Maximianus’ ‘Elegies’: Love Elegy Grew Old 3110770377, 9783110770377

Table of contents :
Preface – Acknowledgements
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1
3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2
4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3
5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4
6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5
7 The Last Words: Elegy 6
8 Epilogue
List of Abbreviations
Bibliography
Index locorum
Index of names
Index of places
Index rerum

Citation preview

Vasileios Pappas Maximianus’ Elegies

Beiträge zur Altertumskunde

Herausgegeben von Susanne Daub, Michael Erler, Dorothee Gall, Ludwig Koenen und Clemens Zintzen

Band 406

Vasileios Pappas

Maximianus’ Elegies Love Elegy Grew Old

ISBN 978-3-11-077037-7 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-077047-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-077061-2 ISSN 1616-0452 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2022941960 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Preface – Acknowledgements Recent years have witnessed a growing interest in the poetics of Late Antiquity. Specifically, in the case of Maximianus, we now have a number of modern commentaries and some individual papers that focus on various aspects of his Elegies. In terms of this revival of interest, the main aim of this book is to offer a metapoetic reading of Maximianus’ oeuvre – a reading that concerns subjects such as the evolution of the genre of love elegy and Maximianus’ thoughts regarding its fate in his era, the middle of the sixth century AD. I would like to note that I did not include the poems of Appendix Maximiani in this study, as I agree with the widely accepted theory that they were not written by Maximianus. Some of the material included in this book has already been published (in Greek) as separate papers on the individual poems; however, it has been revised in light of new research and bibliographic data, and has been enriched and incorporated into a book exploring Maximianus’ poetics as a whole. Regarding the names of classical Greek and Roman authors and the titles of their works, I follow the abbreviations of The Oxford Classical Dictionary. I would like to express my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers of the book for their comments and corrections, which significantly improved the first draft. A special debt of gratitude goes to Professor Evangelos Karakasis (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki) who gave me valuable advice, especially on theoretical subjects. I would also like to thank my colleagues at the University of Ioannina, and especially Professor Eleni Gasti and Associate Professor Photios Polymerakis, for the comments and feedback they offered me during our conversations on Maximianus, and the poetry of Late Antiquity in general. Many thanks are also due to De Gruyter Publishing House, which undertook the publication of this book. Last but not least, I would like to thank from my depths of my heart my wife, Sappho, and our two children, Eleni and Lampros, for their support and their love, but above all for their existence.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-001

Contents  Introduction 1 . The Elegiac Genre in Late Antiquity 1 . The Poet 5 . The Intellectual Milieu 8 10 . The Senectus Mundi Motif . The Elegies 12 . Maximianus as Cornelius Gallus 19 . Appendix Maximiani 24 25 . Maximianus’ Popularity . The Current Study 28 31  Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1 . Introduction 31 . Elegy 1 and Intertextuality 34 40 . A Metapoetic Reading . Politics 61 . Conclusions 63  Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2 64 . Introduction 64 . Generic Interplay 67 . A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy . Conclusions 82

74

83  Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3 . Introduction: The Elegy 3 83 . Aquilina and Boethius 85 . Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay . A Metapoetic Reading 109 . Conclusions 115 116  A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4 . Introduction 116 . Candida 120 . Elegy 4 and Intertextuality 120 . Generic Interplay 123

93

VIII

. .  . . . . . .

Contents

A Metapoetic Reading: Candida as Elegy 131 Conclusions

Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5 133 133 Introduction The Graia Puella: Not a Classical Elegiac Mistress 135 140 Politics and a Sociological Reading Generale chaos or Generic Interplay 152 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy 168 178 Conclusions

 The Last Words: Elegy 6 180 . Introduction . Metapoetic Remarks 

128

Epilogue

194

195 Bibliography Electronic Sources 222

Index of names

236

Index of places

240

Index rerum

180

186

List of Abbreviations

Index locorum

180

241

221

1 Introduction 1.1 The Elegiac Genre in Late Antiquity As is well-known, the discussion on Graeco-Roman genre theory began with two great thinkers from Antiquity, namely Aristotle and Horace. In his Poetics (1448a), Aristotle spoke for the notion of τò πρεπόν (decorum), i. e. the appropriateness that should characterize a genre. According to the Greek philosopher, each literary work must have an appropriate medium (prose or verse, metre, type of speech, etc.) and an appropriate subject matter (content, generic norms, etc.).¹ In his Ars P. 73 – 98, Horace developed the Aristotelian idea of appropriateness and highlighted the fact that each theme has its own form (e. g. wars fit hexameters and the epic genre).² Furthermore, he added the idea of the auctor, i. e. the inventor of each genre, who signifies the generic identity of a work, as well as its generic tradition.³ Modern scholars have developed this discussion on the literary theory of genre, and specifically with the subjects of generic evolution and generic interaction.⁴ They have also created new terms in order to describe genres that could not fit within the clear-cut genre boundaries.⁵ Cornelius Gallus, the auctor of the Roman love elegy, along with his precursor Catullus, established the main features of the genre: Latin elegies are brief poems, composed in the elegiac distich and featuring love as their content (with all its pains and failures). The strange thing about the classical elegiac genre is its very short period of flourishment (approximately forty years, i. e. from Tibullus to Ovid’s death), a negligible time period, in comparison to

 Harrison (2013) 2.  Cf. Hor. Ars P. 73 – 74: Res gestae regumque ducumque et tristia bella | quo scribi possent numero, monstravit Homerus (‘Homer taught us in which metre the deeds of kings and leaders and the sad wars may be written’). Most of the translations throughout the book are my own, apart from those where I note the translator.  Cf. Hor. Ars P. 77– 78: quis tamen exiguos elegos emiserit auctor, | grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est (‘however, scholars dispute and disagree until now as to who first composed the short elegiac metres’).  See indicatively, Kroll (1924); Depew and Obbink (2000); Harrison (2007) and Harrison (2013) 6 – 11; Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis (2013).  A typical example of this is the term epyllion, which was invented by philologists of the 19th century, in order to describe short epic poems, which had a predominantly mythological theme and were produced during the Hellenistic period or under the impact of its poetic theory; see OCD, s.v. epyllion. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-002

2

1 Introduction

other genres.⁶ For example, epic was a highly popular literary genre throughout all periods of Latin literature, from Ennius until Late Antiquity, although in this period the subject matter and compositional practices of epic poems were renewed and new subcategories of the genre were established (panegyric, mythological, biblical, hagiographical and allegorical).⁷ But what about Latin love elegy in Late Antiquity? This question has three components: a) the fate of late Latin elegy; b) that of late Latin love elegy; and c) that of late love poetry in general. In the Oxford Classical Dictionary, we find the following for Latin elegiac poetry: ‘After Ovid the [elegiac] metre was used chiefly for epigrams and short occasional poems (many examples in Anthologia Latina). The use of elegy for epigram reached a peak in the work of Martial, whose couplets can exceed Ovid’s in wit and technical virtuosity. The elegiac couplet is favoured by many late antique poets, including Ausonius and Claudian, but generally with no strong sense of linkage between metre and subject matter’.⁸ In other words, it would seem that after Ovid’s death, the genre of Latin love elegy declined.⁹ However, this does not mean that the composition of Latin elegies stopped, or that the elegiac couplet was no longer used (in fact it was the most common metre for epigrams, a genre that flourished in Late Antiquity, and we would argue that it replaced the genre of love elegy in this period; cf. the epigrams of Anthologia Latina).¹⁰ On the contrary, it seems that in Late Antiquity we have a number of elegies, but not love elegies: their form is the elegiac couplet, but their subject matter is now changed. Thus, we have several Christian elegies (such as Prudentius’ Peristephanon 11, Paulinus of Nola’s Poems 25 and 31), the Lactantian (?) De ave phoenice (with many Christian allusions), the Ad coniugem suam of Prosper of Aqui-

 Luck (21979) 19 – 46; Veyne (1988) 1– 14; Miller (2004) 1– 2.  See Whitby and Roberts (2018) 227– 233.  OCD, s.v. elegiac poetry, Latin.  Pinotti (2002) 247– 248. Green (2013) 257 notes: ‘it is almost as if Elegia (amatoria) had run into the bushes without taking care to be seen first, but at least there is more of her in Late Antiquity than in the first and second centuries after AD, when the love elegy of Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid, though better known, is not the object, as a genre, of close imitation’.  Roberts (2010) 93 notes that in Late Antiquity ‘the distinction between epigram and elegy had never been clear cut […] there is evidence that the word [epigram] could be applied to free-standing occasional poetry in general, some of which far exceeded what would normally be thought of as epigrammatic in length. In the mid-fifth century Sidonius Apollinaris appears to use the word simply of a poetic composition, not necessary brief […]. By the end of the century the poet and bishop Avitus of Vienne describes his 666-line poem On Virginity as an epigram, though admittedly in a spirit of modesty’.

1.1 The Elegiac Genre in Late Antiquity

3

taine, Rutilius Namatianus’ De reditu suo, Dracontius’ Satisfactio, etc.¹¹ Furthermore, it was common practice among Latin poets of this period to compose large poems in hexameters, in which they propose prefaces in elegiac couplets (e. g. Prosper of Aquitaine begins his De providentia Dei with a preface of 96 elegiac verses, Claudian proposes prefaces in elegiac verses in books 1 and 2 of his De raptu Proserpinae, Venantius Fortunatus starts his epic poem Vita S. Martini with an elegiac prooemium, etc.).¹² In a period when the mixture and interaction within genres¹³ were common literary practices,¹⁴ the characters, motifs, and norms of the elegiac genre survived and were absorbed by other genres (epigram, epistolography, etc.).¹⁵ Regarding the elegiac metre and the metrics of Late Antiquity in general, we know that the main principle of classical metrics, the quantity of syllables, did not play an important role.¹⁶ Uden notes that ‘for an audience increasingly insensitive to classical vowel quantities, the discrete compositional units of the elegiac meter allowed for ready comprehension, artistic balancing and antithesis, and sound effects such as assonance and rhyme not dependent on the perception of vowel quantities’.¹⁷ As with the elegiac genre itself, the elegiac distich of

 Roberts (2010) 85.  Roberts (2010) 86.  As is well-known, this was a crucial feature of the Hellenistic poetics (πολυειδία, Kreuzung der Gattungen), which signified the Hellenistic poetry’s hybridity; see Kroll (1924) 202– 224; Harrison (2007) 1– 33.  See Fontaine (1977) and Fontaine (1988); Charlet (1988) 77– 78 and 81– 82, and Charlet (2008) 162; Schneider (2001) 460 – 461; Formisano (2007) 282– 283; Roberts (2007) and Roberts (2018) 10; Wasyl (2011) 119; Fuhrer (2013); Pollmann (2017) 19 – 36. The practice of generic mixture is also applied both to Greek literature of this period. Indicatively, I mention the example of Nonnus of Panopolis, for which see Hernández de la Fuente (2014) 229: ‘Nonnian poetics, which could perhaps be the best instance of eclecticism in Late Antique literature, consciously depart from classical standards: while based in Homer and the epic tradition, Nonnus seeks to overcome the Father of all bards with a peculiar thematic mixture of genres: tragedy, hymnography, comedy, pastoral poetry and even novel’. See also, Goldhill (2020) xv, where he comments on Late Antiquity’s poetics: ‘[…] how epyllion, epic and epigram take shape in dynamic relation to each other and work self-consciously in the space between generic affiliation and a look over the boundary to different forms’. For the poetics of Late Antiquity in general, see Roberts (1989); Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017b).  Uden and Fielding (2010) 439.  Roberts (2007) 158 – 160.  Uden (2012) 459.

4

1 Introduction

Late Antiquity acquired new features concerning the reader requirements in a new era.¹⁸ It seems that the elegiac genre was transformed during Late Antiquity into something new, in keeping with the period itself (which was an era of political, social, religious and cultural transformation),¹⁹ and with the generic evolution of old kinds of poetry, as well as the appearance of new ones.²⁰ As the last of the elegiac genre poets, Ovid used the elegiac couplet to compose personal amatory works (Amores), didactical love poems (Ars Amatoria, Remedia amoris), a Roman calendar (Fasti), and exile poetry (Tristia, Epistulae ex Ponto), just as the poets of Late Antiquity used the elegiac genre to express themselves on other subjects, aside from love.²¹ But what about love elegy, or love poetry in general? As Green notes, ‘in Late Antiquity […] there is plenty of love poetry, and there is plenty of poetry in the elegiac genre, but love elegy is notably scarce’.²² In fact, love poems (or rather, poems with a love tint) continued to be written in this period, although in different metres (e. g. several of Ausonius’ epigrams and his Cupido cruciatus and Bissula, Reposianus’ De concubitu Martis et Veneris in hexameters, and Pervigilium Veneris in trochaic tetrameters).²³ Moreover, Venantius Fortunatus composes his elegiac verses for Saint Agnes of Poitiers and Saint Radegund, where he expresses his innocent, Christian love for them.²⁴ Undoubtedly, Latin love elegy, as we recognise it from the Augustan era, reappears again almost five hundred years after Ovid’s death, with Maximianus, the last representative of the genre²⁵ and a faithful student of the poet from Sulmo.²⁶  For elegiac metre, see Morgan (2012); Thorsen (2013b). For a very stimulating description of the evolution of the elegiac distich from Catullus to Late Antiquity, see Lucio Ceccarelli (2018a). For the elegiac metre in Late Antiquity in particular, see Ceccarelli (2018a) 127– 224 and Ceccarelli (2018b). For metrical inscriptions in Late Antiquity, see Agosti (2020). See also, Floris (2015); Cutino (2015). I must note that I do not deal with Maximianus’ metrics, apart from the cases of several words that function in metaliterary terms to signify the poet’s metre. For Maximianus’ prosody, see Altamura (1981) 822; Cupaiuolo (1997).  See indicatively, Brown (1978) and Brown (1998); Cameron (2001); Mayer (2009).  See Roberts (1989), 38; Formisano (2012). For a reading of Latin poetry in Late Antiquity, see Pelttari (2014). For the generic evolution in Late Antiquity, see Greatrex (2015).  Fielding (2017) 15.  Green (2013) 257.  Green (2013) 257– 259; Barton (2018) 43; Pappas (2021a).  Voutsinou-Kikilia (2001) 71– 77.  Fo (1986) 14, n. 5; Pinotti (1989) 185 and Pinotti (2002) 247– 248; Wasyl (2011) 115; Roberts (2018) 1.  For Ovid’s impact on Maximianus, see indicatively Spantenstein (1983) 81; Bellanova (2004); Fielding (2017) 128 – 181; Meyers (2018); Bussières (2020). For the impact of Ovid on the Appendix

1.2 The Poet

5

1.2 The Poet Maximianus incorporates some information about his life within his Elegies. The most common title of his work is Elegiae, although in some manuscripts there is also the title Nugae (= trifles), a term that signifies a ‘light’ poetic genre.²⁷ In El. 4.26 he mentions his name: cantantem Maximianus amat (‘Maximianus loves the singer’). In the same elegy, Maximianus informs us that he was considered by everyone as a respectable and wise man, El. 4.49: qui cunctis sanctae gravitatis habebar (‘I, who was considered by everyone as a respectful and sainted man’), and 4.58: gnarus et ut sapiens noxia saepe velit (‘since a well-known and wise man wishes what is harmful to him?’). As Roberts notes, ‘the name Maximianus is attested a number of times in the sixth century’.²⁸ For example, in the Florilegium Macrobianum, ²⁹ a collection of eight brief texts that is inserted in the manuscripts of Macrobius’ Saturnalia, the first six verses of Maximianus’ Elegy 1 exist (albeit in a strange order)³⁰ under the title: Hos versus Maximianus cum esset prefectus composuit (‘Maximianus composed these verses when he was prefect’). This note has caused several scholars to identify Maximianus the elegist with several statesmen of the same name: with Marcus Valerius Maximia-

Maximiani, see Goldlust (2018). For Ovid in Late Antiquity in general, see Consolino (2018). It seems that Ovid was also widely known to the audience of Late Antiquity via mime performances, as we know that his Amores were presented on stage by mime actresses; see Fielding (2017) 133. Regarding the possible impact of other Augustan elegists on our poet, Roberts (2018) 8 writes: ‘Tibullus and Propertius generally were not much read in Late Antiquity after the fourth century, and the evidence for their influence on Maximianus is questionable’. Nevertheless, it seems that they had a minor impact on our poet. For Tibullus’ impact on Maximianus, see Sánchez and Macanás (1985). For Propertius’ impact on late elegy, see Merone (1948) 336; Altamura (1981) 821; Uden (2012) 459 – 462 and 470 – 471.  Cf. the title of the second edition of Maximianus’ Elegies by Etienne Jehannot and Pierre Le Dru, entitled Nugarum libellus Maximiani immitis, Paris, ca. 1495. See also, Ellis (1884a) 8 – 9; Gagliardi (1988) 28; Butrica (2005) 563; Juster (2018) 103 – 104. For the poetical usage of the term nugae, cf. Catull. 1.4: solebas meas esse aliquid putare nugas (‘you used to think that my trifles worth a bit’). Ellis (1884a) 8 – 9 notes that some Maximianus’ manuscripts have the titles De Senectute and Proverbia Maximiani. For Maximianus’ text, I follow Schneider’s edition (2003).  Roberts (2018) 1.  For the Florilegium Macrobianum, see Olsen (1982) 120 – 122; Juster (2018) 110 – 111.  According to Juster (2018) 111, the order of the six verses in Florilegium Macrobianum is as follows: ‘the first four lines attributed to Maximianus track the first four lines of Maximianus’ first elegy, except that the second line changes somewhat (Cur et in fesso corpora tarda venis? to An et in hoc fesso corpora pigra venis?), the fifth line is the eighth line of the Imitatio Maximiani [see Juster (2018) 92: fulgida famosae fugerunt tempora vitae, ‘the shiny times of my famous life have left’] and the sixth line is the fifth line of the first elegy’.

6

1 Introduction

nus, and the Maximianus that Justinian named prefect of Italy in 542, among several others.³¹ Furthermore, a Maximianus is one of the recipients of a Theodoric’s epistle in Cassiodorus’ Variae 1.21,³² where the Ostrogothic king seeks from Maximianus to lead the restoration of Rome. Juster thinks that in El. 1.63: Ibam per mediam venali corpore Romam (‘I was walking throughout Rome with my body for sale’) implies Maximianus’ familiarity with the corrupted city of Rome that Theodoric (454– 526 AD), the great Ostrogoth king, asked from him to restore; he also believes that this is a clue that he is the same Maximianus of Cassiodorus’ Variae 1.21.³³ The same scholar holds that El. 1.171: Non secus instantem cupiens fulcire ruinam (‘just as one wishes to support an impending disaster’) might support the idea that the elegist Maximianus is the same person ‘asked by Cassiodorus in the name of Theodoric to preserve collapsing buildings in Rome’.³⁴ Moreover, Procopius mentions someone named Maximinus, a diplomat, who went to Constantinople in order to negotiate with Justinian the annexation of the Italian regions to the Eastern Roman Empire.³⁵ However, some scholars have expressed the opinion that the name ‘Maximianus’ is a poetic pseudonym that means ‘the old man’ and signifies the most dominant subject of his poetry, old age.³⁶ Whatever the truth is, whether Maximianus was the real name of our poet or not, all scholars now call him Maximianus, by which they mean the last love elegist of Antiquity who lived in the sixth century AD – and I underline this phrase because, as we will see below, the name of the author of Elegies was not a given at all, at least until the eighteenth century. In Elegy 3, Maximianus informs us that the great philosopher Boethius (ca. 480 – 524 or 525 AD) was his personal adviser for an amatory adventure of his (El. 3.48: solus, Boethi, fers miseratus opem, ‘only you, Boethius, spared me

 See Juster (2018) 111, who mentions the opinions of several scholars on the subject.  Roberts (2018) 1. Cf. Cassiod. Var. 1.21: Maximiano V. I. [= viro illustri] et Andreae V. S. [= viro spectabili] Theodericus Rex (‘The king Theodoric to Maximianus, an illustrious man, and to Andreas, an admirable man’). In fact, the similarities between paragraph 3 of Cassiodorus’ text and El. 2.45 – 50 caused several scholars to believe that Cassiodorus’ Maximianus is indeed the elegiac poet; see Spaltenstein (1983) 187; Agozzino (1970) 184; Juster (2018) 153. On the contrary, Barnish (1990) 17, n. 7 believes that Cassiodorus’ Maximianus must not be identified with our poet.  Juster (2018) 118.  Juster (2018) 133. For Cassiodorus’ Variae 1.21 and an English translation of it, see Juster (2018) 80 – 81.  Cf. Procop. Goth. 6.29.1– 2, See Louggis (1983); Barnish (1990).  Webster (1900) 9 – 11; Merone (1948); Schneider (2003) 45 – 50. Öberg (1999) 11– 45 expresses the opinion that Maximianus was not actually the poet, but another person that the anonymous poet was mocking.

1.2 The Poet

7

and offered me your help’), while in Elegy 5 he states that he was Etruscan by origin (El. 5.5: me […] Etruscae gentis alumnum, ‘me, a descendant of the Etruscan tribe’, and 40: succubui Tusca simplicitate senex, ‘I succumbed, an old man with Tuscan simplicity’). In Elegy 1 he writes that he was in Rome (El. 1.63: ibam per mediam […] Romam, ‘I was walking in the center of Rome’). These statements probably mean that Maximianus belonged to a high intellectual milieu of the era (i. e. Boethius’ circle), and that he was likely an Italian who lived in Rome.³⁷ In several passages of Elegy 1 (El. 1.9 – 14, 27– 32, 35 – 40, 59 – 60, 64, etc.) he informs us that he was a skillful orator, poet, athlete, hunter, drinker, and a desirable husband and lover to many women. However, we must not take all this information for granted, as it is likely mere poetic convention.³⁸ Scholars have also discussed Maximianus’ religion. Some support that our poet was Christian,³⁹ while others believe he was a paganist, who parodies Christianity and ascetism,⁴⁰ especially for their conservatism (e. g. their sexual renunciation).⁴¹ What is certain is that there are echoes of Christian literature in Maximianus’ poetry, although this does not prove that he was Christian. In the sixth century AD, Christianity was the dominant religion in the Western Roman Empire, and its heresies were quite widespread.⁴² Theodoric followed an Arian form of Christianity.⁴³ Thus, it is very possible that Maximianus was Christian or that his Christianity was nominal,⁴⁴ as it seems to have been the case with other poets of Late Antiquity too, e. g. Ausonius.⁴⁵ Regarding the chronology of the composition of Maximianus’ oeuvre, we rely mainly on his testimonies in Elegies 3 and 5. In the first poem, Boethius, as an experienced praeceptor amoris, offers his advice to the young poet in order to win his beloved, Aquilina. If Boethius was older than Maximianus, this would allow us to define the date of the poem to at least before his imprisonment by Theodoric in 523/524 or 525 AD. However, if we consider that the narrator was then an old man and remembering this incident from his youth (El. 3.1– 2: Nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae | atque senectutis pauca re Roberts (2018) 3.  Roberts (2018) 3. See also, D’Amanti (2018a) 60 – 65.  Manitius (1889) 542– 543; Strazzulla (1893) 10, n. 4; Prada (1920) XXXVIII-XXXX; Boano (1949) 205; Consolino (1997) 384.  Webster (1900) 13 – 15; Schneider (2003) 64– 65 and 128 – 129.  See Chapter 6.  Lim (2001); Maschke (2012).  Maschke (2012) 1.  See Webster (1900) 13 – 15; Wedeck (1952) 487; Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 366; D’Amanti (2018a) 66 – 68.  See Green (1993); Polymerakis (2011).

