausanias summarizes) Alcimedon is a shepherd. (c) Vergil calls Alcimedon divinus. This word is marked by a harsh elision (divini opus), which is, as Clausen pointed out,88 unique in the

Eclogues. The word can denote someone of divine origin,89 such as Pausanias' Alcimedon

(iwTtP 'tIDV lCUAOUJlf.Vrov ft prorov).

(d) A far more subtle allusion

may be Vergil's mention of hedera as a motif on A1cimedon's cups. In Greek hedera means lCt.crcr�. Vergil might have had in mind a central figure of the myth, the jay ("Kwcru) .9 0 • A1con. At S.lOf. Menalcas encourages Mopsus to sing a song: incipe,

Mopse, prior, si quos aut Phyllidis ignis I aut Alconis habes laudes aut iurgia Codri. Servius here took Phyllis, Alcon and Codrus as mythological figures.

Modern scholarship has generally rejected this view throughout and argued that we are dealing with merely ordinary names of herdsmen.91 I believe that modem scholars have thus ignored some important connotations of the passage. Vergil takes most of his ordinary names of herdsmen from Theocritus and it is alarming that none of the three (!) names found in this passage is Theocritean. Elsewhere (see below pp. 1 88-190) I shall try to show to what extent the name 85 Cf. 2.44: et nobis Alcimedon duo poculajecit, etc. 86 Coleman 1 977, 1 13; Clausen 1994, l 00f. 87 Paus. 8.12.2-5. 88 Clausen 1 994, 100. 89 Cic. Phi!. 5.43 quis turn nobis, quu populo Ronumo obtulit hunc divinum adulescentem deus ? (ironic); ad Q.fr. 1.1.7 de caelo divinum hominem ene in provinciam delapsum putent, cf. in general TLL s.v. 16 19.74-80.

90 The myth apparently originated from an

ailion of the name of the plain CAAnp.torov) and

the fountain (Kwuu). Wendel 1900, 47 rather arbitrarily tried to connect the name Alcimedon with Euphorion.

9 1 E.g. Cartault 1897, 415 on Alcon: "absolument ind6tennine"; Clausen 1994, 156 on Alcon "a

convenient Greek nl\lllC, with no especial resonance (TlL s.v.)", ibid. on Codrus "a close friend of Corydon in 7.22"; in contrast see Knaack 1883, 3lf. (revising his earlier opposite opinion).

3. Pastoral Names

1 85

Phyllis still keeps its mythological dimension in other passages of the Eclogues. Given this it seems almost certain that the phrase Phyllidis ignis here connotes the passionate, self-effacing love of the mythical PhyIlis. In this case the phrase si quos ... Phyllidis ignis / . . . habes would stand for 'if you know of any (song of?) passionate love'. In contrast to Phyllis, Alcon and Codrus do not appear elsewhere in the Eclogues. Servius believed that Alcon here was identical with a heroic archer, a companion of Heracles.92 This heroic context would well fit the expression Alconis laudes, for laudes has a strong connotation of martial deeds.93 If so, the phrase si ... Alconis habes laudes would stand for 'if you know of any song praising someone who did something like Alcon'. Finally, Servius supposed Codrus to be a well-known mythical Athenian king. When the Spartans attacked Athens, an oracle pronounced that the party of the king who died at the hand of his enemies would prevail. Codrus, dressed as a beggar, entered the hostile camp and by causing a dispute deliberately found death.94 In Vergil the expression iurgia Codri strongly suggests that it is this legend that the author has in mind: in Vergil iurgia appears three times am always means 'insulting words', never 'bucolic competition'.95 The concept of unpleasant speech (in contrast to competition) is not typical of the charming bucolic world and accordingly iurgium is found only here in the Eclogues.96 Thus, the phrase si .. habes ... iurgia Codri might mean 'if you look for trouble without reason'.97 • C odrus. On the allusion to the mythological Athenian king at 5.1Of. see above on 'Alcon'. At 7.21-26 Corydon and Thyrsis begin their arnoebaean singing competition:

92

Serv . ad 5.1 1 ; cf. also ManiL 5.3 04.307 ; VaL F1. 1.398-401; Anth. Graec. 6.331 [Gaetulicus. I" century AD] (= Page 1981. 54f.) . 93 Apart from this passage Iaus appears t"s. Most notably at 4.26 Vergtl lU"",, times in the .Eclooue " , speaks of heroum laudes et facta parentis and the pmse � f Varus .suc�ses in the field is called laudes at 6.6. At 5.78 lautks occurs in connection WIth the deificalion 0f Daphnis and can hardly mean anything else but 'praise of a god': semper honos nomenque tuum laudesque manebunt. 9 4 Serv. ad 5.1 1 . TIle story is frequently referred to by ancient sources. cf. K. Scherling. RE 1 1 95 (1921). s.v. Kodros. 984f. . UJc . ' w.:.. 1 1 406[' vel cum se . . IUT11.uz. A en. 10.94f. : qllerdis I Mud iwtis adsurgis et inrt1il crunen cer t (pace e .g. e omudin f et pavidum contra mea iurgia fingit, I artificis scelw.

9 6 Roatagni 196 1. 406f.).

.

� b�

'

Some interpreten attempting to see �c1USlvel r. ID . A 7.22. tried to interpret iurgia as 'bucolic compel1uons

y

the ordinary herdsman of aack 1883' 3lf. remarked

�oo:a�Kn

in the sense of l minime tnim hoc vocabulwn (sdi. iurgia) idem valtt ac certamen.. ur ium in Buc . Eins' 1 .2 conJec a to restricted ctTtamen appears on ly much later. being there 97 and Avianus, cf. TU S.v. 667.44-51 . g of . d D aphnis (the central fi ure Knaack 1883. 32 made the good point that Phyllls, A l try before Vergil: Phy\lis in t the two bucolic SOIlJS in Eel. 5) had been deal ':"'1 Daphnis in Theocritus and Cal limachus, Alcon in a Hellenistic model underlY poetic predecessor is o 1977, 30). 0 Codrus s ch a

t!e

thers (for the latter see Du Quesnay unknown but may perhaps be postulated.

�n.an �� :��

1 86

25

IV. Personal Names C.: Nymphae noster amor Libethrides, aut mihi cannen, quale meo Codro, concedite (proxima Phoebi versibus ille facit) aut, si non possumus omnes, hic arguta sacra pendebitfistula pinu. T. : Pastores, hedera crescentem ornate poetam, Arcades, invidia rumpantur ut ilia Codro.

Servius infonns us that here Codrus is a pseudonym for a real contemporary poet.98 The Scholia Veronensia give some alternatives as to his identity. They mention Vergil himself, Q. Cornificius or Helvius Cinna as possible candidates. Besides, they point to a fragmentarily preserved elegy by Valgius, of which I quote the beginning:99 Codrusque ille canit quali tu voce canebas atque solet numeros dicere, Cinna, tuos, dulcior ut numquam Pylio profluxerit ore Nestoris aut <doc>to pectore Dem.

The reading Codrusque here, though transmitted, is not beyond doubt. 1 00 If

we accept it, the following conceivable:

solutions

for Codrus' identity

at

7.22

are

(a) Codrus is fictitious. In this case the scholiasts, like some modem commentators, 1 0 1 who were mainly influenced by the phrase mea Galla ( 1 0.2) , wrongly drew the conclusion from the address mea Codro (7.22) that Codrus is a figure in real life. In this case the scholiasts' remarks are useless. (b) Codrus is Vergil. This is impossible at 7.21 -26, for Vergil would hardly be so impertinent (especially being a young and unknown poet) as to compare his poetry with Apollo's (proxima Phoebi I versibus ille jacit). It is possible, however, in the case of Valgius' elegy. If so, it would not only be the "first allegorizing approach to the Bucalics", !02 but the first extant reference to Vergil's Eclogues by another source. (c) Codrus is Q. Cornificius. There is nothing to prove or refute this view apart from the fact that Vergil seems to refer to a living character while Cornificius died in 41 BC. The name has certainly the advantage that it does not seem to be inferred from Vergil's own or other extant poetry, thus constituting a (seemingly) independent tradition. (d) Codrus is Helvius Cinna. This is possible at 7.21-26, impossible in Valgius' fragment, since Codrus is supposed to imitate Cinna. (e) Codrus is Cornelius Gallus. If we accept the identification of Vergil's Codrus with the Codrus of Valgius' fragment, the number of possible candidates is restricted. We could in this case claim with certainty that Codrus is a 98 DServ. ad 7.22 Codrus poem eiusdem temporisfuit, ut Valgius in elegis :ruis re/ert. 99 Schol. Veron. in 7.22 [Thilo p. 399f.]: Codrum plerique Vergilium accipiunt. alii Comijicium. nonnulli Helvium Cinnam putant. de quo bene sentit. Similiter autem hunc Codrum in elegiis Valgius honorijice appellaJ et quadam in ecloga de eo ait: Codrusque ilIe canit ctc. 1 00 Cf. Thi1o's critical note ad loc. 101 E.g. Clausen 1994, 220. 1 0 2 Courtney 1993, 288.

3.

Pastoral Names

1 87

contemporary of Cinna (t 44 BC), a Roman and only Roman poet (otherwise the spe�ification of quali tu voce canebas as excluding, say, CodJus'
(solet numeros dicere, Cinna, tuos; Cinna is known only to

have written in these metres) and of considerable reputation by the time of the compositio n of Valgius' elegy (dulcior ut numquam etc.). Moreover, he must be an intimate friend of VergiI (7.22 mea Codro). Gallus would be the most natural choice.IO)

• Hylax [8. 107; name of a dog]. At 8.107 we read Hylax in limine latmJ. The manuscripts have Hylas, Hylax is a conjecture of the humanist Antonius MancineIIus in a commentary published in 1490. 1 04 The majority of editors have accepted it ever since. This conjecture is based on the assumption that the name is a pun on Greek ,)Aam I ')AalC'tEro (= 'to bark') and the observation that in Ovid (met. 3 .224) a dog's name Hylactor occurs. A scribe had possibly confused Hylax with Hylas, mentioned three times at 6.43f. But since Hylas at 6.43f. has a paronomastic connotation that fits also 8.107 (i .e. ,)Aam = 'to bark' / ululo = 'to howl'),1 0 5 the transmitted reading Hylas at 8.107 remains defensible. In either case latrat is glossing the dog's name. I 06

• Lycisca [3.17; name of a dog]. A plain allusion to Greek A,)lCOC; (='wolf) and at the same time denoting the bastard breeding of a dog and a wolf, as explained by Servius . l °7 • Lycoris. The name denotes GalIus' mistress and is taken from Gallus' poetry . 1 08 That it had not lost its connotation with Apollon Lycoreus (who is attested e.g. in Euphorion) 1 0 9 in Vergil's day is shown by the fact that Propertius and TibuIIus followed Gallus in using ApoIIonian cult titles of their mistresses ('Cynthia' / 'Delia') . 1 1 0

• Meliboeus. This name, very prominent among Vergilian herdsmen, is 1 1 I Certainly, Greek, meaning 'the one who cares for the cattle' (Jl. EA.m I 13oiic;).

1 03

�

Varius would be a possible candidate (cf. 9.35). Mess alla, as suggested b! Rostagni 196 . 405-427 and Nisbet 1995. 4Olf.• an unlikely one. For the only passage refemng to Messallas na cum linK,UQ, poetry is catal. 9.13-16: pauca tUlJ in nostras vene�nt cannina cha;tas. 1 ca turn sale Cecropio I carmina, quae Phrygium, saecllS acceptajutuns,. I cannlna• . quae Pyllum . and vincere digna senem. Lines 13f. clearly show that M�all� had wntt�n poetry m only in Greek by then (otherwise the omission of his Latin production would be msulting). pace Schmidt 1 972, 240 n. 128f. Valgius, however, seems to refer to a (by then at least)

�

exclusively Latin author. as shown above.

,

. 104 J. V an Siclde. 'The Origin of the Reading Hylax ID VlCgtl. Eel. 8.107 .

•

�reek

RFlC 102 (1974).

3 1 1-

3 1 3. 1 0 5 See pp. 175f. 1 06 O'Ham 1996. 250. . . ' ' . O I 7 Serv. ad 3 . 17' lycisci sunt ut etiam Plinius dicit. canes nail ex l"PIS et CtuUbus. cum mteT se • '. . personal Greek was a very common ' forte mlSceantur. Interestmgly AUKtaK� / AUKtaKU name, see LGPN I-IlIA s.v. . '" I 08 Pro , EV III (1987), s.v. LiCOTwe, p. 2 .34.91f., Qv. am.. 1 . 15 .30't Serv• ad 10.1', cf. M. Bonana

I 978. 189 n. 81. 1 09 hOrion fr. 80.3 [P.]. For further possible connotations cf. Van Siclde . t 995, U8. no Lat ure may go back to-Gallus. cf. Nlsbe 1 . ,m rterat er appearances 0f Lycons I • to be the RnZ,v I11 '" CX1)1;qI 'tIDV I"'� • This seems • g'Cl. /l.,.E\ Serv. prooem. eel. p. 4 [Thil0] Meliboeus . . by the etymology of Alphesiboeus finned con mdirect1y as proper etymology name.

���

of the

1 88

IV. Personal Names

the Greek meaning is played on at 3 . 1 die mihi, Danweta, euium peeus? aI Meliboei?1 1 2 and in more general terms in Eel. 1 and 7. 1 1 3 • Mnasyllus. See p. 46. • Moeris. With one exception (8.96) Moeris appears only in Eel. 9. He is one of the two protagonists of the poem, a farmer dispossessed by the land confiscations, who reports his plight to the other protagonist, Lycidas, obviously an old acquaintance. Moeris had once been a free man in his own right, now he serves on his farm as a tenant. The arbitrary change of one's fate is the central topic of this Eclogue as is made explicit at the outset by Moeris' complaint (9.5)fors omnia versat. Moeris' situation reflects this unpredictability of man's fate. Hence one may suggest a connotation of Moeris here with Greek Jl.oipa (= 'fate'). 1 4 • Mopsus. In Apollonius the name denotes a prophet1 1 S and Servius preserves a note according to which Euphorion (translated or adapted by Gallus?) Vergil adopted, if anything, only made the seer Mopsus a topic of his the name. • Neaera The name was common in Athens. Besides, it appears in Parthenius' Erotica Pathemata (18) dedicated to Gallus and may thus. via Parthenius or possibly Gallus. have entered the Eclogues at 3 .3-5 . 1 1 7 • Phyllis. According to Servius Phyllis was a Thracian queen, daughter of Sithon, who fell in love with Demophoon, Theseus' son, when the latter visited Thrace upon his return from Troy. She asked for marriage and he promised it, after he had arranged his affairs at home. But when he delayed his return, she hanged herself out of impatience and desperation that he had forsaken her. She was then turned into a leafless almond. When Dernophoon eventually arrived and realized the cruel deed, he embraced the trunk of the almond, which then started sprouting leaves The myth of Phyllis had been dealt with by Callimachus. Only one line of the Callimachean poem has come down to us but certainly Vergil knew it, as Heinze even tried to show influence of the Callimachean did Ovid and others.

1

poetry .116

(
(where again -boeus is to be connected with J}o� ). Since Meliboeus appears as tending flocks of sheep or goats, not cattle as the etymology would suggest, Van Sickle 1978, 1 1 9 n. 43 mentions a nwnber of other etymologies, none really convincing. 1 1 2 Cr. 5.87. 1 1 3 F. Michelazzo, EV m ( 19 87), s.v. Melibeo, 460 rightly pointed out that the first part of the name well suits the herdsman who laments the ill fate of his flock in Eel. I while standing in apparent and deliberate opposition to the one who neglects his flock to attend a singing competition in Eel. 7; for a similar wordplay at Aen. 525lf. see Paschalis 1997, 1 86 n. 24. 1 1 4 F. Michelazzo, EV III (1987), s.v. Meri, 493. 1 1 5 Especially Apoll. Rhod. 3.916-926. Serv. ad 6.72 with Wendel 1900, 46f., for a connection with Hesiod see Hes. fr. 278 {M. / W.} with Van Sickle 1 978, 138f. n. 84. Thus already Wendel 1900, 49. Serv. ad 5.10. Other sources with minor variations are Ov. epist. 2; Hyg. fah. 59, 243; Apollod. Epit. 6.16f. al., cf. also Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 556. 1 1 9 Call. fr. 556 [Pf.}. Ovid formed the lament of the fonaken woman into a poem, epist. 2, cf. also ars 2.353f., 3.37f., 3.459f., rem. 55f. Later the name Pbyllis coold Btand for a certain

1 16 117 118

3. Pastoral Names

1 89

Aeneid.1 20

Furthennore, there is no hint that the name poem on Vergil:s . was applied to any other but the mythological figure before Vergil . l 2 l Phylhs Under these circumstances it is natural to assume - as already done by Wendep 22 - that �ergi1 still felt the mythological component, especially if he �as the first to mtroduce Phyllis as an ordinary personal name in Latin lIterature. The name Phyllis appears frequently in the In contrast to other

Eclogues.123

like Amaryllis and Galatea, she never central female characters in the plays the rejecting part in a relationship, quite in accordance with the original myth where she herself is rejected. 124 A close look reveals manifold traces of the Phyllis myth in the (a) At 3 .78f. Phyllis is referred to by Menalcas: ante alias; I The departing Iollas 1 25 is a reminiscence of Demophoon, the pathos of the Vergilian a reflection of the pain of the Phyllis

Eclogues,

Eclogues:

PhylUda a71W nam me discedere flevit et longum 'jonnose, vale, vale, ' inquit, 'lolla'. (jlevit ... longum ... vale, vale)1 26

Thracian bride left behind. (b) At 3.106f. Menalcas mentions Phyllis in a riddle: die

quibus in terris inscripti nomina regum I nascantur flores, et Phyllida solus haheJo. The flower Vergil alludes to is the hyacinth, but much more important in our context is the punning juxtaposition of 'flowers' (= flores) and a word generally held to be derived from Greek 'leaves' (= ql'uUa). 1 27 (c) The passion of the mythological Phyllis may stand behind the phrase

Phyllidis ignis at 5.10, see above pp. 184f. (d) At 7.59 Thyrsis remarks: Phyllidis adventu nostrae nemus omne virebit. 1 This is a pun (Phyllidis . .. virebit) 28 and at the same time a remarkable

inversion of the myth according to which it was Phyllis (turned into a tree) who started coming into leaf upon the arrival of the beloved. . . amat (e) At 7.63f. Corydon sings: The �peclal con�ection /aurea I of Phyllis with a tree recalls the almond Phyllis turned mto according to

Phyllis amabit nec myrtus vincet corylos, nec

cOlY,los: Illas .dum Phy�llS Ph?ebl.

PhyUidas type of lamenting poetry, as ridiculed by Pe.rs.ius 1.34: plorabili! siquid; cf. also Culex 1 3 1-33. . 1 20 R. Heinze, Virgils epische Technik (Leipzi� 1928), 134 n. I saw ID

. Hypsipylas.

1 21

2 1 5

et

Call. fr. 556 [Pf.] the

model of Aen. 4.323f. Only in post-Vergilian poets does the name occur as a personal name: pe lII's under Vergil'.s 1DScnptJo� the name . 1S influence, cf. Hor. carm. 2.4.14; 4.11.3; Mart. 10.81.; 1 1.29 al. Neapohs. attested for historical persons, especially in southern Italy especially ID the 1 �ntury Pompeii), sec LGPN I-IIlA S.v. The popularity of the name of the Eclogues, as dePiCted also ID could perhaps be explained by the overwhelming success 163-168). 9, Pompeiian graffiti (cf. Gigante 197 Wendel l 900 49 . , 3.76 78 107', 5. 1 0', 7. 14, S9, 63 (twice); 10.37, 41. " 81 1 30 4 . address of Menalcas to as Phy 120. 977, 1 Coleman ; 37 n 280 . 10Uas, cf. SchOpsdau 1974. Wills 1996, 9Of. for He1\eJli.stic precursors. For references see Maltby 199 1 , 473f.

�

�

�� (Aplll!.a].