8

1 Introduction

ferre meae, ‘it is now worth telling something from my youth and mention little of my old age’), we understand that the date of the poem’s composition is much later, i. e. in Maximianus’ old age.⁴⁶ In Elegy 5 he says that in his old age he was an ambassador, apparently sent to Constantinople in order to settle a peaceful agreement between the ‘two realms’, Ostrogothic Italy and the Eastern Roman Empire (El. 5.1– 3: Missus ad Eoas legati munere partes | tranquillum cunctis nectere pacis opus, | dum studeo gemini componere foedera regni, ‘sent to Eastern lands, having the task as ambassador to close a peaceful agreement of peace for all, as I was busy to compose a treaty between twin kingdoms’). As Roberts notes, several scholars have tried to identify Maximianus’ mission with that of the Ostrogothic king Theodahad in 534 – 535, or by Totila in 546 or 549 AD.⁴⁷ If we consider that Maximianus tells us that he was a young man before Boethius’ imprisonment (when he was still favoured by Theodoric, i. e. before 523/524 AD), along with the chronology of the aforementioned missions, we can deduce that Maximianus’ Elegies must be dated to around the second quarter or the middle of the 6th century AD.⁴⁸ Ratkowitsch’ proposal that Maximianus’ oeuvre probably belongs to the ninth century (Carolingian period) is thus considered impossible.⁴⁹

1.3 The Intellectual Milieu Undoubtedly, Maximianus is a doctus poeta. In his Elegies we observe the impact of a number of Latin poets (Plautus, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Juvenal, Seneca, etc.), as well as several echoes from Christian literature.⁵⁰ Moreover, as Roberts writes, ‘his poetry makes clear he had received the thorough literary education charac-

 Roberts (2018) 2.  Roberts (2018) 2 and 104– 105. See also, Boano (1949) 202– 203; Romano (1979) 318 – 319; Schneider (2003) 50 – 52.  Barnish (1990) 16 – 17 writes: ‘Maximianus seems to belong to the kingdom of Italy which flourished from c. 490 to 535, under the Ostrogothic rulers Theoderic, Athalaric, Amalasuintha and Theodahad’. Mastandrea (2003 – 2004) believes that Maximianus was a contemporary of and perhaps friend with Arator (the sixth-century Christian poet), Parthenius (a Gallo-Roman officer, 485 – 548), and Pope Vigilius (died in 555 AD). For similarities between Maximianus, Arator and Corippus (a Roman epic poet of the sixth century AD), see Mastandrea (2003 – 2004) and Mastandrea (2005).  Ratkowitsch (1986). For the arguments against her thesis, see Consolino (1997) 363 – 365. See also, Wasyl (2011) 113, n. 2); Roberts (2018) 14, n. 7). For Maximianus’ biography and the date of his oeuvre, see also Mauger-Plichon (1999) 372– 374; D’Amanti (2020) xi-xiii.  Roberts (2018) 3.

1.3 The Intellectual Milieu

9

teristic of the schools of Late Antiquity’.⁵¹ In Elegy 3 he informs us that he had a paedagogus (El. 3.17: me paedagogus agit, ‘my tutor is chasing me’), a fact that apparently proves his family was wealthy (or at least middle-class).⁵² We must remember that, after all, our poet belonged to Boethius’ circle, and likely Theodoric’s court too. Elegy 3, which refers to Maximianus’ youth, reflects the vibrant intellectual milieu that existed in Rome under the rule of Theodoric the Great (cf. El. 3.47, where Boethius is characterized as a magnarum scrutator maxime rerum, a ‘great searcher of important things’), a cultural flourishment that we also know from Ennodius and Cassiodorus.⁵³ However, this phenomenon stopped approximately ten years after Boethius’ death (524 or 525 AD), when the emperor Justinian began his campaign for the reconquest of Italy (the Gothic War, 535 – 554 AD) and brought an atmosphere of terror, depression and intellectual decline to the Italian peninsula.⁵⁴ However, Maximianus was sent to Constantinople in order to settle a truce between the two opposing realms (apparently the Western and the Eastern Roman Empire), as he mentions in El. 5.1– 3: Missus ad Eoas legati munere partes | tranquillum cunctis nectere pacis opus, | dum studeo gemini componere foedera regni (‘sent to Eastern lands, having the task as ambassador to close a peaceful agreement of peace for all, as I was busy to compose a treaty between twin kingdoms’). This means that his stay in the capital of Byzantium would have lasted for a reasonable period of time, during which he may have become familiar with the intellectual milieu of Constantinople, which flourished under the reign of Justinian (527– 565 AD). In the capital of the Byzantine Empire, there was an intellectual elite of rich men with power (mainly lawyers and scholars), who enjoyed the pleasures that the big city had to offer and described them in their writing.⁵⁵ The most famous of these, Paul the Silentiary (died ca. 575 – 580) and Agathias of Myrina (ca. 536 – 582 AD) took the genre of the classical epigram

 Roberts (2018) 3.  See Chapter 4.  Cf. Ennod. 290.17: urbs amica liberalibus studiis (‘Rome was friend of the liberal arts’); Cassiod. Var. 10.7. See also, Riché (1976) 26 – 31; Hodgkin (1891); Uden and Fielding (2010) 444; Heather (2016); Schoolman (2016). Barnish (1990) 17 writes of the Ostrogothic rulers Theoderic, Athalaric, Amalasuintha and Theodahad: ‘these barbarians had much of the style of Roman emperors; in their realm, the Senate and magistracies were maintained, and classical Latin culture survived’.  Uden (2009) 205 – 207; Uden and Fielding (2010) 441– 450. For Justinian’s campaign and its destructive impact, see Bury (21958, vol. 1: chapters 12 and 13; vol. 2: chapters 18 and 19); Wickham (1981) 28 – 79; Brown (1984) 1– 81; Cameron (1993) 104– 127.  See Smith (2019) 1– 32 and 72– 138.

10

1 Introduction

and revived it for a new age. They composed various epigrams, many of them with sexual content. Their poems were written during the last decades of Justinian’s rule, although Agathias’ Cycle, the collection of his epigrams, was published after the assession of Justin II, in 565 AD.⁵⁶ Scholars have proved that these two Byzantine epigrammatists were familiar with Latin literature.⁵⁷ This means that they probably knew Latin, which would perhaps have made their communication with Maximianus easier, as he mentions that he did not understand Graia puella’s Greek so well: El. 5.10: nescio quid Graeco murmure dulce canens (‘she sings something, I do not know what, in Greek murmur’). It is thus possible that Maximianus had the chance to become familiar with the Byzantine epigram during his stay in Constantinople and that he was affected by it, especially while composing his Elegy 5. Furthermore, even the contradiction between the conservative atmosphere of the Western and Eastern societies and the content of the love poems of Paul the Silentiary, Agathias, and Maximianus, is the same; it seems that there was a tolerance for these poems, in spite of their sexual content.⁵⁸ In Maximianus’ case, as we will see, his Elegies were used as a textbook during the Medieval ages.

1.4 The Senectus Mundi Motif The political and social turmoil brought about by Justinian’s campaign caused several Italian authors of the sixth century to include the motif of senectus mundi in their narration, including Ennodius and our own poet, Maximianus, whose poetry has a consistent feeling of lateness and impending death. This is the case not only for himself and – as we will see – the genre that he cultivated, but of the entire society of his time as well.⁵⁹ Dean writes that according to the theory of senectus or senium mundi, ‘the physical earth had deteriorated over the

 See Cameron Av. and Cameron Al. (1966); McCail (1969); Smith (2015) 500; Agosti (2019) 127– 130.  For the impact upon Latin literature of Paul the Silentiary, see Yardley (1980); De Stefani (2006). For the impact of Catullus upon Agathias, see Alexakis (2021b) 1308 – 1310; for Ovidian echoes in the same Byzantine poet, see Alexakis (2008), Alexakis (2021a), and Alexakis (2021b) 1315 – 1318.  Nevertheless, male same-sex sexual activity was condemned, cf. Anth. Pal. 5.728 (Agathias’ poem). See also Smith (2015) 501– 503 for the legal persecution of homosexuality, which was imposed by Justinian.  Uden and Fielding (2010) 445 – 445. The senectus mundi was a dominant motif in Medieval Latin literature, see Dean (1997). For the depiction of Rome as aged and neglected, cf. Claud. Gild. 1.21– 25; see Cameron (1999) 1.

1.4 The Senectus Mundi Motif

11

course of time and humanity had become increasingly corrupt and evil’.⁶⁰ The same scholar also notes that senectus mundi ‘is a temporal concept, an idea of historical change, connected with the sense that human experience has become, over time, mediated, vitiated, compromised’.⁶¹ Senectus mundi is actually a metaphor, through which the poets of late Latin literature – being aware of their lateness in comparison to those of the classical Roman age – speak quite often of the old age they have reached, implying that their age is linked to the era and ready to collapse.⁶² This motif is connected with the well-known practice of Roman authors to parallel the history of the Roman empire with human ages.⁶³ Maximianus constantly implies the senectus mundi motif in his Elegies – especially in Elegies 1 and 5, as we will see in the corresponding chapters. In two passages of Elegies 3 and 5, he precisely mirrors the feeling of absolute destruction and chaos that his contemporary compatriots were experiencing. In El. 3.1– 4, the poet states that in the poem he will depart from a narration of his old age and instead reminisce of his youth: Nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae | atque senectutis pauca referre meae, | quis lector mentem rerum vertigine fractam | erigat et maestum noscere curet opus (‘it is now worth telling something from my youth and mention little of my old age, in order to cheer the reader’s mind that is broken down by the world’s whirling and make him interested in learning my mournful work’). Maximianus writes that a story from his youth, i. e. during the Ostrogothic rule of Italy, when culture and literature flourished, would arouse the minds of readers (El. 3.3 – 4: lector mentem…erigat)⁶⁴ that were agitated by the troubles of the time (El. 3.3: rerum vertigine fractam). Here Maximianus plays with the dramatical past (his old age and his youth) and the narrative present (he is a narrator in old age). This means that contemporary readers would share the collapse of their spirits with him (El. 3.3: mentem…fractam) due to the tumultuous times (El. 3.3: rerum vertigine), namely Justinian’s arrival in Italy. Maximianus as a narrator is linked to the old age of his time, which is falling apart. In El. 5.110, the Graia puella, upset by the poet’s impotence, says that she cries for the universal chaos: non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos! (‘I am not crying for the private, but for the general chaos!’). As we will see, this chaos reflects the political chaos that

 Dean (1997) 1.  Dean (1997) 2. For the motif, see also Zocca (1995); Moralejo Álvarez (2018).  Maximianus in Elegy 1 indirectly parallelizes the collapse of his era with the destruction of a building; see Chapter 2.  Uden and Fielding (2010) 445, n. 14.  Erigare could mean ‘raise, elevate’ (see OLD, s.v. erigo, meaning 1a), but could imply a Christian meaning too, i. e. ‘resurrect’; see Nikitas and Tromaras (2019) s.v. erigo, meaning 8.

12

1 Introduction

dominated in the poet’s era. It also once again implies the motif of senectus mundi: in Elegy 5, Maximianus is an impotent old man who perfectly reflects his aged world, which was threatened by Byzantine military troops in Italy during the sixth century. On the other hand, Graia puella is the new power threatening to destroy the old order of things.

1.5 The Elegies When we refer to Maximianus’ Elegies, we mean a total of 686 verses divided into six unequal poems. As is well-known (and as we will see in the next section of the Introduction), this division is considered to have been made by the third editor of Maximianus’ Elegies, the humanist Pomponius Gauricus from Naples, who in 1502 published the poet’s work along with a lyric poem of twenty-five verses in accentual hendecasyllables, entitled Lydia bella puella candida,⁶⁵ under the identity of the first Augustan elegist, Cornelius Gallus.⁶⁶ Gauricus did not follow the manuscript tradition,⁶⁷ nor the first two editions of Maximianus, when dividing the poems.⁶⁸ Maximianus’ editio princeps took place in Utrecht, in 1474, by Nicolaus Ketelaer and Gerardus de Leempt (entitled Maximianus. Ethica suavis et periocunda; Epitaphia; Epigrammata), and the second edition was published in Paris, in approximately 1495, by Etienne Jehannot and Pierre Le Dru (entitled Nugarum libellus Maximiani immitis).⁶⁹ Although most scholars credit the attribution of Maximianus’ poems to Gallus and the division into six elegies to Gauricus, some believe he was not the man who invented them: Spinazzè, for example, is not convinced that Gauricus was the first to separate the poems into six parts.⁷⁰ Moreover, it seems that Gauricus was not the first to attribute Maximia-

 For this poem, see White (2019) 25 – 30, and especially 27, where he notes that Lydia bella puella candida had already ‘been paired with Maximianus and ascribed to Gallus in at least one fifteenth-century manuscript’.  The edition of Maximianus’ work by Gauricus was published in 1502, and not in 1501 (more Veneto) as is usually stated; see Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 56, n. 139; D’Amanti (2018a) 59 and D’Amanti (2019) 47; White (2019) 15, n. 1.  On the manuscript tradition of Maximianus, see indicatively Ellis (1884a) and Ellis (1885b); Webster (1900) 17– 22; Prada (1918); Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 352; Schetter (1970) 3 – 9; Agozzino (1970) 23 – 27; Öberg (1999) 88 – 91; Schneider (2001) 447– 451; D’Angelo (2005) 467– 471); Welsh (2011); Spinazzè (2011) 43 – 49 and 52– 61; Knox (2011); D’Amanti (2016a), D’Amanti (2016b), D’Amanti (2017a) and D’Amanti (2020) lv-lix.  Schneider (2001) 446 – 447; Wasyl (2011) 114, n. 9.  White (2019) 4.  Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 58.

1.5 The Elegies

13

nus’ Elegies to Gallus.⁷¹ A copyist from the 15th century, Lilius Castellanus, noted in a manuscript of 1463, next to the verse of El. 4.26 (cantantem Maximianus amat, ‘Maximianus loves the singer’) the scribe Maximianus Gallus, which means that the attribution to Gallus was prior to that of Gauricus.⁷² The attribution of Maximianus’ Elegies to Cornelius Gallus survived until the end of the eighteenth century, when the truth was restored.⁷³ However, their division into six poems and the form of Maximianus’ work as a collection of six elegies (liber elegiarum) was maintained and consolidated in research.⁷⁴ In the present book, I follow the established division of the poems. However, we must remember that these elegies can be considered as simple episodes of a single poem (carmen continuum), in which Maximianus describes his life from his youth to his old age. Some scholars follow the unifying theory, providing reasonable arguments for this.⁷⁵ The division of Maximianus’ oeuvre into six elegies follows the common practice of the Augustan elegists,⁷⁶ although in Maximianus’ case we may observe an imbalance between the huge Elegy 1 and the very short Elegy 6. The established structure of Maximianus’ poems is as follows: Elegy 1 consists of 292 verses and is actually 40 % of the collection. Here the poet deals with the subject of his sad old age and the painful reminiscence of his youth. Elegies 2 to 5 describe the romantic adventures of the poet with four different women. Elegy 2 consists of 74 verses, wherein Maximianus narrates his love story with Lycoris. Elegy 3 consists of 94 verses and features the poet’s adventure with Aquilina, when they were both young. Elegy 4 enumerates 60 verses and deals with Maximianus’ love for Candida. Elegy 5 consists of 154 verses, where Maximianus narrates his unsuccessful sexual encounter with Graia puella. Finally, Elegy 6 with its 12 verses acts as the coda of the entire work.⁷⁷

 See Schetter (1970) 70 – 74; Consolino (1997) 366. Wasyl (2011) 113, n. 5 notes: ‘Before Gauricus, several fourteenth century manuscripts attributed Maximianus work to Cornelius Gallus […]’.  See Mariotti (1974); Jaitner-Hahner (1988) 288; Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 53 – 54; White (2019) 16, n. 12.  Altamura (1981) 818 – 820; Schneider (2001) 458); Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 62; White (2019) 5 – 6.  Wasyl (2011) 115; Uden and Fielding (2010) 440.  See indicatively Bertini (1981) 282; Spaltenstein (1983) 65 – 68; Schneider (2001) 451– 454; Wasyl (2011) 114– 120; D’Amanti (2018a) 68 – 71.  Schneider (2001) 457.  For an overview of the content of the Elegies, see Roberts (2018) 3 – 8, and their summaries in the following chapters of the present book.

14

1 Introduction

Several critics have dealt with the problem of the Elegies’ structure.⁷⁸ As we will see in the following chapters, there are many intratextual references between the poems, a factor that reveals their strong connection.⁷⁹ These links have caused the scholars to describe a specific structural system that Maximianus follows, a kind of ring composition (or a cycle of elegies),⁸⁰ as Elegies 1 and 6 serve as prologue and epilogue to the collection, respectively (although the difference in their number of verses is extremely large),⁸¹ where Maximianus mainly narrates the decadence of the senile age, and Elegies 2, 3, 4 and 5 describe his love affairs with four different women. Schetter supported the idea that Maximianus followed a chiastic structure: Elegies 1 and 6 are related, as they deal with common subjects (old age and death); Elegies 2 and 5 describe Maximianus’ romantic adventures during his old age; and Elegies 3 and 4 his love affairs in his youth.⁸² Bussières underlines the fact that in Elegies 2 and 5, Maximianus uses Greek names for his beloved ones (Lycoris and Graia puella, respectively), while in Elegies 3 and 4, he uses Latin names for them (Aquilina and Candida, respectively).⁸³ However, in Elegy 4 there is no clear evidence of the poet’s age when he was in love with Candida. Perhaps, as Roberts supports, it is because Elegy 3 refers to a love story from Maximianus’ youth and Elegy 5 to one from his old age, while Elegy 4 is set in Maximianus’ mature age.⁸⁴ Other scholars hold that Elegies 1 and 2 complete each other; in Elegy 1, Maximianus mourns for the old age in general, and Elegy 2 continues this theme by offering a specific example of the misfortune that old age brings (the rejection of the aged lover by Lycoris). Elegies 3, 4 and 5 thus refer to the romantic achievements of Maximianus from his youth (Elegy 3), to a more mature age (Elegy 4) and, finally, to his old age (Elegy 5).⁸⁵ We cannot know for sure whether the poet planned his poems (or his carmen continuum) with some kind of structure in his mind. However, as we will see in the following chapters, there are strong intratextual links between them.

       

See especially the papers of Fo (1986), Fo (1986 – 1987) and Fo (1987). For intratextuality, see Sharrock (2000) and Sharrock (2018) 15 – 16. Schneider (2001) 454. Schneider (2001) 455 – 456. Schetter (1970) 161– 162. Bussières (2020) 900. Roberts (2018) 7. See Fo (1986) 15 – 18 and Fo (1986 – 1987) 94– 96; Roberts (2018) 7– 8.

1.5 The Elegies

15

Of course, Maximianus’ prototype was the Augustan love elegy, and especially Ovid.⁸⁶ However, in our poet’s work a crucial difference from his predecessors can be seen: the poet-lover is an old man reminiscing about his youthful romantic adventures and pitying his old age, as opposed to the Augustan elegiac lover who enjoys his life.⁸⁷ This difference is important, as the classical poetlover considers that romantic adventures are suitable only for young men, cf. Tib. 1.1.71– 72: iam subrepet iners aetas, nec amare decebit, | dicere nec cano blanditias capite (‘soon the sluggish age will steal everything, it will neither be proper to love, nor utter flattering words when your head will be white’); Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor (‘love is a shameful thing for an old man’). In Maximianus’ Elegies 2 and 5 we read about a senex amans, a persona derived from the genre of Roman comedy, especially Plautus.⁸⁸ Furthermore, for our poet, love is placed mostly in the background of the narration – for this reason, and due to the fact that, as we will see, our poet reveals and frequently parodies the conventions of the elegiac genre (as did Ovid),⁸⁹ several scholars have spoken of an ‘anti-elegy’ or ‘an elegy without love’.⁹⁰ On the contrary, the Augustan poetlover cannot even imagine a life without love or, in other words, without the ‘prison’ of elegiac love, and therefore without the elegiac code.⁹¹ Another difference between Maximianus’ oeuvre and the Augustan elegy is in the field of narratology. The genre of classical love elegy was considered to be a non-continuous genre – in contrast to the par excellence narrative genres such as epic, historiography, and novel.⁹² This does not mean that the Augustan love elegy does not feature a narrativity at all, but rather that it has a limited one, as  See Bellanova (2004); Wasyl (2011) 119 – 120; Uden (2012) 471– 473; Fielding (2017) 128 – 181. Fielding parallels Maximianus’ reminiscences of the love affairs of his youth to Ovid’s Amores, and his old age to Ovid’s exile; see Fielding (2017) 144: ‘Although he [= Maximianus] is not actually in exile, it is from that mournful and isolated perspective that he reminisces about his youthful love affairs – affairs bearing some degree of resemblance to those Ovid portrayed in his Amores. […] For Maximianus too, the span of Ovid’s career, from his early elegiac love poetry to his elegies of exile, seems to symbolize the span of 500 years that separate the two poets’. For the similarities between Maximianus’ poetry and classical elegy, see D’Amanti (2020) xxvi-xxx.  See Gagliardi (1988) 36 – 37; Guardalben (1993) 18 – 20; Conte (1994a) 717; Bellanova (2004) 122 – 124.  Juster (2018) 147. For senex amator in Plautus, see Cody (1976); Ryder (1984); McCarthy (2000).  See Conte (1989). See also, White (2019) 14.  See Goldlust (2011) 167; Wasyl (2011) 113 – 161; Roberts (2018) 10.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 439 – 440.  Harrison (2007) 27; Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008b) 1. I write ‘was considered’ because in the past, scholars denied any hint of narrative continuity to the genre of love elegy; for the genre in general, see Fränkel (1945) 26; Veyne (1988) 50. For Propertius, see Boucher (1965) 401.

16

1 Introduction

we find quasi-narratives in the collections of the elegists, e. g. the affairs of Tibullus and Delia and Propertius and Cynthia, Ovid’s life in exile and his Ars Amatoria and Remedia amoris, where the poet weaves romantic tales into a general framework of his role as a praeceptor amoris. ⁹³ Moreover, in the classical elegy we occasionally find two poems linked together, thus presenting a narrativity, such as Tib. 1.8 and 1.9, and Ov. Am. 2.7 and 2.8.⁹⁴ In other words, the Augustan elegists mainly presented snapshots of an ongoing love affair rather than continuous narratives. However, in Maximianus’ case things are different. As Uden and Fielding justly note, ‘when Maximianus writes elegy in the sixth century, he creates a libellus that follows a particular narrative arc. […] Taken together, they [= the Elegies] effectively comprise the erotic history of Maximianus’ life from his youth, to his old age, and, in a sense, his death’.⁹⁵ Our poet narrates an entire lifetime, in contrast to the Augustans that present their adventures as it they took place within a short period of time. As Green writes, Maximianus’ Elegies are ‘a kind of longue durée collection’.⁹⁶ Spaltenstein stated (somewhat exceedingly, I believe) that this narrative continuity proves that Maximianus’ oeuvre is actually similar to the narrative genres (such as epic, novel and history) and not to Augustan elegy.⁹⁷ Moreover, this continuity (which perhaps proves that Maximianus’ Elegies were an opus continuum)⁹⁸ and the distance between the two temporal levels of Maximianus’ poetry, i. e. the time of the narrative present and the time of the dramatical past, has caused a few scholars to attribute quasi-epic qualities to his oeuvre.⁹⁹ Another difference between Maximianus’ Elegies and the Augustan love elegy is that our poet devotes his poems to a series of women, i. e. Lycoris (Elegy 2), Aquilina (Elegy 3), Candida (Elegy 4), and Graia puella (Elegy 5), rather than to only one woman, as was the practice of the Augustans (Tibullus’ book I: Delia, book II: Nemesis; Propertius: Cynthia; Ovid’s Amores: Corinna). As we will see in the following chapters, all these women share common features, e. g. their love for music, dancing and poetry. Apart from Lycoris, who is as old as Maximianus, the three other elegiac puellae are young. In El. 1.59 – 100 the poet speaks of his erotic behaviour: he was a desirable husband for the virgins of high Roman society, a fact that no one Augustan elegist states about himself. The girls chased

      

Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008b) 2; Sharrock (1994) 21– 86; Claassen (1999) 69. Green (2013) 263. Uden and Fielding (2010) 440. Green (2013) 263. Spaltenstein (1977) 99 and Spaltenstein (1983) 195. Uden and Fielding (2010) 440; Wasyl (2011) 159 – 160. Pinotti (1989) 185 – 186; Wasyl (2011) 159 – 160.

1.5 The Elegies

17

him and not vice versa – another difference in comparison to the classical elegy¹⁰⁰ – although we must note that this attitude changes in the next elegies, where he presents himself as a lover. Moreover, in El. 1.76 he says that he remained ‘a cold bachelor in a wifeless bed’ (permansi viduo frigidus usque toro), a phrase that contradicts Ovid’s statement that he wishes only his enemies ‘to sleep in a lonely bed’ (Ov. Am. 2.10.7: viduo dormire cubili).¹⁰¹ However, regardless of their quantity, Maximianus’ sweethearts are scriptae puellae, as are those of the Augustan elegists,¹⁰² and have metapoetic functions, as we will see in the following chapters of the book. There are two main subject matters of Maximianus’ poetry: love, and the sadness of old age.¹⁰³ Words such as amor, amo, senex and senectus occur constantly throughout his Elegies. ¹⁰⁴ As is well-known, love in the context of love elegy serves as a ‘symbolic metonym’,¹⁰⁵ which signifies the genre itself. The subject of old age, and more precisely the vituperatio senectutis, occupied Greek and Roman authors a great deal, from Antiquity to the Renaissance (indicatively: Homer, Mimnermus, Aristotle, Theophrastus, Plautus, Cicero’s De Senectute, Horace, Seneca’s Epistles 12 and 26, Juvenal’s 10.187– 288, Pliny the Elder, Ausonius, Servasius’ poem entitled De Vetustate, Avitus, Prudentius, Venantius Fortunatus,

 See Chapter 2.  Fielding (2017) 149. However, cf. Ov. Am. 3.5.42: frigidus in viduo destituere toro (‘you will be left cold in a lonely bed’), see Bussières (2020) 891– 892. The adjective frigidus has epic connotations, see Vaiopoulos, Michalopoulos and Michalopoulos (2021) 290. For the stylistic implications of frigiditas, see Keith (1999) 60; Vaiopoulos (2013) 129 – 134.  See Wyke (1987), Wyke (1994) and Wyke (2002).  See Fielding (2014) 108, who notes that ‘the subject matter of his elegiac collection is as much tristia as it is amores’. See also, D’Amanti (2020) xiii-xxvi. For old age in Maximianus, see Scafoglio (2020). For old age as a substitute for love in Maximianus, see Bussières (2020) 890 – 891.  For senectus and senecta, cf. El. 1.1: senectus, 1.55: senectus, 1.105: senectus, 1.217: senectus, 1.223: senectus, 1.246: senectus, 1.261: senectus, 2.65: senectus, 3.2: senectutis, 4.3: senectae. For senex, cf. 1.16: senibus, 1.101: seni, 1.143: senem, 1.177: seni, 1.178: seni, 1.195: senex, 1.204: senes, 1.272: senium, 1.280: seni, 2.6: senem, 2.8: senem, 4.52: senem, 5.40: senex, 5.42: senem, 5.73: senes, 6.7: senes. For amor, cf. El. 1.84: amoris, 2.5: amores, 2.15: amorem, 2.33: amorum, 2.71: amori, 3.5: amore, 3.6: amore, 3.7: amor, 3.12: amor, 3.29: amorem, 3.34: amore, 3.66: amor, 3.69: amores, 3.73: amor…amorem, 3.87: amoris, 5.7: amore, 5.8: amore, 5.66: amor, 5.74: amor, 5.80: amor. For amo, cf. 1.53: amavi, 1.179: amare, 2.13: amavit, 2.60: amat, 3.74: amare, 4.15: amavi, 4.26: amat, 4.37: amatae, 5.13: amantem, 5.65: amantem, 5.146: amans, 5.150: amas.  Harrison (2007) 31– 33.

18

1 Introduction

Eugenius of Toledo, Pope Innocent III, Chaucer, Gabriele Zerbi, etc.).¹⁰⁶ In Maximianus’ case, old age brings him shame, and a strong feeling of guilt (crimen) for the sexual desire he continues to have, which exists throughout his work.¹⁰⁷ As we will see in the following chapters, Maximianus is a self-conscious poet, who is aware of his lateness, always remembering the past of the genre he cultivates. This poetic memory serves as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ and a metaliterary term for Maximianus,¹⁰⁸ who implies these functions by repeating words such as memoratio, memorare and meminisse throughout his oeuvre.¹⁰⁹

 See Lind (1988) 313 – 315. For old age in classical Antiquity, see Falkner and de Luce (1989). For old age in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see Classen (2007b); Ruys (2007). For Maximianus, see Neuburger (1947); Uden and Fielding (2010).  Cf. El. 1.102: et quod tunc decuit, iam modo crimen habet (‘and that what once proper, now is considered as a crime’), 1.179 – 180: crimen amare iocos, crimen convivia, cantus, | o miseri, quorum gaudia crimen habent (‘loving jokes is a crime, it is a crime to like banquets and songs, o unhappy ones, from whom is sin whatever they like’), 2.22: extinctum meritis vivere criminibus? (‘to live destroyed by crimes I deserve?’), 2.67: quis suam in alterius condemnet crimine vitam (‘who damns his own life in another man’s crime’), 3.74: coeperunt natae crimen amare suae (‘they begin to love their daughter’s sin’), 4.51: et nunc infelix est sine crimine vita (‘and now my life is unhappy without crime’), 5.73: cogimur heu segnes crimen vitiumque fateri (‘alas, we, sluggish men, are forced to confess our crime and faults’), 6.4: contractata diu crimina crimen habent (‘the gathering of crimes for a long-term crime brings’). See Fielding (2014) 108, where he notes: ‘Maximianus can thus be seen as a “poet between two worlds”: an elegiac lover with an almost Christian sense of shame’. Also, see Bussières (2020) 893, who writes that old age and shame go hand in hand in the genre of love elegy.  For the term ‘Alexandria footnote’, see Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; Sharrock (2018) 22– 26. For the metaliterary function of memory in Maximianus, see White (2019) 11. For the function of memory in Late Antiquity in general, see Hedrick (2000); Neil and Simic (2020).  Cf. El. 1.49: hinc etiam rigidum memorant valuisse Catonem (‘they remind us that even stern Cato had this power too’), 1.124: nec confusa sui iam meminisse potest (‘and now, confused, it cannot remember itself’), 1.280: hoc quoque difficile est commemorasse seni (‘this too is hard for an old man to remember’), 1.291: dura satis miseris memoratio prisca bonorum (‘remembering happy old days is hard enough for the unhappy people’), 2.7: nec meminisse volet transactae dulcia vitae (‘and she does not want to remember the sweet joys of our past life’), 2.38: nullius amplexus quod memoretur habet (‘I have no-one’s embrace that I can remember’), 2.44: nil de transactis quod memoremus erit? (‘will anything from the past be preserved in order to remember it?’), 2.57: si modo non possum, quondam potuisse memento (‘and if now I cannot, remember that once I could’), 2.74: est grave quod doleat commemorare diu (‘It is difficult to remember what hurts you for a long time’), 3.1: nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae (‘it is now worth to tell something from my youth’), 3.37: nec memorare pudet turpesque revolvere vestes (‘she is not ashamed to remember and roll back her torn clothes’), 4.17: singula visa semel semper memorare libebat (‘once I saw her unique features, it was pleasant to remember her forever’), 4.42: prospicit efflantem nec meminisse mei (‘he observes me to wheeze without remembering myself’), 4.55:

1.6 Maximianus as Cornelius Gallus

19

1.6 Maximianus as Cornelius Gallus As is well-known, Pomponius Gauricus (1482– 1530), a Venetian humanist, author of several studies and himself a poet,¹¹⁰ published Maximianus’ Elegies in 1502 under the name of the first Augustan elegist and the auctor of the genre, Cornelius Gallus (69 – 26 BC), the first prefect of Roman Egypt, who committed suicide in 26 BC.¹¹¹ This fraud, through which Gauricus likely aimed to make money, excited by the flourishment of classical Antiquity during the Renaissance,¹¹² was the cause of Gallus’ rebirth, a phrase that I borrow from Paul White’s title of his recent and highly important book, Gallus Reborn (2019), where he studies Gauricus’ forgery,¹¹³ the reception of his pseudo-Gallus (Maximianus) by the readers of the Renaissance,¹¹⁴ and other poems of the sixteenth century that were also attributed to Gallus.¹¹⁵ As we have seen above, Gauricus’ attribution of Maximianus’ Elegies to Cornelius Gallus survived until the end of the eighteenth century.¹¹⁶ Nowadays, we have only ten verses of the first elegist and there is no doubt that Elegies belong to Maximianus (whether this is a real name or a pseudonym), a poet from the sixth century AD.¹¹⁷ Gauricus’ edition, entitled Cornelii Galli fragmenta, was published on 12th January 1502, in Venice at the publishing house of Bernandino Vitali.¹¹⁸ In the

hoc etiam meminisse licet (‘that also I may recall’), 5.45: nec memorare pudet tali me vulnere victum (‘I am not ashamed to remember that I was defeated by such a wound’).  According to White (2019) 15, n. 1, Pomponius Gauricus was a sculptor, and author of the treatise De sculptura (1504), translator of Ammonius Hermiae (Ammonius in quinque voce Porphyrii, 1504), author of the De arte poetica ad Franciscum Puccium Florentium (before 1509). He wrote several elegies, silvae, eclogues and epigrams that were published in 1526.  See Section 1.5.  Schneider (2001) 456 – 457.  White (2019) 4– 18.  White (2019) 19 – 24.  White (2019) 38 – 58.  See Section 1.5.  See Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet (1979); White (2019) 1 and 3, n. 1 and n. 2. White notes that even in our era, scholars still attributed to Gallus some elegiacs, e. g. the four pseudo-Gallan elegiac poems in the Aldine edition of 1588 (Anth. Lat. 914– 917), which were attributed to the first Roman elegist by Maria Salanitro in 2011, see White (2019) 38 and 46 – 47, n. 1. See Gary Vos (2020) 254, where he notes that ‘even though the “forgeries” [of Gallus] were revealed as such early on, false ascriptions continued to circulate, causing chaos until this day’.  The inscription of the publishing house and the year exists in the last page of the book: Impressum Venetiis per Bernardinum Venetum de Vitalibus Anno D[omi]ni MCCCCI. Die XII Ianuarii (‘printed in Venice by Bernadino Vitali the Venetian in the year of the Lord 1501, the day of 12 January’). Bernandino Vitali was a publisher in Venice (between 1494 and 1539) and

20

1 Introduction

first part of his short book, entitled Cornelli Galli Vita, Gauricus offers some information on Gallus’ life: he names Gallus a Foroiulensis orator ac poeta clarissimus (‘an orator and famous poet from Forum Iulium’, i. e. Rome).¹¹⁹ But at the end of this section, he states that Gallus was Etruscan (nam quod fuerit Etruscus) – apparently motivated by Maximianus’ origin.¹²⁰ Gauricus mentions that Gallus was the first Roman prefect of Egypt: Aegyptum provinciam Romanorum primus obtinuit (‘he was the first governor of Egypt as Roman province’). He notes that Cornelius Gallus composed four books of elegiac poems for Cytheris, who was a libertine of P. Volumnius Eutrapelus, and whose pseudonym was Lycoris: scripsit Cornelius Gallus Elegiarum Libros iiii, de Cytherida quadam, P. Volumnii liberta, quam ficto nomine Lycorida appellavit (‘Cornelius Gallus wrote four books of elegiacs for someone called Cytheris, a libertine of P. Volumnius, who she named with the fake name Lycoris’).¹²¹ Apart from the mistaken (albeit justified, as Gauricus’ purpose was to identify Maximianus with Gallus) origin from Etruria, the editor offers information on Gallus that is widely known (four books of elegy and Lycoris). However, he must justify how the first Roman elegist and inventor of the genre composed elegiac verses adopting the elegiac persona of senex, a parallel that does not exist in Auin Rome too, see Nadin (2013) 89 – 90, and the site of Treccani Institute, s.v. Vitali, Bernandino dei: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bernardino-dei-vitali_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ (seen 19.1. 2022). As White (2019) 15, n. 1 writes, ‘the edition is dated January 1501 more veneto, i.e. January 1502’.  See Nikitas and Tromaras (2019) s.v. Foroiulensis-is-e.  Cf. El. 5.5: me […] Etruscae gentis alumnum (‘me, a descendant of the Etruscan tribe’), and 40: succubui Tusca simplicitate senex (‘I succumbed, an old man with Tuscan simplicity’). See White (2019) 16 – 17, n. 15, where he says that – apart from Maximianus’ text – perhaps Gauricus was confused from Prop. 1.21.7, where a Gallus is mentioned, who was from Etruria (as he notes in 1.21.10: montibus Etruscis, ‘mountains of Etruria’), a mistake – White notes – that Gauricus likely could not have made if he had read Beroaldo’s commentary on Propertius (in print from 1487).  For Volumnia/Cytheris/Lycoris of Gallus, cf. Verg. Ecl. 10; Prop. 2.34.91– 92: et modo formosa quam multa Lycoride Gallus | mortuus inferna vulnera lavit aqua! (‘and now, Gallus washes in the waters of Hell his multiple wounds that he received by his lovely Lycoris’); Ov. Am. 1.15.29 – 30: Gallus et Hesperiis et Gallus notus Eois, | et sua cum Gallo nota Lycoris erit (‘Gallus, renowned in the West, Gallus in the East, and Lycoris will be famous with her Gallus’), Ars am. 3.537: Vesper et Eoae novere Lycorida terrae (‘you will have known Lycoris from East to West’), Tr. 2.445: non fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo (‘it was no disgrace to Gallus to sing Lycoris’); Mart. 8.73.6: ingenium Galli pulchra Lycoris erat (‘beautiful Lycoris was Gallus’ inspiration’). See Keith (2011) 25, n. 10, where she notes of her: ‘as the freedwoman of P. Volumnius Eutrapelus, she owed her patron “services” (operae), including sexual services, under Roman law, whether he chose to require them for himself or to direct them to his own friends, patrons and/or political allies (as, e. g. Marc Antony)’.

1.6 Maximianus as Cornelius Gallus

21

gustan elegists.¹²² He chose to solve this problem by presenting Maximianus’ verses as the last book of Gallus’ Amores,¹²³ which he was supposed to write just before his death in Egypt after a romantic adventure that he had with a Greek girl there: Eius scripta penitus interciderunt, praeter hunc libellum, quem paulo ante morte in Aegypto visus est perscripsisse. Nam quum ibi Graecam quondam puellam adamasset, nec propter ingravescentem iam aetatem eius libidini satis facere potuisset, materia satis opportune oblata est, ut senectutis incommoda describens, iuveniles suos amores recenseret […] His writings were entirely lost, apart from this little book, which he seems to have composed just before his death in Egypt. Because when there he once loved a Greek girl and he could not satisfy her sexual desire due to his age, this incident offered him a quite suitable material, in order to describe the ills of old age and recount the love affairs of his youth.

Gauricus offers four arguments, in order to persuade his readers that the work he publishes belongs to Gallus: 1) he states that the first three books of Gallus are lost, except for this one, i. e. the fourth (Maximianus’ oeuvre); 2) he identifies Gallus’ stay in Egypt with Maximianus’ travel in the East (Elegy 5) – as Egypt belongs to the East in a wider sense; 3) he states that Gallus had a sexual failure with a Greek girl (as with Maximianus in Elegy 5); and 4) he says that in this surviving book Gallus narrates the weaknesses of old age and also recalls his youthful romantic adventures. As White notes, much relies on the phrase iuveniles suos amores recenseret: ‘the phrase has a significant double meaning: “to recount the love affairs of his youth”, but also “to revise his youthful Amores”. The verb “recenseo” is commonly used for editorial or authorial revision, and the equivocation amores/Amores is frequent in classical elegy; moreover, Gauricus would have known from Servius (ad Ecl. 10.1) that Amores was the probable title of Gallus’s love elegies’.¹²⁴ Furthermore, Gauricus already had at his disposal the clues that could make the attribution of Maximianus’ Elegies to Gallus plausible and acceptable: a) their ‘common’ origin from Etruria (a piece of information for which Gauricus contradicts himself in his Cornelli Galli Vita, as we have seen above); b) the presence of Lycoris (Maximianus’ beloved in Elegy 2 and Gallus’ scripta puella); c) Maximianus’ and Gallus’ stay in the East (Constantinople, and Egypt respective-

 White (2019) 7.  See White (2019) 7, where he comments that in this way Gauricus presented Gallus, who died at the age of 43, ‘as much of a senex as possible’.  White (2019) 11.

22

1 Introduction

ly); and d) their common capacities as statesmen, orators, lovers and drinkers¹²⁵ – in particular the combination of their both being politicians and poet-lovers, which occurs only in their case in the entire genre of love elegy. However, the references of Maximianus to himself in El. 4.26: cantantem Maximianus amat (‘Maximianus loves the singer’) and to his advisor Boethius in El. 3.48: solus, Boethi, fers miseratus opem (‘only you, Boethius, spared me and offered me your help’) betray the truth, namely that the poems belong to a poet called Maximianus who lived in the sixth century AD. Gauricus solved this problem by omitting the couplet of 4.25 – 26 and by replacing the name the name Boethi with Bobeti.¹²⁶ As a poet himself, Gauricus composed an elegy of 38 verses (entitled: Pomponi Gaurici Neapolitani Elegiacon, ‘Elegy by Pomponius Gauricus from Naples’), which he appended to his edition announcing his ‘discovery’ of Gallus’ poetry.¹²⁷ In his poem, Gauricus expresses his sorrow for the past glory of old ancient towns such as Athens, Thebes, Troy and Rome (3 – 6), and for the lost works of Roman authors such as Varro, Ennius, Varus, Lucilius, Ovid’s Medea and books 6 – 12 of his Fasti, Pacuvius, Accius, Afranius, Caecilius, and Livy’s many books of Ab urbe condita (17– 28). At the end of the poem, Gauricus addresses Gallus, wondering about the fate of his Lycoris and his poetic ingenium (29 – 34). However, he states, although the ages took away Gallus’ writings and verses (35 – 36), now – following his publication – the poet’s Lycoris and his ingenium will last forever (37– 38).¹²⁸ Gauricus mentions that most of Gallus’ work is lost (i. e. the first three books of his Amores) and highlights the name Lycoris (Maximianus’ beloved in his first romantic episode, in El. 2) as evidence for his ‘discovery’, which is based upon several testimonies of Roman authors regarding the identity of Gallus’ scripta puella. ¹²⁹ Following Gauricus’ poem, a laudatory epigram to Gauricus by his friend Johannes Baptista Rhamnusius follows. Before this, Rhamnusius addresses his readers, urging them to be grateful to Gauricus for his great discovery: Io. Bap. Rhamnusius lectori [title]. Lector quod has Cor. Galli poetae reliquias legeris, |

 White (2019) 6 – 7. For Maximianus as an orator and poet, cf. El. 1.9 – 14, 28, 127– 130, 2.64. As a lover, cf. El. 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a statesman, see El. 5. As a drinker, cf. El. 1.41– 44. For Gallus as a drinker, cf. Ov. Tr. 2.446: sed linguam nimio non tenuisse mero (‘he could not keep his tongue away from much wine’).  Schneider (2001) 456; White (2019) 6.  White (2019) 9 – 10 contains the Latin text of Gauricus’ elegy and its English translation made by him.  For a short analysis of this poem, see White (2019) 10.  See above, footnote 121.

1.6 Maximianus as Cornelius Gallus

23

Pomponio Gaurico, adolescenti optimo | gratias habeto (‘Johannes Baptista Rhamnusius to the reader. You, reader, who will read these remains of the poet Cornelius Gallus, must be grateful to Pomponius Gauricus, an excellent young man’). Rhamnusius congratulates Gauricus for restoring Gallus’ work and fame (1– 4) and ends the epigram by assuring the reader that now, due to Gauricus’ edition, the Roman poet would be happy because he did not die completely by his own hand, but will forever live on through his poetry (5 – 6: Ipse tuo tandem Gallus nunc munere: Gaudet | se penitus dextra non cecidisse sua, ‘now at last, Gallus, due to your service rejoices that he did not die completely by his own hand’).¹³⁰ Gauricus’ forgery had a great impact on the future editors of Maximianus’ Elegies until the eighteenth century,¹³¹ as many of them published his poems under Gallus’ name. As White writes in his monograph, which is a referencebook for Gauricus’ fraud and its reception,¹³² ‘even after their [= the Elegies] proper attribution had been noted – the ascription to Gallus had been doubted by Pietro Crinito in 1505, and Lilio Giraldi restored them to Maximianus in 1545 – editors and printers preferred to maintain the fiction of attribution to Gallus […] often printed together with the poems of Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius’.¹³³ Gallus and Maximianus appear to have been identified together for three centuries at least, and several editors combined their names into a single poet; Melchior Goldast published Maximianus’ Elegies in 1610 under the name of ‘Cornelius Maximianus Gallus Etruscus’.¹³⁴ Johann Christian Wernsdord in the eighteenth century comments that several scholars adopted the middle view (media sententia) concerning the authorship of Maximianus’ poems.¹³⁵ Even John Allen Giles, who published Maximianus’ Elegies in London in 1838 from Wernsdord’s recension along with his notes, entitled his book Cornelii Maximiani Etrusci Galli Elegiae Sex (‘The six Elegies of Cornelius Maximianus Gallus Etruscus’). Gauricus’ forgery and its reception by specialists, as well as the readership during the Renaissance and beyond, proves that they were easily convinced to attribute a literary work to a lost ancient author, urged on by their enthusiasm

 White (2019) 10 notes that by this epigram ‘Rhamnusius makes reference to Gallus’ suicide and the damnatio memoriae that may have followed’. For a brief analysis of the poem, see White (2019) 10 – 11. For Gauricus’ and Rhamnusius’ poems, see Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 59 – 62.  See above, footnote 73.  See White (2019) 4– 24.  White (2019) 5.  White (2019) 6.  White (2019) 6 and 16, n. 10.

24

1 Introduction

and the classicism that dominated during this period.¹³⁶ However, we must remember that this ‘fraud’ was part of a broader trend of that era (15th – 18th centuries) for literary (and other)¹³⁷ forgeries.¹³⁸

1.7 Appendix Maximiani This title belongs to Schetter, who named the six short poems contained in two manuscripts by Maximianus and are thus attributed to him.¹³⁹ Five of the six poems are written in elegiac verse, while the third is in dactylic hexameter. As Roberts notes, these six poems are divided ‘into three pairs, associated by subject matter’.¹⁴⁰ The first two are love poems, while the third and fourth describe a fortress of the Ostrogothic king Theodahad, revealing the atmosphere of prosperity of his kingship; in the last two poems, the poet narrates the same atmosphere describing the amenities of the country and the city.¹⁴¹ The first poem of Appendix shares a few similarities of language with Maximianus’ Elegies, while the fifth demonstrates the poetical trend of the era, namely generic mixture, as it contains features from several genres (elegy, pastoral, epic, tragedy, etc.) and reminds us of the cento form.¹⁴² The established opinion among scholars is that these poems do not belong to Maximianus – they support this opinion mainly based on several metrical irregularities in the poems of Appendix. ¹⁴³ However, Romano considered this collection to be youthful poems by Maximianus,¹⁴⁴ and Barnish wrote that they ‘are probably, though not certainly, by the same author’.¹⁴⁵ Agreeing with the widely accepted

 For the reception of Gallus/Maximianus, see White (2019) 19 – 24. For other works attributed to Gallus regarding the sixteenth century, see White (2019) 38 – 58.  E. g. for art forgery in this period, see Kurz (1973).  For literary forgeries in this period, see Stephens and Havens (2018). For books and manuscripts about the literary forgery from 400 BC to 2000 AD, see Freeman (2014). For pseudepigrapha of ancient texts, see Peirano (2012) 1– 73; Berardi, Filosa and Massimo (2020) 1– 10.  Schetter (1960). See also, Garrot (1910); Fo (1984– 1985); Fels (2000); Roberts (2018) 13.  Roberts (2018) 13.  For the poems of Appendix Maximiani see Fo (1984– 1985); Schneider (2003) 133 – 145, 194– 199 and 229 – 231; Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium (2010). For the poems and their English translation, see Juster (2018) 82– 89. For the poems, their Italian translation, and a commentary on them, see Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 221– 248.  Goldlust (2010).  Roberts (2018) 13.  Romano (1979) 309 – 329.  Barnish (1990) 16.

1.8 Maximianus’ Popularity

25

theory that Appendix Maximiani was not written by Maximianus, I did not include these poems in my study.