1 22 12 3 1 24

vatum

�����:r:���:s:� �; � a;'!��a:

! �76 1 2 8 Bettini 1972,268.

llis, �ot

an

A�

190

IV. Personal Names

Servius. Now , almonds, as mentioned by Servius above (amygdalus), and hazel­ nut trees, as mentioned by Vergil here (corylus), are very similar in agricultural terms1 29 and almost certainly never make a difference in poetic terms. One might even suggest that Vergil delibemtely changed the almond, which was traditionally Greek, for the more Roman hazel-nutl3O in order to produce a more Italian atmospherePl

(C) New Creations of Pastoral Names Where there is a Theocritean precedent for a pastoral name, Theocritus naturally has to be regarded as the most likely source of inspiration. If we exempt from the remaining non-Theocritean names those that are attested before Vergil, either as mythological or as historical names, four pastoral names are left: Alphesiboeus, Hylax, Meliboeus, and Stimichon. Of these Alphesiboeus and Meliboeus are very similar in nature: both are speaking names and the respective feminine is attested before Vergil in both casesP 2 Hence, they cannot be regarded as truly Vergilian inventions, even if Vergil really was the first to use the masculine form (which I dare to doubt). Hylax is a dog's name, given purely on etymological grounds (see p. 1 87) . It might well be a Vergilian creation, but the etymological wordplay is straight-forward, manifest even to a superficial reader. This leaves us with the name Stimichon which has so far defied explanation.l 3 3 In general Vergil sticks t o the canon o f Greek personal names. Where he gives the impression that he does not, either the incomplete evidence of Greek personal names or a flawed manuscript tradition or - certainly in the case of

1 2 9 White 1 970, 259. 1 3 0 In Vergil's day the almond was called nux Graeca (cf. Cloat. fr. 8 [GRF]). 1 3 1 Cf. Hor. carm. 4.1 1 .2-4: est in horto. I Phylli. nectendis apiwn coronis. I est hederae vis, where Horace seems to pun on the notion of PhyIlis as 'leaf-girl'. 1 32 For Alphesiboia see G. Knaack, RE 1 (1894) s.v., 1636; for Meliboia see IG 112 12063 [Athens?, 4111 century BC]; IG IX 1 2(2) 493 [Acamania, 3n1 century BC]. ' 1 3 3 This name is attested at 5.55 apparently for the first time. It is ta1ten up by Calpurnius Stimicon (eel. 6.83; 7.9, 13). Its form bears a surprising resemblance to tiJL\X� . who according to one version of the Theocritean scholia was the father of t\JL\Xi/ilU;, the possibly autobiographical character of Theoc. 7 (schol. in Theoc. 7.21: t\l1\X{Iiq: ot JLEv cxurov 'Pcx(n Eh:Oxp\wv. xcx90 t\JLixou �v u� � xcx90 (J� �v). This connection of the Vergilian name had been noticed already by Servius (DServ. ad 5.55: nonnulli Stimichonem patrem Theocriti dicunt) and led Maas to assume that Vergil had originally written Simic(h)on (E. Maas. 'Stimichon' RhM 78 [1929], 21 8f. Maas' alternative conjecture Misichon is far less convincing). But CalpurniU8 based himself on Vergil and his early testimony is a strong argument in favour of Stimic(h)on (Calp. eel. 6.83; 7.9. 13.). We thU8 have to accept the reading Stimic(h)on. but I do so very hesitatingly. 1be conjecture Simichon is tempting not only because of the Theocritean Simichidas, but also because the adjective (J\�. 'flat-nosed'. is very conunon as the first element of Greek personal names (cf. A. Pick, Die griechischen Personennamen [GlIUingen 1874]. 76f.). whereas the element lr'1:\JL\-(?) is not. .

4. Conclusions

J9J

Hyla:' - an etymological wordplay constitute the c auses for a (seemingly) new creation. 4.

Conclusions

The personal names in the Eclogues may be divided into non-pastoral names, Theocritean pastoral names and non-1beocritean pastoral names. TIle non-pastoral names divide into Latin and Greek names. In terms of distribution the Latin non-pastoral names are restricted to certain Eclogues, clearly because . Roman theIr colour was unsuitable for the more bucolic, 1heocritean-tinged poems (e.g. Ecl. 2). On the other hand, Greek non-pastoral names are scattered all over the Eclogues with a notable tendency to display learning by variety. The most striking connotation of Greek personal names is, of course, their 'Greekness'. Vergil stresses the latter not only by the sheer number of Greek personal names employed in the Eclogues, but also by his preference for the Greek inflection of Greek personal names, as pointed out already by Macr. Sat. 5.1 7. 1 9 and amply testified in the Eclogues.134 A personal name in the Eclogues may have multifarious connotations. 'The most striking example is Tityrus at 1 . 1 . Placed at the beginning of Vergil's collection of poems, it is a reminder of the Theocritean tradition in which Vergil places himself. At the same time the word denotes a monaulos and thus playfully reflects Vergil's recently invented Latin term avena (see p. 155). Thirdly, if one wants to believe some modem interpreters, the sound of the vowels is deliberately euphonic, hence evoking a locus amoenus as described at Theoc. 1.1-1 4 (see pp. 3 1 , 1 82). Fourthly, as an allusion to the monaulos the word stands in opposition to the syrinx, which appears in Theocritus' first Idyll, and accordingly indicates difference from Theocritus, or in short, innovation (see p. 1 55). Finally, the name Tityrus may be chosen to produce a comic effect, for the rep etitive structure of the name and possibly the character of the consonants suggest the amateur's bungling rather than the pleasant tune of a musical instrument (see p. 1 83). . Yet, it is not only remarkable that we find up to five connotation� of the same name Tityrus here, it is also striking that some of the�e connotation� are seemingly contradictory thus the simultaneous .connotation of 1he�ntean tradition and Vergilian innovation, or of the Theocntean locus an:oenus �bued with the pleasant tune of an anonymous goat-herd and the �ungling ?f Tltyru� . Hence, by referring to Tityrus at the beginning of his collection V?rgII deliberately evoked a series of connotations, which are only gradually specified by the following context. _

Vergil's Roman names are taken from daily life. experie�ce. A1thoug� most are names of literary men, none is a literary name, I. e. mediated to VergIl by a ll, 'Greek Nouns in Latin Poetry from 134 Co leman 19TI. 39 and in general A. E. HouSJIl Luccetius to Iuvenal'. in: Housman 11, 817-839.

192

IV. Personal Names

literary source. The opposite is true of the Greek names. These appear to be (almost) exclusively literary and one may thus ask as to their source. Theocritus, of course, is the most prolific provider of bucolic names, and where a Vergilian name is attested in his poetry already, he almost certainly constitutes the main source for Vergil. But influence by other authors is traceable: thus (in

chronological order) Homer may have - at least partly - inspired the names Chromis (6.13, via Theocritus?), Scylla (6.74) and Bianor (9.60); the mime­ writer Sophron the name Thestylis (2.10, via Theocritus?); some Greek comedians the name Corydon (7.70); the epigrammatist Perses the name Mnasyllus (6.13); Callimachus the names Conon (3.39) Phyllis (3.78 al.), Linus (as a herdsman at 6.67, see p. 98) and Arethusa (10.1); Apollonius the

name Mopsus (Eel. 5); Euphorion the name Mopsus (Eel. 5); the epigrammatist Diotimus the name Bianor (9.60); Parthenius (via Gallus?), who may have been of special importance as a source of etymologies,1 35 the name Neaera (3.3); Catullus the name Conon (3.96) and, finally, Gallus the name Lycoris ( 10.2). All these ascriptions, argued for above in detail, are more or less tentative am

some of the names are listed twice here (where I regard two sources as equally possible), a fact which clearly illustrates uncertainty. But more important than the ascription in each single case is the general picture: where the provenance of a name can be ascertained, with the exception of Homer and a few comic poets, Vergil draws exclusively on learned, Hellenistic personal names. Very strikingly, bucolic names attested before Vergil only outside the 11leocritean corpus (e.g. in Bion) are absent. In other words, in terms of personal names no influence of Greek bucolic poetry other than that transmitted under Theocritus' name is traceable. The influence of Vergilian personal names found in the Eclogues has been vast and cannot be expounded here in detail. Wendel offers a table which shows that the Eclogues constitute the decisive 'filter' for the introduction of names

used by earlier Greek bucolic poets into Latin bucolic poetry)36 Occasionally, later authors may be inspired by a Vergilian wordplay involving a personal name, as demonstrated by Q'Hara: 1 37 thus 8.107 Hylax in limine latrat may be

adapted in Qvid's acutae vocis Hylactor at met. 3 .224. Similarly, the play on spicula (= Greek lh:ovt� I tX1:6vtta) as referring to (the Callimachean) Acontius at 10.60 (see p. 106) may be reflected at Qv. epist. 2 1 .2 1 l f.: mirabar quare tibi nomen Acontius esset; I quod facial /onge vuinus. acumen habes. 1 3 8 Vergilian personal names in the &logues were used with a distinctly Vergilian colour by later Augustan and other authors, so e.g. Alexis, Corydon and, most

1 35 cr. O'Ham 1996. 44. 1 3 6 Wendel 1900. 64-68. 1 37 O'Hara 1996. 95-102. 1 38 For this passaae see E. I. KCMe)'. Ovid. HtroiMI XVI - XXI (CarnbridIC 1996). 242 [further reference, to wordplays OD ·ACOIltius1). For etyJnOlo&ic:al wordplay in Augustan authors apart from VerJil see 0'H1ICa 1996. 56 (with JCDCf'Il bi�y). for wordplay in Augustan love elegy see Maltby 1999. 339.

4. Conclusions

193

characteristically, of course, Tityrus.n9 This observation attests to the key function personal names had in the reception of the Eclogues by later authors. They became bucolic or more generally Vergilian 'markers' par excellence, while the numerous individual connotations they bear in Vergil were normally lost.

1 39

4.16.33 [Tityrusj i I' Qv. (l1li. 1.15.25 [Tityrusj. PonJ. ' . Corydon. TrtynD • Prop. 2.34.12f. IAlexlJ. Milt. 1.29.1 I Alexill. 8.SS.8 [Titynllj al.

Epilogue Playful simplicity is fundamental to Vergil's language in the Eclogues. It is the most striking feature that connects every single linguistic observation made in the previous four sections and seems to me the key (if any) to the understanding of Vergil's language as a whole. In other words, Vergil's novelty consists of turning neoteric linguistic eccentricity into transparent, simple but equally or even more playful language. So Vergil follows Catullus I the neoterics in numerous features of word formation. Moreover, he adapts a number of Catullan passages as expounded in chapter IT.4, and extensively adopts the technique of using personal names in an allusive way (thus mediating the Alexandrians). But still, Vergil is not Catullan I neoteric, or - perhaps more accurately - not only Catullan I neoteric:1 his very restricted use of diminutives, his avoidance of rare poetic or vulgar vocabulary as well as the strikingly small number of Catullan verbal adaptations (many of them simply reminiscences) may point to a deliberate self-demarcation from Catullus / the neoterics. It is exactly the message of self-demarcation from Catullus / the neoterics by recognition of Catullus I the neoterics that appears to be the reason for the programmatic use of the completely un-Catullan words Camena (for Musa) rurl incrementum in otherwise highly Catullan lines at 3.59 and 4.49 respectively.2 Neither did Vergil follow the neoterics, or cantores Euphorionis, as they were mockingly dubbed by Cicero, in their rejection of Ennius.3 By contrast, the exploitation of Euphorion did not prevent Vergil from adapting Ennian words and passages directly and indirectly (via Lucretius) in the Eclogues, much more, that is to say, than the choice of the Latin hexameter would necessitate for generic reasons.

1 For Catullus' relation to the neotcrics see Lyne 1978, 169. 174-185; against the existence of the neoterics as a literary group see Lightfoot 1 999. SS-SS. 2 I am not convinced that the words at 3.86 Pollia et iPlt lacit nova carmina (spoken by Menalcas) mean that Vergil regarded himself as a ncoteric (so e.g. Schmidt 1 972. 292f.; Scblipsdau 1974. 29Sf.; Thill l 976. SS-60; contra e.g. Courtncy 1993. 255; Clausen 1994. 1 12; Lightfoot 1999. 54 n. 1 63). Nowhere In Eel. 3 does Vergi1 spealc of himself. the words et ipse refer to the fact that Damoetas In the preceding line talks of his own literary production and

3

Pallia's affection for it. Cic. TIlIIc. 3.45: 0 pottam (scil. Ennium) tgregillm! qlU.UfUJlUU7I ab his cantOriblU Euphorionis contemnitllr. Prinzen 1995. I S6f. rightly pointed out thIt Cicero bere refeD to the contrast between Euphorion. the IIiIISter of cpyllill, and EnniUl. the muter of grand epic. For the (debatable) identification of the cantores Euphorionls cf. e.g. Lyne 1975. 1 74. IS5; Walson 19S2.93 n. I; Courtney 1993. 213f.; Lightfoot 1999. 54-67.

Epilogue

1 95

In short, though Vergil, of course, reacts to the practice of the neoterics am f�llowers of Euphorion and adopts it to some extent, he does not identify ms:lf completely wi� i � in linguistic terms. Ennian and (especially) Lucretian . ImguIstIc features are distinctly present in the Eclogues and to some extent form an essential (un-neoteric) part of the poetic 'programme', as expounded very markedly at the beginning of the fIrst and second half of the Eclogues, i.e. the aspect of Romanitas. The most characteristic key term of this self-deman:ation from Greek and Catullan / neoteric tradition and simultaneously of Romanitas is

I:i

silvae.

Vergil's linguistic selectivity would naturally lead to a language immensely diversifIed according to the underlying source or the different - partly contradictory - linguistic principles applied. Thus, it must seem surprising at fIrst sight that Vergil's language appears to be homogeneous throughout. This seeming contradiction may be partly explained by the comparatively large number of VergiIian key words like avena, jagus, jornwsus, silva and others, as well as the repeated appearance of a number of bucolic personal names like Tityrus, Mena1cas, Meliboeus and others in different Eclogues, which - apart from their specifIc multifarious connotations - tie the Eclogues together and make them look uniform in linguistic terms. This integrative function of Vergilian key terms and personal names seems to me at least equally as important as their possible connotative functions. In rhetorical terms the language of the Eclogues is closest to the plain style (genus tenue), a categorization suggested already by Vergil himself at 4.2 (humiles myricae)4 and later stated explicitly by Servius and others5 . Only a few years before the pUblication of the Eclogues Cicero y poi�ted to

� aJn:ad

the closeness of the 'plain style' to rustic language.6 PossIbly, It was his turn towards plain sty le and the rejection of a more artificial language that rnOOe Vergil write (if it was Vergil) at cataL 5.1-5: ite hinc, inanes, ite, rhetorum ampullae, inflata rhoezo non Achaico verba et vos, Selique Tarquitique Varroque, scholasticorum natio madens pingui,

5

ite hinc, inane cymbalon iuventutis ...

. 4 The expresslORS

.

a number of other tenuf .. , a vena at I '2• tenui .•. ha11Ulliine at 6,8 and passages in the Eclogues as mentioned by Jackson 1914. 136f. also refer , to the ge�us t�nue.

, But even if this connotation was in Vergil's mind. the connotation of Callunachean £1t'tO'CTJ� is likely on general grounds to have been much stronger. . . ,. ' charaeteres, hunullS, mediUS. g�andJloqu�. S Serv. proocm. Eel. pp. I f. [Thilo]: tres enim sunt . georglcls m quos omnes in hoc invenimus potta. nam m Aenel'de g�wrdi/oquum habet•

, ' b 1tiorum et personarum, nam personae h le 'tat n nud�um. in ,":olie�. hll1/llre.�!,ro qua/'II b altum debtt requiri, cf, also Ps. Verg, Aen. rustleae SIIII1, SlmpllCllate ga_nles, a q i I: We ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus avena ... 6 Cic. orat. 8 1 .

� :r;;

1 96

Epilogue

But even if these lines are not Vergilian, they certainly strike a key note strongly present also in the Eclogues.7 The language of the Eclogues is homogeneous and seemingly plain. But its plainness is artificial throughout, because it incorporates two mutually exclusive elements: rustic simplicity and urban sophistication. To put it differently: how can herdsmen using a seemingly plain, rustic language arxl living in an apparently rural, non-urban environment be so entirely penetrated

by the most learned, urban, literary Hellenistic background in language, syntax, verse-technique and subject matter? The obvious answer is that they cannot, at least not in reality. It is exactly this incompatibility and forced collocation of rustic simplicity and urban sophistication, this slight sense of incongruity arxl eventually - absurdity of the bucolic characters, that causes a constant humorous effect. Perhaps already Horace felt it this way: with reference to the

-

Eclogues he writes at sat. 1 . 1 0.44f.: molle atque facetum / Vergilio annuernnt gaudentes rure Camenae. Quintilian thought that the Horatian term facetum here expressed 'a certain grace and refined elegance'. 8 This view has also been

accepted by modem scholars9 and it may hit the target in this general (yet, hardly very telling) sense. Still, one may consider whether by facetum Horace referred (also?) to the element of humorous absurdity in the much more specific sense just mentioned.IO In terms of language the Eclogues show by far the most striking similarities with Augustan love elegy (Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid). This is hardly surprising, given the closeness of the bucolic and elegiac genres. 1 I The degree, however, to which these similarities go back to the Eclogues, or rather a common model, namely Gallus, is not normally verifiable. The fact that the Augustan elegiac poets betray strong influence of the generically more remote

Georgics and Aeneid may indicate that a substantial part of the similarities,

indeed, goes back to - or is at least mediated by - Vergil. Even more indicative of the overwhelming influence of the Eclogues is another factor: in IIl3Iked opposition to Gallus' Amores no Augustan poet seems to have tried to compete with Vergil in writing Latin bucolic poetry.

7

Jackson 1914, 132-137. 8 Quint. inst. 6.3.20:facetum quoque non tantum circa ridicula opinor consistere; neque enim diceret Horatiru facetum carminis genus natura concessum esse Vergilio. Decoris hanc magis et excultae cuirudam elegantiae appellationem puto. 9 B.g. Nisbet 1995, 334. 1 0 For an extensive discussion of the Horatian epithet cf. Jackson 1914. 1 1 Cf. Conte 1986, 100-129, especially 126-129, interpreting &1. 10 as an exploration of boundaries between the bucolic and elegiac genre. Leo (1902, 20) had argued that the bucolic and the elegiac did not differ essentially: 'Zwischen Elegie und BukoJik ist kein wesentlicber Unterschied des Stoffes; nur das mimetische Element unten;cheidet Theokrits Bukolik von der Elegie", but against this equation sce already Pohlenz 1930, 222; C. Fantazzi. 'Virgilian Pastoral and Roman Love Poetry' AJP 87 (1966), 171-191; Schmidt 1972. 9 n. 3.

Bibliography Abbe 1965 Adams 1972

E. Abbe, The Plants o/ VirgO's Georgics (Itbaca 1965). J. N. Adams. 'Latin Words for "Woman" and ·Wife"' Gtona 50

Adams 1983

J. N. Adams, 'Words for "Prostitute" in Latin' RhM 126 (1983).

Adams I Mayer 1999

J. N. Adams I R. G. Mayer (edd.). Aspects of � lAnguage Dj Latin Poetry (Oxford 1999). P. Alpers. The Singer 0/ � Eclogues. A S/IUiy of Virgilian Pastoral (Berlceley 1979). P. Alpers, 'Theocritean Bucolic and Virgilian Pastoral' Arethusa

Alpers 1979 Alpers 1990

(1972), 234-255.

321-358.

23 (1990). 19-47.