1.8 Maximianus’ Popularity Maximianus’ Elegies had a great effect on his contemporaries. We know that Arator and Corippus used some of the poet’s phrases,¹⁴⁶ and in subsequent years poets included intertexts from Maximianus in their texts: Columbanus of Bobbio (543 – 615) in his (or likely his, as there is a big discussion regarding the poem’s authorship)¹⁴⁷ verse epistle Ad Sethum (in 77 hexameters) echoes certain passages from Maximianus.¹⁴⁸ Eugenius of Toledo (ca. 605 – 657 AD), the archbishop of Toledo for a decade (647– 657) and a poet, echoes our poet in his Carmen 14, where he laments old age and death.¹⁴⁹ In a poem of 40 hexameters by an anonymous author, likely belonging to the ninth century and commonly entitled Imitatio Maximiani, we see the impact of Maximianus’ Elegies 1 and 5.¹⁵⁰ A lyric poem (of 273 verses, divided in 23 stanzas) of the thirteenth century in Middle English and with a French title, Le regret de Maximian,¹⁵¹ reveals the impact of Maximianus on Middle English poetry¹⁵² – an impact that is justified by the great presence of our poet in school curricula of this period.¹⁵³ The humoristic representation of Boethius in Elegy 3 occurs again in the pseudo-Boethian work entitled De disciplina scolarium, which was composed around 1230 – 1240.¹⁵⁴ Maximianus’ echoes exist in the Pardoner’s Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer (1343 – 1400),¹⁵⁵ as well as his Merchant’s Tale ¹⁵⁶ and his Troilus and Criseyde. ¹⁵⁷  Mastandrea (2003 – 2004) and Mastandrea (2005).  Wasyl (2014a) 140, n. 11.  Wasyl (2014a) 140 – 141.  Ratkowitsch (1986) 14 and 30 – 31; Wasyl (2014a) 141– 144. For the identification of Maximianus’ and Eugenius’ names in the Early Middle Ages, see Wasyl (2014a) 141– 142, n. 13.  See Leotta (1985); Schneider (2003) 200 – 201 and 232; Wasyl (2014a) 144– 145; Juster (2018) 92– 93.  See Wasyl (2014a) 145; Juster (2018) 94– 101. For the Le regret de Maximian and its impact (and, indirectly, Maximianus’ impact) on Layamon, see M. L. Harrison (2013).  See Gillespie (2005) 75 – 77. For the reception of Maximianus, see also Pozo (2011) 29 – 34; Wasyl (2014a).  For the presence of Maximianus in the curricula of medieval Britain, see Orme (1973) 102– 103 and Orme (2006) 97– 101; Hunt (1991) vol. 1, 67– 79; Mann (2006) 48 – 50; Cannon (2009) 23 – 24 and Cannon (2015) 712 and 714.  Hunter (2015).  See Kittredge (1888); Coffman (1934) 270 – 271; Nitecki (1981); Wasyl (2014a) 145 – 146.  Hartung (1967).

26

1 Introduction

Chaucer’s friend, John Gower (ca. 1330 – 1408), describes the impotence of his Amans in his Confessio amantis based on Maximianus’ erectile disfunction in Elegy 5.¹⁵⁸ Moreover, Christine de Pizan (1364– ca. 1430), an Italian poetess at the court of King Charles VI of France, in her consolatory epistle entitled Epistre de la prison de vie humaine, included three quotations from Maximianus.¹⁵⁹ As is well-known, Maximianus’ Elegies had been a text in schools during the Middle Ages.¹⁶⁰ It was part of the Liber Catonianus, also known as the Sex Auctores, a school book that was well-established and included Disticha Catonis, Eclogues of Theodulus, the Fables of Avianus, Maximianus’ Elegies, Statius’ Achilleid, and Claudian’ De raptu Proserpinae. ¹⁶¹ In several medieval manuscripts

 See Mitchell (2003).  See Carlson (2016).  See Kennedy (1985). For the connection between Maximianus and Shakespeare, see Pinotti (1991). For the reception of Maximianus by the American poet Kenneth Rexroth, see Uden (2011) 11– 16 and Uden (2018) 636 – 637. For the impact of Maximianus’ El. 1.5 – 6 on Ugo Foscolo, see D’Amanti (2017b) 264– 270.  See Ellis (1884b); Webster (1900) 17– 22; Coffman (1934) 252– 253, n. 2; Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 352; Mariotti (21994) 215; Consolino (1997) 366; Wasyl (2011) 113; White (2019) 5; Stover (2021) 836. For curricular Maximianus in Britain of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, see above, footnote 153. Particularly important are Wheeler’s comments about Maximianus’ influence in the Middle Ages as a school text and as a model for writing poetry; see Wheeler (2015) 139 – 140, where he notes: ‘In the eleventh century at the latest, as Aimeric’ s Ars lectoria (1086) attests, Maximianus occupied a place in the canon of school authors, alongside “Cato”, [= Disticha Catonis] Avianus, and the Latin Homer […]. If Maximianus was first and foremost an authority on ethics, he was also a reservoir of literary learning and an influential model for the art of versification in medieval schools. In his poetry, the different strands of Ovidian elegy (erotic and exilic) join with the traditions of Roman satire (Horace and Juvenal). By reviving Ovidian elegiacs to satirize old age and its erotic failings, Maximianus not only anticipated the aetas Ovidiana of the Middle Ages but also contributed to the movement that saw the elegiac Ovid emerge as the primary model for poetic composition from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries’.  For Liber Catonianus, see Boas (1914); Sanford (1924) 198 – 199; Hunter (2015) 173 and n. 55; Wheeler (2015) 130, 134 and 171. In the thirteenth century, Ovid’s Remedia amoris replaced Maximianus’ Elegies forming a new group of eight Latin authors that were taught in schools, the socalled Auctores Otto, see Orme (1973) 103; Carlson (2016) 73; Hunter (2015) 173, n. 55; Wheeler (2015) 171. A fact that probably proves the affinity between Remedia amoris and Maximianus’ Elegies is that they were written together in one of the best manuscripts; see Wasyl (2011) 113, n. 5. See Fielding (2014) 107, where he notes: ‘during the Middle Ages these elegies [= Maximianus’] often appeared alongside or in place of the Remedia Amoris in collections of school texts, where they were presented as a deterrent against the pursuit of sexual pleasure […]’. Carlson (2016) 73 has a somewhat different opinion: ‘though the elegies’ election as a school-text is troubling, it was purposive: to teach boys that heterosexuality is compulsory, women are tools for their sexual gratification, and the penis is the centre around which the all-harmonious spheres revolve’.

1.8 Maximianus’ Popularity

27

Maximianus is characterized as a poeta ethicus,¹⁶² and many of his verses that resemble apothegms (sententiae, proverbia) were included in anthologies (florilegia) offering moral lessons for young pupils.¹⁶³ We can find much information on Maximianus’ popularity in the Middle Ages from Accessus ad auctores, an anthology of the twelfth century that was used as an introduction to several authors.¹⁶⁴ The seventh accessus is that of Maximianus; in paragraphs 3 – 7 we learn the subject matter of his poetry, and the reason for it being classified among ethical authors: 3. In hoc autem libro senectutem cum suis uiciis uituperat, iuuentutemque cum suis deliciis exaltat. 4. Est enim sua materia tarde senectutis querimonia. 5. Intentio sua est quemlibet dehortari ne stulte [obstando] optando senectutis uicia desiderat. 6. Vtilitas libri est cognitio stulti desiderii, senectutis euitatio. 7. Ethice subponitur, quia de moribus tractat. 3. In this book, moreover, he censures old age together with its vices, and he praises youth together with its pleasures. 4. For his subject matter is a complaint about slow old age. 5. His intention is to dissuade anyone at all from desiring the vices of old age by foolishly wishing for them. 6. The utility of the book is the knowledge of foolish desire and the avoidance of old age. 7. It is classified under ethics because it deals with moral behavior.¹⁶⁵

As can be seen from this passage, the main aim of Maximianus’ poetry was to highlight the faults of old age, and it also has an anti-feminist character resembling the misogynistic poetry of the eleventh century, as Szövérffy supported.¹⁶⁶ Perhaps Maximianus was characterized as a poeta ethicus because he was read as if he were revealing the vanity of sexual pleasures by satirizing the old age – a reading that may imply the value of Christian salvation.¹⁶⁷ For modern scholars, the erotic content of Maximianus’ Elegies seems inappropriate for a Medieval grammar classroom.¹⁶⁸ However, as Hunter notes, ‘the

 See Bährens (1883) 315 – 316; Schneider (2003) 151– 153; Wasyl (2011) 128 – 134; Carlson (2016) 73. By considering Maximianus as a moralist poet, the medieval readers included him in the tradition of Horace and Juvenal, see Wasyl (2011) 129; Wheeler (2015) 143.  See Curtius (1953) 58, n. 68; Wasyl (2011) 133; Wheeler (2015) 140.  For Accessus ad auctores, see Huygens (1954); Huygens (1970); Wheeler (2015) and especially, 1– 24.  The text and the English translation come from Wheeler (2015) 40 – 43.  Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 365 – 366.  See Lutz (1974) 214– 215; Butrica (2005) 563; Fielding (2014) 107; Wheeler (2015) 142– 143.  Boas (1914) 39; Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 366; Hunt (1991) 70; Orme (2006) 97. Some scholars of the thirteenth century, such as Alexander Villadieux, denounced the use of Maximianus as a school text in the opening to his Doctrinale puerorum, see Hunter (2015) 175 – 176; White (2019) 5. Giusto Fontanini (1666 – 1736), a Catholic archbishop and Italian historian, also considered Maximianus a corrupted old man, see White (2019) 5.

28

1 Introduction

ubiquitous assertions of shock from modern scholars commenting on the use of such explicitly erotic material by children, however, are anachronistic reactions whose prudishness is not reflected in the curriculum lists or commentaries from medieval schools’.¹⁶⁹ As Hunter again notes, the amatory stories (such as Maximianus’ Elegies) ‘were used pedagogically for both Latin literacy acquisition and composition training’.¹⁷⁰ Moreover, it seems that Maximianus’ oeuvre was included in a broad medieval tradition that permitted young pupils to read texts that were unacceptable for adults. In this context, his Elegies in Middle Ages were considered more appropriate to boys rather than adults.¹⁷¹ They also share – along with certain Medieval schoolbooks, such as the pseudo-Boethian De disciplina scolarium, Petrus Alfonsi’s Disciplina clericalis (early twelfth century) and Geoffrey of Vinsauf’s Poetria Nova (ca. 1210) – the common feature of humour, which was widely used as a pedagogical tool by the (not so conservative, after all) teachers of the Middle Ages.¹⁷²

1.9 The Current Study During the last ten years, the interest of scholars in the poetics of Late Antiquity (for subjects such as generic identity, mixture and evolution, intertextuality, innovation, reception, and the impact of classical and Christian authors upon it) has been greatly increased, as several relevant monographs and collective volumes have been published.¹⁷³ The current study belongs to this scholarly trend, as it deals with subjects such as the intratextual dynamics that exist in Maximianus’ Elegies (or in his opus continuum), their intertextuality, the generic interaction between the ‘host’ genre (elegy) and other ‘guest’ genres (Roman comedy, epic, hymns, etc.), and the poet’s metapoetic self-consciousness (which is mainly expressed by the identification of his scriptae puellae with the genre of love elegy itself). The main purpose of the book is to prove that Max-

 Hunter (2015) 174.  Hunter (2015) 174.  Hunter (2015) 175.  Hunter (2015) 176 – 179. For Maximianus’ popularity, see also D’Amanti (2020) xlii-li. For a catalogue of editions, translations, and commentaries on his Elegies, see D’Amanti (2020) lxiilxx.  Of course, this was begun by the reference book by Roberts (1989). Indicatively, see Wasyl (2011); Moretti, Ricci and Torre (2015); McGill and Pucci (2016); Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017a); Fielding (2017); Consolino (2018); Hardie (2019); Hernández Lobato and Prieto Domínguez (2020); Hadjittofi and Lefteratou (2020); Goldhill (2020).

1.9 The Current Study

29

imianus, via his poetry, intended to state that the genre of love elegy had grown old, and thus obsolete, during his era (for several reasons, including poetical, political, and religious), and thus to attempt to innovate within the genre. More specifically, each chapter of the book corresponds to one of Maximianus’ Elegies. At the beginning of the chapter, I offer a summary of each poem. In chapter two, I first examine the intratextual relation of Elegy 1 to the other Elegies. A brief intertextual analysis follows, after which I focus on the main subject of the chapter, namely a metapoetic reading of Elegy 1. I demonstrate that here the author represents a different elegiac poet (when compared to Augustan love elegy); for example, he does not pursue a puella, but is rather pursued by many of them (which reveals one of his main techniques, that of gender reversal). He combines the vita contemplativa with the vita activa, as he is a poet as well as an orator and an athlete. I prove that in Elegy 1, Maximianus implies one of the most important of the Late Latin poetics, namely the generic mixture (cf. El. 1.27– 32, 45 – 46, and 51– 52). Examining several other passages, I reveal that Maximianus frequently implies a metapoetic reading, identifying the genre of love elegy with his old age. In chapter three, I comment on the intratextual relation of Elegy 2 with the other Elegies, and study the transformation of Lycoris (a generic indicator who links Maximianus with the first inventor of the Roman love elegy, Cornelius Gallus) from an elegiac puella to an anus. I attempt to prove that this transformation is justified by the generic interaction between elegy and Roman comedy that exists in this poem (Lycoris is presented as a sensual old woman, while Maximianus as an impotent old man from Roman comedy). Accordingly, I show that Lycoris is Elegy personified, who grew old during Late Antiquity and is searching for new inspiration. In chapter four, I first deal with the intratextual relation of Elegy 3 with Elegy 4, and then with two of the protagonists of this poem, Aquilina and Boethius. I focus on Boethius, citing several interpretations of this persona that are presented by some scholars, which mainly refer to his transformation into a praeceptor amoris within Maximianus’ poem. After this, I study the main subject of the chapter, the generic status of the poem. I discuss the generic interplay that takes place within the text (the ‘host’ genre of elegy, as well as the ‘guest’ genres of Roman comedy, Christian literature, epic, pastoral, novel, etc.). In the next section of the chapter, I deal with the metapoetic dimensions of the poem. I attempt to prove that Maximianus implies that during his time, the genre of love elegy grew old, which is why he tries to innovate it. I contend that Maximianus does this in two ways: a) by turning the typical elegiac system upside down, thus subverting some of its basic rules; and b) by identifying his scripta puella, Aqui-

30

1 Introduction

lina, with Poetry, implying a dissolution (discidium) between himself (the poet) and the traditional genre of love elegy, and thus its transformation. In chapter five, I deal with the intertextuality and intratextuality of Elegy 4. In the main section of this chapter, I study the poet’s metapoetic self-consiousness, with an emphasis on his allusions to an important feature of love elegy, that of elegiac fiction (cf. Propertius’ opus fallax). In the beginning of chapter six, I briefly refer to the political mission that Maximianus claims he was part of in Elegy 5. Following this, I outline the persona of the Graia puella, arguing that she is not a typical elegiac mistress. Although she shares certain common features with this character (e. g. she complains that her lover cheated on her), she is nonetheless quite different to the archetype – she is highly talkative, as she is the true protagonist of the poem, and sings a paraclausithyron to her lover (according to one of Maximianus’ favourite techniques, the gender reversal). In the following section, I offer a political interpretation of the poem: Maximianus’ impotence is allegorically identified with the decline of the Western Empire and the empowerment of the Eastern Empire. Furthermore, I present the belief of certain scholars that this poem is a secret protest against the sexual renunciation that was proclaimed by Christian authors, as well as ascetism. Moreover, I deal with the generic identity of the poem, attempting to reveal Maximianus’ practice of mixing genres, and his reasons for doing so. Also, I study the metapoetic dimensions of the poem, which I believe reflect the poet’s anxiety for the fate of the elegiac genre, as well as his attempts to renew it. As in the examples of Lycoris and Aquilina, I attempt to prove that Maximianus identifies the Graia puella with Elegy itself, expressing his thoughts on the decline of the genre during his era and offering ideas on how to renew it. In chapter seven, I make some metapoetic remarks on the sixth Elegy. At this point, Maximianus’ elegy closes the narrative circle with a ring composition that highlights the main theme of his poetry, namely old age. I argue that in these twelve verses we see the self-conscious side of the poet, who also includes in his speech certain ‘metonymic symbols’ and metapoetic signs. Finally, in the epilogue of the book, I briefly present my conclusions.

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Summary The first elegy consists of 292 verses (40 % of Maximianus’ entire work). At the beginning of the poem, Maximianus addresses the ‘envious old age’ (1: aemula…senectus); death is the only thing that will release him from all the calamities of his old age. He is no longer the man he used to be. The biggest part of his life is gone. The worst torture for an old man is not death itself, but his desire to die (1– 8). However, in his youth he was a multi-talented young man who excelled in all the dimensions of human life: he was a famous and celebrated orator, an amazing archer, a skilful hunter, wrestler, poet, and athlete, resistant to bad weather and frugal, a lover, a sought-after son-in-law, an invincible wine-drinker, etc. (9 – 100). But each age has its own features; youth favours levity, and old age graveness (101– 116). Humans in old age are full of corporal and mental defects (117– 164). There is no medicine that can cure old age (165 – 174). The old man gets weaker, and young men laugh at him (175 – 220). This is why he invokes Mother Earth and begs her to accept him into her embrace as soon as possible (221– 234). Maximianus ends the elegy by saying again that at his age he lives like a living-dead man, who expects his death as a true release from a period when time does not pass (235 – 292).¹

2.1.2 Elegy 1 and the Other Elegies Elegy 1 functions as the prologue of Maximianus’ work, and Elegy 6 as its epilogue.² Their main subject is old age, and they form a circle in Maximianus’ narration. Furthermore, a beloved girl is absent from these two elegies, as is love in general.³ The poet begins by addressing old age (cf. El. 1.1: aemula…senectus, ‘envious old age’, and El. 6.1: aetas verbosa, ‘chatty age’); both poems include the noun pars at the beginning and at the end, respectively (cf. El. 1.5: periit pars  This chapter is a revised and enriched (with new research and bibliographic data) version of my article in Greek, see Pappas (2017– 2019).  See Chapter 7.  Cf. the characterization of Elegy 1 as ‘elegy without love’ by Wasyl (2011) 125, who paraphrases Conte’s title in (1989). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-003

32

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

maxima nostri, ‘the biggest part of mine is gone’, and El. 6.12: hac me defunctum vivere parte puto, ‘although I am dead, I think that I live by one part of mine’ or ‘although I am dead in one of my parts, I think that I live’)⁴ implying – on a literal level – either the biggest part of a human’s life, or the death of a man’s penis,⁵ or – in metaliterary terms – Maximianus’ own poetry (as we will see below). Moreover, the feelings of sadness and guilt for sexual desires, along with the presence of imminent death, are everywhere in these two elegies, cf. the use of the adjective infelix in El. 1.258: infelix, hac ego parte trahor (‘unhappy, I am dragged from this part’) and El. 6.11: infelix ceu iam defleto funere surgo (‘unhappy, after the fulfilment of my funeral, I rise’),⁶ the noun crimen in El. 1.102: iam modo crimen habet (‘now it is considered a crime’), 1.179 – 180: crimen amare iocos, crimen convinvia, cantus, | o miseri, quorum guadia crimen habent (‘loving jokes is a crime, it is a crime to like banquets and songs, o unhappy ones, from whom is sin whatever they like’) and El. 6.4: contractata diu crimina crimen habent (‘the crimes, which were handled for a long time, are wrong’),⁷ and the noun funus in El. 1.8: quodque omni peius funere (‘and what is worse than any death’), 1.237: misero quid funere differt? (‘what’s the difference from an unhappy death?’), and El. 6.11: defleto funere (‘after the fulfilment of my funeral’).⁸ Elegies 1, 2, and 5 are connected on a temporal level, as in these poems Maximianus is an old man. In Elegy 1, the poet deals with the problems of old age theoretically, while in Elegies 2 and 5 he offers ‘real’ incidents of the defects of this age,⁹ such as ugliness (El. 2), and impotence (El. 5), which seems to be implied in certain passages of Elegy 1, cf. El. 1.5: periit pars maxima nostri (‘my

 There is a syntactical ambiguity in El. 6.12, see Chapter 7.  See Webster (1900) 61 and Tyson (1996) 53, who link this phrase with Ov. Am. 3.7.69: pars pessima nostri (‘the worst part of mine’), where the poet from Sulmo refers to his own penis. Also, see Carlson (2016) 6. For a similar sexual interpretation of the word in El. 6, see Chapter 7.  Also, cf. El. 4.51: et nunc infelix tota est sine crimine vita (‘and now, my whole life is unhappy without any crime’), and 5.76: vindicor infelix debilitatis ope (‘Unhappy, I am acquitted of this charge, due to my weakness’).  Also, cf. El. 2.22: extinctum meritis vivere criminibus? (‘to live destroyed by insults I deserved?’), 2.67: Quis suam in alterius condemnet crimine vitam (‘Who condemns his own life to the crime of another person’), El. 3.74: coeperunt natae crimen amare suae (‘they began to favour the sin of their daughter’), El. 4.51: sine crimine vita (‘life without any crime’), and El. 5.73: crimen vitiumque fateri (‘confess our crime and defects’).  Also, cf. El. 5.83: ast ubi dilecti persensit funera membri (‘but, when she realized that her beloved part was dead’).  See Wasyl (2011) 136; Roberts (2018) 7– 8.

2.1 Introduction

33

greatest part is gone’),¹⁰ 1.111: Nunc quod longa mihi gravis est et inutile aetas (‘but now, since my old age is for me something heavy and useless’),¹¹ and 1.125: ad nullum consurgit opus, cum corpore languet (‘it does not rise for any work, it is sluggish along with its body’).¹² Nevertheless, the basic difference between Elegy 1 and Elegies 2 to 5 is that in the latter four poems, Maximianus is presented as a man in love with several women (Lycoris, Aquilina, Candida, and Graia puella, respectively), while in his first poem he renounces the commitment to be with any woman (El. 1.62: nullaque coniugii uincula grata pati, ‘and I could not bear the pleasant marital bonds’, and 1.78: nullaque coniugio digna puella meo, ‘no woman seemed to me worthy of marriage’) – in fact, in Elegy 2 the poet-lover mentions that he had a long-term relationship with Lycoris, El. 2.3: post multos quibus indivisi viximus annos (‘after the many years we lived together inseparably’).¹³ There are some intratextual indicators that link Elegies 1 and 3 as well. The phrase tali de carcere (‘from such a prison’) of El. 1.3 ‘could foreshadow Maximianus’ conversation with Boethius in elegy 3’, as Juster notes.¹⁴ He also writes that the poet’s wish to release his life from his body and not his soul, adds a materialistic perspective to his poetry that comes from Lucretius, and thus Boethius (one of the two main characters in Elegy 3, along with Aquilina), who was familiar with his work.¹⁵ Moreover, the phrases quicquid ferre solebat opem (‘everything that was used to offer help’), and quisquam…praebet amicus opem (‘one friend offers help’) of El. 1.168 and 1.282 might respectively be interpreted as puns on the Greek etymology of Boethius’ name (Boethius < βοηθῶ = help). Perhaps verse 175, nulla levant animum spectacula rerum (‘no public spectacles lighten my soul’), also refers to Boethius, as he was likely responsible for organizing ‘circus games and triumphant parades’.¹⁶ Also, the desire of many Italian parents to marry their daughters with Maximianus recalls the role of Aquilina’s parents in Elegy 3, as well as that of Candida’s father in Elegy 4. The phrase venali corpore (‘body for sale’) of El. 1.63, which I believe refers to Maximianus’ body (in literal

      

See Juster (2018) 106. See Juster (2018) 125. See Juster (2018) 126. See Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 362; Pappas (2017– 2019) 776 – 778. Juster (2018) 106. See Juster (2018) 106. Vitiello (2014) 81.

34

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

or metapoetic terms, as we will see below), could be connected with the bribery of Aquilina’s parents in El. 3.71– 74.¹⁷ Finally, several similes from the animal kingdom remain almost identical throughout Maximianus’ collection, e. g. cf. El. 1.269: Deficiunt validi longaevo tempore tauri (‘strong bulls weaken due to their old age’) and El. 2.47– 48: sub qua decubuit requiescere diligit umbram | taurus (‘the bull lies under the shadow he loves’), El. 1.272: lentaque per senium Caspia tigris erit (‘and the Caspian tiger softens due to old age’) and El. 5.145: tu cogis rabidas affectum discere tigres (‘you force fierce tigers to learn passion’), El. 1.271: racta diu rabidi conpescitur ira leonis (‘the anger of the furious lion for a long time breaks and is limited’) and El. 5.146: per te blandus amans redditur ipse leo (‘thanks to you the lion itself becomes a lustful lover’).