Andre 1985 Axelson 1945 Bailey Barigazzi 1975 Bettini 1972 Borner Borner 1 957 Bowie 1985 Boyd 1983 CartauIt 1897 Clausen 1994 Colernan 1975 Colernan 1 977 Colernan 1 999 Conte 1986 Cooper 1895 Courtney 1990 Courtney 1993 Cova 1989 CSEL

A. Andr6. Les

noms de plantes

1985).

dons la Rome antique (Paris

B. Axelson. Unpoetische Wlirter (Lund 1945). C. Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari de rerum natura libri sex, 3 vols. (Oxford 1947). A. Barigazzi, 'Per l'interpretazione dell' Id. 5 di Teocrito e dell' Eel. 3 di Virgilio' AC 44 (1 975), 54-78. M. Bettini, 'Corydon, Corydon' sca 21 (1972), 261-276. F. Bomer, P. Ovidius Naso. Metamorphosen. Kommentar, 7 vols. (Heidelberg 1969-1986). F. Bomer. 'Beitrlige zum Verstindnis der augusteischen Dichterspmche' Gymnosium 64 (1957), 1-21. E. Bowie, 'Theocritus' Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus' CQ 35 (1985), 67·91 .

B. W. Boyd, 'Cydonea Mala: Vergilian Word-Play and Allusion' HSCP 87 (1983), 1 69-174. A. Cartault. Etude sur les Bucoliques de Virgile (Paris 1 897). W. Clausen. A Commentary on Virgn Eclogues (Oxford 1994). R. G. G. Coleman. 'Greek Influence on Latin Syntax' TPhS 73 (1 975). 101-156.

R. G. G. Coleman. Virgi� Eclogues (Cambridge 1977). R G. G. Coleman. 'Poetic Diction. Poetic Discourse and the Poetic Register', in: Adams I Mayer 1 999, 21-93 . G. B. Conte. The Rhetoric of Imitation. Genre and Poetic 1986). Memory in VirgiJ and Other Latin Poets (lthaca Plebeius Sermo Roman the in Formation Word Cooper, T. F. (New York 1 895). ( 1 ) (1990). E. Courtney. 'Vergil's Sixth Eclogue' QUCC n.s. 34

99-112. 1 993) . E. Courtney. The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford 1989). o (Milan ario V poeta n Cova. V. P. m. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinoru

198

Bibliography

Cupaiuolo 1969

F. Cupaiuolo,

Deufert 1996 Dickey 1996

Pseudo-Lukrezisches im Lukrez. Die unechten Verse in Lukrezens "De rerum natura" (Berlin 1996). E. Dickey. Greek Forms of Address. From Herodotus to Lucian

DNP

H.

Trama poetica delle bucoliche di Virgilio (Naples

1969). M. Deufert.

(Oxford 1996).

Doig 1968

Cancik 1 H. Schneider (edd.). Der Neue Pauly. Enzykloplldie der Antike (Stuttgart 1996ff.). G. Doig. 'Vergil's Art and the Greek Language' Cl 64 (1968).

Du Quesnay 1977

I. M. Du Quesnay. 'Virgil's Fifth Eclogue' PVS 16 (1976 / 1 977).

Du Quesnay 1979

I. M. Du Quesnay. From Polyphemus to Corydon. Virgil.

1-6.

18-41.

Eclogue

7 and the Idylls of Theocritus'.

Woodman (edd.), Creative (Cambridge 1979), 35-69. Du Quesnay 1983 Elder 1961 Ernout 1947

Ernout 1949

1965

70.

A. Emout.

Les adjectifs

latins

en

·osus

EV

Farrell 1991

Fedeli 1972 Fisher 1982 Fordyce 1961

FPL Fraenkel 1955 Francese 1999 Gall 1999

Garson 1971 Gebauer 1 86 1

Gigante 1979

et en

-ulentus (Paris

latini' Maia

F. della Corte al., 'Euforione e i poeti

158- 176. Fabre-Serris 1995

D. West 1 T.

I. M. Du Quesnay. 'Vergil's First Eclogue' Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3 (1983), 29-182. J. P. Elder. 'Non iniussa cano' HSCP 64 (1961), 109-125. A. Emout. 'B. Axelson, Unpoetische Worter. Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der lateinischen Dichtersprache' RPh 21 (1947), 55-

1949).

Eujorione

in:

ImitaJion and Latin Literature

17 (1965).

Enciclopedia virgiliana, 5 vols. (Rome 1984-1990). J. Fabre-Serris. 'Jeux de mo&les

dans

I'alexandrinisme romain:

Les hommages it GalIus dans la Bucolique X et 1'616gie 1,20 de Properce et ses 6chos ovidiens' REL 73 (1995), 124-137. J. FarrelI.

Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic

(Oxford 1991).

P. Fedeli, 'SuUa prima bucolica di Virgilio',

GIF n.s. 3 ( 1972) 273-300. R. S. FISher, 'Conon and the Poet: a Solution to Eclogue, 3.40-2' Latomus 41 (1982), 803-814. C. J. Fordyce, Catullus (Oxford 1961). W. More1 1 K. BUchner I J. Blllnsdorf, Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum (Leipzig3 1995).

E. Fraenkel, 'Vesper adeat. (Catullus LXII)' JRS 45 (1955). 1·8. C. Fl1II\cese. 'Parthenius Grammaticus'

(1999), 63·7 1.

Mllemosyne 4th ser.

D. Gall, Zur Technlk V01I Ansplelung und ZiUlt in

52

der rlJmischen

Dlchtung. Vergll. Gallus und die Clrls (Munich 1999).

R. W. Ganon, 'Tbeocritean Elements in ViIJil's Eclogues' CQ n.I. 21 (1971), 188-203. O. A. Gebauer, De pocUlrum Gnucorum bucolicorum inprimis 1Mocriti carminilnu in Eclogis a Vergilio expressis Jibri duo (Leipzi& 1861). M. GiJllllte, CivilM tklk forme ktttrarie lieU' QlltiCQ Pompei (Naples 1979).

Bibliography

Gigante 1981 GL

Gow 1932 Gow I Page Gow I Page, Garland GRF

Gutzwiller 1996

199

M. Gigante, 'Lettura della prima bucolica', in: M. Gillllte (ed.), ucturae Vergilianae. I. u bucoUche (Naples 1981), 1 9-104. H. Keil, Grammatici Latini, 8 vol•. (Leipzig 1855-1880). A. S. F. Gow, 'Diminutives in Augustan Poetry' CQ 26 (1932), 1 50-157. A. S. F. Gow I D. L. Page, � Greek Anthology. Helltnistic Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1965). A. S. F. Gow I D. L. Page, � Greek Anthology. � Garland of Philip and Some Contemporary Epigrams, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1968). G. Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta I (Leipzig 1907). K. Gutzwiller, 'The Evidence for Theocritean Poetry Books', in: M. A. Harder I R. F. Regtuit I G. C. Wakker (edd.), Theocritus (Groningen 1996 Hellenistica Groningana 11), 1 19-148. R. Hakarnies, Etude sur l'origine et l'evolution du diminutif latin et sa survie dims les langues romanes (Helsinki 1951). E. W. Handley, 'Hidden Verses', in: N. M. Horsfall (ed.), Vir Bonus Discendi Peritus. Studies in Celebration of Otto Skutsch's Eightieth Birthday (London 1988 BICS suppJ. 51), 166-174. =

Hakarnies 1951 Handley 1988

=

Hanssen 1 942 Hanssen 1951 Harrison 1991 Harrison 1998 Hinds 1998 Hofmann 1951 Hofmann I Szantyr

J. S. T. Hanssen, 'Remarks on Euphony-Cacophony and the Language of Vergil' SO 22 (1942), 80-106. J. S. T. Hanssen, Latin Diminutives. A Semantic Study (Arbok

1951). S. J. Harrison, Vergil, Aeneid /0. Introduction. Translation. Commentary (Oxford 1991). S. 1. Harrison, "!'he Lw:k Ascending: Corydon, Corydon (Vergil, Eel. 7.70)' CQ n.s. 48 (1998), 31Of. S. Hinds, AUusion and Intertext. Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (Cambridge 1998). J. B. Hofmann, Lateinische Umgangssprache (Heidelberg3 1 951). 1. B. Hofmann I A. Szantyr, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik

HolJis 1992

(Munich 1965). A. S. HolJis, 'Hellenistic Colouring in Virgil's Aeneitl HSCP 94

HolJis 1996

A. S. Hollis, 'Virgil's Friend Varius Rufus' PVS 22 (1996), 19-

Horsfall 1995 Hosius 1915

HRR

Horsfall, A Companion to the Study ofVirgil (Leiden 1995). Hosius, P. Vergili Maronis Bucolica cum auctoribus et imitatoribus in usum scho1arwn (Bonn 1915). J. Diggle I F. R. D. Goodyear (edd.), � Classical Papers of A. E. Housll101l, 3 vols. (Cambridge 1 972). H. Peter, Historicorwn Romanorwn Reliquiae (Leipzig 1 870-

Hubaux 1927

J. Hubaux, u rialisme dims Its bucoliques de Virgil (Li�ge

(1992), 269-285.

33.

Housman I, II, III

N. C.

19(6).

HUgi 1952

Hunter 1983 Jac1cson 1914

1927). g (Bern M. HUgi, Vergils Aeneis und die HelleniSlische Dichtun 1952). (Cambridge 1983). R. Hunter, A Study ofDaplulis and Chloe Satires, 1,10, 44' C. N. Jackion, 'Molle otque Facetum. Horace,

200

Jacoby 1905 Jenkyns 1989 Kennedy 1987 Kenney 1983 Klingner 1967 Knaack 1883 Knauer 1964 Knecht 1963 Knox 1986 Kiihnken 1996

Kiihner 1 B lass I, 11

Kiihner 1 Gerth I, 11

Kiihner 1 Stegmann I, n Langlois 1961 La Penna 1962

Lee 1981 Lembach 1970

Leo 1902

Leumann 1947 Leumann 1977 Lewis 1 Short

lfrE

LGPN Lightfoot 1999 UMC Lindsel1 1936 1 1937 Lodge I, n

B ibliography HSCP 25 (19 14), 1 17-137_ F. Jacoby, 'Zur Entstehung der riimischen Elegie' RhM 60 (1905), 38-105. R. Ienkyns, 'Virgil and Arcadia' JRS 79 (1989), 26-39. D. F. Kennedy, 'Arcades ambo: Virgil, Gallus and Arcadia' Hermathena 143 (1987), 47-59. E. J. Kenney, 'Virgil and the Elegiac Sensibility' [CS 8 (1 983), 44-59. F. Klingner, Virgil. Bucolica. Georgica. Aeneis (Zurich 1967). G. Knaack, 'Analecta' Hermes 1 8 (1 883), 28-33. G. N. Knauer, Die Aeneis unil Homer (Giittingen 1964). D. Knecht, 'Virgile et ses mod�les latins' AC 32 (1963), 491512. P. E. Knox, 'Adjectives in -osus and Latin Poetic Diction' Glotta 64 (1986), 90-101. A. Kiihnken, 'Theokrits Polyphemgedichte', in: M. A. Harder 1 R. F. Regtuit 1 G. C. Wakker (edd.), Theocritus (Groningen 1996 = HeUenistica Groningana II), 171-186. R. Kiihner 1 F. Blass, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. Tei1 1: Elementar- unil Formenlehre (Hanover3 1 8901 892). R. Kiihner 1 B. Gerth, AusjUhrliche Grammatik der Griechischen Sprache. Teil n: Sat1.lehre (Hanover3 18981904). R. KUhner 1 C_ Stegmann, Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, 2 vols. (Munich4 1962). P. Langlois, 'Leg fOnnaUons en -bunilus: index et commentaire' REL 39 (1961), 1 17-134. A. La Penna, 'Esiodo nella cultura e neTIa poesia di Virgilio' Entretiens Hardt 7 (1962), 213-252. G. Lee, 'Imitation and the Poetry of Virgil' G&R 2nd ser. 28 (1981), 10-22. K. Lembach, Die Pjlanun bei Theokrit (Heidelberg 1 970). F. Leo, 'Vergil und die Ciris' Bermes 37 (1902), 14-55 (according to which I quote) = id.. Ausgewlihhe kleine Schriften (Rome 1960), 29-70. M. Leumann, 'Die lateiniscbe Dichterspmche' MH 4 (1947), 1 16-139. M. Leurnann, Lateinische Laut- "nil Formenlehre (Munich2 1977). C. T. Lewis 1 C. Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1 958). B. Sncll al., Ltxikon des frUhgriechischen Epos (Gl:Ittingen 1 955ff.). P. M. Fruer 1 E. Matthew! (edd.). Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford 1987ff.). I. L. Lightfoot, PllrtheniUS ofNicaea (Oxford 1999). Lexicon /conogrtlphicum Mythologult Classicae (Zurich 1981ff.). A. Lindsell, 'Was Tbeocritus a Botanist? G&:R 6 (1936 1 1937), 78-93. G. Lodge, Lexicon Plautinum, 2 vels (Leipzig 1924 1 1933 =

Bibliography Lafstedt I, 11 LSJM

Lyne 1978

20 1

HiIdesheim 1962).

E. Ulfstedt. Syntactica, 2 vola. (Malm!l2 1 9S6).

H. Liddell l R. Scott I H. Stuart Jones I R. McKCllzie, A Gr,d: English Lexicon. R. O. A. M. Lyne, 'The Neoteric Poets' CQ n.s. 28 (1 978), 1 67_

187.

Lyne 1989 Maltby 1991

R. O. A. M. Lyne, Wordr and the Poet (Oxford 1989). R. Maltby. A Lexicon of Ancient Lalin Etymologies (Leeds

Maltby 1999

Merone 1 961

R. Maltby, Tibullus and the Language of Latin Elegy', in: Adams I Mayer 1999, 377-398. J. Marouzeau, Traite de stylistique laline (Paris 1 970). C. Martindale (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Virgil (Cambridge 1997). E. Martini. 'Virgil und Parthenius', in: Studi Virgiliani (Mantua 1930 = Pubblicazioni della reale accademia virgiliana di Mantova. serie miscellanea IX). 147-159. E. Merone, 'L'alliterazione nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio' Aevum

Monteil 1964

P. Monteil, Beau et laid en latin. Etude de vocabulaire (Paris

Monteleone 1979

C. Monteleone. 'Comelio Gallo Ira TIa e le Driadi (Virgilio, Properzio e una controversia letteraria)' Latomus 38 (1979),

Marouzeau 1970 Martindale 1997 Martini 1930

Moore-Blunt 1977 MorelIi I Tandoi 1984

Mores 1 972 Munro 1873 Mynors 1 990 Nisbet 1995 Nisbet I Hubbard 1 970 Nisbet I Hubbard 1978 Norden 1 927 O'Hara 1996

OW ORF Otis 1963

Otto 1 890

Page 1981

1991).

35 (1961), 199-219. 1964).

28-53. J. Moore-Blunt. 'Eclogue 2: Virgil's Utilization of Theocritean Motifs' Eranos 75 (1977). 23-42.

A. M. Morelli I V. Tandoi, 'Un probabile omaggio a Comelio Gall0 nella seconda ecloga', in: V. Tandoi (ed.). Disiecti membra poetae I (Foggia 1 984). 99-1 16. ' S. de Nigris Mores. 'Sugli aggettivi latini in -ax Acme 25 (1972). 263-3 13.

H. A. J. Munro, T. Lucreti Cari de rerum natura lihri sex (Cambridge3 1 873). R. A. B. Mynors. VirgiL Georgics (Oxford 1990). S. J. Harrison (ed.), R. G. M. Nisbet. Collected Papers on Latin literature (Oxford 1995). R. G. M. Nisbet I M. Hubbard. A Commentary on Horace: Odes. Book 1 (Oxford 1970). R. G. M. Nisbet I M. Hubbard. A Commentary on Horace:

Odes. Book :Z (Oxford 1978).

t

E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VI (Leipzi Dannstadt 1957).

1 927

=

Tradition J. J. O'Hara, True Names. Vergil and the Alexandrian ofEtymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor 1996). Oxford Latin Dictionary liherae rei H. Malcovati, Oratorum Romanorum [ragmenta publicae (Turin 1955). 1 963). B. Otis, Virgil. A Study in Civilized Poetry (Oxford n Redensarten A. Otto, Die SprichwiJrter und sprichwiirtliche der Riimer (Leipzig 1890 Hildesheim 1962). 1981). D. L. Page. Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge =

Bibliography

202 Papanghelis 1987 Papanghelis 1995

Paschalis 1997 Pasquali 1951

T. D. Papanghelis, Propertius: A Hellenistic Poet on Love and Death (Cambridge 1987). T. D. Papanghelis, Am> 'CIlv iXlt>1Wt..1K1j £tyw2tiu O''tTJV 7lOt..l'tlK1j ou'tOftiu: P.1U p.£A.£'CIl 'to)V EKAo'l'rov 'tou

B1P'l'illOU (Athens 1 995). M. Paschalis, Virgil's Aeneid: SemlJntic Relations and Proper Names (Oxford 1997). G. Pasquali, 'Arte a11usiva', Italia che scrive 25 (1942), 185- 1 87 id. Stravaganze quarte e supreme (Venice 1951), 1 1 -20 (according to which I quote). R. Kassel ! C. F. Austin (edd.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin 1983ff.). J. Permt, Les derives en -men et -mentum (Paris 1961). R. Pfeiffer, CallimlJchus, 2 vols. (Oxford 1 949-1953). E. Pianezzola, Gli agge/tivi verbali in -bundus (Florence 1965). R. Pichon, De sermone amlJtorio (Paris 1902; Index verborum amlJtoriorwn repr. Hi1desheim 1966). E. Lobe1 ! D. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorwn Fragmenta (Oxford 1955). D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (Oxford 1962). M. Pohlenz, 'Das SchluBgedicht der Bucolica' in: Studi Virgiliani (Mantua 1930 Pubblicazioni della reale accademia virgiliana di Mantova, serie miscellanea IX), 205-225. S. Posch, Beobachtungen zur Theokritnachwirkung bei Vergil (Munich 1969). V. Ptischl, Die Hirtendichtung Virgils (Heidelberg 1 964). H. Prinzen, Ennius im Urteil tkr Antike (Stuttgart 1 998). M. C. J. Putnam, Virgi/'s Pastoral Art. Studies in the Eclogues (Princeton 1970). L. Ramorino Martini , 'Influssi Lucreziani nelle Bucoliche di Virgilio' CCe 7 (1986), 297-33 1. G. Wissowa al., Paulys Real-Encycloplidie tkr claJsischen Alter:tum.Jwusenschajt (Stuttgart 1894-1978) P. Robertson, 'Virgil and Theocritus' PVS 10 (1970 ! 1971), 823. B. Rochette, Le latin dan.r le monde grec. Recherches sur la =

PCG

Permt 1961 Pfeiffer Pianezzola 1965 Pichon 1902 PLF PML

Pohlenz 1930

=

Posch 1969 Poschl 1964 Prinzen 1998 Putnam 1970 Rarnorino 1986 RE

Robertson 1970 ! 1971 Rochette 1 997

Rose 1942 Rosen ! Farcel! 1986 Ross l969 Ross l975 Rostagni 1961 Rwnpf 1999

df/fusion tk la langue et tks lenres laJinu dan.r le� provinces helllnoplumes de l'Empire romain (Brussels 1997). H. J. Rose, The Eclogues of Vergil (Berkeley 1942). R. M. Rosen ! J. Parcell, 'Acontius, Milanion, and Gallus: Vergi1, &1. 10.52-61' TAPM 1 16 ( 1986), 241-154. D. O. Rou, Style and Tradition in Cattdl&u (Cambridac, Mass.

1 969). D. o. ROIl, BackgrolllllU 10 AUBUS/all Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome (Cambridge 1975). A. ROItagni, Virgi/io mJ/IOre (Rome2 1961). L. Ru mp!, 'BukoIilCbe Nomina bei Vergi1 und Tbcokrit' RhM 142 (1999), 1 57-175.

Sclunidt 1972

E. A. Schmidt, PoetbCM Rqluion: VerBils Bukolil (Munich

Sclunidt 1987

E. A. Schmidt. BNkolUcM LeUkMC/tqft odtr UlHr CUltike

1972).

Bibliography

SchOnbeck 1962

SchOpsdau 1974 Segal 1987

203

Hirtenpoesie (Frankfurt 1987).