2.2 Elegy 1 and Intertextuality In Elegy 1 Maximianus acts as a laudator temporis acti (he praises his glorious past in comparison to his miserable current situation, i. e. the antithesis olim – hodie or nunc, a practice that is ‘often exploited in erotic elegy’, as Wasyl notes).¹⁸ The poem is characterized by a variatio in motifs, themes, and forms – a general feature of all of Maximianus’ work. Its main subject is a criticism of old age (vituperatio senectutis).¹⁹ Studies and invectives for old age have a long history in Greek and Latin literature (Homer, Mimnermus, Plautus, Cicero’s De Senectute, Horace, Seneca’s Epistles 12 and 26, Juvenal’s 10.187– 288, Pliny the

 See OLD, s.v. venalis-is-e, meaning 3a: ‘That which may be obtained by bribes or dishonest payments’. The truth is that this phrase is much debated among scholars. Although all of Maximianus’ manuscripts have the writing venali corpore, some editors have proposed several corrections to it: vernali corpore, vernanti corpore, iuvenali corpore, etc. Juster (2018) 118 thinks that ‘this line shows Maximianus’ familiarity with the physically, politically, and morally diminished city of Rome’, i. e. that everything was for sale. For such an interpretation of the phrase, see Welsh (2011); Goldlust (2013); Lubian (2017).  Wasyl (2011) 120. See also, Yardley (1979) 156. Cf. Prop. 1.16.1: Quae fueram magnis olim patefacta triumphis (‘I, who was widely open for great triumphs’), and 1.16.5: nunc ego, nocturnis potorum saucia rixis… (‘now, wounded by the night quarrels of drunken men…’).  See Huygens (1954) 20, where he cites the comment of the medieval author of the Accessus ad auctores regarding Maximianus’ work: In hoc autem libro senectutem cum suis viciis vituperat iuventutemque cum suis deliciis exaltat, est enim sua materia tarde senectutis querimonia (‘in this book [he] criticises old age with its defects, and elevates youth with its delights, because the material of his work is the complaint for the old age that came late’).

2.2 Elegy 1 and Intertextuality

35

Elder, etc.).²⁰ For example, in Mimnermus’ fragments we find several ideas on old age, which exist in Maximianus’ poetry as well.²¹ Love is present only parenthetically in verses 59 – 100.²² The feeling of depression is everywhere in the poem. Here the poet is not the typical Augustan poet-lover who enjoys his life and suffers only during his dura domina. ²³ He is a tremulous old man (195: tremulus senex, a phrase that recalls the genre of Roman comedy),²⁴ who no longer wants his life (8: velle mori).²⁵ Maximianus begins his poem by addressing old age: Aemula quid cessas finem properare senectus? Cur et in hoc fesso corpore tarda venis? Solve precor miseram tali de carcere vitam, mors est iam requies, vivere poena mihi. Non sum qui fueram, periit pars maxima nostri, hoc quoque quod superest languor et horror habet. El. 1.1– 6 Envious old age, why are you late to swiftly put an end? Why do you come late to this tired body? Please, release my miserable life from this kind or prison; death is now a respite for

 See Parkin (1998) 33 and Parkin (2003) 87; Cokayne (2003) 55 – 62. For the impact of Cicero’s De Senectute on Maximianus’ work, see D’Amanti (2018b). However, see Wheeler (2015) 142– 14, where he notes: ‘Maximianus disagrees with the praise of old age in Cicero’s De Senectute as a desirable time of life, and concurs with Juvenal’s tenth Satire, which ridicules men who pray to Jupiter for a long life (lines 188 – 288)’. For the feeling of old age and death in Seneca and Maximianus, see Cubeddu (1984).  E. g. for the incompatibility of love and old age, cf. Mimnermus, frg. 1 (West), 2– 3: τεθναίην, ὅτε μοι μηκέτι ταῦτα μέλοι, / κρυπταδίη φιλότης καὶ μείλιχα δῶρα καὶ εὐνή (‘let me die, when I will have no interest in secret love, sweet gifts, and bed’); for the disgust of an old man by men and women, cf. frg. 1 (West), 9: ἀλλ᾽ ἐχθρὸς μὲν παισίν, ἀτίμαστος δὲ γυναιξίν (‘young men hate the old man and women dislike him’). For the desire to die instead of living in old age, cf. frg. 2 (West), 9 – 10: αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν δὴ τοῦτο τέλος παραμείψεται ὥρης, / αὐτίκα δὴ τεθνάναι βέλτιον ἢ βίοτος (‘and when the end of maturity is gone, then death is better than life’), frg. 4 (West), 2: γῆρας, ὃ καὶ θανάτου ῥίγιον ἀργαλέου (‘old age, which is more terrible than the fearful death’). For the ugliness of old age, see frg. 5 (West), 5 – 8: τὸ δ᾽ ἀργαλέον καὶ ἄμορφον / γῆρας ὑπὲρ κεφαλῆς αὐτίχ᾽ ὑπερκρέμαται, / ἐχθρὸν ὁμῶς καὶ ἄτιμον, ὅ τ᾽ ἄγνωστον τιθεῖ ἄνδρα, / βλάπτει δ᾽ ὀφθαλμοὺς καὶ νόον ἀμφιχυθέν (‘the woeful and ugly old age quickly hangs over our head, old age that makes the man enemy and dishonourable, and hurts him by the overwhelming of his eyes and his mind’).  See Wasyl (2011) 120.  See White (2019) 14.  Cf. Plaut. Men. 854: tremulum Tithonum (‘shaking Tithonus’); Ter. Eun. 336: incurvo tremulu (‘curved shaking’).  According to Green (2013) 264, ‘there may be a certain element of self-deprecation at times in the Augustan elegists, but never lamentation or even self-hatred on this scale’.

36

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

me, while life is my punishment. I am not the man I used to be, and my greatest part is gone; sluggishness and fear possess what survives.

The first word of the elegy (and indeed the entire work) is aemula, which means ‘emulous, rival’, or ‘jealous, envious’, or ‘comparable (with)’.²⁶ As Uden and Fielding note, this adjective is cognate with aemulari (‘to imitate’),²⁷ and, therefore, with aemulatio, a term that is related to the process of imitating a literary work or a work of art (imitatio, μίμησις), and simultaneously refers to the competition with it, an intention to surpass the original (superatio).²⁸ Maximianus’ principal models are of course the Augustan elegists (especially Ovid).²⁹ Their temporal distance is huge (500 years), a fact that is highlighted by the adjective tarda (2) that signifies the delay of Maximianus’ poetry, and that of Late Antiquity in general.³⁰ The phrase in verse 5, non sum qui fueram (‘I am not the man I used to be’), which paraphrases Ovid’s words in Tr. 3.11.25: non sum ego quod fueram (‘I am not what I had been’), has a clear intertextual meaning, as several scholars have noted.³¹ The poet from Sulmo uses this phrase because he feels like the living dead in exile, a feeling that Maximianus also experiences in his old age.³² As Uden has noted, the second phrase of the same verse, periit pars maxima nostri (‘my greatest part is gone’) refers to early Ovid, and more specifically to Am. 1.15.42: vivam, parsque mei multa superstes erit (‘I will live, and the biggest part of me will survive’).³³ However, here Maximianus has reversed the Ovidian verse, which expresses an intense optimism for the future, and his eternal literary life (future tenses: vivam…erit). Our poet, full of pessimism, refers to  See OLD, s.v. aemulus -a -um, meanings 1, 2, and 3.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 442. See also, OLD, s.v. aemulor, meaning 4.  See indicatively, Reiff (1959); Conte (1986); Schippers (2019); OCD, s.v. imitatio.  See Bellanova (2004).  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 443.  See Webster (1900) 53; Consolino (1997) 367– 368; Schneider (2003) 72; Uden and Fielding (2010) 442; Wasyl (2011) 122 – 123; Wasyl (2014b) 157; Fielding (2017) 143. See Juster (2018) 107, who notes that Agozzino (1970) 121 and Tyson (1996) 53 cite Prop. 1.12.11: non sum ego qui fueram (‘I myself am not the man I used to be’) and not the Ovidian passage, while Spaltenstein (1983) 81 and Öberg (1999) 184 cite Hor. Carm. 4.1.3: non sum qualis eram (‘I am not the kind of man I used to be’).  According to D’Amanti (2020: 82), the topos of the living dead in exile also occurs in the Hellenistic epigram.  Also, cf. Hor. Carm. 3.30.6 – 7: non omnis moriar multaque pars mei | vitabit Libitinam (‘I will not die entirely, and a great part of me will avoid Persephone’); Ov. Met. 15.875 – 876: parte tamen meliore mei super alta perennis | astra ferar, nomenque erit indelebile nostrum (‘however, I will be borne above the high stars in my best part, and my name will be indelible’); Mart. 10.2.8: et meliore tui parte superstes eris (‘and in your best part you will survive’).

2.2 Elegy 1 and Intertextuality

37

the past (periit). The use of the verb superest (‘it survives’) of verse El. 1.6, which refers to Maximianus’ old age, is linked to Ovid’s adjective superstes of Am. 1.15.42. While Ovid speaks metaphorically, apparently referring to his poetic work, it seems that Maximianus speaks both literally and metaphorically. Primarily, he means the best part of his life (i. e. his youth). In fact, the adjective maxima recalls his own name.³⁴ However, I believe that he also implies a metapoetic reading here, meaning that in his day love elegy was not the same, and the best part of this genre, i. e. the Augustan elegy, is now perished and obsolete. As several scholars have pointed out, the passage from El. 1.1– 6 recalls Boethius’ elegiac prooemium of his Consolatio Philosophiae (1.M1.9 – 16), where he also complains about his miserable old age,³⁵ and as Fielding notes, Maximianus’ phrase fesso corpore (‘tired body’) of El. 1.2 reflects the phrase effeto corpore (‘exhausted body’) by Boethius (1.M1.12).³⁶ Thus, he makes an intratextual connection as well, as he implies the presence of the great philosopher in Elegy 3. The intertextual affinity between Ovid and Elegy 1 (and all of Maximianus’ work) is a subject that has been studied by several scholars, and mainly concerns Ovid’s exilic poetry, the flebilis or tristis elegia (i. e. Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto).³⁷ Also, critics have pointed out that both Maximianus’ Elegy 1 and late Ovid have another feature in common: love is used only parenthetically in these poems (in El. 1 love exists only in verses 59 – 100); as a result, they create ‘an elegy without love’.³⁸ Therefore, our poet and Ovid in his exilic poetry use the elegiac genre with its mournful connotations,³⁹ in order to express their complaints for a past age of prosperity and youth, and the present decline of old age and exile.

 See Uden and Fielding (2010) 443.  See Barnish (1990) 22– 23; Pinotti (1995) 170 – 175; Consolino (1997) 369 – 370; Fielding (2017) 142– 143. For the connection between Maximianus and Boethius, see Wilhelm (1907); Anastasi (1948) and Anastasi (1951); Bertini (1981); Shanzer (1983); Barnish (1990) 21– 32.  See Fielding (2017) 142– 143. Also, cf. Verg. Aen. 4.522– 523: placidum carpebant fessa soporem | corpora per terras (‘tired bodies all over the earth were enjoying peaceful sleep’).  Indicatively, see Webster (1900) 61 and 73; Spaltenstein (1983) 81; Leotta (1989) 81; Schneider (2003) 72; Uden and Fielding (2010) 441– 444; Wasyl (2011) 120 – 126. For intertextuality and the general impact of Ovid on Maximianus, see the excellent study by Fielding (2017) 128 – 181. On the impact of classical elegy on the entire catalogue of Maximianus, see Consolino (1997); Meyers (2003); Goldlust (2011).  See Wasyl (2011) 125). Cf. Ov. Tr. 1.1.67: non sum praeceptor amoris (‘I am not a teacher of love’).  See Pappas (2016a) 13.

38

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

Furthermore, several scholars have underlined the intertextual relation between the poem in question and the poetry of Horace, and Juvenal.⁴⁰ Also, regarding the subject of the inappropriateness of love in old age, it seems that Maximianus was inspired by the Augustan elegists. He confesses that romantic memories are shameful for an old man (El. 1.101– 102: Singula turpe seni quondam quaesita referre, | et quod tunc decuit, iam modo crimen habet, ‘it’s a shame thing for an old man to mention each of these that he once wanted, and what was appropriate back then, now is considered a crime’), just as a shining face and elegant clothes are also shameful for him (El. 1.177– 178: Turpe seni vultus nitidi vestesque decore | quis sine iamque ipsum vivere turpe seni, ‘shameful to the old age are the shining faces and clothes, and to live without this ornament is now shameful to an old man’), statements that contradict his later poems, but agree with the traditional belief of the classical elegists that love is unsuited to old age, cf. Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor (‘it is a shameful thing to love in old age’). The first Augustan elegist that spoke of the unsuitability of love and old age is Tibullus, cf. Tib. 1.1.71– 72: iam subrepet iners aetas, nec amare decebit | dicere non cano blanditias capite (‘soon the sluggish age will creep up, and will not be suitable to love, nor utter lust words, when your head will have white hair’), and 1.2.91– 93: Vidi ego, qui iuvenum miseros lusisset amores, | post Veneris vinclis subdere colla senem | et sibi blanditias tremula componere voce (‘I saw someone who ridiculed the unhappy loves of young men, and later he, an old man, subdued his neck to Venus’ chains and composed blandishments with a tremulous voice’).⁴¹ The use of the adjective tremula in Tibullus’ passage recalls Maximianus’ tremulus senex in El. 1.195.⁴² Between Maximianus, Horace, and Juvenal there are several similarities, not only in particular passages, but also in motifs and themes. For example, the ideal image of his past that Maximianus describes in verses 35 – 40 (he had all the genuine Roman virtues, since he was an excellent orator, athlete, hunter, swimmer, drinker, etc.) reminds us of Horace’s exhortation to his friend Lollius that hunting is a ‘cus-

 Indicatively, see Webster (1900) 58 – 59; Wasyl (2011) 126 – 135.  For the senex amator in Augustan love elegists, and their impact on Maximianus, see Pinotti (1989); Consolino (1997).  Tremulus is a stock epithet for the old, see Tyson (1996) 106. The image of the shaking old man perhaps comes from Roman comedy as well, cf. Plaut. Curc. 160: anus tremula (‘shaking old woman’), and Men. 854: tremulum Tithonum (‘shaking Tithonus’). See Juster (2018) 109, and his comment about the senibus of verse 16, that it ‘is used mostly for men, often in comedy. Based on Maximianus’ language and use of comic conventions, he knew his Plautus; the case for his knowledge of Terence is less clear’. For the interaction of the genre of Roman comedy in Elegy 3, see Chapter 4.

2.2 Elegy 1 and Intertextuality

39

tomary task for Roman men’ (Epist. 1.18.49: Romanis sollemne viris opus).⁴³ Furthermore, our poet’s frugality (El. 1.53 – 54: Pauperiem modico contentus semper amavi | et rerum dominus nil cupiendo fui, ‘always content with little, I loved poverty and, without wishing anything, I was the master of my own property’) is connected with the adoption of poverty by Horace (cf. Carm. 3.2.1: angustam amice pauperiem pati, ‘to suffer the humble poverty friendly’, 3.16.22– 23: nil cupientium…castra peto, ‘I seek the camp of those who desire nothing’, Sat. 2.2.110: contentus parvo, ‘content with little’), a motif with Callimachean connotations.⁴⁴ Moreover, Maximianus’ description of an old man’s character (El. 1.195 – 200) has much in common with that of Horace in Ars P. 169 – 174.⁴⁵ Also, the physical defects of old age (El. 1.136 – 164) are the same as those that Juvenal mentions in Sat. 10.187– 288.⁴⁶ Scholars have spoken of the existence of many loci communes of epitaphs and tombstone vocabulary in Elegy 1.⁴⁷ Verses 9 – 100, where Maximianus narrates his young life, intensively recall epitaphs that contain information for the dead in the first singular person, as he talks about himself.⁴⁸ The phrases that our poet uses, in order to present all the physical and moral advantages of his youth, may be considered as typical exaggerations of the style of tombstone epigrams.⁴⁹ Furthermore, in verses 55 – 58 Maximianus addresses  See Wasyl (2011) 129 – 130.  Poverty has Callimachean associations, as it is related to the rejection of epic and the preference for ‘lighter’ poetic genres. Cf. Tib. 1.5.61– 66: Pauper erit praesto semper, te pauper adibit | primus et in tenero fixus erit latere, | pauper in angusto fidus comes agmine turbae | subicietque manus efficietque viam, | pauper ad occultos furtim deducet amicos | vinclaque de niveo detrahet ipse pede (‘the poor [lover] will always be with you; the poor man will go with you first and will be steadfast at your delicate side; the poor man will be your faithful companion in the crowded throng he will place his hands under you and create a pathway [for you]; the poor man will surreptitiously lead you to secret friends, and he himself will remove the sandals from your snowywhite feet’); Ov. Ars am. 2.165: pauperibus vates ego sum, quia pauper amavi (‘I am the poet of the poor, because I, a poor man, loved’); Claud. DRP 2.300 – 301: reges | depositu luxu turba cum paupere mixti (‘kings, their extravagant splendour laid aside and mingling with the crowd of poor’). For a Callimachean interpretation of Tibullus’ and Claudian’s passages, see Pappas (2016b) 88 – 89 and Pappas (2020) 169 – 170, respectively. Also, see Myers (1996) 13, who notes: ‘poverty expresses a Callimacheanism related to the rejection of the military themes of epic, as well as the rejection of the bombastic style in favour of refined technique and uncommon themes’. On the ‘neo-Alexandrianism’ of late Latin poetry, see Charlet (1988).  See Wasyl (2011) 131– 132 and Wasyl (2014a) 138 – 139.  See Wasyl (2011) 132– 133.  See Webster (1900) 8, 62 and 68; Wasyl (2011) 126 – 128.  See Webster (1900) 62; Tyson (1996) 54; Wasyl (2011) 127.  Maximianus describes how he excelled in several dimensions of life (professional, personal, etc.), cf. El. 1.10: orator toto clarus in orbe fui (‘I was famous orator in the whole world’), 59 – 60: provincia tota | optabat natis me sociare suis (‘the whole province wished to marry me to its

40

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

old age in the second person of the personal and possessive pronoun (Du Stil),⁵⁰ a practice that occurs in the typology of divine hymns (Du Stil),⁵¹ and is also used by the Augustan elegists⁵² as well as by himself,⁵³ apparently aiming at parody, as he presents old age as a deity (Gebetsparodie).

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading From the brief analysis above, we can deduce that Maximianus’ sources for Elegy 1 are several poets from classical Latin literature (Horace, Ovid, Juvenal), and therefore several literary genres (elegy, satire, tombstone epitaph).⁵⁴ Thus, we can easily understand that this poem (and Maximianus’ whole work) agrees with the general trend of the late Latin poets ‘to mix various genres and styles’,⁵⁵ and to create works that are subordinate in the norms of old genres.⁵⁶ The generic interaction (or enrichment), which occurs a great deal in Augustan poets,⁵⁷ is in Late Antiquity an established practice that reveals a deep knowledge of classical Latin poetry and its reception by the late Latin poets. But what is Maximianus’ behaviour towards this technique in Elegy 1? Does he simply follow it in a

daughters’), 64: spectandus cunctis undique virginibus (‘all the girls stared at me from everywhere’), etc. For epigrammatic elements in Maximianus’ Elegies, see Arcaz Pozo (2015).  Cf. El. 1.55: tu me sola subdis (‘only you subdue me to your will’), 57: in te corruimus, tua sunt quaecumque fatiscunt (‘we collapse in front of you, everything that grows weak is yours’), and 58: ultima teque tuo conficis ipsa malo (‘at the end, you damage yourself with your badness’). See White (2019) 13 – 14, who notes for these verses: ‘The innamoramento is grotesquely transformed into the fall into old age’. See also Tyson (1996) 68, who notes for the phrase tu me sola tibi subdis: ‘the irony is potent, if this is modelled on the classical elegiac address to a lover or friend’, and cites several parallels for his view, cf. [Tib]. 3.19.3; Prop. 1.11.23, 2.7.19; Ov. Ars am. 1.42, Rem. am. 464. Also, cf. Prop. 1.16.25: tu sola humanos nusquam miserata dolores (‘only you do not feel sorry for the human pains’), and 35: tu sola mei…doloris (‘you are the only cause of my pain’).  See E. Norden (1913) 143 – 166; Alexiou (22002) 177.  See Chapter 4, footnote 174.  See Chapters 4 and 6.  Maximianus uses legal terms very often in all his work and especially in Elegy 1. See Juster (2018) 116 for res and facta of verse 50, 122 for vindicat of verse 91, 123 for iudicio of verse 100, 125 for condicio of verse 113, 126 for consurgit of verse 125, 127– 128 for commoda of verse 130, 129, for the phrase ratione caret of verse 144, 131 for praestat of verse 160, 132 for damna of verse 164, 134 for the word crimen that is repeated three times in verses 179 – 180, 146 for the phrase violentaque damna of verse 281, and for the verb praebet of verse 282. For this subject, see Fo (1987) 359.  Wasyl (2011) 7.  See Roberts (1989) 38; Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017b).  See Harrison (2007) 1– 2.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

41

manneristic way, or does he use it in order to add his own originality to an aged genre and imply a hidden discourse to it, revealing his metapoetic self-consciousness? I will try to answer these questions in this section. Undoubtedly, two features of the ‘formal repertoire’ of Elegy 1 are elegiac, i. e. its metre (elegiac couplets), and its narrative voice (as the narrator is foregrounded).⁵⁸ However, if we agree that Elegy 1 is a separate poem and not part of an opus continuum, another feature of the ‘formal repertoire’ – the length – is not elegiac at all, since the poem enumerates 292 verses.⁵⁹ Regarding linguistic register, scholars have noted that Maximianus uses elegiac terms in this poem, e. g. languor (6) and languet (125)⁶⁰ – words that he again repeats in his work (El. 3.44: languebam, 5.107: languorem) – tenues (79), mollis (83), gratus/gratia (7: gratissima, 14: grata, 17: gratia, 62: grata, 72: gratusque, 80: grata, 82: gratia, 121: grata, 128: gratia, 139: grata, 155: gratis, 163: grata, 249: gratissima), etc. As for the ‘thematic repertoire’,⁶¹ the theme of Elegy 1 is mainly the poet’s complaints about old age and his wish to die. The general theme of Augustan elegies, i. e. love, is present here only in verses 59 – 100, and does not refer to a particular elegiac puella, but to the love conquests of Maximianus. Our elegiac poet does not desire a dura domina that rejects him, but only wishes to die (El. 1.8: velle mori, 112: sit mihi posse mori, 115: dulce mori miseris, 265: morte mori melius); we would say that death for Maximianus in Elegy 1 is the object of passion that the elegiac puella was for the Augustan love elegists.⁶² Moreover, some thematic conventions of the elegiac genre exist here too. Wasyl and Fielding comment that the afflictions of Maximianus’ old age (pallor in El. 1.134, aversion to food in 159 – 162, weakness in 1.213 – 216, and insomnia in 1.249 – 252) recall the theme of the erotica pathemata that the Augustan elegists (and especially Ovid)⁶³ include in their narration.⁶⁴ White notes that ‘the enumeration of the symptoms of love in Eleg. 1 can be read precisely as a parodic recapitulation

 See Harrison (2007) 23 and 25.  See Harrison (2007) 24– 25.  See Wasyl (2011) 124– 125; Fielding (2017) 145 – 147.  See Harrison (2007) 25 – 27.  See White (2019) 13, where he notes that ‘in Eleg. 1 the unattainable object of desire is not the elegiac puella, but the longed-for embrace of death (111– 14)’.  For the erotica pathemata in Ovid’s Amores, see Nagle (1980) 61– 63; for the similarity of Maximianus’ symptoms to those of Ovid in Tristia, see Fielding (2017) 145 – 146. For parallels between Maximianus’ El. 1.249 – 254 and Ov. Am. 1.2.1– 4, see Bussières (2020) 890 – 891.  See Wasyl (2011) 124– 125; Fielding (2017) 145 – 146. Maximianus uses the theme of the erotica pathemata in his Elegies 3 and 5 too, see Chapters 4 and 6 respectively. Of course, regarding Greek poetry, love symptoms (erotica pathemata) are well-known from Sappho (cf. the famous fr. 31 Lobel-Page) to Theocritus, see Race (1983); Giangrande (1990).

42

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

of the conventions of the youthful elegiac lover’.⁶⁵ The tone of the poem is mournful, as the general atmosphere of the poem (and its words, which work as ‘symbolic metonyms’⁶⁶) proves (e. g. El. 1.3 and 232: precor, 267: queror, 3: miseram, 55: miseranda, 113: miseros, etc.). Also, I believe that verses 1– 6 function as a programmatic opening⁶⁷ that introduces Maximianus’ reader to one of his main subjects, i. e. old age, but mainly (and more importantly) to his hidden metapoetic discourse regarding the evolution (or not) of the elegiac genre in his era. In this context, the adjectives aemula (1) and tarda (2) reflect the aged (1: senectus) elegiac genre of our poet’s time, which tries to compete (aemula) with its classical past, but nevertheless seems to be dying, after an exhausted mass of poetry that came before (El. 1.2: fesso corpore). The elegiac terms (3: precor, miseram, 6: languor), along with the Ovidian reminiscences of verse 5, reinforce the metapoetic usage of this programmatic opening, which ends with an epigrammatic-like acumen that mirrors Maximianus’ agony (6: horror habet) for the elegiac poetry that still remained (6: hoc quoque quod superset), i. e. his own. In Elegy 1, Maximianus ‘plays’ with two temporal levels: a) the present (his old age); and b) the past (his youth). In verses 9 – 100 he describes his youthful activities. I believe that in this passage, the poet predominantly implies a metapoetic discourse aiming to innovate the elegiac genre. In verses 9 – 14, he comments: Dum iuvenile decus, dum mens sensusque maneret orator toto clarus in orbe fui: Saepe poetarum mendacia dulcia finxi, et veros titulos res mihi ficta dabat. Saepe perorata percepi lite coronam, et merui linguae praemia grata meae. El. 1.9 – 14 While I was a young handsome man, while my mind and my senses remained, I was a famous orator all over the world. I often composed sweet lies of the poets, and the fictions I made often brought real glory to me. I often won a wreath for a legal case that I had closed, and I earned pleasant awards for my eloquence.

Maximianus’ boast that he was a famous orator throughout the world (10: orator toto clarus in orbe fui) is of course connected to Ovid’s ambition ‘to be sung all

 White (2019) 13.  See Harrison (2007) 31– 32.  See Harrison (2007) 30 – 31.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

43

over the world’ (Am. 1.15.7: in toto semper ut orbe canar),⁶⁸ and his certainty that this became true at the end of his career (Tr. 4.10.128: in toto plurimus orbe legor, ‘I am the most widely read’). We see that the Ovidian hope for eternal fame in a ‘light’ genre, i. e. elegy, is shifted by Maximianus into a ‘heavy’ genre, i. e. rhetoric. The late Latin poet uses the elegiac distich, a form of a literary genre that belongs to levitas (cf. Callimachus’ Μοῦσα λεπταλέη), in order to speak of his past excellence in a genre of gravitas. ⁶⁹ Afterwards, he announces that he composed sweet lies of the poets (11: poetarum mendacia dulcia finxi) and fictions (12: res […] ficta) recalling the elegiac fiction⁷⁰ that Propertius and Ovid have noted as being the main ingredient of the elegiac genre – Ovid, in particular, spoke many times of the ‘lies of the poets’ (mendacia vatum).⁷¹ I agree entirely with White, who writes that here Maximianus ‘makes a play of the intermingling of autobiography and fictionality (“fallax opus”)’.⁷² Verses 10 – 12 recall Ovid’s statement that his Corinna (i. e. his Amores), which was a pseudonym given by him, was sung throughout Rome (Tr. 4.10.59 – 60: moverat ingenium totam cantata per Urbem | nomine non vero dicta Corinna mihi, ‘she, whose her real name was not Corinna and was named so by me, had stirred my wit throughout Rome’).⁷³

 Also, cf. Ov. Am. 3.15.20: post mea mansurum fata superstes opus (‘after my death my work will survive forever’), Met. 15.875 – 879, Ars am. 2.740: cantetur toto nomen in orbe meum (‘my name will be sung all over the world’), Rem. am. 363: dum toto canter in orbe (‘while I will be sung all over the world’). See Uden and Fielding (2010) 444; Fielding (2017) 146 – 147.  Ovid in Am. 3.1 speaks about gravitas as a feature of Tragedy, and levitas as a feature of Elegy, cf. Am. 3.1.35 – 36: ‘ “Quid gravibus verbis, animosa Tragoedia”, dixit, | “me premis? an numquam non gravis esse potes?” ’ (‘ “Why do you push me with your heavy words, proud Tragedy”, she said, “and why is it you can never be light?” ’), and 41: sum levis, et mecum levis es, mea cura, Cupido (‘I am light, and along with me, Cupid, my care, is light too’) respectively. For gravitas in literature, see OLD, s.v. gravitas, meaning 6. For levitas as main feature of elegy, see Fedelli (1981) 228 – 229; Keith (1994) 28, n. 4); Cairns (2008) 5, 21 and 34; Blanco Mayor (2017) 130, n. 175.  For elegiac fiction, see indicatively Allen (1950); Griffin (1985) 48 – 64; Veyne (1988); Hallett (2012a); Blanco Mayor (2017) 37– 148.  Cf. Prop. 4.1.135: At tu finge elegos, fallax opus: haec tua castra! (‘but you, deceitful art, compose elegies; this is your camp!’); Ov. Am. 3.6.17: prodigiosa loquor veterum mendacia vatum (‘I talk about the marvellous lies of ancient poets’), Am. 3.11a.21: turpia quid referam vanae mendacia linguae (‘what should I refer for the vile lies of my idle tongue’), Fast. 6.253: valeant mendacia vatum (‘the lies of poets have power’), Tr. 2.355 – 356: magnaque pars mendax operum est et ficta meorum | plus sibi permisit compositore suo (‘and most of my poems are deceptive and fictitious and are more permissive than their author’).  White (2019) 14. Consolino (1997) 375 believes that here Maximianus implies that his youthful poetry was non-elegiac.  See White (2019) 14.

44

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

The adjective dulcis (El. 1.11) belongs to the elegiac vocabulary,⁷⁴ and, our poet thus implies that he composed elegies in his youth. Maximianus adds that he was awarded with wreaths and prizes for winning in legal cases due to his eloquence (El. 1.13 – 14: saepe perorata percepi lite coronam | et merui linguae praemia grata meae). The word lis is included in a legal context and ‘refers both to the trial and to its object’.⁷⁵ In other words, it is a term that fits within ‘heavier’ literary genres, such as rhetoric. However, the prizes (corona, praemia) for his rhetorical skills are characterized as grata, a typical elegiac adjective.⁷⁶ In verses 9 – 14 Maximianus presents his writing activity as a young man, when he was composing rhetorical speeches and sweet (love, elegiac) poems. Therefore, he was a representative of solemn (gravitas) and light (levitas) literature. Our poet innovates as an elegiac poet, since he is the only one that was not restricted by the conventions of the elegiac code. Accordingly, he presents himself as a self-conscious poet,⁷⁷ since he reveals to his readers a dominant feature of the elegiac genre, i. e. the elegiac fiction. In verses 21– 50 the elegiac poet writes that he was a skilful archer (El. 1.21– 22: si libuit celeres arcu temptare sagittas, | occubuit telis praeda petita meis, ‘if I liked to fit my shaft arrows to my bow, the spoils I was chasing succumbed to my missiles’), hunter (El. 1.23 – 24: si placuit canibus densos circumdare saltus, | prostravi multas non sine laude feras, ‘if I was pleased to surround the dense woods with my dogs, I killed many beasts, not without praise of course’),

 Cf. Tib. 1.5.31– 32: huc veniet Messalla meus, cui dulcia poma | Delia selectis detrahat arboribus (‘here will come my own Messalla, for whom Delia pulls down sweet fruit from chosen trees’ – a verse that has metapoetic meaning, i. e. my book of elegiac verse (i. e. Delia) will offer to my friend Messalla sweet poems from an excellent poetical mind, see Pappas 2016b: 88), 1.7.47: dulcis tibia cantu (‘sweet, singing flute’); Prop. 1.2.14: et volucres nulla dulcius arte canunt (‘and birds sing sweeter without art’), 12.5 – 6: nec mihi consuetos amplexus nutrit amores | Cynthia, nec nostra dulcis in aure sonat (‘Cynthia does not nourish familiar loves for me in her arms, nor does she sound sweet in my ears’), 2.30b.28: et canere antiqui dulcia furta Jovis (‘and sing the sweet thefts of Jupiter in ancient era’).  See Berger (1953) s.v. lis; OLD, s.v. lis, meaning 1.  See Webster (1900) 69; Wasyl (2011) 120. The noun corona occurs in symposiac poems, and in elegiac context as well, meaning (mainly) the garland of the exclusus amator, cf. Prop. 2.10.22: ponitur his imos ante corona pedes (‘the garland is set before its lowly feet’); Ov. Am. 1.6.38: mecum est in madidis lapsa corona comis (‘with me is a wreath that slips from my wet hair’), 67: at tu, non laetis detracta corona capillis (‘but you, garland, removed from unhappy hair’), Ars am. 1.582: Huic detur capiti missa corona tuo (‘he will have the garland that is removed from your head’), Rem. am. 32: Et tegat ornatas multa corona fores (‘and he covers the ornate entrance with many garlands’). Perhaps here Maximianus implies the process of recitatio that continued to take place in 6th century AD, see Dupont (1997); Winsbury (2009) 99 – 100.  See Papanghelis (22001) 172.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

45

wrestler (El. 1.25 – 26: dulce fuit madidam si fors versare palaestram, | implicui validis lubrica membra toris, ‘it brought me pleasure, if by chance I went to a sweaty gym, to twist my slipping limbs with my strong muscles’), and runner (El. 1.27: nunc agili cursu cunctos anteire solebam, ‘sometimes I used to surpass everyone with my fast running’) – this last phrase perhaps includes a political reading too, as the word cursus (alone or accompanied by the genitive honorum) could be interpreted as someone’s course towards a higher position, along a career path.⁷⁸ This meaning fits Maximianus’ possible offices,⁷⁹ as well as his mission as ambassador to Constantinople in Elegy 5.⁸⁰ Maximianus was durable in all weather conditions (El. 1.35 – 36: vertice nudato ventos pluviasque ferebam, | non mihi solstitium, non grave frigus erat, ‘with my naked neck I could withstand the winds and the rain; the heat did not hurt me, nor did the cold’), which are similar to the circumstances that the exclusus amator had to endure outside the door of his beloved.⁸¹ He was a fearless swimmer in the frozen water of the Tiber (El. 1.37– 38: innabam gelidas Tiberini gurgitis undas, | nec timui dubio credere membra freto, ‘I swam in the cold waves of Tiber’s swirl, and I was not afraid to entrust my limbs to its treacherous channel’), and he did not suffer from lack of sleep or food (El. 1.39 – 40: quamvis exiguo poteram requiescere somno | et quamvis modico membra fovere civo, ‘although I could rest with a short sleep, and although I could nourish my body with little food’), abilities that match his young age, and are simultaneously symptoms of love (erotica pathemata) and fit with a poet-lover. Furthermore, he was invincible at drinking wine, and even Bacchus was no match for him (El. 1.41– 44: at si me subito vinosus repperit hospes | aut fecit laetus sumere multa dies, | cessit et ipse pater Bacchus stupuitque bibentem | et, qui cuncta solet vincere, victus abit (‘and if suddenly a drunken friend found me outside or happy, and made me drink for many days, even father Bacchus was impressed with my drinking ability and yielded, and he, who was used to defeating everyone, left defeated’). Here Maximianus echoes all the virtues that characterise a proper vir Romanus, reminding us of Horace’s exhortation to his friend Lollius that these activities are the ‘solemn duty of Roman men’

 See Berger (1953) s.v. cursus honorum; OLD, s.v. cursus, meaning 9; OCD, s.v. cursus honorum.  See Chapter 1.  See Chapter 6.  Indicatively, cf. Tib. 1.2.31– 32: non mihi pigra nocent hibernae frigora noctis, | non mihi, cum multa decidit imber aqua (‘neither the sluggish cold of the winter night hurt me, nor the rain, when it drops a lot of water on me’); Prop. 1.16.25 – 26: me mediae noctes, me sidera prona iacentem, | frigidaque Eoo me dolet aura gelu (‘midnight, the stars sinking to rest, and the icy winds of chill dawn feel sorry for me’); Ov. Am. 2.19.22: longa pruinosa frigora nocte pati (‘I suffer the frosty cold during the long night’).

46

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

(Hor. Epist. 1.18.49: Romanis sollemne viris opus). In fact, the Augustan poet contrasts hunting and battle to poetry composition; a young Roman man who wants to excel in politics must prefer such activities and not the Muse.⁸² The young Maximianus had a great excess of these genuine Roman virtues. Therefore, he participates in the active (political) life (vita activa) and is a representative of the negotium. Accordingly, some of his talents fit both the amatory life and otium (his abilities to endure bad weather, little sleep, etc.). In the following passage, Maximianus mentions another talent he had during his youth. He was a tragic poet: Nunc agili cursu cunctos anteire solebam, nunc tragico cantus exsuperare melo. Augebat meritum dulcis mixtura bonorum, ut semper varium plus micat artis opus; nam quaecumque solent per se perpensa placere, alterno potius iuncta decore placent. El. 1.27– 32 Sometimes I used to surpass everyone with my fast running, sometimes I excelled in poetry with my tragic songs. The sweet mixture of my virtues increased my value, since variety always makes a work of art shine brighter; because these things that are carefully balanced by themselves are usually agreeable and are more pleasant when they are combined with alternate grace.

Once more, Maximianus says that he combined an athletic lifestyle (running, 27: agili cursu) with the composition of tragic poetry (28: tragico cantus…melo). As above, the poet underlines that he mixed two different ways of life, i. e. the vita activa with the vita contemplativa, therefore the negotium with the otium, respectively. No one Augustan elegist combined these two different and opposite activities. Furthermore, Maximianus clearly says that – besides elegy (cf. El. 1.11– 12, and 129: non blanda poemata fingo, ‘I do not compose lascivious poems’, as the adjective blandus is associated with the elegiac genre)⁸³ – he composed tragic poems as well, reminding us of his master, Ovid (cf. his Medea), but not the other classical elegists. Maximianus presents himself as an epic persona (he is, after all, the model of a Roman citizen), but simultaneously one who cul-

 Cf. Hor. Epist. 1.18.47: surge et inhumanae senium depone Camenae (‘raise and expel the melancholy of the uncivilized Muse’), and 1.18.52– 54: adde, virilia quod speciosius arma | non est qui tractet; scis, quo clamore coronae | proelia sustineas campestria (‘add that there is no one who uses the manly weapons more gracefully; you know with what cheerful shouts you compete on the Campus’). See Wasyl (2011) 129 – 130; Fielding (2017) 149.  Cf. Ov. Rem. am. 379: blanda Elegia (‘lascivious Elegy’). See White (2019) 14.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

47

tivates poetic art – a feature that is opposed to Horace’s advice to Lollius. Moreover, he mixes ‘heavy’ literary genres (tragedy) with ‘light’ ones (elegy). This combination of theory (literature) and practice (his way of life) is explicitly stated in verses 29 – 30, where he speaks about the mixture of his virtues (29: mixtura bonorum). I believe that here Maximianus is implying the mixture of literary genres that exists in his work and in the poetry of Late Antiquity in general.⁸⁴ This mixture adds the feature of variation (30: varium)⁸⁵ to a work of art (El. 1.30: ut semper varium plus micat artis opus, ‘since variety always makes a work of art shine brighter’), and therefore to a literary work.⁸⁶ In verses 31– 32 the poet mentions again the process of mixture (see El. 1.32: iuncta). The things that are mixed here, ‘are carefully balanced by themselves’ (El. 1.31: per se perpensa) – a phrase that could refer to the verses of poems. Thus, these verses ‘are more pleasant when they are combined with alternate grace’ (El. 1.32: alterno potius iuncta decore placent). The truth is that this is an obscure passage. I believe that its interpretation is hidden in the adjective alterno that – among other meanings – means the alternation of verses in poetry, and more specifically the alternation of the hexameter and pentameter in the elegiac genre.⁸⁷ I believe that in this particular distich a hidden metapoetic discourse exists. The ‘carefully balanced by themselves’ verses are those of the ‘high’ literary genres (of epic or tragic poetry), while those that alternate with each other belong to the ‘light’ elegiac genre. In other words, what Maximianus says is that, as a poet, he combined the gravitas with the levitas in the sphere of experiential reality (e. g. if he wrote other works,

 See Schneider (2001) 460 – 461; Schneider (2003) 36 – 40; Wasyl (2011) 119. After all, we must not forget that Maximianus’ master, Ovid, combined elegiac with epic poetry, see Bellanova (2004).  See OLD, s.v. varius1-a-um, meaning 2b.  See Roberts (1989) 50 – 51 and 56 – 57; Schneider (2001) 461.  For this use of word alternus, see TLL, s.v. alternus, -a, -um, 1: 1756: http://publikationen. badw.de/en/thesaurus/lemmata#6162 (seen 17.11. 2020); OLD, s.v. alternus-a-um, meaning 1c. Cf. Ov. Fast. 2.121: dum canimus sacras alterno pectine Nonas (‘while I sing the sacred Nones in alternating verse’), Tr. 3.7.9 – 10: et tamen ad Musas, quamvis nocuere, reverti, aptaque in alternos cogere verba pedes (‘and, however, I return to the Muses, although they harmed me, and I am forced to words that fit to alternating feet’). Also, cf. Cic. Arch. 3.50.193: quod epigramma in eum fecisset, tantummodo alternis versibus longiusculis (‘because he had made an epigram on him, only with little longer and alternating verses’); Prop. 1.10.9 – 10: non tamen a vestro potui secedere lusu: | tantus in alternis vocibus ardor erat (‘however, I could not recede from your play: | so big was the passion in the alternating words’). As several scholars have noted, this Propertian line is perhaps an ‘amoeban verse’ (OCD, s.v. amoeban verse), i. e. the poetic form in which two characters sing single verses, distiches or stanzas in rotation, as if they are talking or competing with each other, a practice very common in the pastoral poetry of Theocritus and Virgil, see Ross (1975) 83 – 84; O’Hara (1989) 561– 562; Sharrock (1990) 570 – 571.

48

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

such as tragedies), or in the content of the existing collection itself, since he produces a generic mixture that places a serious subject, such as old age, in a light form, i. e. the genre of love elegy. Once more, we can deduce that the elegist of Late Antiquity innovates in comparison to his Augustan models, as he combines the ‘heavy’ literary genres with the ‘light’ (i. e. of Callimachean origin) ones. At the same time, it is proven that he is a self-conscious poet, as he reveals to his reader this process of the ‘sweet mixture’ (El. 1.29: dulcis mixtura), which is connected to the ‘sweet lies of the poets’ (El. 1.11: poetarum mendacia dulcia).⁸⁸ This metapoetic discourse for the mixture of vita activa with vita contemplativa and, therefore, for the interplay of literary genres, is placed in two other couplets, in El. 1.45 – 46 and 51– 52: Haut facile est animum tantis inflectere rebus, ut res oppositas mens ferat una duas. El. 1.45 – 46 It’s not easy to bend your soul in such great things, to make the mind bear two opposing lifestyles as one.

and Intrepidus quaecumque forent adversa ferebam, cedebant animo tristia cuncta meo. El. 1.51– 52 Unshaken, wherever things led me, I was on both opposed sides, and all the sad situations were receding from my mind.

In these two passages, Maximianus highlights the degree of difficulty that exists in the combination of two such different theories (negotium and otium) on an experiential and poetic level (gravitas and levitas, i. e. ‘high’ and ‘light’ literature). The mixture of these two opposing ways of life (46: res oppositas…duas, and 51: quaecumque forent adversa) corresponds to the combination of politic (cf. Roman virtues in Elegy 1, Maximianus’ diplomatic mission in Elegy 5), and poetic lives that characterises our late Latin poet and makes him different from the Augustan elegists. In fact, perhaps this combination offered to Pomponius Gauricus an extra argument for attributing the Elegies to Cornelius Gallus, and has caused several editors and readers of the Renaissance to consider that this work belonged to the lost first elegist, who was also a politician and a poet.⁸⁹ In the

 See above, footnote 71.  See Chapter 1; White (2019) 6 – 7 and 19 – 24.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

49

two aforementioned passages Maximianus implies the generic interplay that exists in almost all of his Elegies (see the next Chapters), as he has told us already that he, a political/epic persona, composed lyric songs of tragedy (El. 1.28: tragico cantus exsuperare melo), and elegiac poems (El. 1.11: poetarum mendacia dulcia). Here our poet praises his talent and simultaneously shows off its originality. In order to underline this talent of combining different ways of life, he mentions that Socrates and Cato (probably Cato the Elder)⁹⁰ had the same ability, cf. El. 1.47– 49: Hoc quoque virtutum quondam certamine magnum | Socratem palmam promeruisse ferunt, | hinc etiam rigidum memorant valuisse Catonem (‘and they say that great Socrates once earned a palm for this struggle of virtues, and they remind us that even stern Cato had this power too’). Here Maximianus uses two ‘Alexandrian footnotes’, i. e. the words ferunt (47) and memorant (49),⁹¹ and this passage reminds us of Horace’s Carm. 3.21.9 – 12, as several scholars have noted.⁹² It may also recall the same poet’s Sat. 1.2.31– 35, where he included the well-known story of Cato’s praise and simultaneous condemnation of a man who frequently went to a brothel.⁹³ In this way, he adds an extra prestige to his own personality, since the great Socrates and Cato shared these features. Accordingly, we must not forget that they represent the ‘high’ literary genres (gravitas), philosophy and historiography. Maximianus only introduces (almost parenthetically) amatory words and themes in passage El. 1.59 – 100.⁹⁴ This practice is very different from the typical behaviour of the Augustan elegists, since love is the main subject of the elegiac code. The poet presents himself as the object of passion for many girls of Rome’s high society (64: virginibus), girls that admired him from all the corners of the city as he walked, but were rather shy to look him in his eyes (El. 1.59 – 70). Their parents longed to make him their son-in-law, but he, uncommitted, was always a fiancé, never a husband, remaining always pure in his heart. After all, he did not find any woman attractive enough. Thus, he lived alone in his wifeless bed (El. 1.71– 78). Afterwards, Maximianus describes his ideal model of female beauty: he preferred thin women, but not skinny, and did not like those who had white faces; black eyes and red lips were his favourite, etc. (El. 1.79 – 100). Undoubtedly, this passage contradicts Maximianus’ other Elegies. Here, the poet presents himself as the ideal son-in-law, the man that every parent wished

 See Juster (2018) 116, who notes that the adjective rigidus is standard for any Cato, but supports that here it is likely Cato the Censor who is implied.  See Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; Sharrock (2018) 22– 26.  See Webster (1900) 66; Green (2000) 449; Wasyl (2011) 130.  See Juster (2018) 116.  See Wasyl (2011) 120.