G. Sch6nbeck, Der LocIU AllloenlU von Homer his Horar. (Heidelberg 1962). K. Sch6psdau. 'Motive der Licbesdichtung in Vergils dritter Ekloge' Hermes 102 (1974). 268-300. C. Segal. 'Alphesiboeus' Song and Simaetha's Magic: Virgil's eighth Eclogue and Theocritus' second Idylf GB 14 (1 987).

167-185.

SH

Skutsch 1901 Skutsch 1956 Skutsch 1985 Smith 1970 Soubiran 1966 Springer 1983 1 1984 Stemrnler 1992

H. L1oyd-Jones 1 P. Parsons. SupplelllentulII HellenisticulII (Berlin 1983).

F. Skutsch. Aus Vergils FrUhzeit (Leipzig 1901). O. Skutsch. 'Zur Vergils Eklogen' RhM 99 (1956). 193-201. O. Skutsch. The Annals ofQ. Ennius (Oxford 1985). P. L. Smith, 'Vergil's Avena and the Pipes of Pastoral Poetry' TAPhA 101 (1970). 497-51 0. J. Soubiran. L'ilision dans la poesie Latine (Paris 1966). C. Springer. 'Aratus and the Cups of Menalcas: A Note on Eclogue 3.42' Cl 79 (1983 / 1 984), 131-134. T. Stemrnler (ed.). Homoerotische Lyrik. 6 Kolloquium der Forsclumgsstelle fir

Stewart 1959 SVF

Thill 1976 Thomas I, II Thomas 1995 Thomas 1998

11L Traina 1986

Triinkle 1960 Vii!ln!lnen 1981 Van Der Heyde 1931

europiiische

Lyrik

des

Mittelalters

(Mannheim 1992). Z. Stewart, 'The Song of Si1enus' HSCP 64 (1959), 179-205. J. v. Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. 4 vols. (Leipzig

1903-1924 = Stuttgart 1964). A. Thill, 'Alter ab illo '. Recherches sur I'imitation dans la poesie personelle a l'epoque Augusteene. 2 vols. (LiIle 1976). R. F. Thomas. Virgil. Georgics. 2 vols. (Cambridge 1988). R. F. Thomas. 'Vestigia ruris: Urbane Rusticity in Virgil's Georgics' HSCP 97 (1 995). 197-214. R. F. Thomas. 'Voice. Poetics and Virgil's Sixth Eclogue'. in: J. Jasanoff al. (edd.), M(r Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins (Innsbruck 1998). 669-676. Thesaurus Unguae Latinae.

A. Traina, Poeti latini (e /ltolatini): Note saggi jilologici I (Bologna2 1986). H. Tr!inkIe. Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lateinischen Dichtersprache (Wiesbaden 1960). V. VlIIin finen. Introduction au latin vuIgaire (Paris3 1981). K. Van Der Heyde. 'Flumen, Fluvius. Amnis' Mnemosyne 3rt!

Van Sickle 1976 / 1 977

ser. 60 (1932). 135-146. Cl 72 J. Van Sickle, "'Et Gallus Cantavit": A Review Article'

Van Sickle 1978 VVackernagel I. 11 VValde 1 Hofrnann

J. Van Sickle. The Design ofVirgil's Bucolics (Rome 1926-1928). J. WackemageI. Vorlesungen aber Syntax (BaseI etymologisches A. Walde 1 1. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches

VVatson 1982 Watson 1983 Wendel 1900

(1976 / 1977), 327-333.

1 978).

WlJrterhuch (Heidelberg 1938-1 954). 54 (1982). 93 L. C. Watson. 'Cinna and Euphorioo' SIFC n.s. 1 1 0. (1983), 1 19-1 43. P. Watson. 'Puella and Virgo' Glotta 61 JahrbUcher fir C. Wendel, 'De nominibus bucolicis' Ne� 1-90. ), (1900 26 l. p p su logie. Phi/o sche classi

204 Wendel 1 920

Westendorp Boenna 1958 White 1 970 Wigodsky 1 972 Wilkinson 1963 Williams 1968 Wills 1996 Wills 1998 Wirnrnel 1 960

Wirnrnel 1 983 Wright 1 983 Zetzel 1 977

Bibliography C. Wendel, 'tlberlieferung und Entstehung der Theokrit­ Scholien', Abhandlungen der kiiniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Giittingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Neue Folge 17.2 (Berlin 1920). R. E. H. Westendorp Boerma, 'Vergil's Debt to Catullus' AClass 1 (1 958), 51-63. K. D. White, Roman Farming (London 1 970). M. Wigodsky, Vergil and Early lAtin Poetry (Wiesbaden 1 972). L. P. Wilkinson, Golden Latin Artistry (Cambridge 1963). G. Williams, Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry (Oxford 1968). J. Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry. Figures of Allusion (Oxford 1 996). 1. Wills, 'Divided Allusion: Virgil and the Coma Berenices' HSCP 98 (1998), 277-305. W. Wirnrnel, Kallimachos in Rom. Die Nachfolge seines apologetischen Dichtens in der Augusteerzeit (Wiesbaden 1 960). W. Wirnrnel, 'Der Augusteer Lucius Varius Rufus' ANRW n. 30.3 (Berlin 1983), 1 562- 1 62 1 . J. R. G. Wright, 'Virgil's Pastoral Programme: Theocritus, Callimachus and Eclogue l' PCPS 29 (1983), 107-160. J. E. G. Zetzel, 'Gallus, Elegy and Ross' CPh 72 (1 977), 249260.

Indexes 1. General Index accusative: neuter plural instead of adverb 38, 60 rare use of 133, 1 39f. adjectives: changing with present participle 1 47f. in -ax 1 -4 in -bundus 4·6, 27 in -osus 7-1 0, 27 in -Oe14 7 of appellatives in -eus 6f., 27 of toponyrns and personal names 1 0f., 27, 83, 86 starting with per- 144 starting with MA'\)- 7 diminutives 1 5f. adynaton 69f., 76f., 124, 1 83 alliteration 25, 34, 39, 41, 61 , 63, 1 30n., 158n. allusion, definition of 28 amplification 34-36, 38, 40-45, 47, 49, 52, 5457, 62f., 92, 96, 1 19, 1 24, 160 anacoluthon 138 anaphora 39, 54, 57f., 61 ·64, 1 32 anonymous poets, influence on Vergil 1 16f., 1 24, 178n. anti-climax 36, 61 Antipater Sidonius, influence on Vergil 48 Apollonius Rhodius, influence on Vergil 97, 1 1 0f., 1 1 3, 1 92 apposition, inserted 89n., 90, 1 10 Aratus, influence on Vergil 1 1 2, 1 24, 175 archaism 1 7, 37f., 74, 82, 127f., 131, 1 34, 1 36, 1 39f., 142f., 149f., 163, 170 Asclepiades Myrleanus, influence on Vergil 65 bucolic diaeresis 48, 1 1 7 Bucolica Einsidlensia, Vergilian influence on 26n. cacophony 39, 61 Callimachus, influence on Vergil 14, 124n., 125f., 137. 140, 155, 169f., 173. 175, 188f., 192 Calpurnius, Vergilian influence on 16, 26n 148, 158, 178n., 19On. cantores Euphorionis, influence on Vergil 87. 1 94f. .•

Catullus, influence on Vergil 6. 14, 16, 19-21. 27. 80-87, 96, 105. 126, 136, 141. 158. 160. 162. 170. 192. 194 Cicero. influence on Vergil 67. 1 12, 152f. Cinna, influence on Vergil l 19. 121-123 colloquialisrus 7f., 25. 38. 50, 54. 62. 72. 77, 82. 85. 1 17. 127. 1 30-145, 170 Columella. Vergilian influence on 260. coruic I parodic elements 24. 34, 37f., 48, 50. 55, 58. 62, 71, 81. 92, 105. 1 17. 132, 1 34f 1 37, l4Of., 146, 151, 159n., 183. 191. 196 dative, sympathetic 144 diminutives 1 1-16. 27. 81, 86, 124, 129, 141, 144, 161, 177n., 194 Diotirnus, influence on Vergi1 174. 192 Dorcatius, VergiIian influence on 4 Eclogues: passim bipartite structure XI. 59, 66f., 80, 90, 95, 108, 155 opening pattern 32f., 36, 61 ecphrasis 40, 63, 99n., 169 elision 34f., 61, 142. 184 ellipse 54. 62, 1 36f., 138n., 1 39-143 enallage 7 1 enjambment 40, 50. 84, 86. 1 1 3 Ennius, influence o n Vergil 3, 15-18, 20f., 27, 77, 79. 81, 86, 1 17-119, 123, 1240., 126, 164, 170, 1 94f. enumeratio 33, 61 epanalepsis 48. 57, 61, 74 Euphorion. influence on Vergil 34, 59, 87-1 1 1, 123f 126, 1 50, 1 67, 187f., 1 92. 194 Euripides, influence on Vergil 97, 1 10 Gallus, influence on Vergil 9f., 1 1. 15f 22. 27, 56-59. 87- 1 1 1. 123f 126, 129. 143f 166, 187f., 1 92, 196 .•

.•

.•

.•

genitive:

avoidance of 1 1 objective 2 partitive 3 genus tenue 195 geographical tenns -+ toponyms hendiadys 34, 1 53 Hesiod. influence on Vergil 98. 1 1 lf., 126 hiatus SOn 91, 103, 1 63f. ••

.•

206

Indexes

Homer, influence on Vergil 1 1n., 46, 8 1 , 84, 1 1 1 , 124n., 126, 1 69f., 175f., 192 Homeric scholia, influence on Vergil 65 homoioteleuton 2f., 37, 62, 78, 152, 177 Horace, Vergilian influence on 16, 122, 145, 148, 1 52, 158, 161, 1 89n., 196 hyperbaton 41, 63, 69n., 101 hyperbole 136 imitation, definition of 2 8 irony 136, 1 3 8 , 145, 180 iteration � repetition of words Laevius, influence on Vergil 1 19 'Leitzitat' 60, 123 Licinius Calvus, influence on Vergil 8-10, 46, 12lf., 123f., 161 locus amoenus 65n ., 99n., 179, 191 Longus, Vergilian influence on 14n., 1 14f. Lucan, Vergilian influence on 6, 26n. Lucretius, influence on Vergil 3, 16, 1 8, 20f., 23, 27, 65-80, 123-126, 133, 138, 141n., 150f., 1 56f., 160, 194f. Manilius, Vergilian influence on 26n., 148 Martial, Vergilian influence on 26n., 1 82n., 189n. metaphor 18, 53, 59, 62, 70, 79, 8 1 , 84, 101, 109, 130, 134, 143, 177 metonymy 6Of., 84, 86, 102, 128f., 175 metre 3, 7, 1 1 , 14, 16f., 19, 21, 34, 38, 48, 61, 68f., 73, 75, 79, 8On., 82, 84, 86f., 9lf., 95f., 103f., 105, 109, 1 19f., 128, 131, 142, 145, 1 52, 158, 161, 163, 187 [Moschus] Epitaphius Bionis, influence on Vergi1 173 'motto' 59 Naevius, influence on Vergil 1 l7, 137 Nemesianus, Vergilian influence on 16, 178n. Neoterics, influence on Vergil 6, 15, 19-2 1 , 27, 8 l f., 9 1 , 1 2 1 , 129, 139n., 150, 158, 159n., 160, 1 65, 170, 194f., � Catullus, Cinna, Laevius 'neutral words' 38, 53, 56, 61 , 63 nouns: in -men 16-18, 27 in -mtntum 19-21, 27 diminutives 12-14 onomatopoeia 132, 183 Ovid, Vergilian influence on 4, 10, 16, 19-21, 26n., 27 , 82, 1 19, 148, 152, 154, 161f., 1 87, 192, 196 oxymoron 167 Pacuvius, influence on Vergil l SO paraphrase. definition of 28 parenthesis 132, 136, 138, 141, 142f., 144 parody � comic I parodic elements paronomasia 82, 86, 1 17, 132, 178, � translation with paronollllil5 a

Parthenius, influence on Vergil 59, 87- 1 1 1, 123, 1 26, 1 8 8, 192 participle, present � adjectives, changing with present participle 'pathetic fallacy' 148 Perses, influence on Vergil 46, 192 personal names: 37, 54, 59f., 62, 64, 91, 1 10, 151, 171-194 adjectives of 10f., 27 Phanocles, influence on Vergil 97n., 1 1 3, 125f. Philetas, influence on VergiI 1 14f., 123 Philoxenus, influence on Vergil 32 place names � toponyms Plautus, influence on Vergil 16, 7 1 , 136-138, 141, 143 poeticisms 3, 5, 15, 19, 2lf., 26, 40, 62, 70, 8 1, 85, 1 1 9, 122, 124, 127- 1 3 1 , 135, 149-151, 1 63, 1 70, 194 priamel 43, 61, 1 1 8f., 149 primus-motif 3On., 95 proper names � personal names, toponyms Propertius, Vergilian influence on 10, 16, 1922, 26n., 27, 104, 133, 148, 152, 154, 1 57, 160, 1 62, 187, 196 prosaisms 19, 44, 61, 77, 130-144 proverb I tag 36f., 7lf., 79f., 82, 102, 107, 129, 136f., 140, 180 refrain 40, 48f., 83, 85, 156, 165 reminiscence, definition of 28 repetition of words 21, 25, 34, 39, 47, 54, 58, 60-62, 68, 85f., 93f., 103-105, 1 10, 1 13, 133f., 138, 145, 147, 157- 1 6 1 , 176, 1781 80, � anaphora, epanalepsis rhetorical elements: 33, 39, 61, 64, 124, 130, 1 80, 195 et passim riddle 93f., 1 12, 138 rustic language � colloquialisms sarcasm 133 Strmofamiliaris 14f. Silius Italicus, Vergilian influence on 26n., 1 62 Sophron, influence on Vergil 1 8 1 f., 192 sound-allusion 3 1 SWius, Vergilian influence on 26n., 148 'sympathy of nature' � 'pathetic fallacy' synecdoche 154-156, 159f. Synizesis 96, 134 synonyms 145-166 systematic allusions (to Lucretius) 60, 66-68

tag � proverb technical termI 4, 19, 32, 43, 75, 78, 95, 124, 128, 134, 166-169, Terence, influence 011 Vergil 16 11Jeocritean scholia, influence on Vergil 64f. Theocritus, influcncc 011 Vcr&il 13f., 24, 2965, 103, 105f., 1 1 1 , 1 15, 1 17, 121, 123-

207

Indexes 126, 136, 146, 155, 160, 164, 167f., 170, 173f., 177-183, 19lf. Theophrastus, influence on Vergil 167 Tibulius, Vergilian influence on 4, 10. 16. 192 1 . 26n 27. 108, 1 10, 148, 152, 157. 16lf., 187, 196 toponyms: 57-59, 63, 92, 96. 101, 103, 1 10, 159. 1 82 adjectives of IOf., 27 tragedy, Roman, influence on Vergil 1 5f., 27 translation with paronomasia 3 In., 51, 58, 60, 65 .•

translation. definition of 28 Valerius Placcus. Vergilian influence on

162

26n.,

Valgiua. VeraiUan infl\IeDCC on 162. 1 86f. Varius Rufua. influCDCe on VCIJi1 1 19f., 123f. Vano AtacinuI, influence on Verail 12n., 121 n., I 24n. verbs: in -sare I -tare 2 1 -26 simple I compound 22, 62, 162-165 medial force 93, 122

vuigarisms 124, 144, 170, 194 1-27, 990., 1 160., 129, 144, 165, 181n. word order 8, 37, 43f., 55, 6lf., 73f., 890., 91, 11 0 � apposition, inserted, hypeIbaton word fonnation

II. Index Verborum a (inteJj.) 1 5, 36n., 46, 104f., 1 10, 121 a(b) (prep.) 41, 49, 60, 1 12 abies 1 18f. absens 120 acanthus 41, 64, 168 aconitum 167 Acontius 106, 109, 173n., 192 Actaeus 91, 103 acutus 169 ad 45, 63, 75, 79, 1 1 1 adeo 56, 63, 69, 79, 134 adesse 140, 143 adloqui 85f. admovere 40, 62 adolere 52 adsiduus 1 13 Aegle 173, 176n. Aegon 37, 46, 62, 177 aequiperare 139 aequor 55, 128 aerius 70, 81, 85f., 128 aestas 34, 47, 63 aether 69f. Aethiops 59 a evum 78f. Aganippe 98f., 103. 1 09 agellsu 13f., 141 agere 54. 138, 142 agna 33f., 62f., 121 agrestU 66, 79. 80, 1 25 a�re 148 AId_don 1 84 Aleon 1 84 Alexis 37, 61, 63, 192 (ali)qws(-cwlU etc. ) 138, 140. 143 aliquot 133

alius 37 alnus 84 A/phesiboeus 190 alUlre 45, 52 alter 40. 42 altemus75, 79, 82 altus 67, 72, 79, 1 1 8 O1TWre 41, 77n., 82, 86 Amaryllis 66, 90, 1 09, 114, 177 ambo 40, 47. 60, 1 16 amnis 18. 128, 149f. amomum 167 amor 50, 52, 62, 77, 88n., l02f., 105. 107, 1 10, 178 Amphion 91, 102 amplecti 41 Amyntas 178 anethum 168 anima 74, 78 ansa 41 antrum 128f. Aones 98f., 109 Aonius 98f 103. 109 apium 99, 109 apparere 56 apruJ 138 aqua 77 ara 45 Aracy1lt1uLr 9lf., 103, 159n. Mans 1590. .•

arator 79 aratrum 7 1

Ar/lllll 173n.. 175 arbor 64, 78f 125 arbllStum 31n 81 Areas 47, 63, 113, 1 16 .•

.•

208

Indexes

ardere 81, 86, 133 arduum 120 Arethusa 173f., 192 Argo 1 1 8 argutus 168 armentum 19, 9lf., 150-152 Ascraeus 98 aspicere 56 ast 128 astrum 152-154 at42, 63 attondere 168 audere 40, 137, 144 aura 55 aureus 42f., 63f. aut 101 avena 66, 88n., 109, 125, 129, 154-157, 166, 183, 191, 195 baccar 168 bene 141, 168 Bianor 1 1 1 , 173-175, 192 binus 39, 61 bis 38-40, 61-63 bitumen 17 bonus 141 bos 12, 15, 150-152 bubulcus 58 bucca 131 bucula 12, 15, 77 cacumen 17, 113 caelare 168 caelicola 128 caelum 7lf., 79, 1 1 8 calamus 78, 154-157 Camena 19, 82, 158, 166, 194 candidus 168 canere 21f., 26, 72, 79, 95f., 1 13, 162 canis 14, 175 canna 1 57 cantare 2lf., 25f., 45, 60, 91, 102, 1 10, 1 1 6f. capeUa 12, 15 caper 12, 1 5 capere 22f., 37, 46, 59, 78 caprea 12, 15 capreolus 12, 1 5 captare 22-24, 26, 7 8 carmen 1 8, 49, 55, 84, 86, 880., 95f. caseus 60, 168 castaneus 6, 129 catulus 14 cena 127 cenare 127 cera 52 certamen 1 8 certe 85, 14lf., 144 ceu 128

Chalcidicus 880. Chaonius 102, 109 Chromis 46, 178, 192 cicuta 70, 73, 78, 154-157 cingere 52 clamare 176 Codrus 184-187 cogere 74, 78 cognoscere 73, 78, 79 colocasia 168 columba 78f., 102, 109 compellere 47 componere 129 concrescere 74, 78 concubitus 122n. condere 40, 62, 78, 102, 109 coniti 1 63 coniungere 76, 79 coniunx 128 Conon 82, 86, 173, 175, 192 consolari 163 consumere 78f. contagium 128 Corydon 1 16f., 178-181, 192 corylus 77n., 178, 1 89f. eras 42 credere 136 credulus 15 crescere 78f., 101, 109 crinis 99, 109 croceus 6, 129 crocinus 129 crudelis 85 cuius (-a. -am) 37, 62, 1 27, 134, 136, 144 culmen 17 cum 49, 63, 82, 86, 95 cura 58, 60, 62, 90. 103, 1 10, 129 currere 83, 86 cursus 122 curvus 71, 79 custos 45 cycnus 1 58f., 166 Cydonius 106. 109 Cynthius 960. cyruus 32, 60 Daphnis 45. 49, 60, 1 10, 1 8 1 dare 1 32 de 40, 67, 79 decedere 120 decem 42 tkthtcere 95f., 109, 164 defieri 1 34, 144, 170 deligere 1 18 dementia 37. 46, 59 demittere 72 demonstrare 163