50

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

for their daughter. In Elegy 3, Aquilina’s parents accept him as their daughter’s lover only after Boethius has bribed them, and in Elegy 4 Maximianus is afraid that Candida’s father had listened to him as he slept. Furthermore, he states that he condemned girls with white faces (El. 1.89: candida contempsi), but in Elegy 4 he is in love with Candida (‘the white, shining one’). Also, while in our poem he declares that ‘not one girl was worthy of his marriage’ (El. 1.78: nullaque coniugio digna puella meo), in Elegy 2 he says that he and Lycoris ‘lived unseparated together for a long time’ (2.3: post multos quibus indivisi viximus annos). Finally, in Elegies 2, 3, 4, and 5 Maximianus describes his romantic adventures with particular women, but in Elegy 1 he states clearly that he remained ‘a cold bachelor in a wifeless bed’ (El. 1.76: permansi viduo frigidus usque toro). These verses reveal to us that Maximianus is not the traditional elegiac poetlover. His amatory profile is not that of the Augustan elegists. One of the dominant features of classical love elegy, illicit love (furtivus amor), is absent from this poem. Our poet is the ideal son-in-law for the virgins of the Roman elite, sought after and acceptable by their parents, who are not included in the obstacles of love (impedimenta amoris) anymore. Other elegiac obstacles (such as leno, vir, custos, and ianitor) do not exist. Furthermore, the girls of Elegy 1 are no longer the elegiac puellae, libertine meretrices of Greek origin (like the Graia puella of Elegy 5); they are anonymous and placed entirely in the margins of Maximianus’ narration. The main motifs of the elegiac genre, the militia amoris and the servitium amoris, are also absent.⁹⁵ The poet-lover is not a slave to his dura domina; instead, he is a durus dominus (El. 1.74: durus eram) that rejects all his possible mates (El. 1.78: nullaque coniugio digna puella meo). With a strongly narcissistic mood, he acts like a lover of himself. Even some typical adjectives that were used by the Augustan elegists (and himself) for the elegiac puella, such as grata and formosa,⁹⁶ are now attached to himself, the poet-lover

 For militia amoris, see indicatively Murgatroyd (1975); Drinkwater (2013a). For servitium amoris, see indicatively Copley (1947); Lyne (1979); Murgatroyd (1981); Fulkerson (2013).  See See Spaltenstein (1983) 104; Wasyl (2011) 120 – 121; Juster (2018) 119. Cf. El. 2.1: formosa Lycoris (‘beautiful Lycoris’), and 5.16: grata micans oculis nec minus arte placens (‘graceful, with shining eyes and no less pleasant from her art’). For the adjective formosa, cf. Tib. 1.1.55: me retinent vinctum formosae vincla puellae (‘the ties of a beautiful girl keep me tied up’); Prop. 1.15.8: ut formosa novo quae parat ire viro (‘like a beautiful woman that prepares to go with a new lover’), 1.19.13: illic formosae veniant chorus heroinae (‘let the chorus of beautiful heroines go there’); Ov. Am. 1.6.63: non te formosae decuit servare puellae (‘it does not suit you to guard a beautiful girl’), 1.9.43: impulit ignavum formosae cura puellae (‘the love for a beautiful girl drove the lazy man’). For the adjective grata, cf. Tib. 1.9.84: et grata sis, dea, mente rogat (‘and asks you, goddess, to be grateful to him in spirit’); Ov. Am. 1.10.33: Venus ex aequo ventura est grata duobus (‘love that is going to come pleases both sides alike’), Her. 13.105: nox grata

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

51

(El. 1.71– 72: Sic cunctis formosus ego gratusque videbar | omnibus, ‘thus, everyone was looking on me as a handsome man, I was pleasant for all’). Therefore, in Elegy 1 Maximianus presents himself as if he never were an exclusus amator, since no woman ever hurt him nor denied him her love. He was never hindered by obstacles of love in his amatory life, so he was never a typical elegiac lover who experienced the failure of love. He chose not to be attached to a single woman and rejected them all. Thus, he subverts the nature of the elegiac vanity itself, and proves that he is a true innovator of the genre.⁹⁷ In this poem, he uses the elegiac distich not to express his amatory complaints, but to offer an (epic) praise of his amatory identity. As with verses El. 1.10 – 12, verses El. 1.63 – 64 (Ibam per mediam venali corpore Romam | spectandus cunctis undique virginibus, ‘I was walking in the centre of Rome with my body for sale, admired everywhere by all the girls’) also recall Ov. Tr. 4.10.59 – 60: moverat ingenium totam cantata per Urbem | nomine non vero dicta Corinna mihi (‘she, whose her real name was not Corinna and was named so by me, had stirred my wit throughout Rome’). Here Ovid means that Corinna, his scripta puella in Amores, and metonymically this poetic collection, was widely known in Rome. I believe that in Maximianus’ passage the poet identifies himself with his poetry imitating Corinna’s similar identification in the Ovidian verses. The phrase venali corpore (El. 1.63) probably implies a metapoetic reading, as the noun corpus may be interpreted as a ‘compendium of literary writings’,⁹⁸ thus a poetic collection. In fact, it seems that Ovid again likely used the same word in the same meaning to signify the process of reduction of the five books of his Amores to three in their second edition (Ov. Am. 1.6.5 – 6: longus amor tales corpus tenuavit in usus | aptaque subducto pondere membra dedit, ‘long-term love thinned my body for such use, and made my limbs apt with re-

puellis (‘the night delightful to girls’), Ars am. 1.275: utque viro furtiva Venus, sic grata puellae (‘as for the man, so for the girl, Venus is grateful’). However, Virgil uses the adjective formosus for men, cf. Ecl. 2.1: formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin (‘Corydon the herdsman burned for handsome Alexis’), 5.44: formosi pecoris custos formosior ipse (‘the shepherd himself was more handsome than the lovely flock’), 5.86: formosum Corydon ardebat Alexim (‘Corydon burned for handsome Alexis’), and 5.89 – 90: non tulit Antigenes…formosum paribus nodis atque aere, Menalca (‘Antigenes did not carry off a handsome one with similar knots and bronze’). Medea uses the same adjective for Jason in Ov. Her. 12.35 – 36: et formosus eras et me mea fata trahebant: | abstulerant oculi lumina nostra tui (‘and you were handsome, and my fate carried me away; my eyes were ravished by yours’), see Michalopoulos (2021) 67. For formosa puella in Catullus and Roman elegists, see Nikolaidis (1994).  Bussières (2020) 889.  See OLD, s.v. corpus, meaning 16a.

52

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

duced weight’).⁹⁹ In this context, verses 63 – 64 could be interpreted as testifying to the circulation of our poet’s work, which was remarkable (64: spectandus), known everywhere and by everyone (65: cunctis undique virginibus), as if it were ‘on the market’ (63: venali).¹⁰⁰ Maximianus never married a woman, but he was a fiancé to all women, a sponsus generalis (El. 1.72). Juster combines this statement with the famous words of Graia puella in Elegy 5.110: non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos, and believes that with these two phrases Maximianus contrasts ‘the earlier vision of order and optimism with the later vision of decay and despair’.¹⁰¹ As I note in the analysis of Elegy 5,¹⁰² I think that these two passages indeed communicate, but on a metapoetic level too. The key word for this reading is the adjective generalis, which can also be interpreted as ‘generic’.¹⁰³ In this context, the phrase sponsus generalis could mean ‘a poet who is only a fiancé of several literary genres’, and never a permanent husband of one particular genre (El. 1.73: sed tantum sponsus, ‘but only a fiancé’). In other words, I believe that here Maximianus implies the generic interaction that takes place in his poetry, a practice that allows him to draw features, motifs, and personae from several literary genres and combine them, without being absolutely ‘stuck’ in the norms and restrictions of the love elegy. The features of ideal female beauty (El. 1.79 – 100) are that of a typical elegiac puella, as Maximianus’ master, Ovid, had described them.¹⁰⁴ As several scholars have noted, our poet’s description recalls Ovid’s advice to a lover in Remedia amoris, in order to be cured of love.¹⁰⁵ Verses 77– 80 include a hidden metapoetic reading: Omnis foeda mihi atque omnis mihi rustica visa est, nullaque coniugio digna puella meo. Horrebam tenues, horrebam corpore pingues; non mihi grata brevis, non mihi longa fuit. El. 1.77– 80

 See Pappas (2016a) 125 – 126.  Juster (2018) 118 believes that by venali corpore Maximianus refers to female flesh.  Juster (2018) 191– 192.  See Chapter 6.  See OLD, s.v. generalis-is-e, meaning 1a.  Cf. Ov. Am. 2.4, 3.3 – 10, Ars am. 3.263 – 288.  See Webster (1900) 69; Spaltenstein (1983) 108; Consolino (1997) 374– 375; Fielding (2017) 150.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

53

Every woman was ugly and inelegant to me and no one seemed to me worthy of marriage. I shuddered at the plump women, I shuddered at those who were fat. I did not like the short nor the tall ones.

While Ovid states that ‘there are a hundred causes that make him be in love’ (Am. 2.4.10: centum sunt causae, cur ego semper amem) and assures his reader that every woman can satisfy a man (cf. Ars am. 2.658 – 662 and 3.263 – 288), Maximianus writes that ‘every woman was ugly and inelegant to him’ (El. 1.77: omnis foeda mihi atque omnis mihi rustica visa est). As Fielding notes, by using the word foeda Maximianus ‘recalls Ovid’s personified Elegy and her boast that even Venus would be “inelegant” without her (Am. 3.1.43 rustica sit sine me lascivi mater Amoris)’.¹⁰⁶ The word rustica (and, therefore, rusticitas) was a terminus technicus to rhetoric and poetry. In rhetoric it meant the provincial, rural style of speech (opposite to urbanitas), while in poetry it signified ‘the quality of being a countryside bumpkin’,¹⁰⁷ and the genre of pastoral poetry.¹⁰⁸ The terms tenues, pingues, brevis, and longa in verses El. 1.79 – 80 are strongly metapoetic. The adjective tenuis is for the Roman elegists a synonym of Callimachus’ leptotes (λεπτόν), and accordingly a term in rhetoric referring to a speech’s style (tenue).¹⁰⁹ On the contrary, pingues represents its stylistic opposite and has an anti-Callimachean meaning, representing the broad and boastful literary works, i. e. the epic genre.¹¹⁰ Furthermore, the adjectives brevis and longa appear to correspond to the elegiac couplet, where longa refers to the hexameter and brevis to the pentameter, and here Maximianus again follows Ovid, more precisely Am. 2.4.36: conveniunt voto longa brevisque meo (‘tall and short are convenient for my desire’).¹¹¹ In this context, verses 79 – 80 can be interpreted as Maximianus’ declaration that during his youth he did not want to use the elegiac metrics (80: brevis…longa) in ‘light’ themes (79: tenues), such as love, nor in ‘heavy’ ones (79: pingues), as we know that in Late Antiquity the elegiac metre was used for these subjects too, e. g. in Christian poetry.¹¹² He wanted a woman that was gracilem (‘thin’, in El. 1.85), a term that is synonymous with tenuis in metapoetic

 Fielding (2017) 150.  See Miller (2002) 18. For a similar usage of rusticitas in El. 3.8: rusticitate mea, see Chapter 4. For rusticitas in Tibullus and Persius, see Tzounakas (2006).  Karakasis (2016) 55, and n. 35.  See Lausberg (1998) 472– 473; Keith (1999).  See Fielding (2017) 172, n. 181 and n. 182. See also, Papanghelis (1991). For a similar usage of pinguis in El. 5.30: pingue femur, see Chapter 6.  For the Ovidian verse, see Keith (1994) 34. For its connection with Maximianus’ El. 1.80, see Agozzino (1970) 132; Spaltenstein (1983) 108; Bellanova (2004) 115; Fielding (2017) 150 – 151.  See Uden (2012) 465 – 469; Green (2013).

54

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

terms,¹¹³ but he preferred to play only with women of medium size (El. 1.81: Cum media tantum dilexi ludere forma, ‘I loved to play only with women of medium size’). The verb ludere recalls the term lusus, that the Augustan elegists used for their poems. In this sense, it seems to me that Maximianus implies the generic mixture that takes place in his poetry (tenues + pingues = media forma), and in the poetry of his era in general. Moreover, he perhaps implies the mixture of ‘light’ (love) and ‘serious’ (old age) themes in his work.¹¹⁴ This mixture is condensed in verse El. 1.105, where Maximianus says that ‘a young man likes the folly, but an old man the sternness’ (Exultat levitate puer, gravitate senectus). The juxtaposition of levitas (‘light’ genres, i. e. elegy, and simultaneously themes that are appropriate to youth (puer), like love) and gravitas (‘serious’ genres, i. e. epic, and accordingly themes that are appropriate to old age (senectus), like death and senectus mundi) clearly shows the generic interaction and the mixture of motifs in Maximianus’ poetry. This mixture of the principal subjects of Maximianus’ poetry, i. e. love and old age, and thus levitas and gravitas, is implied by the coexistence of figures that are strong indicators of these motifs and genres in Elegy 1: Bacchus and Venus represent love and the elegiac genre (cf. El. 1.43: ipse pater Bacchus, ‘father Bacchus himself’, 91– 92: Hunc Venus ante alios sibi vindicat ipsa colorem, | diligit et florem Cypris ubique suum, ‘Venus herself prefers this colour before others for herself, and the Cyprian goddess loves her flower, wherever it grows’, 163: Non Veneris, non grata mihi sunt munera Bacchi, ‘neither Venus’, nor Bacchus’ presents are pleasant for me’).¹¹⁵ Socrates and Cato represent the ‘high’ literary genres of philosophy and historiography respectively, but have connotations regarding youth and old age, if we recall that one of the main accusations against Socrates was that he corrupted young men’s morality, and that in Cicero’s work, Cato loaned his name to old age (Cato Maior de Senectute). Moreover, the presence of Tantalus (El. 1.185) and Ladon, the serpent that guarded the Apples of the Hesperides (El. 1.189 – 190: sicut in auricomis dependens plurimus hortis | pervigil observat non sua pomo draco, ‘like the big snake that crawls in the gardens with the gold leaves and vigilantly guards the apples that do not belong to him’) at first glance adds an epic character to the poem (cf. Hom.

 See OLD, s.v. gracilis-is-e, meaning 4a. See also, Fielding (2017) 150, n. 95.  For a possible connection between El. 1.90 and Fast. 5.194 and a reminiscence of the goddess Flora, see Fielding (2017) 151. For the similarities between El. 1.89 – 100 and the poem Lydia bella puella candida, which was printed together with Maximianus’ Elegies in Gauricus’ edition in 1502 (see Chapter 1), see White (2019) 27– 28. As White (2019) 27, and 29, n. 7 notes, this passage by Maximianus was frequently imitated in the Middle Ages.  See Carlson (2016) 6, where he supports that impotence is implied in El. 1.163.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

55

Od. 11.582– 592 and Hercules’ labours), but it also gives an elegiac tint, since the myth of Tantalus’ and Hercules’ personae were also used in elegies (cf. Ov. Am. 2.2.44, 3.12.30 and Ars am. 2.606 for Tantalus, and Prop. 4.9 for Hercules).¹¹⁶ Furthermore, the use of the adjective pervigil for Ladon is Ovidian (cf. Ov. Her. 6.15: pervigilem draconem, 12.60: pervigil anguis, Met. 7.149: pervigilem…draconem) and offers an extra elegiac hint, as it recalls the character of the custos of the elegiac puella, who ought to be vigilant (cf. Ov. Am. 1.6.44: pervigil in mediae sidera noctis eras, ‘you were a vigilant guard during the stars of the midnight’), and especially the main task of the exclusus amator, namely to be vigilant (pervigilium) outside his sweethearts’ door (paraclausithyron).¹¹⁷ Fielding has definitively proved the strong intertextual relationship between Maximianus’ El. 1.223 – 230, and several passages of Ovid’s Tr. 4.1 and 4.2, where the poet in exile says that he suffers from Lethean oblivion and finds no pleasure in writing anymore.¹¹⁸ I believe that this intertextual relation is highlighted by the use of meminisse (El. 1.124), which serves as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ in the aforementioned Ovidian poems.¹¹⁹ The phrase ad nullum consurgit opus (‘it does not get up for any work’) of El. 1.125 has an ambiguous meaning, as the word opus has both a sexual and a metapoetic meaning, as it could be interpreted as a penis, or as a literary work.¹²⁰ Verses El. 1.127– 130 refer to Maximianus’ specialised professional profile, as he was the only elegist to combine elegiac poetry with rhetoric: Carmina nulla cano, cantandi summa voluptas effugit et vocis gratia vera perit. Non fora sollicito, non blanda poemata fingo, litibus aut rabidis commoda dura sequor. El. 1.127– 130 I do not sing any songs, my great joy for singing is lost and the true grace of my voice is lost. I do not arise the courts, nor do I compose lustful poems, nor do I pursue cruel awards with savage suits.

Maximianus states that now, during his old age, he does not compose poems (El. 1.127: carmina nulla cano) anymore, and that he has lost his previous talent

 It is true that Maximianus rarely uses myths in his poetry, cf. El. 5.19 – 22, 39 – 42, and 45 – 46. See Wasyl (2011) 152.  See Copley (1956). It also recalls the figure of the senex comicus, who keeps a constant vigil and is anxious for his possessions, see D’Amanti (2020) 182.  See Fielding (2017) 147– 148.  See Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; Sharrock (2018) 22– 26.  See Adams (1982) 157; Juster (2018) 126. See OLD, s.v. opus, meaning 9.

56

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

for giving speeches (El. 1.128: vocis gratia vera perit). He does not compose elegiac poems (129: non blanda poemata fingo, cf. Ov. Rem. am. 379: blanda Elegia) anymore,¹²¹ nor is he awarded for his oratory skills. Once more, he reveals how different he is in comparison to Augustan elegists: he was an elegiac poet (levitas), but also a man of action (gravitas). Moreover, I believe that here Maximianus makes a possible distinction between the reality of his rhetoric talent (28: vera) and the fiction (29: fingo) of his elegiac poems. The words and phrases carmina, cantandi, and blanda poemata fingo are metapoetic, and signify the elegiac production of our poet. They also have a strong intratextual connection with El. 5.17– 18: docta loqui digitis et carmina fingere docta | et responsuram sollicitare lyram (‘she [the Greek girl] was trained to speak with her fingers, trained to write verses and played her lyre that was ready to respond’), and 5.101– 102: Nil tibi blanditiae, nil dulcia carmina prosunt, | non quicquid mentem sollicitare solet (‘neither my blandishments, nor my sweet songs benefit you at all, nor anything that used to stimulated your mind’). In the first passage, Maximianus presents the poetic talents of the Greek girl, who, as is implied in the second passage (and as I will attempt to demonstrate),¹²² is Elegy personified in our poet’s era, who describes its own death and highlights the need for innovation in the genre. Several words in these three passages are the same (cf. El. 1.127: carmina, 129: sollicito…blanda…fingo, and 5.17: carmina fingere, 18: sollicitare, 5.101: blanditiae…carmina, 102: sollicitare). If we read all these passages in combination, we understand that what Maximianus is trying to say is that in his day he could no longer compose elegiac poems as he once did (El. 1.127– 130), because elegy (as it is described in El. 5.17– 18) was considered an obsolete literary genre (El. 5.101– 102). Once again, he reveals his metapoetic self-consciousness. In addition to all of the above, in verse 179 Maximianus states that ‘it is a crime to love jokes, a crime to love feasts and songs’ (El. 1.179: Crimen amare iocos, crimen convivia, cantus). The literal meaning of this phrase is that the joys of life are forbidden for an old man. Its metapoetic reading is that in his day, it was a true crime to write love poetry (amare, cf. Gallus’ and Ovid’s Amores), whose traditional themes were the jokes, symposia and songs. The word iocus has poetological connotations that recall Ovid’s playful Muse (cf. Ov. Rem. am. 387: materiae respondet Musa iocosae, ‘my Muse corresponds to playful matters’, Tr. 2.354: Musa iocosa mea, ‘my playful Muse’); symposia are a typical setting for an elegy (cf. Tib. 1.9.61: illam saepe ferunt convivia ducere Baccho, ‘they say that she often led the feasts with wine’, 2.3.47: at tibi laeta tra-

 See James (2003b) 247.  See Chapter 6.

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

57

hant Samiae convivia testae, ‘but let the joyful feasts attract only Samian wine for you’; Prop. 2.30b: ista senes licet accusent convivia duri, ‘even if the cruel old men accuse the feasts themselves’, 3.10.25: dulciaque ingratos adimant convivia somnos, ‘and let sweet banquets remove the unpleasant sleep’; Ov. Am. 3.1.17: nequitiam vinosa tuam convivia narrant, ‘they talk of your worthlessness at drunken banquets’, 3.4.47: sic poteris iuvenum convivia semper inire, ‘by this way you can enter into the banquets of young men’, etc.), and one of the meanings of cantus is poetry.¹²³ In other words, here our poet confesses that in his day, love elegy (El. 1.179: amare…cantus) was considered a crime, a statement that may be justified by the literary trends of his era, or perhaps the conservatism of Christian religion and ascetism, which imposed the renunciation of sexuality. In the passage El. 1.209 – 214, Maximianus speaks again of several physical symptoms of old age (the posture and colour of old men, their slow movements, external appearance, the shrinking of their bodies, etc.). I believe that here our poet implies a hidden metapoetic discourse concerning the evolution of the elegiac genre and the literary trends of his era: Hae sunt primitiae mortis, his partibus aetas defluit et pigris gressibus ima petit Non habitus, non ipse color, non gressus euntis, non species eadem quae fuit ante manet. Labitur ex umeris demisso corpore vestis, quaeque brevis fuerat iam modo longa mihi est. El. 1.209 – 214 These are the first-fruits of death, my age crawls from my own parts and seeks the depths with sluggish steps. Neither my posture, nor my colour itself, nor my steps as I move, nor my own appearance remain the same as they were before. My garment slips off my shoulders due to the hunched body, and what was previously short, is now long for me.

In the 6th century AD, the genre of love elegy shows the first signs of its death (El. 1.209: primitiae mortis). The life of this genre charts a downward course (El. 1.209 – 210: his partibus aetas | defluit),¹²⁴ and searches for its end on sluggish metrical feet (El. 1.210: pigris gressibus) – the word gressus might be interpreted as metrical foot.¹²⁵ In verses El. 1.211– 212, I believe that Maximianus speaks as the personified Elegy of his era, confessing that its condition is not the same (as in Augustan times); even its metrics (notice the repetition of the noun gressus in

 See OLD, s.v. cantus, meaning 2.  See OLD, s.v. defluo, meaning 1a.  See OLD, s.v. gressus, meaning e.

58

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

211) are not the same.¹²⁶ The next couplet refers to the shrinkage of the body that old age brings. As I noted above, the noun corpus can be interpreted as a compendium of literary works. In this context, it seems that what Maximianus is saying is that the quality of a literary genre (here, elegiac) has dropped (El. 1.213: demisso corpore). The shrinkage of Maximianus’ body (or elegiac poetry) results in the enlargement of his clothes (El. 1.213 – 214: vestis | …longa), which were short during his youth (El. 1.214: quaeque brevis fuerat). As we saw above, the terms longa and brevis have a strongly metapoetic meaning, as they correspond to the elegiac couplet, where longa refers to the hexameter and brevis to the pentameter. Maximianus combines these words with the noun vestis (213), adding an extra metapoetic feature to this passage. We know that meretrices wore short tunics in ancient Rome.¹²⁷ By contrast, Roman matronae wore the vestis longa, i.e. the fulllength stola. ¹²⁸ I believe that Maximianus is implying this garment, as I do not think that the position of the words vestis (213) and longa (214) – one below the other – is accidental. In my opinion, Maximianus once again includes a hidden metapoetic discourse in his words: the vestis brevis corresponds to meretrices, i.e. the elegiac puellae, while vestis longa corresponds to matronae, i.e. the women of ‘serious’ genres, such as epic and tragedy (cf. the long dress of Tragedy in Ov. Am. 3.1.12: palla iacebat humi, ‘her robe reached the ground’). In other words, here Maximianus offers a hidden testimony about the literary trends of his day: elegy (vestis brevis) was fashionable during the past (i.e. the Augustan age), but now the ‘high’ literary genres (mainly epic) dominate. In contrast to verses 35 – 36, where the poet describing his past says that he was durable in all weather conditions – the same abilities that an exclusus amator must have – in passage El. 1.241– 244, Maximianus narrates the lack of durability that old age brings in similar conditions: Iam poena est totum quod vivimus: urimur aestu, officiunt nebulae, frigus et aura nocet; ros laedit modicoque etiam corrumpimur imbre, veris et autumni laedit amoena dies. El. 1.241– 244 And all that we are living through is already a punishment. We burn from the heat, the clouds hurt us, the cold and the wind annoy us; dew hurts us and we are damaged even by light rain, while a pleasant day of spring and autumn causes harm to us.

 For Maximianus’ prosody, see Lekusch (1896); Altamura (1981) 822; Cupaiuolo (1997).  See Olson (2002) 395.  See Olson (2002) 391; OLD, s.v. vestis, meaning 1c.

59

2.3 A Metapoetic Reading

The old man can no longer stand all the conditions of his external environment (both bad and good weather). This statement has a dual interpretation; it means that he is no longer capable of being a soldier, an athlete, etc. – therefore, to have all the Roman virtues that were required for epic activities, such as war and politics (negotium). But it also means he no longer has the endurance to be a proper exclusus amator. Thus, he is unable to correspond to elegiac activities, such as love (otium). In his era, the elegiac lover is transformed into a senex amans that cannot fulfil his duties, e. g. cf. El. 5.9: pervigil ad nostras astabat nocte fenestras (‘awake, at night, she was standing outside my windows’), where we read that Graia puella sang the paraclausithyron to her old lover, and not vice versa. Verses El. 1.259 – 262 are also ambiguous. Here, Maximianus speaks of the destruction of bodily organs that old age brings: Omnia naturae solvuntur viscera nostrae, et tam praeclarum quam male nutat opus! Hic veniens onerata malis incurva senectus cedere ponderibus se docet ipsa suis. El. 1.259 – 262 All my body’s organs are broken down, and once so splendid work is shaken so badly! The hunchbacked old age comes here loaded with misfortunes and teaches itself to yield to its own burdens.

Apart from the body-state metaphor (i. e. the identification of an aged body with the senectus mundi), which I will discuss in the next session of this chapter, I believe that this passage also has two other readings, one sexual and one metapoetic. As we saw above, the noun opus (260) could be interpreted as penis, but also as a literary work. Viscera (259) means – among other things – testicles.¹²⁹ Also, the downwards movement, which the verb nuto indicates,¹³⁰ recalls the fall of the male member. Thus, if we read this passage in this context, it seems that Maximianus implies the sexual impotence that old age brings. On the other hand, the weight of old age that is being emphasised (El. 1.261– 262: onerata…|…ponderibus) reminds us of the epic genre’s gravitas, a term that is incompatible with the elegiac genre.¹³¹ In other words, the ‘heavy’ old age is identified with eras that push Maximianus’ splendid elegiac work (El. 1.260: praeclarum opus) to the point of collapse.