Indexes densus 1 1 3 depellere 168 deponere 39f., 62, 164 describere 108 deserere 85 desinere 48, 140n. destituere 70 deus 68 dicere 55, 75, 79, 86, 96, 132, 136, 162 dies 38, 40, 63 dignari 30, 95, 125 Dircaeus 9 1 discludere 75, 78, 130 distendere 79, 151 divinus 84, 86, 1 84 docere 66, 1 14 dolere 39, 61 domi 40 domus 49 donare 39, 61 Doris 175 Dryas -7 (Hama}dryas ducere 49, 164f. dulciorelocus 146n. dulcis 145f. dum 142 dumosus 129 dure scere 52, 63 ecce 1 39f. ecquis 143 edepol l44 efferre 52, 62 effugere 1 1 7 ego (tibi, te) 41£., 45, 55, 60, 93, 102, 104, 136, 138 en 139 eniti 163 equidem 142, 144 ergo 75 erigere 84 errabundus 4-6, 84, 86 errare 3 1 , 34, 46, 60, 83, 86, l OOn., 121 error 50 erubescere 30 esse (sum, fui etc.) 30, 40, 50, 55, 85, 95, 125, 133, 138f. et 35, 40-42, 55, 61, 63, 96, 1 16 etiam 57 etsi 127 evincire 1 19 ex 64, 125 exalmn 17 excludere 163 exordium 74n. extremus 51, 63, 85, 101 facere 35, 132. 134, 140, 144

209

facetIU 196 fagIU 3 I , 60. 1 l3. 1 24f.. 167r., 1 95 fal/ax 2�. 167 fascinare 168 fastidium 134. 168 terre 53, 63. 72. 163 ferus 44, 73, 79 fessus77 feta 168 fetura 168 fetIU 168 fieri 51. 65 figere 164 fiscella 14-16, 1 10, 168 fistula 78. 154-157 flagrare 133 flere 57 flarere 47, 63. 147f. floridus 1 47f. flos 189 flumen 18. 149f. fluvius 18. 149f. fons 44n. foras 77f.. 141n. fonna 75 formosus 8-10. 27. 45. 66, 90. 1 09f., 1 14. 122. 124f•• 177. 195 fragilis49 fraus 130 fraxil/lJS 1 1 8f. fretum 70, 128 !rigus 34, 63 frondiltor 168 fu/cire 104 fundere 83, 86 fur 136 furibundus 4n., 6 furor l03, 106f., 1 10, 129 juscus 58 Galatea 42, 47, 62, 181 Gal/us 176n. Garamantes 101, 159n. gaudere 96 gemellus 15, 80, 86 geminus 1 5 geml7lll 168 Gorrynius 86 gracilis 14 gramen 17 gratus 145f. gravis 67n., 129 grex 40 Gryneus 99. 1 10, 159n. lrabere 51, 138, 143 habitare 30 haedulus 14

210

Indexes

haedus 14, 40 (Hama)dryas 107, 1 10 harundo 66, 95f., I09, 129, 1 54-157, 195n. haud 127 Hebrus 59 hedera 101, l OO, 184

herba 48, 122, 146, 167 hercle 144 hero.r 1 1 8 heu 35, 60, 1 3 1 , 135, 138. 144 hic (haec, hoc, huius etc.) 51. 63. 88. 139. 142 hinc 45. 56, 63. 1 1 1 hirsutus 49, 60 hodie 1 17 hora 38, 62, 85f. huc 140, 143 humilis 167, 195 hyacinthus 93. 123 Hylactor 1 87, 192 Hy/as 96f.. 1 13. 1 18, 173. 1 75f., 187 Hylax 141, 187. 190, 192 iacere 23, 53, 63 lactare 23. 26 lam 141 idem 52, 62 igitur 75. 78f., 140 ignis 74. 79. 189 ilex 168 ilicet 128 ille (ilia, illud, illius etc.) 55. 57. 60£., 78f., 138 immemor 1 22 immo 1 39. 1 42 imus 1 3 1 in 34. 38, 49, 53, 62f., 69, 73, 77, 79, 9 1 , 98f., 1 09, 1 1 8, 1 2Of. in unum 47 inane 74, 79. 168 incidere 1 42, 164f. incipere 41, 56 inconditus 180 incrementum 19, 27, 1 38, 170, 194 indigere 135 indoctus 1 37 infelix 38, 46, 60. 121 infindere 1 30 informis 34, 61 iniussus 96 inter 125 interesse 1 27 invenire 60 invito 84, 86 ipse (ipsa, ipsud, ipsius etc.) 45, 77. 79. 1 36f., 1 43 ire 144. 164 is (ea, id, eius etc.) 1 37f. lsmarus 96

iste (ista, istud, istius etc.) 1 3 1 ita 127 iubere 139 iudex 34, 62, 93, 1 10 iugum 159n. iuniperus 67n. luppiter 4 1 , 6O, 1 1 2 iurgium 185 iuvencus 77 labellum 12f., 15 labor 102. 1 07, 1 10 labrum 1 3, 63 labrum 63 lac 33, 63 lanugo 70. 79 latrare 12On., 1 37, 141, 176, 187 laurus 181 /aus 1 1 1. 1 85 legere 64. 1 1 1, 169 leo 44, 63 libare 149 Iibethris 1 1. l 00f., 109 libum 168 limen 17, 77, 79 limus 52, 63 linquere 1 63f. Iinus 98. 109, 1 8 1 , 192 liquescere 52 liquidus 74. 79 litus 70 longaevus 128 longus 1 02 loqui 85f. lucescere 1 30 lucus 31 n., 77 lucus 77 ludere 30. 125 lurchinabundus 5n. lustrare 91 , 1 08. 120 luteolus 15, 129 luteus 129 Lycaeus 1590. Lycidas 62 Lycisca 1 87 Lycoris 90, 103, 1 87, 192 Lyctius 46. 177 macer 172 magicus 168 magis 132 magnus 74, 79 maior 72, 79, 167 mala 70f. malum 42. 63f., 7Of., 79 malus SO, 53. 61 mare 51. 60, 62. 65, 1 1 8 marinus 175

Indexes maritus 85 marmoreus 6 masculus 15 mater 49, 63, 73, 79, 85 medicina 106, 1 1 0 meditari 66 medius 5 1 , 60, 62 Meliboeus 1 87f., 190, 195 meminisse 102, 120 Menalcas 60, 62, 195 messor 168 metuere 1 10, 151 meus 34, 40, 49, 61 Micon 1 8 1 mille 34, 61 mirari 96 miscere 120, 146 mitis 81, 86 mittere 42f. Mnasyllus 46, 188, 192 Moeris 188 mollis 41, 48, 64 mons 34, 44, 63, 67, 73, 79, 98f., 109, 1 1 3, 1 1 8, 121, 1 59f. monstrare 163 monstrum 176 monumentum 200 . Mopsus 1 88, 192 mora 144 moribundus 40., 6 moriri 5 1 motare 23f., 26, 129 mulctra 168 mulgere 26 multum 137 munus 51, 63 munusculum 14f., 83, 86 murmur 55 Musa 1 1, 19, 41 , 66, 79f., 82, 123, 125, 158, 166 mutare 122 myrica 167f., 195 nam 57, 61, 143f. namque 15, 56, 63, 80, 86 narcissus 168 nasci 130 nautieus 128 navis 128 Neaera 188, 192 nec 890., 96, 120, 134, 141 necdum 40 neetere 52 nemus 310., 77, 1590. neque 30, 57, 61, 134 Nerine 47, 62 nescio qllis 85, 138, 141

21 1

Mlcire 85. 1 37(., 1 41 nihil 131 niveus 176 nix 107 nomen 18 non 34, 63, 93, 96, 120, 140 nonne 133 noster 30, 49, 52, 62 notus 45, 63, 1 1 1 novak 168 novellus 15 nox 77, 1 12, 120 "'nuere 24 numen 18 numerus 73, 79 numquam 1 17, 134 nunc 50, 56, 60, 121, 137 nuper 34, 38, 6lf. nutare 24, 26 nux 85 nympha 1 1, 100f., 107 o (ioterj.) 33, 61, 63 Oaxes 1590. obducere 69 occulere 21, 24 occultare 21, 24 occursare 24 ocellus 16, 27 oculus 1 6 odor 120, 146 Oeta 85, 1590. offerre 42 olere 146, 168 olle 128 olor 158f., 166 Olympus 85f. omentum 200. 79, omnis 41, 51, 56, 65, 690., 71f., 74, 76f., 880., 107, 110, 1 12, 118, 140 opacus 146f. oportere 95f., 140, 170 orare 35 orbis 93, 108 origo 75, 79, 99, 1 09 O17U/re 99, 101, 109 Orpheus 96 ovile 168 ovis 95f., 1 09 paenitere 890. paliurus 169 pallere 148 paUidus 148 palumbes 90 palus 69n. pampineus 6, 129 par 47, 63, 1 16

212 paratus 47, 63, 1 16 parcere 141 Parnasius 83, 96, 159 Parnasus 159n. Parthenius 106, 1 10, 159n., 173n. parvus 49, 1 8 1 pascere 44, 54, 63, 70, 95f. pascuum 69f., 168 Pasiphae 176 pastor 55, 88n., 95, 101, 109 paulatim 75 paulo 72, 78f., 138, 1 67 pecus (-oris) 37, 62, 136, 152 pecus (-udis) 122n., 150-152 pellax 2n. pellere 75, 79 per 74. 77, 79 perdere 77, 120 peri/us 1 3 1 . 143 Permessus 98, 109 per 58, 61 pes 73, 79 pessimus 137 Phae/hontias 97, 1 10 Phoebus 41, 77n., 96 Phyllis 1 84f., 1 88-190, 192 picea 167 Pieris 1 1 , 158 Pindus 1590. pinguis 32, 60, 75, 79, 95f., 109 pinus 85, 1 1 8, 128 plenus 4 1 , 71, 79, 1 12 Poenus 44, 63 poeta 101, 109, 1 6Of., 166 pone 128 ponere 40, 62, 164 PonlUS 169 populus 1 1 8, 168 posse 72, 76, 140 pos/habere 140 posthac 138 praesepe 168 premere 25f. pressare 24-26 primus 30, 74, 95, 1 12, 125 principium 41, 6O, 1 12 pro 140, 168 procerus 84, 86 producere 164 profundus 1 1 8 prop/er 77. 1410. proripere 137 puella 12, 15, 16n., 161f. puer I2, 15, 85, 1 02, 1 12 pulcher 80. puniceus 6, 1 1 9

Indexes purpureus 168 purus 1 12 ' quadripes 128, 149 quaerere 760. quando 9 1 f. -que 740. qui (quae, quod, cuius etc. [interrog.]) 36, 46, 59 qui (quae, quod, cuius etc. [rel.]) 9 1 , 108, 138, 142 quin 138 quis (quid, cuius etc. [ioterrog.]) 50, 58, 82, 86, 132, 139, 1 42f., � nescio quis quis (quid, cuius etc. [iodef.]) � (ali)quis quisquam 40 quisque (quidque, cuiusque etc.) 63, 7 1 quoniam 35 quoque 55 radius 93, 108 rapax 3f. rapidus 3f. ratis 128 raucus 90 redire 142 refem 75, 79, 1 5 1 relinquere 163f. requiescere 122 res 75 resonare 66, 90, 109, 1 14, 178 respondere 1 16 Rhodope 96, 101 ridere 168 rivus 77 Roma 1590. roscidus 63 ruber 148 rubere 93, 145, 148 rubicundus 148 ruminare 168 rupes 83, 86, 96, 128, 1 59f. ruscum 1 67 rustum 1 67 sacellum 13 sacrum 13, 168 saepe 102 saepes 49 saetiger 1 29 saetosus 129 saevire 120 saltus 106, 1 10, 159n. saris 133 :raxosus 129 saxum 159n. scire 50, 60 scrupeus l2On. Scylla 176. 192

Indexes se(se} 42, 1 37 secludere 163 sectari 25, 138 sed 40, 55 semen 17, 74, 78, 1 68 senex 98 sepulcrum 56 sequi 25, 41 serus 120 servare 35, 60 si 91f., 137f., 140, 143 sic 127 Sicanus 1 1 , 174n. siccare 168 Sicelis 174n. Siculus 1 1, 34, 63, 88n. sidus 45, 63, 75, 79, I l l , 152-154 signum 169 si/ere 55 si/va 30f., 44f., 59, 66f., 73, 79, 1 14, 123-125, 178, 195 si/vestris 30, 64, 66, 79f., 123, 125 sine 104, 1 10 sinere 143 sinum 168 Sithonius 107, 109f. sol 78, 81, 102, 109 solari 163 solere 91 solus 86, 104, 1 1 3 somnus 48 sonare 1 1 8, 176 sordere 1 34 spargere 85 spatium 71, 72n., 79 specula 1 3 spelaeum 105, 1 10, 129 spiculum 13, 106, 109, 192 spina 169 spinetum 64 sponte sua 68, 72, 77, 79, 1 12 stabulum 86 stare 1 1 9 stella 153n. sternax 2n. Stimichon 190 stipula 13, 39, 62, 129, 154-157 stritiere 39, 62 stultus 132, 134 stupere 130 suavidicus 145n. suavi/oquens 145n. suavis 60, 93, 120, 145f. suavisonus 145n. sub 67, 73, 79, 8 1 , 86, 1 12, 123, 125 sublegere 142

213

submittere SIn. subulcus 57n•• 58, 143, 168 succingere 75, 78 sulcus 130 summittere 168 superare 169 supercilium 49, 60 sura 1 19 surgere 1 30, 169 suus (-a, -urn, etc.) 63, 71, 122 Syracusius 30, 59, 125, 174n. syrinx 78 taeda 75, 79, 167 Mlis 77 tamquam 144 tantum 96 tardus 57, 63 taurus 12, 51n. teg(i)men 17f., 67, 79, 1 17, 123, 125 tel/us 130 tempus 140 tenuis 66, 90, 95, 109, 123, 125, 155f., 183, 195n. terra 74, 1 1 8 Tha/ea 30 Thestylis 181f., 192 Thyrsis 1 16 tibia 154-157, 166 Timavus 159n. Tityrus44, 54f., 59f., 62, 64, 95, 125, 132, 155, 1 82f., 191f., 195 Tmarus 101, 159n. tomus 168 totus 93, 108 tractus 1 1 8 trahere 63, 7 1 transferre 88f. transversus 38, 60 tremibundus 4n., 6 tremulus 15 tu (tibi, te) 34, 36, 46, 49, 56, 59, 62, 85, 89n., 93, 1 10, 121, 137 tuburchinabundus 5n. tueri 38, 60, 163 tugurium 168 tum 58 turpis 122n. tute � tu tuus (-a, -urn, etc.) 90, 103 uber 79 ultro 42, 63 u/va 77 umbra 67n., 147 umbrosus 1 13, 120, 146f. unus 52, 62 upi/io 143 , 168

Indexes

214

vertere 141 Vesper 85f. vestigium 84, 86, 91, 108, 120, 1 30 vexare 176 vicus 1 3 videre 104, 1 33 villa 13 vil/ula 13 vimen 17 vincere 880., 1 07, 1 10 vinitor 168 vir 76, 79 virere 189 virgo 46, 121, 161f. vitula 63 vivax 2-4, 129 vividus 3 vivus 3 vocare 9lf., 1 17, 163 voluptas 63, 71

urbs 49, 1590. urere 53, 62 usque 45, 63, 69, 79, 1 1 1 ut(i) 61, 63, 74, 1 1 3 uxor 140 vaccinium 93n. vae 131, 143 valere 1760. vallis 75, 120 vates 55, 160f., 166 vehere 1 1 8 vel 5 1 , 65 velamen 1 8 vena 168 venari 25 venenum 167, 169 venire 57, 60f., 78f., 1 1 3 ventosus 7 , 55 vero 128 versare 77, 79 versus 30, 59, 88, 125

Ill. Index Locorum Accius cann. fr. 17: 1 340. trag. 23: 135; 392: 5n.; 505: 1 59n.; 531: 720.; 572: 145n.; 602: I On.; 679: 1 52n. Aelian VH 3 .40: 1 82n. Aescbylus Ag. 285: 1 590.; 309: 1 590. Pr. 574: 1 560.

1790.; 6.96.If. [Erycius): 1 16; 6.331 [Gaetulicus): 1 85n.; 7.22.3f. [Simias): 410.; 7 .261 [Diotirnus): 174; 7.730.1 [Perses): 46n.; 9.380.1 [anonymous): 1 8On.; 9.380.4 [anonymous): 18On.; 9.567.3 [Aotipater) : 48; 9.823.3f. [Plato): 157n.; 1 1 .195.5f. [Dioscurides): 1 8On.; 12.84.5 [Meleager): 910. Apollodorus 3.6.3 (63): 100n. Epit. 6.16f.: 1 88n.

Aetna

166: 1340. Afraoius corn. 251 : 2n.; 266: 230.

Apollooius (of Rhodes) 1.1 176: 970.; 1 .1207-1272: 1070.; 1 .1229: l07n.; 1 .207-272: 1750.; 1.496-498: 1 1 3 ; 2.823: 71L; 3.916-926: 1 8 80.; 4.263-5: 1 1 3

Alcaeus fr. 1 15(a) 9: 1 56n.

Appian

Amerias ap. Ath. IV 176 C: 1 55n., 182n.

Aratus If.: 1 12; 40: 1 1 20.; 323: 1 12; 383: 1 12; 469f.: 1 120.; 952: 120.

Aoooymous Writers SH 988: 970.; 988.1: lOIn.; 993.7: lOIn.

Pun. 66: 1 82n.

Aristaenetus

1.10.13-15: 91; 1 .24.2lf.: 1020.

Anthologia Graeca

5.121.lf. [Philodcrnus): 58n.; 5.210.3f. [Asc\epiades): 580.; 5.292.5 [AgathiasJ:

Aristopbanca Av. 1295: 1 80

Indexes Ra. 230: 157n. Th. 870: 2 Aristotle fr. 304: 146 HA 609a 7: 179n.; 616b 30-32: 179n. Artemidorus (of Ephesus) ap. Ath. IV 182 D: 155n .• 1 82n. Augustin

loco hept. 1 .24: 4On. so/i/oq. 1.22. 1 : 133n. Bacc hyJi des 3.85f. : 1 1 8n. Bibaculus carm. fr. 10. 1 : 25n. Bion 1.38: 90n. fr. 3.2f.: l 06n.

Bucolica Einsidlensia 1.1:

IOn.; 1 .2: 1 85n.; 1 .20: 26n.

Caesar

civ. 1.8.3: 1340.; 1 .70.3: 159n.; 2.1 1 .4: 137n.; 3.4. 1 : 15n.

Gall. 2.29.3: 1 59n.; 3.2.5: 17; 6.35.8: 25 Callimachus Del. 252: 1 80n. Epigr. 2.2f.: 102; 6.lf.: l 02n. fr. 1 . 1 9-24: 94; 1.24: 66; 1 .29: 96; 2a. 16 [Pf. vol. II addenda et corrigenda, p. 102f.]: 98n. ; 2a. 20-24 [Pi. voL 11 addenda et corrigenda. p. 102f.]: 98n.; 2a. 24 [Pi. vol. II addenda et corrigenda. p. 102f.]: 98n.; 73: 105n.; 1 10. 1: 93; 1 10.61 : 81n.; 202: 72n.; 288: 176n.; 407.45-50: 173; 556: 188n .• 1 89n.; 696: 98n. Jov. 20: 92n. Calpumius eel. 1.28: 26n.; 2.3: IOn.; 3.27: 26n.; 3.42 : 158; 3.55: 26n.; 3.61: IOn.; 3.68: 16; 4.17: 178n.; 4.46: 158: 4.78: 178n.; 4.81: 178n.; 6.83: 1900.; 7.13: 1900 .; 7.9: 148, 1 9011.

Carmina Priapea 19.3: 260. Cassius Hemina

fr. 37: 1 1 90.

21S

Cato

agr. 1.3: 14911 .; 6.2: 1-48D.; IS: 17n.; 33.2: 15n.; 33.4: ISn.; 160.1: 21D. orat. 253: 5n. orig. 4.7: 240.; 5.5: 14911.

Catullus

1. 14: 86; 1.58: 86; 1.80: 86; 2.13: 86; 3.16: 86; 3.40: 86; 3.55: 86; 3.59: 86; 4.12: 85; 4.15-17: 86; 4.18: 86; 4. 19: 86; 4.27: 15n.; 4.46f.: 86; 6.29: 86; 6.45-60: 86; 6.58: 86; 6.60: 86; 6.62f.: 86; 6.67: 86; 6.86: 86; 8.10: 25; 8.18: 130.; 8.19f.: 86; 8.20: 86; 8.22: 86; 8.30: 86; 8.47-50: 86; 10.14: 86; 1 1 . 10: 2On.; 14: 9; 23.9f.: 12On.; 26.1: 13n.; 29.19: 149; 34.12: 149; 37.1: 2n.; 37.19: 146; 50: 9; 53.3: 9; 57.6: 15n.; 57.8: 2n.; 61.7: 146; 61.21: 148; 61 .26-30: lOOn.; 61.27f.: 1590.; 61 .28: 103n.; 61 .34f.: 83; 61.39: 162; 61 .55: 22. 23n.; 61 .82-86: 90.; 61.129: 135n.; 61.135: 85; 61.140: 85; 62.1 : 84; 62.4: 162; 62.7: 85; 62.16: 82; 62.18: 162; 62.20-24: 85; 62.50: 81; 63.3: 146n.; 63. 1 1 : 5n.; 63.22: 156n.; 63.31 : 5n.; 63.32: 146n.; 63.54: 5n.; 63.66: 148; 63.71: 17; 63.74: 13n.; 64.4: 1 1 8n.; 64.28: 9n.• 47; 64.49: 6; 64.50-253: 83; 64.75: 84; 64.91: 85; 64.103: 14n.; 64.113: 5n.• 84; 64.154: 86; 64.264: 39n.; 64.274: 19; 64.284: 12On.; 64.287: 84n.; 64.288-291 : 84; 64.291 : 8 1 ; 64.321: 84; 64.322: 84n.; 64.323-381: 83; 64.324: 20; 64.343: 83; 64.353: 81; 64.383: 84n., 162; 64.384-386: 82; 65.12: 162; 66.1f.: 93; 66.7f.: 82. 175n.; 66.39: 87n.; 66.47: 82; 66.65f. : 81; 68.53: 83. 96. 159n.• l6On.; 68.53: l 6On.; 68.57: 81. 1600. ; 68.57: 81; 68.134: 129n.; 68.145: 14n.; 68. 149: 138n.; 70.4: 96; 73.4: 142n.; 77.2: 142n.; 80.5: 85; 80.5: 141n.; 81.3: 5n.; 86: 9; 89.3: 71; 90.6: 2On.; 95.9: 2On.; 96: 9; 1 1 5.8: 2n.

Cicero

adQ.fr. 1.1.7: 1 84D.; 3. 1 . 1 1 : 142n. Arat. fr. 7.2: 112n.; 32.4: 152n.; 33.26:

17n.; 33.47: 18n.; 33.88: 5n.; 33.122: 5n.; 33.162: 152n.; 33. 166f.: 1 12n.; 33.201: 146; 33.233: 18n.; 33.239: 18n.; 33.245f.: 1 12n.; 33.307: 17n.; 33.346: 18n.; 33.450: 146; 33.166f.: 1 12n. Att. [So B.1 4.3: 14D.; 163.2: 13n.; 425.3: 132 cann. fr. [FPL1 6.21 : 17n.; 6.55: 17n. de orat. 1.28: 147n.; 1.69: 153n.; 2. 177: 24D.; 2.336: 142n.; 3.18: 147n.; 3.42: 127n. div. 2.50: l30n.; 2.132: 87n. Jam. [So B.1 6.6: 138n.; 188. 1 : 131

216

Indexes

fin. 5.5: 7 1; 5.9: 1 1 80.; 2.73: 1 370. har. resp. 2: 1 370. inv. 1 .25: 1 340. Lael. 68: 4 leg. 1 . 15: 1470. IUlt. dear. 2.32: 68; 2.183: 158 orat. 81: 1680., 1950.; 94: 130 Phil. 2.47: 1420.; 5.43: 1 840. rep. 3.3: 1 520. Tusc. 2.36: 240.; 3.45: 870.; 3.45: 1 940. Verr. 2.4.135: 120.; 2.5.27: 1520.

Ciris 276: 1420.; 467: 1290.

Claudian 26.354: 1290.

Euphorioo fr. [P.] 2: 990.; 40: 930., 94; 48: 102; 58.2: 1070.; 75: 97; 80.2: 90; 80.3: 1 870.; 84.5: 99; 96: 990.; 98: 990.; 102: 920.; 1 14: 96; 14O.3f.: 101; 158: 97n.; [SH] 4 16.2: l OO, 1010.; 427: 990.; 442. 1 : 1 030.

Eupolis fr. 13.3: 70.

Euripides El. 702: 1570. Hipp. 738-741 : 97n. rr 1 126: 1570. Ph. 3 1 : 1680.

Eusebius PE 10.3: 290.

Clemeot (of Alexandria) Strom. 5.8.51 : 870.

Cloatius fr. 8: 1900. Columella 1 .9.2: 1520.; 2.10.22: 152n.; 1 1. 1 . 16: 260.

Cooon FGrH 26 F 1 (XLV): 1000. Culex 13 1-33: 1 890.

Dio Chrysostom 10.20: 1020.

Dooatus

Eustathius ad 11. 1 6.492: 1 800.; 1 8.495: 1550., 1 820. Festus p. 103 [L.J: 1420.

Gallus cann. fr. 4.3f.: 92 Gellius 1.21.7: 660.; 6.8.3: 1330.; 13.27.1: 910.; 19.7.13: 1460.

9.9:

290 . ;

Helladius ap. Phot. bibl. e. 279, p. 532b 1 8f.: 970. HennesianBX fr. 7.4U.:

lOOn.

vita Verg. 1 84f.: 290.; 302-304: 1740.

Doreatius

Herodotus 9.61.3: 2

fr. 1 . 1 : 4

Eonius ann. [Sk.J 27: 1530.; 48: 38n., 700., 1370.; 5 1 : 160.; 6 1 : 380.; 70: 230.; 1 13: 1450.; 133: 1 390.; 145: 1530.; 177-179: 1 18f.; 178: 1 19; 214: 160.; 242: 160.; 263: 160.; 295: 160.; 302: 30.; 304: 1450.; 309: 780.; 334: 380.; 338: 164n.; 343: 170.; 348: 1530.; 431: 16n.; 439: 780.; 451 : 162; 454: 160.; 5 1 1 : 240.; 517: 160.; 529: 750.; 556: 1 1 8; 559: 1 1 8; 567: 180.; 581: 1490.; 582: 780.; 588: 6n.; 620: 20.; 625 [V.J: 1370.; op. ioe. 9 [Sk.J: 740.; fr. var. [Vahleo] 12: 1490.; 22: 1390. trag. 212f. [J.J: 1 17f.

Hesiod fr. 278: 1880.; 304: 40.; 3 1 1 : 970.

Op. 1 1 8: 1 12 Th. 5: 980.; 22-34: 98, 1 12; 24-26: 1 12;

477: 177

Hesychius S.v. nw� : 1 820., 183n. Homer 11. 1. 157: 70.; 2.465: 1 10.; 2.467: 1 10.; 2.606: 70.; 2.858: 460.; 4.460f.: l30n .; 6.1Of.: l30n.; 9.524f.: 1 1 1 ; 10.2: 48; 1 1.92: I l l, 175; 1 1.668-672: 550.; 12.168: 70.; 14.227f.: 59; 17.599f.: l30n.; 1 8.239f.:

Indexes 84n.; 1 8 .483-486: 169; 23.1 17-120: 1 1 8; 23.267: 164n. Od. 1.23: 59n.; 7.1 15: 43n.; 9.20: 1 1 1 ; 9.245: 168n.; 9.309: 168n.; 1 1.589: 43n.; 12.85f.: 176n.; 19.178: 84n. Horace carm. 1 . 1 .35: 161; 1.15.30: 122; 2.4.14: 1 89n.; 2.15.15: 147n.; 2.17.3f.: 17; 3.4.46: 1470.; 3.4.5 1 : 147n.; 4. 1 1 .2-4: 19On.; 4. 1 1 .3: 189n.; 4.5.29: 102n.; 4.9.13: 133n.; 4.9.13-16: 133n. epist. 1 .3.36: 8; 1 .7.17: 14n., 16; 1 .8.4: 145; 1 . 1 4.36: 142n.; 1 .16.5: 147n.; 1.16.10: 147n.; 2.1.225: 95n.; 2.1 .247: 161n.; 2.1 .249: 161n. epod. 2.17: 81 sat. 1.9.67: 141n.; 1.10.19: 90.; 1 . I0.44f.: 158; 1 . 1 0.44f.: 196; 2.1.4: 950.; 2.4.78: 134n.; 2.6.86: 134n.; 2.7.22: 137n.; 2.8.4f.: 1 32n. Hyginus fab. 59: 188n.; 154: 97n.; 243: 188n. Isidorus 13.14. 1 : 175n. JuvenaI 7.95: 137n.; 13. 1 1 8: 2Dn. Laevius fr. 9: 146n.; 32. 1 : 1 19 LaIlJ Pisonis

32: 138n. Licinius CaIvus cann. fr. 9: 9n., 121 Livius Andronicus cann. fr. 1 : 158n.; 20: 137n. Livy 2.15.7: 142n.; 26.26: 169n. Longus 1 . 1 0.2: 14; 1 .29.3: 1 14n.; 1.62.2: 580.; 2.1 1 .3: 1 14n.; 2.34.3: 1 14n.; 2.35.2: 1 14n.; 2.37.1 : 1 14n.; 2.37.3: 1 14n.; 2.5.3: 1 14n.; 2.7.6: 1 14f.; 2.7.7: 1 1 5; 3.23.4: 114n. Lucan 4.393: 26n.; 6.86: 6; 10.216: 19n.; 10.366:

IOn.

217

Luciliua fr. [M.] 125: 1690.; 2 1 8: 72n.; 268: 1 �8; 308: 135n.; 758: 1320.; 760: 1 350. Lucretius 1.15: 149n.; 1 . 17: 3; 1.61 : 74n.; 1 .72: 3; 1.95: 5n.; 1.166: 72; 1.253: 78; 1 .257-59: 72; 1.376: 71; 1.479: 74n.; 1 .480: 1320.; 1.501: 74n.; 1.524: 75; 1.659: 120; 1.715: 74; 1.731: 84n.; 1.926: 158; 1 .942: 1320.; 1.988: 18n., 67; 1.1018: 74n.; 1.1020: 74n.; 1.1090: 7Dn.; 1.1103: 740.; 2.30: 770.; 2.65: 74n.; 2.105: 74n.; 2.109: 74n.; 2.115: 146; 2.137: 72; '2.172: 710.; 2.257f.: 7 1 ; 2.327f.: 75; 2.333: 740., 141; 2.339: 740.; 2.349: 73; 2.355-366: 76, 120; 2.356: 76n.; 2.446: 7n.; 2.559: 2n.; 2.63 1 : 73n.; 2.637: 73n.; 2.663: 180., 67; 2.824: 158; 2.881: 77; 2.955f.: 74n.; 2.960: 77; 2.1059f.: 74n.; 2.1 1 09-1 1 : 71n.; 2.1 1 10: 71n.; 2.1141: 134n.; 2.1 153f.: 72; 3.6f.: 1 8Dn.; 3.10: 74n.; 3.18-27: 73; 3.79: 69; 3.1 12: 48n.; 3.129: 5n.; 3.220: 134n.; 3.232: 5n.; 3.542: 50.; 3.653: 5n.; 3.75lf.: 77; 3.784f.: 69; 3.833f.: 780.; 3.1033: 5n.; 3.1078: 1420.; 3.1090: 1020.; 4.1: 158; 4.104: 75; 4.106: 75; 4.162: 71; 4.180: 145n.; 4.181f.: 18Dn.; 4.1 86: 74n.; 4.196: 69; 4202: 710.; 4.572-579: 66; 4.575: 1460.; 4.588: 156n.; 4.589: 66; 4.692: 5f.; 4.705: 31n.; 4.769: 73n.; 4.788: 73n.; 4.909: 1450.; 4.1020: 670.; 4.1080: 13n.; 4.1109: 25n.; 4. 1 1 82: 66n.; 4.1282: 1220.; 5.8: 68; 5.33: 38n.; 5. 122: 69; 5. 128f.: 69n.; 5.175: 136n.; 5.200: 670.; 5.201: 73; 5.20lf.: l6On.; 5.206-17: 69n.; 5.206f.: 68; 5.296: 75; 5.417: 1 18; 5.446: 720.; 5.492: 67n.; 5.498-503: 690.; 5.525: 70; 5.663: 67n.; 5.718: 24n.; 5.783: 74; 5.785: 148; 5.888: 70; 5.892f.: 75; 5.91 1f.: 76; 5.933: 71; 5.943: 148; 5.955: 670.; 5.962: 67n.; 5.970: 1290.; 5.992: 67n.; 5.1004: 20.; 5.1012: 76; 5.1016: 18n., 67; 5.1096: 70.; 5.1 129: 134n.; 5.1243: 67n.; 5. 1253: 67n.; 5.1266: 67n.; 5.1284: 67n.; 5.1367: 13n.; 5.1370: 670.; 5.1382-1387: 7Dn.; 5.1382f.: 157; 5.1383: 7Dn.; 5.1386: 670.; 5.1393: 770.; 5.1398: 66; 5.1400: 660.; 5.1407: 156n.; 5.1428: 169; 5.143 1 : 78; 6.133: 7n.; 6.135: 67n.; 6.205: 74; 6.206f.: 74; 6.209: 740.; 6.237: 69; 6.269: 7 1 ; 6.287f.: 72n.; 6.296: 170.; 6.349: 74n.; 6.357: 153n.; 6.358: 7 1n.; 6.367: 5f. ; 6.397: 122n.; 6.452: 71n.; 6.438: 5n.; 6.524: 146; 6.582: 50.; 6.735: 67n.; 6.783: 67n.; 6.783787: 67, 78; 6.820: 71n., 72; 6.974: 1290.;

218

Indexes

6.1051: 71; 6.1 134: 18n.; 6.1219: 78n.; 6.1253f.: 71n. Lycopbron

247f.: lOOn.; 584f.: 83; 1357: l07n. Macrobius

Sat. 5.16.7: l07n.; 5.17.18: 65, 87n., 91n., 1 10n.; 5.17.19: 191; 6.1.6: 29n.; 6.2.27: 1 18; 6.4. 1 1 : 74n.; 6.4. 12: 95n.; 6.5.4: 66n., 74n. somn. 1 .14.21: 154n. Manilius

2.906: 26n.; 5.257: 148; 5.304-307: 185n. Martial

1.88.3: 26n.; 7.29: 1 82n.; 729.7: 192n.; 8.55.8: 192n.; 8.63: 182n.; 8.63.1: 133n.; 10.81: 189n.; 1 1 .29: 1 89n. [Moschus]

Epit. Bion. H.: 175n.; 10: 173n.; 77: 173n.; 89f.: 96n.

Naevius corn. 79: 21n.; 120: 5n. trag. 13: 1 17; 20: 145n.; 39: 149n.; 62:

149n. Nernesianus

eel. 1.1: 16; 3.1 : 178n.; 4.62: 178n. Nepos

Dion 6.2: 53 Them. 3.3: 169n. Nicander

Ther. 208: 7n.

epist. 2: 188n.; 5.41: 1 19n.; 7.37: 16011.; 8.5: 138n.; 13.135: 20; 14.57: 138n.; 21.21 H.: l06n., 192 fast. 4.459f.: 76n.; 4.769: 26 lb. 427: 134n. medic. 59: 4; 69: 148n. met 1 .610-612: 8; 1 .632: 121n.; 1.632-34: 9n.; 1 .677: 26n.; 3.103: 19n.; 3. 194: 4; 3.224: 187, 192; 3.434: 147n.; 3.438: 147n.; 3.52: 18n.; 4.46: 23n., 26; 5.308: 137n.; 5.572-641 : 173n.; 5.61 2f.: 16On.; 7.273: 4; 7.371f.: 159; 7.677: 1 19n.; 9.21Of.: 16On.; 10.12: 147n.; 10.16: 147n.; 1O.20f.: 147n.; 10.93: 1 1 9n.; 10.94: 1 1 9n.; 10.99: 83n.; 10.101: 148n.; 10.196: 94n.; 10.205-2 16: 94n.; 10.644: 64; 12.122: 1 19n.; 13.785f.: 160n.; 14.104: 4; 14. 1 17: 147n.; 14.122: 147n.; 14.764: 148n.; 15.472: 26 Pont. 1. 10.7: 134n.; 2.2.92: 139n.; 2.5.44: 139n.; 4.16.33: 192n. rem. 55f.: 188n.; 167: 138n.; 260: 108n.; 462: 108n. trist. 2.1.351: 134n.; 4.10.53: 88n.; 5.10.25: 26n. Pacuvius

trag. 362: 146 Parthenius

erot. path. 1 1.4: l07n.; 13: 87n.; 26: 87n.; 28: 87n. fr. [L.J 23: 91n.; 36: 91n.; 40: 96 Pausanias

5.25.10: 181n.; 5.25.13: 1 81n.; 8. 12.2-5: 184n.; 9.30.9f.: lOOn.; 9.34.4: lOIn. Persius

1.34: 1 89n.; 2.46: 137n.; 5.51: 85, 141n.

Numitorius carm. fr. 1: 18n., 67n.; 2: 38n.

Petronius

[Orphica]

Phanoclcs

Arg. 50: lOIn.; 637f.: 97n. fr. 342 [Kern]: lOIn. Ovid

am.

1 .7.34: 53n.; 1.15.25: 192n.; 1.15.30: 187n.; 3.1.16: 161n.; 3.1.19: 161n. ars 2.57: 25; 2.185-196: 106n.; 2.223: 85n.; 2.263: 26n.; 2.353f.: 1 88n.; 3.37f.: 188n.; 2On.; 3.182: 148n.; 3.169: 3.405: 161n.; 3.408: 161n.; 3.459f.: 1 88n.; 3.655: 82

61.4: 134n.; 129.2: 137n.

fr. 1.3f.: 1 1 3. 125 Philetas fr. 24: 174n. Pindar I. 7.22: 7n. N. 1.H.: 173n.; 5.38: 156n. O. 10.84: 156n.; 13.37: 78n. P. 12.25: 1560. Pat!. 9.36: 1560.

Indexes Plautus Amph. 405-407: 1330. Asin. 138: 1380.; 341: 6; 661: 250.; 668: 130.

Aul. 317: 50.; 385: 6; 655: 1370.; 673: 860.; 814: 1360.

Baceh. 85: 30.; 130: 1320.; 358: 820. Capt. 348: 1340.; 519: 1340.; 533: 1370. Cas. 124: 7 1 ; 382: 1410.; 622: 1360. Cist. 3 1 : 1350. Epid. 196: 1 380. Men. 64f.: 30.; 175: 1530. Mer. 859: 1490. Mil. 433: 1420.; 1034: 134; 1047: 240.;

219

7In.; 2.29.1S: 20; 2.3(1).36: 16011 . ; 2.34.67f.: 1S6n.; 2.34.72f.: 1920.; 2.34.7376: I07D.; 2.34.7S: 1 S7; 2.34.87-90: 90.; 2.34.9lf.: 9, 1870.; 3.10.29: 8So.; 3.12.10: 1770.; 3.1S: 92; 3.4lf.: 92; 4.1 . 1 3 1 - 1 34: 950.; 4.4.51: 20; 4.1 0.30: 260. Quiotilian

inst. 1 .6.42; 50.; 1. 10.10: I l l ; 6.3.20: 196; 8.6.46: 1420.; 9.4.85: 670.; 10.1.56: 890.; 11 .3.10: 127n.; 12.10.33: 1 82n.

Rhetorica ad Herennium

Ll7: 33n.; 4.45: I3On.

1090: 1420. Most. 275: 240.; 765: 170. Persa 209: 1420.; 312: 250.; 770: 1470. Poen. 250: 1410.; 330: 1390.; 552: 1340.; 728: 1390.; 1 178f.: 1 340. Pseud. 1219: 1480. Rud. 879: 1430. Trin. 41: 1410. True. 282: 240.; 379: 1340.; 380f.: 1350.; 425: 140.

Scholia Ar. Aeh. 144: 105n. Lyc. 274: lOOn. Theoc. 1.47: 64; 1.55: 41, 64; l.72: 44; 1.134: 51, 64; arg. 2: 1 82; 3.2: 44, 64,

Plioy (the Elder) nat. praef 22: 290.; nat. 3.130: 174; 7.204:

1820., 1 83n.; 3.40-42: 64; 5.6f.: 1 80; 5.94: 64; arg. 6: 320.; 7.21: I9On.; I Ll -3b: 32

920.; 10. 179: 1680.; 10.63: 159; 1 1 .32: 1 10.; 12.6 1 : 150.; 16.77: 930.; 17.195: 150.; 2Ll70: 930.; 25.4: 30.; 28.61: 240.; 37.51: 30.

Plioy (the Youoger) epist. 5.6.16: 410.; 7.7.2: 1420. Plutarch Alex. 14.8: lOOn. Porphyrioo ad Hor. earm. 1 .6.1: 1210. Probus (= Scripta Probiana) Verg. 2.23f.: 920.; 10.50: 890. Properti us

1 . 1 .9-16: 105; l . l. l l : lOOn., 105, 1290.; I. l . l 4: 160; 1.1.15: 1610.; 1 . l.34: 1340.; 1 .1 .36: 1030.; 1.2.7: 106; 1.6.35: 850.; 1 .8.1-8: 1040.; 1.8.7f.: 104; 1.9.5: 102; 1 .9.10: 102; 1. 12.25: 1770.; 1.13.23: 133; 1 . 1 8 : 1 05; 1 . 1 8. 1 5: 103; 1. 18. 19-23: 1 04;

L l S.20: 1 10.; Ll 8.27: 16011. ; Ll 8.3 If.: 1 1 40. ; 1.20: 91, 97, 107; 1.20.33: 97; 1 .20.33-38: 990.; 1.20.45: 1070.; 1.37: 990.; 2.1. 19: 12On.; 2.1 .57: 106; 2.9. 1 : 850.; 2.9.35: 1 770.; 2.13.3-8: lOOn.; 2.18.20:

Sallust CatiL 32.1: 137n. Jug. 12.5: 24n.; 85.3: 24n.

Seholia Veronensia ad Verg. eel. 7.22: 186 Seneca Ag. 678f. : 159 dial. 1 1 .8.2: 1I5n.; 1l.l 1.5: 115n. episL 16.3: 163; 95.36: 3n. Servius (Danie1is) ad Aen. 1.244: 169n.; 4.377: 96n. prooem. eel. pp. If. [Thilo]: 195n.; p. 4 [Thilo]: 17In., 1820., 1 870.; ad eel. 2.21: 34n.; 2.40: 350.; 2.70: 370.; 3.16: 137n.; 3.17: 187n.; 4.19: 83n.; 5.10: 188n.; 5 . 1 1 : 1850.; 5.20: 18In.; 5.34: 163; 5.55: I9On.; 5.56: 670.; 5.66: 45n.; 6.3: 1820.; 6.5: 95n.; 6.33: 74n.; 6.62: 84n.; 6.72: 87n., 89n., 98n., 990., 1 88n.; 7.1: 470.; 7.22: 1860.; 8.68: 165; 8.83: 530., 18In.; 9.60: 174n.; 10.1: 102, I 87n.; 10.5: 175n.; 10.50: 890.; 10.71: 14n.; georg. 2.5: 7n.

Silius

5.493: 260.; 16.38: 85

Sisenna hut. fr. 55f.: 50.

220

Indexes

Statius silv. 4.4.17: 26n. T�b. 5.570 : 5n.; 7.653: 148 Stephanus (of Byzantium) s.v. t.OO/)WVll : 99n.; rpi)vO L :

99n.

Strabo

9.2.25 (410): lOIn.; 10.3.15 (470): 182n.; 10.3.17 (471): l OIn. Terence

Ad. 29: 134n.; 191: 141n.; 196: 143n.; 214:

132n., 14On.; 949: 13n. Andr. 238f.: 133n. Eun. 214: 138n.; 831: 132, 14On. Haut. 10: 132n.; 416: 138n.; 1038: 138n. Phorm. 82: 1 33n.; 478: 138n.; 908: l4On. Theocritus

1.1: 31, 175n.; 1.1-14: 191; 1.3: 155; 1 .14: 155; 1.16: 155; 1 .23-25: 46n.; 1.25f.: 39; 1.26: 63; 1.27-60: 40; 1.29: 83n.; 1.42: 169; 1.52f.: 14; 1.55: 41 ; 1.59: 63; 1.59f.: 4Of.; 1.64: 48n.; 1.64-142: 48; 1 .64-145: 31n., 56; 1 .65: 175n.; 1.66-69: 56f.; 1.7lf.: 57; 1 .72: 31n., 44; 1.80-85: 57; 1 .82: 58; 1.83: 31n.; 1 . 1 1 5-117: 173n.; 1 .1 16f.: 31n.; 1.120: 31; 1. 120f.: 45, 125; 1 .127: 48; 1 .128: 155n.; 1.128f.: 1 14n.; 1.132-136: 76n.; 1.134: 51, 65; 1.145: 175n.; 2.1: 1 82n.; 2.1-3: 51f.; 2.17: 49; 2.19: 37; 2.21: 52; 2.23f.: 53, 1 81n.; 2.28f.: 52; 2.38: 55; 2.58f.: 182n.; 2.59-62: 52n.; 2.67: 31n.; 2.82f.: 50; 2.110: 169; 3.1f.: 44; 3.2: 44, 64, 1820., 1 83n.; 3.3f.: 62; 3.3-5: 54; 3.4f.: 24; 3.6f.: 32; 3.10f.: 42, 63f., 125; 3.15f.: 50; 3.16: 31n.; 3.23: 146; 3.25-27: 51; 3.34-36: 35; 3.42: 50; 4.1: 179n.; 4.1-3: 37; 4.2: 41, 62, 177n.; 4.3: 38; 4.4: 168n.; 4.13: 38; 4.26: 177n.; 4.26f.: 35; 4.28: 1 14n., 155n.; 4.50: 179n.; 4.58: 179n.; 4.60: 13n.; 5.1: 1 55n.; 5.4f.: 155n.; 5.5-7: 179; 5.6: 179n.; 5.6f.: 39; 5.7: 13n., 155n.; 5.11-13: 38; 5.12: 137n.; 5.32f.: 31n.; 5.50£.: 48; 5.66: 181n.; 5.75: 137n.; 5.82: 41; 5.88-91: 42; 5.90£.: 178n.; 5.92-95: 43n.; 5.94f.: 43n., 64; 5.96f.: 42n.; 5.128: 32; 5.1 36f.: 18On.; 5. 146f.: 43; 6.1f.: 47; 6.6f.: 42; 6.9: 155n.; 6.17: 42; 6.34: 63; 6.34-36: 34; 636-38: 35; 6.43f.: 155n.; 7.6: 31n., 174n.; 7.8: 31n.; 7.10£.: 56, 174; 7.1 1: 63; 7.21: 54; 7.22: 64, 1 82n.; 7.23: 179n.; 7.30: 139; 7.37f.: 55; 7.41: 155n.; 7.45-48: 183n.; 7.50£.: 34; 7.52-77: 178n.; 7.69-72: 45; 7.7lf.: 45; 7.72-74: 44n.; 7.72-77: 56, 1 13n.; 7.72-82:

45; 7.74: 31n.; 7.77: 50; 7.96-108: 178n.; 7.1 11-1 14: 58; 7.132: 178n.; 7.135-142: 179; 7.141: 179; 7.148: 83n., 96; 10.26-29: 33, 58; 10.28: 58, 93n., 94n.; 10.30: 32; 10.30f.: 35f.; 10.46: 169; 10.68f.: 57; 1 1.1: l06n.; 1 1.1-18: 32; 1 1.7: 1 15; 1 1 .7-10: 1 130.; 1 1.19: 47; 1 1.19f.: 32, 181; 1 1 .2527: 49; 1 1.31 : 49; 1 1 .34-37: 33; 1 1.38: 34; 1 1 .40: 13n.; 1 1.4Of.: 35n.; 1 1 .52: 53n.; 1 1.72-76: 36; 1 1 .73-75: 37; 12.3-9: 43n.; 12.8: 31, 1 14n.; 13.58: 176n.; 13.58-60: 175n., 176n.; 13.67: 31n.; 14.43: 31n.; 15.125: 48; 16.102: 173n.; 17.1: 41, 1 12; 17.29: 146; 18.29-3 1: 43n.; 22.36: 31n.; 24.92-96: 53; 26.5f.: 45 [Theoc.] 8.3f.: 47; 8.1lf.: 164n.; 8.15: 164; 8.15f.: 39f.; 8.18: 155n.; 8.1 8f.: 1 14n.; 8.21: 155n.; 8.49: 31n., 1 83n.; 8.5759: 43; 8.64: 181n.; 8.79f.: 43n.; 8.86: 169; 9.2: 62; 9.3: 168n.; 9.3: 51n.; 9.4: 122; 9.4: 31; 9.25: 169; 20.13: 38; 20.28f.: 156n.; 20.36: 31n.; 25.106: 32; 25.134f.: 31n.; 25.135: 31n.; 25.158: 31n.; 25.169: 31n.; 27.34: 31n.; 27.45: 31n.; 27.48: 31n. Tbeophrastus

Char. 5.9: 183n. HP 1.5.1: 7n.

Tibullus

1.1.43f.: 158n.; 1.1.59: 85n.; 1.2.74: 48n.; 1 .4.40: 108; 1.4.47: 89; 1 .5.9: 177n.; 1.5.60: 108n.; 1.6.58: 177n.; 1.8.17: 148; 1.8.69: 134n.; 1 .10.41: 25n.; 2.1.19: 4; 2.1.52: 26n.; 2.1.53: 157; 2.1.83: 26n.; 2.3.7: 25n.; 2.3.15: 16; 2.4. 1 1 : 177n.; 2.5.1 1 3f.: 161n.; 2.5.3: 156n.; 2.5.31 : 157; 2.5.31£.: 1 14n.; 2.1 l f.: 177n. [Tib.] 3.4.71: 157; 3.6.4: 108n.

Valerius P1aeeus

1.398-401: 185n.; 1.448: 26n.; 4.363: 152n.

Valgius Rufus cann.

fr. 2: 162, 171 n.

Varius

cann.

Vano ling.

fr. 4: 1 19f.; 4.1 : 84n.

5.166: 158n.; 5.37: 17n.; 5.92: 33n.; 7.14: 1520.; 7.20: lOIn.; 9.25: 152n. Men. 322: 146n.; 389-392: 1 18n. rust. 1 .23.1: 32; 1 .31.1: 15n.; 1.67: 148n.; 2.1 1.3: 32; 3.14.5: 2; 3.16.10: 13n.

Indexes Varro Atacinus fr. 22.4: 121n.; 22.5: 12n. Vergil Aen. 1 . 16: 140n.; 1 .44: 164n.; 1. 187: 136n.;

1 .430: 7n.; 1 .496: 8n.; 1.562: 163; 1 .730; 143n.: 1 .742-746: 1 13: 2.90: 2n.; 2.488: 176n.: 2.725: 147n.: 2.768: 26n.: 3.41: 141n.; 3.80-83: 99n.; 3.286: 200.; 3.391: 163: 3.426-428 : 75n.; 3.446: 73n.: 3.508: 147n.: 3.514: 23n.: 3.594; 18: 3.619: 147n.: 3.642: 25f.; 3.644: 160: 3.647: 1600.: 3.658: 35: 3.66 1 : 20n.: 3.692-96: 173n.: 4.123: 147n.: 4.158: 1 52n.; 4.286: 77; 4.323: 40.: 4.323f.: 189n.; 4.345: 99n., lOOn.: 4.482: 153n.; 4.537: 75; 4.646: 4n.; 5.142: 1300.; 5.267: 169; 5.374: 4n.; 5.570: 8n.; 5.850: 2n.; 6.78: 161; 6.82: 161; 6.136: 147n.; 6.139: 147n.; 6.179-182: 1 18; 6.180: 167; 6.182: 167n.; 6.208: 147n.; 6.283: 147n.; 6.289: 147n.; 6.343: 2n.: 6.415: 161; 6.419: 161: 6.460: 87n.: 6.467: 38n.; 6.633: 147n.: 6.673: 147n.: 6.732: 4n.: 6.797: 153n.; 7.12: 90n.: 7.17: 129n.; 7.26: 1290.: 7.36: 147n.: 7.41: 1 6 1 : 7.84: 1 47n.: 7.246: 200.: 7.320: 163; 7.348: 4n.: 7.666: 18: 7.689: 1 8n.: 8.21: 77: 8.44: 163: 8.89: 20n.: 8.107: 147n.: 8.2 1 1 : 147n.: 8.23 1 : 7n.; 8.248: 38n.: 8.403: 74n.; 8.453; 73n.: 8.658: 147n.; 9.63: 120; 9.1 99: 75: 9.392: 2n.: 9.501: 5n.: 9.71 1 : 7n.; 9.794: 38n.; 10.59: 1 34n.; 1 0.94f.: 185n.: 10.161: 147n.: 10.187-193: 97n.: 1O.l 90f.: 1 1 3n.; 10.198-201: 174n.; 1 0.322: 26n.; 1 0.324: 71n., 146n.; 10.341: 4n.; 10.357: 74n.; 1 0.395: 165n.; 10.493: 20n.; 10.514: 142n.; 10.522: 4n., 5n.; 10.590: 4n.; 10.859: 200.; 1 1 .5: 165n.; 1 1 .67: 200.: 1 1 . 135-8: 1 1 8; 1 1 .202: 153n.; 1 1 . 241: 143n.; 1 1 .406f.: 185n.; 1 1 .580; 159: 1 1 .645: 1 64n.; 1 1 .675: 46n.; 1 1 .717: 2n.: 1 1 .851: 147n.; 1 1 .905: 147n.; 12.45f.: 132n.; 12.363f.: 2n.; 12.51 1: 165n.; 12.646: 68: 12.693: 141n. e el. 1 . 1 : 18, 3 1 , 59, 67, 1 14n., 1 23, 125, 183, 1 9 1 ; 1.2: 30, 66f., 90, 95, lOO, 1 17, 123, 1 25, 154f., 1 83, 195n.; 1.3: 13, 145n., 163f.; 1 .4: 9; l.4f.; 177; 1.5: 9n. 30, 66f., 89, lOO, 1 14f., 123, 125; 1.6f.: 67f.; 1.7f.: 95n.; 1 .8: 168; 1 .9: 31, 60, lOOn.; 1.10: 156n.; 1.11: 132; l . l 1f.: 1 14n.: 1.12: 12, 68, 79; 1 .14: 81; 1 . l 4f.: 15; 1.15: 163, 164; 1.18 : 13 1n., 132; 1.19: 1 59n.; 1.20: 132; 1.21 : 168; 1 .22f.: 1 4; 1.23: 130; 1.27-60: 82; 1.30: 163f., 1 89n.; 1.31: 132; 1 .34: 32, 60, 168 ; 1.36: 143n.; 1.36f.: 132; 1.37: 99; 1.39: 44n.; lAD: 1 33, 1400. ; 1.41: 73; 1.42:

221

l l l: 1 .44£.: 1 1 1 ; 1 .45: 1211. , Si n., 168: 1 .47: 64; 1 .47{.: 69; 1.48: 7n., 168; 1 .49: 1 29, 168; 1.50: 128; 1.51: 1490.; 1 .51C.: 23: 1 .52: 23n., 26, 147; 1.54: IOn.; 1.56: 159D., 168: 1.57: 90, 1 10: 1 .58: 81, 85, 128; 1 .59f.: 69, 80, 124; 1.60: 128: 1.62: 1590.; 1 .64: 164a.; l.64f.: 3; 1 .65: 2, 4, 1 590.; 1 .68: 1 7, 1 68: 1.69: 133; 1 .70: 168; 1 .71f.: 164; 1 .73: 133: 1. 74: 12; 1.76: 7n., 129, 159n., 164; 1.77: 162: 1 .78: 32, 60, 147: 1.80: 81; 1.81: 6n.; 1.82: 13, 17; 1.83: 67n.; 2.1: 90., 110, 133, 179; 2.1-5: 32, 890., 1 13: 2.3: 7n., 890.; 2.3f.: 1 13, 125; 2.4: 26, 180; 2.4f.: 23; 2.6: 32, 6Of., 131n.; 2.7: 131n.; 2.8: 23, 26, 152n.; 2.8f.: 181; 2.9: 21, 24, 64, 182n.; 2.10: 168, 192; 2.1Of.: 181; 2.12: 91, 108, 120, 170; 2.12-22: 170; 2.13: 81, 170; 2.14: 1890.; 2.14-16: 133; 2.14f.: 170, 177; 2.1618: 33, 60; 2.1 6-22: 170; 2.17: 9n.; 2.18: 93n.: 2.19-22: 33, 123; 2.20: 60.; 2.20-22: 61; 2.21: IOn., 3 1, 34, 6lf., lOOn., 121; 22lf.: 63; 2.22: 63, 134, 144, 170; 2.222.27: 134; 2.23: 22, 163; 2.23f.: 34, 63, 9 l f., 101, 124; 2.24: IOn., I ln., 1 90., 890., 92, 96, 102f., lOO, 159n., 173n.; 2.25: 61, 134, 145n.; 225-27: 34, 63: 2.26f.: 92, 1 10, 124; 2.27: 62, 134, 148; 2.29: 146, 164: 2.31: 1 140.: 2.32: 156n., 157: 2.32f.: 156; 2.34: 12, 890., 1 56f.: 2.34f.: 156n.: 2.36: 70, 1 57; 2.36f.: 1 140., 156; 2.37f.: 1 14n.: 2.38: l3ln.; 2.39: 134; 2.40-44: 35, 60f., 63: 2.41: 12, 13n.; 2.42: 168; 2.43f.: 134; 2.44: 1 84n.: 2.45: 90.; 2.45-48: 99n.; 2.47: 148; 2.48: 168; 2.49: 145; 2.50: 15, 129; 2.51: 70, 79; 2.52: 60., 129, 1780.: 2.53: 6n., lOOn.: 2.55: 120, 146: 2.58: 35, 60, 144; 2.61: 100., 1 10., 173n.: 2.63-65: 35, 61; 2.63f.: 25: 2.64: 32, 147; 2.65: 63, 71, 80: 2.69: 230., 46, 105, 121 ; 2.69-73: 36: 2.70: 7n.; 2.70-72: 37: 2.71: 135: 2.73: 6Of.: 3.1: 1 90., 38n., 61-63, 127, 134, 144, 188: 3.1f.: 37, 61, 136: 3.1-20: 135: 3.1-54: 135: 3.2: 38, 6lf., 177n.; 3.3: 38, 60, 136, 143n., 192: 3.3-5: 188: 3.3-6: 136: 3.3-20: 136; 3.5: 26: 3.5: 37f., 63, 85n.: 3.7: 131n.: 3.79: 136; 3.8: 38, 60, 163; 3.9: 13: 3.10: 136; 3.1 Of.: 136, 164: 3.1 1 : 15: 3.12-15: 61, 136; 3.13: 1 56n.; 3.13-15: 38; 3.14f.: 61; 3.16: 82, 136: 3.16-20: 136; 3.17: 38n., 137, 183n., 187; 3.18: 5n.. 137: 3.19: 137: 3.21: 61; 3.21-59: 137: 3.2lf.: 22: 3.22: 156n.: 3.23: 1 37; 3.25: 22, 137: 3.25f.: 156: 3.26: 137; 3.26f.: 39, 62, 137; 3.27: 13, 61, 156; 3.29-31 : 39, 63: 3.30: 61, 168; 3.31: 40, 164: 3.31f.: 164: 3.32: 39, 62, 137, 164; 3.32-34: 39, 63; 3.32-48: 137: 3.34: 38, 63;

222

Indexes

3.35: 137; 3.36: 40, 137, 1 64; 3.36-39: 1 84; 3.3642: 40, 63; 3.37: 19n., 168; 3.38: 168; 3.39: 148, 192; 3.40: 82, 108, 137n., 169, 173n., 175; 3.4042: 1 12, 137n., 173n., 175; 3.4Of.: 93; 3.41: 79; 3.4lf.: 71; 3.42: 168, 175; 3.43: 40, 61·63; 3 .44: 140; 3.45: 41, 63f.; 3.46: 137n.; 3.47: 40, 61-63; 3.49: 1 17, 123, 1 37; 3.49-54: 138; 3.50: 138; 3.5 1 : 1 38; 3.52: 138, 143n.; 3.53: 138; 3.54: 1 3 1 , 138; 3.55: 162; 3.55-1 1 1 : 135; 3.56f.: 93f., 1 10; 3.57: 9n.; 3.58: 41, 60-62; 3.59: 19, 82, 158, 162, 194; 3.60: 41, 60, 71, 79, 124, 158; 3.60- 1 1 1 : 138; 3.6Of.: 1 12; 3.6 1 : 74n., 158; 3.62: 41, 138; 3.63: 19n., 38n., 93, 109, 123, 145, 148, 167; 3.64: 12; 3.6467: 42, 60, 124; 3.65: 42, 61; 3.66: 63, 178n.; 3.67: IOn., 52n.; 3.68f.: 42n.; 3.69: 128; 3.70: 138; 3.70f.: 42, 63f., 125; 3.7 1 : 6n., 42, 60, 62f., 64; 3.74: 178n.; 3.74f.: 25; 3.75: 138; 3.76: 189n.; 3.78: 189n., 192; 3.78f.: 1 89; 3.79: 9n., 176n.; 3.80-83: 43, 61; 3.80f.: 177; 3.81: 1 89n.; 3.82: 145n., 168; 3.83: 178n.; 3.84: 138n., 172n.; 3.85: IOn.; 3.86: 172n., 194n.; 3.88: 172n.; 3.89: 167; 3.90: 172n.; 3.9 1 : 26; 3.94: 128; 3.96: 44n., 62, 149n., 192; 3.97: 43, 61; 3.99: 25f.; 3.100: 35n., 138, 172n.; 3.102: 138n.; 3.103: 138, 168; 3.104: 138; 3.104-107: 138; 3.105: 7 1 , 79; 3.106f.: 93, 109, 123, 167, 189; 3.107: 1 89n.; 3.109f.: 177n.; 3.1 10: 145n.; 4.1: IOn., 2 1 , 72, 78f., 138, 174n.; 4.1 f.: 167; 4.1-3: 72n.; 4.2: 168, 195; 4.3: 21; 4.4: IOn.; 4.5: 130; 4.7: 72, 79; 4.8: 611.; 4.9: 6n., 1 30; 4.12: 172n.; 4.15-17: 82; 4.18: 14, 83; 4.19f.: 83, 168; 4.20: 168; 4.2 1 : 79; 4.2l f.: 72, 79; 4.24: 3, 167; 4.25: IOn., 167; 4.26: 1 85n.; 4.26f.: 1 1 1 ; 4.27: 73; 4.27f.: 2; 4.29: 148; 4.30: 24; 4.32: 128, 173n.; 4.33: 130; 4.34: 173n.; 4.34f.: 1 17; 4.36: 173n.; 4.38: 128; 4.39: 72, 76, 79f.; 4.40: 6n., 120; 4.43: 38n., 145, 148n.; 4.43f.: 146n.; 4.44: 6n., 129; 4.45: 68, 72, 79, 1 12; 4.46f.: 83; 4.49: 19n., 27, 138, 170, 194; 4.50: 24, 26; 4.51: 74n., 1 1 8; 4.52: 52; 4.55: IOn.; 4.56: 138; 4.57: 9n.; 4.60: 73, 79;4.61: 134, 168; 5.1-19: 139; 5.2: 156n.; 5.4: 139; 5.5: 26, 129; 5.5f.: 23; 5.9: 22, 139, 142n.; 5.10: 1 89; .5.1Of.: 143n., 1 84f.; 5.1 1 : 171n.; 5.12: 44, 61-64; 5.13: 139, 142n.; 5.1 3f.: 34, l04n.; 5.15: 139; 5.16: 148; 5.16-18: 43n.; 5.17: 6n.; 5.19: 12n., 139, 143n.; 5.20-28: 8n.; 5.21: 149n.; 5.23: 153; 5.25: 149n.; 5.25f.: 128, 149; 5.27: 63; 5.27f.: 44, 61, 63; 5.28: 73, 79; 5.29: IOn.; 5.32f.: 52, 93f., 1 14n.; 5.32-34: 43n.; 5.3639: 8n.; 5.38: 6n., 19n.; 5.38f.: 168; 5.39:

169; 5.43: 3 1 , 60, 63, 1 1 1, 153; 5.43f.: 45, 61, 125; 5.45: 16On.; 5.47: 145n.; 5.48: 139, 156n.; 5.5lf.: 153, 176n.; 5.54: 12n., 22, BIn.; 5.55: 19On.; 5.56: l ln.; 5.56f.: 73, 79, 153; 5.56-80: 67n.; 5.57: 153; 5.59: 12n., 1 07; 5.61-80: 68; 5.62: 26; 5.62f.: 23, 153; 5.63: 128, 159; 5.64: 68; 5.65f.: 45, 61, 63, 139; 5.67-73: 45; 5.71 : IOn.; 5.72: 22, 45, 60f., 63, IOn., 177; 5.73: 19n.; 5.76: 149; 5.76f.: 93f.; 5.78: 1 85n.; 5.84: 7n., 129, 149n.; 5.85: 70, 73, 157; 5.86: 9n., 133n.; 5.87: 19n., 38n., 188n.; 5.90: 9n.; 6.1 : IOn., 59, 125, 174n.; 6.lf.: 30, 95, 1 1 5n.; 6. 1 -9: 94, 109, 125; 6. 1-12: 21; 6.2: 67, 125; 6.3: IOn., 95; 6.4f.: 96, 170, 183n.; 6.5: 95f., 109, 140, 162; 6.6: 1 85n.; 6.7: 172n.; 6.8: 66, 95, 109, 125, 155; 6.9: 96; 6.10: 23n., 172n.; 6.1 Of.: 168; 6.1 lf.: 145n.; 6.12: 172n.; 6.13: IOn., 46, 59, 192; 6.1326: 46n.; 6.14: 173n.; 6.15: 168; 6.20f.: 173n., 176n.; 6.22: 6n.; 6.25: 73; 6.27: 73, 79, 128; 6.27f.: 23; 6.28: 26, 129; 6.28f.: 74n.; 6.29: IOn., 83, 128, 159; 6.29f.: 92, 96, 101, 109, 160; 6.30-33: 1 1 3 ; 6.31: 74, 168; 6.31-36: 73, 78, 79; 6.32: 168; 6.32f.: 74; 633: 74; 6.35: 130, 173n.; 6.36: 75; 6.37: 62, 74, 130; 6.40: 3 1 , 46, lOOn.; 6.41: 173n.; 6.42: IOn., 19n., 173n.; 6.43f.: 96f., 1 1 1, 1 1 3, 173n., 175, 1 87; 6.44: 1 19, 176; 6.45-60: 83; 6.46: 6n., 163, 173n., 176; 6.47: 23n., 37, 46, 59, 105, 121, 161; 6.47 I 52: 9n.; 6.48: IOn., 172n.; 6.48-51 : 122n.; 6.49: 25, 122n.; 6.52: lOOn., 105, 121, 161; 6.53: 6n., 19n.; 6.54: 148, 168; 6.55: 25; 6.55f.: 46n.; 6.56: IOn.; 6.57f.: 84; 6.58: 4, 5n., 6; 6.59: 23n., 25; 6.60: IOn., 84; 6.61: 12n., 64, 161; 6.62: IOn., 97, 1 10; 6.62f.: 84; 6.64: l ln., 88, 98, lOO, 149n., 172n.; 6.64-7 1 : 98; 6.64-73: 88f., 97f., 100, 109, 1 12; 6.65: 52, 98f., 109; 6.67: 84, 192; 6.68: IOn., 66n., 99; 6.69: 156n.; 6.70: IOn., 98; 6.7Of.: 22; 6.71: 22; 6.72: IOn., 75, 79 , l09f., 159n.; 6.72f.: 98f., lOOn., 1 1 1 ; 6.73: lOOn.; 6.74: 173n., 192; 6.74-77: 176; 6.75: 75, 78; 6.76: IOn., 128, 176; 6.78: 173n.; 6.78-81 : 176; 6.79: 173n.; 6.83: 1900.; 6.84: 75, 79, 153; 6.85f.: 84; 7.1: 168; 7. lf.: 47; 7.24: 1 16, 124; 7.3: 72n., 1 16f.; 7.4: 63; 7.4f.: 47, 60; 7.5: 22, 63; 7.9: 140, 143, 1900. ; 7.13: 1900. ; 7.14: 132n., 133n., 140, 1 89n.; 7.15: 140, 168; 7.17: 140; 7.18: 75, 78f., 140; 7.21: IOn., 1 1 . 90, 100, 101. 109; 7.21-26: 185f.; 7.'1.2: 171n .• 185n., 186f.; 7.23: 140; 7.24: 1560.; 7.25: 101, 1 09, l6On.; 7.25-28: 160; 7.26: 52n.; 7.29: 7n., 129; 7.29f.: 2, 129. 181; 7.30: 4. 7n.; 7.32:

Indexes 6n., 1 19; 7.33: 168; 7.35: 6n., 140; 7.35f.: 140; 7.36: 6n., 168; 7.37: IOn., 1 1n., 47, 62, 145n.; 7.37f.: 9n., 1 8 1 ; 7.38: 9n.; 7.39: 168; 7.4 1 : IOn., 177n.; 7.45: 7n., 44n., 48, 62; 7.48: 168; 7.49: 75, 79; 7.52: 149n.; 7.53: 6n., 19n.; 7.55: 9n.; 7.56: 149n., 164n.; 7.58: 6n., 129; 7.59: 189; 7.61 : 145n.; 7.6168: 43n.; 7.62: 6n., 9n.; 7.62-64: 77n.; 7.63: 1 89n.; 7.63f.: 178, 189; 7.64: 6n.; 7.65: 1 18; 7.65f.: 1 1 8f.; 7.66: 67n., 149; 7.67: 9n.; 7.68: 1 1 8; 7.69f.: 178; 7.70: 180, 192; 8.1: 19n.; 8.2: 122; 8.4: 122, 149n.; 8.5: 19n.; 8.6: 1 1 n., 1 59n., 169; 8.7: IOn., 128; 8.10: IOn., 1 1 n., 172n.; 8.17-61 : 48; 8.18: 128n., 14On.; 8.1 9f.: 85, 13ln.; 8.21: 48n.; 8.2 1ff.: IOn.; 8.22: 85; 8.24: 1 56n.; 829: 128n., 140n., 165; 8.30: 85, 159n.; 8.32: 76, 79, 128n.; 8.33: 1 56n.; 8.34: 49. 60; 8.37: 63; 8.37-40: 49, 63; 8.38: 63; 8.39: 49; 8.40: 49, 6lf.; 8.43: 60; 8.43-45: 50; 8.44: 19n., 92, 96. 101. 1 09, 1 59n.; 8.47-50: 85; 8.52: 6n.; 8.52f.: 76, 79. 124; 8.55: 180n 183; 8.56: 173n.; 8.58: 5 1 , 60. 62, 65; 8.59: 12n., 13, 128. 81, 85; 8.59f.: 51; 8.60: 63; 8.61: 48, 139n., 14On., 172n.; 8.62: 19n.; 8.63: 62. 72, 76. 80, 140, 14On.; 8.63-67: 49; 8.64108: 48; 8.64-67: 51; 8.65: 15; 8.66: 169; 8.68: 49; 8.68f.: 164; 8.70: 173n.; 8.71: 22; 8.78: 52. 6 1 ; 8.80f.: 52, 63; 8.81: 62; 8.82f.: 1 8 1 ; 8.83: 6lf 53. 181; 8.83f.: 176n.; 8.85: 12. 77; 8.85-89: 76. 80, 120, 123f.; 8.86: 77. 141; 8.86-88: 77; 8.88: 120; 8.92: 77, 79; 8.93: I On.; 8.95: 169; 8.96: 188; 8.98: 1 3 1 ; 8.101: 77f.. 141 ; 8.10lf.: 53, 63; 8.103: 1 3 l n.; 8.105: 12n., 15; 8.105-109: 140; 8.106: 68, 77. 79, 141 ; 8.107: 1 83n., 187. 192; 8.108: 85. 141; 8.109: 141; 9.1 : 54, 62. 141; 9.1-6: 141; 9.2f.: 3; 9.3: 13, 141; 9.5: 77. 79. 188; 9.6: 141; 9.7: 142, 144; 9. 1 1 : 142; 9.1 1-13: 77-79; 9.13: IOn 102. 109; 9.13-16: 1 87n.; 9.14: 142, 165n.; 9.14-16: 142n.; 9.15f.: 102; 9.16: 142; 9.19: 21 . 147. 1 8On.; 9.21: 142; 9.23: 60. 142; 9.23f.: 62; 9.23-25: 54, 62-64, 142; 9.24f.: 24; 9.25: 143; 9.26: 139. 142; 9.26f.: 172n.; 9.27-29: 22; 9.28: 131, 143; 9.29: 153, 158; 9.30: IOn., 67n.; 9.3 1 : 32; 9.32: 138n 143; 9.32: 143. 16011 . ; 9.32-34: 55, 62f 160; 9.33: IOn.; 9.34: 12n.. 15; 9.35: 12lf 172n 187n.; 9.35f.: 1 19; 9.36: 158, 18On.; 9.37: 137n 142; 9.39: 140. 143f.; 9.40: 6n 149n.; 9.41: 168; 9.43: 1 1 2, 143; 9.44f.: 1 42; 9.46f.: 169n.; 9.47: IOn., Hn 172n.; 9.47f.: 153; 9.51: 109; 9.5lf.: 22; 9.52: 78; 9.55: 1 3 l n.; 9.57: 43n., 128; 9.57f.: 55, 61, 63; 9.58: 7n.; 9.59: 63; 9.59f.: 56, 63, 1 1 1. .•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

••

.•

.•

223

174; 9.60: 173n., 192; 9.64: 143; 9.64f.: 22; 9.66: 139n., 143; 9.67: 143; 10.1: 102. 107. 1 10, 173, 192; 10.1-6: 173n.; 10.2: I 72n 1 86. 192; 10.3: 82n 162, 172n.; 10.4: IOn 1740.; 10.4-6: 175; 1 0.5: 173n.; 10.6: l 02f 1 10, 172n.; 10.7: 168; 10.9: 12n.; 10.9-13: 56, 63; 10.10: 172n.; 10. 1 1 : 11n.. 1 07. 1 59n.; 10.1lf.: 57. 61. 103; 10.12: 19n 98. 107. 109. 143. 173n.; 10.13: 60; 10.13f.: 61; 10.13-15: 57. 63; 10.14: 86, 1 59n.; 10.15: IOn., I ln., 1 59n.; 10.17: 160; 10.18: 9n., 91n., 149n.; 10.19: 60, 63, 143, 168; 1O.19f.: 57, 61. 63; 10.21: l3ln.; 10.22: 60, 62, 90, 103, 1 10, 129, 143, 172n.; 10.23: 61; 10.25: 147; 10.26: I ln.; 10.27: 6n., 148n.; 10.28: 143; 1O.29f.: 93. 103; 10.30: 32; 10.3lf.: 22; 10.31-33: 1 13; 10.31-69: 89; 10.32: 21. 107. 143; 10.33: 144; 1 0.34: 102f., 107. 1 56n 162; 10.36: 168; 10.37: 178n 1 89n.; 10.37-40: 33. 58, 60; 1O.37f.: 103n.; 10.38: 103. 107, 1 10, 129, 178n.; 10.39: 58. 61, 93n.; 10.41: 21f., 178n 189n.; 10.42-63: 89n.; 10.42f.: 93. 104; 10.43: 78f.; 10.45: 107; 10.46: 88. 104. 144; 10.46-49: 89, l04f 1 10; 10.46-50: 144; 10.47: IOn 1 1n.; 10.47-49: 1 10; 10.48: 104. 1 10; 10.50: IOn 87. 144; 10.50f.: 88n.; 10.51: 154, 157; 10.52: 107, 1 10. 129; 10.52-54: 104-106, 1 1 1 ; 10.53: 165n.; 10.53f.: 102f.. 105. l09f.; 10.54: 78f.; 10.55-69: lOOn.; 10.56: 25; 1O.56f.: 106; 10.56-60: 105; 10.57: IOn., 1 1 n., 1 10. 159n 173n.; 10.58: 159n.; 10.58-61: 106; 10.59: IOn.; 10.59f.: 173n.; 10.60: 13, l09f 129, 144, 192; 10.62: l07n.; 10.62f.: 107, 1 10; 10.64: 102, 107; 10.65-68: 58. 63; 10.66: 7n., IOn lOO, 109f.; 10.68: 153; 10.69: 88n., 107, 1 10; 10.70: 22. 160; 10.70-72: 14; 10.71: 16. 1 10. 168; 10.72: IOn.; 10.72f.: 172n., 176n.; 10.75: 22; 10.75-77: 67, 78; 10.75f.: 103n.; 10.76: 67n. georg. 1 . 1 1 : 107n.; 1.56: 133n.; Ll13: 69n.; 1.1 15-1 17: 69n.; 1.138: 124n.; Ll39: 23n.; 1.156: 147; 1.195: 2n.; 1.297: 148; 1.332: 5On.; 1.371: 71; 1.375: 12n.; 1.376: 23n.; 1.377: 121n.; 1.383f.: 124n.; 1.437: 91f., 1 10; 1.448: 81; 2.4: 71; 2.66: 1 18; 2.72: 58n.; 2.109: 72; 2.152: 167; 2.181: 3; 2.186f.: l6On.; 2.200: 12On.; 2.352: 2On.; 2.413: 167; 2.470: 48n.; 2.494: 74n.; 2.501: 68; 2.505f.: 124n.; 2.517: 152n.; 2.520: 58n.; 2.522: 81; 3.40: lOOn.; 3.90: 161; 3.103: 133n.; 3.142: 3; 3.145: 7n.; 3.149: 38n.; 3.155: 152n.; 3.219: 8. 10; 3.250: 133n.; 3258: 142n.; 3.310: 25n., 26; 3.313: .•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

.•

224

Indexes

18; 3.315: 120; 3.33 1 : 120; 3.338: 9011. ; 3.400: 26; 3.488: 40.; 3.498: 122; 4. 1 1 : 120.; 4.84: 68; 4.124: 148; 4.161: 2011. ; 4.175: 730.; 4.183: 93; 4.200: 145f.; 4.222: 740.; 4.227: 730.; 4.301: 50.; 4.303f.: 70.; 4.329: 1380.; 4.339f.: 1050.; 4.369: 1 10.;

4.387: 161; 4.392: 161; 4.45lf.: 161; 4.460: 1 070.; 4.508: lOOn. [Verg.] carol. 5.1-5: 1 95; 8.1 : 130.

Vitruvius

5.9.8: 1 340.; 8 praej. 3 : 1 340.