 See OLD, s.v. viscus1, meaning 3c.  See OLD, s.v. nuto, meaning 2.  For pondus as a term of gravity in language, see OLD, s.v. pondus, meaning 7.

60

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

Maximianus is a self-conscious poet, who is aware of the lateness of his genre and takes care to display this to his reader (e. g. cf. El. 1.2: tarda).¹³² In a kind of ring composition, he returns to this subject at the end of the poem, in passages El. 1.273 – 274 and 291– 292: Ipsa etiam veniens consumit saxa vetustas, et nullum est quod non tempore cedat opus. El. 1.273 – 274 Old age that comes devours even the rocks themselves and there is no work that does not recede in time.

and Dura satis miseris memoratio prisca bonorum, et gravius summo culmine mersa ruit. El. 1.291– 292 Remembering happy old days is hard enough for the unhappy people, and the dive from the highest peak is more impetuous.

In the first passage, we again meet the noun opus (274), which, as we have already seen, can be interpreted as a literary work. In this context, it seems that Maximianus is referring to the five hundred years between the death of the last Augustan elegist, Ovid (17 AD), and the reappearance of the genre of love elegy by himself (in the middle of the 6th century AD). All these years have brought old age to the genre (El. 1.273: vetustas), and, therefore, its decadence (El. 1.274: quod non tempore cedat). The past, happy days of the elegiac genre now belong to memory (El. 1.291: memoratio prisca bonorum), a fact that is rather difficult for sad people (El. 1.291: dura satis miseris). I believe that the word memoratio functions here as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ (see above) to miseris (291), a typical adjective of the elegiac lover,¹³³ and therefore a generic indicator of the love elegy. The Augustan elegy had reached the highest peak (El. 1.292: summo culmine) in literary value. Our poet expresses the opinion that his elegiac poetry will fall from this ranking (El. 1.292: mersa ruit). In fact, this collapse will be

 See Uden and Fielding (2010) 441.  Cf. indicatively, Tib. 1.2.88: miserum…caput (‘unhappy head’), 91: miseros…amores (‘sad… loves’), 1.4.72: miseris flectibus (‘with sad tears’), 1.8.61: miserum…amantem (‘unhappy…lover’); Prop. 1.1.1: miserum me cepit ocellis (‘she captured me with her eyes’), 1.16.45: quae miseri novistis amantes (‘these things that you know, you unhappy lovers’); Ov. Am. 1.1.25: me miserum (‘me, the unhappy one’), 1.4.45: multa miser timeo (‘I, a sad man, am afraid of many things’), 1.9.28: miseri semper amantis opus (‘the duty of an unhappy man constantly in love’), etc.

2.4 Politics

61

heavier (El. 1.292: gravius). I think that here too Maximianus is making a hidden commentary on his poetry: it is a reminiscence of the classical love elegy (291: memoratio prisca bonorum), but is a crueller (El. 1.291: dura) and ‘heavier’ (El. 1.292: gravius) elegy, because it combines the subject of love with that of old age. Once again, Maximianus proves that he is a self-conscious poet, as he recognizes that his work must compete with the masterpieces of the Augustan elegists.

2.4 Politics As we saw in Chapter 1, Maximianus’ entire catalogue recalls the narrative of the senectus mundi (‘the old age of the world’), a widespread practice among the poets of Late Antiquity.¹³⁴ For them, their contemporary age is considered as the body of an old man, with all its weakness and troubles. Therefore, they think that they live and write at the end of history. In other words, they frequently use the parallelism between the human body and political and social conditions, implying that their era is old and ready to collapse. After all, Roman writers used to parallelise the history of the Empire with human ages.¹³⁵ This practice is justified by the historical and political circumstances of the era. At the beginning of the sixth century AD, intellectual life flourished in Rome under the rule of Theodoric the Great (454– 526 AD), as is confirmed by Maximianus’ contemporary authors, such as Ennodius and Cassiodorus,¹³⁶ and by our poet too, who in Elegy 3 includes a great representative of the intellectual milieu in Rome during his youth (and during Theodoric’s rule), i. e. Boethius. Ten years after Boethius’ death, Justinian begins his military campaign for the reconquest of Italy (535 – 554 AD). In these years, likely when Maximianus was composing his work, terror, depression and intellectual decline prevail.¹³⁷ The Italian poets feel that the end of the once powerful and flourishing empire has come (its young age), and is now in a period of collapse – metaphorically, in its old age (senectus mundi). Their common belief is that a general chaos prevails, as Graia puella says in El. 5.110 (non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos!, ‘I do not mourn the private, but the general chaos!’).

 See Zocca (1995); Fredouille (2003) 21– 38.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 445 and n. 14.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 444 and n. 9, where the passages and quotations of these authors exist. Also, see Riché (1976) 26 – 31; Barnish (1990); Uden (2009) 205 – 207.  See Uden (2009) 205 – 207; Uden and Fielding (2010) 444– 446.

62

2 Non sum qui fueram: Elegy 1

As Uden and Fielding note,¹³⁸ this intellectual flourishment during Maximianus’ young age is implied in several passages of Elegy 1. In verses El. 1.9 – 14, our poet writes that he excelled in oratory and poetry when he was a young man, i. e. during Theodoric’s reign. However, when he became old (i. e. after Theodoric’s death and Justinian’s invasion of Italy), he was not free to compose poems and rhetorical speeches (cf. El. 1.127– 130).¹³⁹ The darkness had come, and life – in reality and on an intellectual level – looked like hell (cf. El. 1.149 – 150: Eripitur sine morte dies, caligine caeca | septum tartareo quis neget esse loco?, ‘the daylight is lost, though I am not dead. In the deep darkness who can deny that he is imprisoned in a place that looks like hell?’). Furthermore, when Maximianus describes the Roman virtues of his youth (cf. El. 1.35 – 40), it seems that he identifies himself with the formerly vibrant Western Roman Empire, which under Ostrogothic rule was able to repel all threats (cf. El. 1.33 – 34: Has inter virtutis opes tolerantia rerum | spernebat cunctas insuperata minas, ‘among these forces of my virtue, my unconquered endurance spurned all threats’). In accordance with this, our poet identifies his old age with his homeland that was ready to collapse (cf. El. 1.55 – 58: Tu me sola tibi subdis, miseranda senectus, | cui cedit quicquid vincere cuncta potest; in te corruimus, tua sunt quaecumque fatiscunt, | ultima teque tuo conficis ipsa malo, ‘only you subdue me to your will, wretched old age, to whom everything yields which can all win; we collapse in front of you, everything that grows weak is yours, in the end, you damage yourself with your badness’). The nature of the Western Roman Empire remains the same but collapses due to time and its own weakness, cf. El. 1.265 – 266: Sola iacens natura manet, quae sponte per horas | solvitur et vitio carpitur ipsa suo (‘only lying nature remains, which hour by hour collapses on its own and is destroyed by its own weakness’). The parallelization of the human body with a construction, and therefore the body, of an old man with that of something ready to collapse, is a common metaphor that several authors of the Late Antiquity used, including Ennodius and Avitus of Vienne.¹⁴⁰ As Uden and Fielding note, ‘“destruction” and “collapse” – ruina and ruere – are the most frequently invoked terms in the text to describe the damage wrought by old age’.¹⁴¹ There are four passages in Elegy 1 that include this parallelisation (El. 1.171– 174, 259 – 262, 273 – 278, and 291– 292). Maximianus’ familiarity with building terms could perhaps imply that his political office included being responsible for public buildings in Rome. In fact, poems 3    

See Uden and Fielding (2010). See Uden and Fielding (2010) 444. See Uden and Fielding (2010) 448, and n. 21, n. 22 and n. 23. Uden and Fielding (2010) 447– 448.

2.5 Conclusions

63

and 4 from the Appendix Maximiani refer to Theodahad’s construction activities, including some linguistic echoes from our poem.¹⁴² The narration of destruction and imminent death perfectly reflects the political conditions in Italy in the 6th century AD. Old age, which will collapse (El. 1.223: ruitura senectus), foretells the end of the world (senectus mundi).

2.5 Conclusions In Elegy 1 Maximianus follows his classical models (mainly Ovid), but simultaneously proves that he is a self-conscious poet, who innovates the elegiac genre by mixing literary genres, as well as ways of living. He presents himself as an athlete, wrestler, and simultaneously as a poet-lover, combining the vita activa with vita contemplativa, and, therefore, the negotium with otium, a singular practice among the Augustan love elegists. My reading of this poem is primarily metapoetic: the poet speaks of the norms of the elegiac genre, and identifies the old age of a man with Elegy, which in his era is getting older and must be innovated. Maximianus is a self-conscious poet, who feels that the genre of love was coming to an end in Late Antiquity. For this reason, he decided to innovate it by combining the levitas of youth (the genre of love elegy in its classical form) with the gravitas of old age (the literature of his era), where the narration of the senectus mundi dominated.

 See Uden and Fielding (2010) 448. For the Appendix Maximiani, see Schneider (2003) 133 – 146 and 194– 199; Roberts (2018) 13; Juster (2018) 85 – 87.

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2 3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 Summary In the first verse of the poem, Maximianus reveals the name of the puella that tortures him; she is the beautiful Lycoris (El. 2.1: formosa Lycoris), as with the beloved of the first Roman elegiac poet,¹ Cornelius Gallus.² It seems that Maximianus and Lycoris had a long-term relationship at the past, but she now despises him and looks for young lovers (1– 5). She wonders how she was with him for so many years, as she now hates him (6 – 16). Our poet wishes he had died, so that he wouldn’t have had to see this behaviour from her (17– 24). She, unlike Maximianus, has maintained her beauty beneath the ashes of old age (25 – 32). Young men live through remembering their amatory achievements, but the old ones live by grieving for all that was lost (33 – 40). But no one can achieve everything. Although a man can defeat a woman due to his physical strength, he is defeated by her in love (41– 42). In his attempt to convince Lycoris to return to him, Maximianus invokes the intimacy that animals feel for their nest, the sympathy that the young soldier feels for the veteran, the sadness that the farmer feels for the aged ox, the rider for his horse, etc. According to our poet, this sweet habit, this intimacy, is similar to that which Lycoris should feel for Maximianus, rather than looking in unknown places for hospitality (43 – 62). But although he is an old man, he remains a capable poet (63 – 64). The elegy comes to an end with the poet urging his beloved to respect him and see him as her father, if she cannot see him as a brother or friend (65 – 72). Maximianus ends the poem by expressing the opinion that it is difficult to carry a bad memory for such a long time.³

 For Gallus as the inventor of the Roman elegy, cf. Ov. Tr. 4.10.53; Quint. Inst. 10.1.93.  For Gallus and Lycoris, cf. Verg. Ecl. 10.2– 3; Prop. 2.34.91; Ov. Am. 1.15.30, Tr. 2.445; Mart. 8.73.6. For Lycoris, see Traina (2001); Keith (2011).  This chapter is a revised and enriched (with new research and bibliographical data) version of my article in Greek, see Pappas (2021b). For an analytical examination of Elegy 2, see Consolino (2009). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-004

3.1 Introduction

65

3.1.2 Elegy 2 and the Other Elegies Some scholars have supported the idea that Elegy 2 is actually a continuation of Elegy 1. For example, Wasyl argues that, by describing Lycoris’ repulsion for him in this poem, Maximianus continues the same picture that he described in El. 1.283 – 288, where even the young slaves of his household despise their old master.⁴ It seems that in Elegy 1, Maximianus expresses his complaints about the problems of old age on a theoretical level, while in Elegy 2 he provides us a ‘real’ example of its difficulties.⁵ Wasyl again notes the similarity between the end of El. 2 (El. 2.73 – 74: His lacrimis longos, quantum fas, flevimus annos | est grave quod doleat commemorare diu, ‘for many years I cried with these tears – more than I should have. It is difficult to remember what hurts you for a long time’), and the end of El. 1 (El. 1.291– 292: Dura satis miseris memoratio prisca bonorum, | et gravius summo culmine mersa ruit, ‘remembering happy old days is hard enough for the unhappy people, and the dive from the highest peak is more impetuous’).⁶ However, the same differences that exist between Elegies 1, 3, 4, and 5 also exist between Elegies 1 and 2; in El. 1.59 – 100, Maximianus states that he was an eternal bachelor, but here he mourns Lycoris’ rejection of him, although he had a long-term love affair with her (El. 2.3: post multos quibus indiuisi uiximus annos, ‘after the many years we lived together inseparable’). Furthermore, while in El. 2 Maximianus acts as an elegiac exclusus amator,⁷ in El. 1 he presents himself as a cruel lover and a recherche son-in-law with extremely demanding taste in women.⁸ The passages El. 1.291– 292 and El. 2.73 – 74 share a common term, that of memory (El. 1.292: memoratio and El. 2.74: commemorare), a word that, as we have already seen in Elegy 1, works as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’,⁹ and has a strongly metapoetic function, as I will attempt to prove below. Memory also features in El. 3.1 (nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae, ‘it is now worth telling something of my youth’), which also serves as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ there.¹⁰ Thus, the end of El. 2 is united with the beginning of El. 3. Further-

 Wasyl (2011) 136. For the intertextual connection between Maximianus’ El. 1.283 – 286 and Tib. 1.2.97– 98, see Bussières (2020) 895 – 896.  Wasyl (2011) 136; Roberts (2018) 7– 8.  Wasyl (2011) 139. See Fo (1986 – 87) 96, who believes that verses El. 2.73 – 74 do not match the context of the rest of the poem.  Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 362.  See Chapter 2.  See Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; Sharrock (2018) 22– 26.  See Chapter 4.

66

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

more, this sense of memory exists at the beginning of El. 2 (El. 2.7: nec meminisse volet transactae dulcia vitae, ‘and she does not want to remember the sweet joys of our past life’), offering another connection between these two elegies.¹¹ There are also intratextual links in El. 2 that hint at Maximianus’ subsequent sexual impotence in El. 5. In El. 2.6, Maximianus writes that Lycoris called him an impotent old man (me vocat imbellem decrepitumque senem, ‘she calls me a gutless and impotent old man’). In El. 2.57, he urges his beloved to remember that once (in his youth) he could fulfil her needs, although now he cannot (si modo non possum, quondam potuisse memento, ‘and if now I cannot, remember that once I could’), a phrase that has sexual connotations.¹² These two passages from our elegy foreshadow Maximianus’ erectile dysfunction in Elegy 5. It has also been noted that Elegy 2 has a different character in comparison to the other Elegies, as it does not describe a particular romantic episode, but rather the poet’s reaction to a particular circumstance, i. e. Lycoris’ rejection of him. In other words, this elegy does not have narrative continuity, but is instead an exhortation of the poet to his beloved, a plea for her to see him more sympathetically.¹³ This absence of narrativity agrees with a principal feature of the Augustan elegy, namely its limited narrative.¹⁴ The affinity of Elegy 2 with the classical love elegy is apparent from its conventionality; the elegiac puella is called Lycoris, a name that reveals the generic identity of the poem from its fist verse.¹⁵ Furthermore, the motif that dominates the poem, i. e. the destruction of the elegiac foedus amoris by the beloved girl, is conventional par excellence.¹⁶ This peculiarity of the poem caused very few scholars to support the idea that some of Maximia-

 White (2019) 11– 13.  Wasyl (2011) 138. In El. 2.57 we observe again the sense of memory (memento), which plays an important metapoetic role in this poem, as we will see.  Wasyl (2011) 138; Roberts (2018) 7– 8.  Harrison (2007) 27, where he notes that the genre of love elegy is included with the ‘non-continuous genres’.  Apart from Gallus and Maximianus, three Neo-Latin poets wrote about a Lycoris; Giovanni Cotta (1480-ca. 1510) composed four poems for a Lycoris (poems 5 to 8, all entitled Ad Lycorim; poems 5 and 8 are written in elegiac distich, and 6 and 7 in phalecean hendecasyllable), see Pappas (2021c). Francesco Maria Molza (1489 – 1544) dealt with a Lycoris in three elegies (1.7– 8, 2.9, and 3.4), and Ludovico Ariosto (1474– 1533) mentioned a Lycoris in the first verse of his elegy entitled De diversis amoribus: Est mea nunc Glycere, mea nunc est cura Lycoris (‘Now Glycere is my darling, now it’s Lycoris’). Cf. Cotta’s Ad Lycorim 6.6: formosa […] Lycori, where he echoes Maximianus’ El. 2.1. For Cotta, see Fantazzi (1980); for Molza, see Parker (2012) 481– 482; for Ariosto, see Houghton (2017) 101.  Fo (1986 – 1987) 94– 96; Wasyl (2011) 117; Roberts (2018) 7– 8; D’Amanti (2020) xxvi.

3.2 Generic Interplay

67

nus’ Elegies may have been written earlier than others,¹⁷ or that Elegy 2 could have been the first poem in a possible second book of this collection.¹⁸

3.2 Generic Interplay Maximianus’ sources for Elegy 2 (Plautus, Catullus, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Boethius, etc.) have been already noted by several scholars.¹⁹ Thus, in this section, I will not study Maximianus’ intertextuality, but will instead use some passages that draw parallels between him and other authors, in order to sketch the poem’s generic identity. In other words, I will study the interaction between the elegiac genre and other genres that takes place in Elegy 2.

3.2.1 The ‘Host’ Genre Aside from its limited narrativity and the elegiac distich,²⁰ the generic identity of Elegy 2 is also revealed by its other formal features, such as the existence of many elegiac words that serve as generic indicators (such as El. 2.1: formosa (‘beautiful’),²¹ 2.9: perfida (‘unfaithful’), 2.14: oscula blanda (‘lustful kisses’), 2.73: lacrimis (‘tears’) and flevimus, (‘Ι cried’)), as well as its length (74 verses, as with that of the Augustan elegies).²² Regarding its content, the presentation of the poet-lover Maximianus as an exclusus amator ²³ is one of the main thematical conventions of the elegiac genre.²⁴ Lycoris is also presented as an insatiable woman who destroys her poet-lover in this way through her elegiac role (El. 2.8: nec me quod potius reddidit ipsa senem, ‘not that she is the main one that made me an old man’).²⁵ The apparent metaliterary indicator of the poem is the name

 Fo (1986) 14.  Prada (1914) 44. Franzoi (2011) 161 disagrees with this opinion.  See indicatively, Wasyl (2011) 137– 138; Green (2013) 267; Fielding (2017) 153 – 155; Juster (2018) 147– 156.  See Otis (21970) 38; Harrison (2007) 22– 23; Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008a); Kennedy (2008). For the nature and the evolution of the elegiac metrics, see Ceccarelli (2018a). For the elegiac metre in Late Antiquity in particular, see Ceccarelli (2018a) 127– 224. For Maximianus’ prosody, see Altamura (1981) 822; Cupaiuolo (1997).  Nikolaidis (1994).  Harrison (2007) 24– 25.  Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 362.  Harrison (2007) 26.  Consolino (1997) 391– 392.

68

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

of the elegiac puella, Lycoris, i. e. the name of the beloved of Roman love elegy’s inventor, Cornelius Gallus, who in Verg. Ecl. 10 mourns for the fact that she abandoned him for another man.²⁶ Therefore, Maximianus links Elegy 2 with the auctor of the elegiac genre, a practice that aims to highlight the generic identity of the poem. As Horace first noted in his Ars Poetica,²⁷ along with several modern scholars,²⁸ this method was a typical technique for a generic classification of a poem. In other words, Maximianus highlights that he is writing a love elegy from its first verse. We should remember that the existence of the name Lycoris in Maximianus’ work was one of the main reasons why Pomponius Gauricus could present the poems of the last love elegist as poems of the first – an attribution that lasted for several centuries.²⁹ Moreover, Maximianus uses the ‘symbolic metonym’ of the genre of love elegy, i. e. the noun amor, four times (El. 2.5: amores, 15: amorem, 33: amorum, and 71: amori) aiming to underline the generic identity of the poem.³⁰ After all, we must not forget that the title of the poetic collection of the first elegist, Gallus, was Amores, as this was the title of one of the amatory works of Ovid, the last elegist of the Augustan era.³¹ The main difference that exists between the poet-lover of Elegy 2 – and indeed all of Maximianus’ Elegies – and the poet-lover of classical love elegy is that he is now an old man, who recalls his previous love affairs and his amatory abilities in general. Moreover, the elegiac puella here is also old. The Augustan elegists considered love as appropriate only to young lovers, cf. Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor (‘it is a shameful thing to love in old age’). In our poem, Maximianus seeks to preserve the connubium between himself and Lycoris, a relationship based on values such as pietas and honor, and not on passion, cf.  Also, cf. Prop. 2.34.91– 92: et modo formosa quam multa Lycoride Gallus | mortuus inferna vulnera lavit aqua! (‘and now, Gallus washes in the waters of Hell his multiple wounds that he received by his lovely Lycoris’); Ov. Am. 1.15.29 – 30: Gallus et Hesperiis et Gallus notus Eois, | et sua cum Gallo nota Lycoris erit (‘Gallus, renowned in the West, Gallus in the East, and Lycoris will be famous with her Gallus’), Ars am. 3.537: Vesper et Eoae novere Lycorida terrae (‘you will have known Lycoris from East to West’), Tr. 2.445: non fuit opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo (‘it was no disgrace to Gallus to sing to Lycoris’); Mart. 6.40.1: femina praeferri potuit tibi nulla, Lycori (‘there is no woman that can be preferred by you’), 8.73.6: ingenium Galli pulchra Lycoris erat (‘beautiful Lycoris was Gallus’ inspiration’). See Fielding (2017) 135, and n. 109, where he mentions that perhaps Maximianus had read Servius’ commentary on Virgil’s Eclogues (ad Ecl. 6.11), and knew that ‘Lycoris’ was the pseudonym of the mime actress Cytheris (Volumnia), Marc Antony’s mistress.  Cf. Hor. Ars P. 73 – 98.  See Conte (1986) 31, who speaks of a ‘code model’; Harrison (2007) 6 and 28 – 30.  See Ellis (1884a) 4– 10; Agozzino (1970) 15 – 27; Fielding (2017) 152– 153; White (2019) 4– 24.  Harrison (2007) 31– 33.  Fielding (2017) 155.

3.2 Generic Interplay

69

El. 2.71: Vincat honor luxum, pietas succedat amori (‘let honor overcome pride, let respect succeed love’).³² This motif of lifelong devotion is not typical, but it does occur within Latin love elegy, and love poetry in general.³³ As Wasyl notes, we find it in Catullus’ poetry and in Ov. Am. 1.3.16 – 18 too: tu mihi siqua fides, cura perennis eris. | tecum, quos dederint annos mihi filia sororum, | vivere contingat teque dolente mori! (‘believe me, you will be for me my eternal care. With you, may it happen to live all the years the threads of sisters might give me, and you will grieve at my death!’).³⁴ The impact of Catullus’ 72 on Elegy 2 is apparent throughout the poem via the repetition of the verb diligere, which expresses the strong affection and pure love of parents, brothers and sisters, and of a married couple,³⁵ cf. El. 2.1: dilecta…Lycoris (‘my beloved Lycoris’), 2.13: hunc…dilexi? (‘this is the man I loved?’), 2.18: dilectum prodere turpe putet (‘she thinks it is shameful to reveal the man she once loved’),³⁶ and 47: diligit umbram (‘it loves the shadow’), to Catull. 72.3: dilexi (‘I loved you’) and 72.4: diligit (‘he loves’). This intertextual connection is mainly revealed through the distich El. 2.69 – 70: dicere si fratrem seu dedignaris amicum | dic patrem: affectum nomen utrumque tenet (‘if you refuse to call me “brother” or “friend”, please call me “father”; this word carries the affection of both of them’), which reminds us of Catull. 72.3 – 4: dilexi tum te non tantum ut vulgus amicam, | sed pater ut gnatos diligit et generos (‘then I loved you not as the mob loves his girlfriend, but as the father loves his children and his sons-in-law’). Maximianus’ affection for his Lycoris recalls Ovid’s praise of his wife’s constancy during his exile; as our poet says that Lycoris ‘thinks it is shameful to reveal the man she once loved’ (El. 2.18: dilectum prodere turpe putet), his master writes that his wife probably ‘thinks that is shameful for her to be married with him, an exiled

 Wasyl (2011) 137.  For a contrary opinion, see Roberts (2018) 9, who notes for Elegy 2 that ‘such concerns for a lifelong alliance are alien to the Latin love elegy’.  Wasyl (2011) 137– 138.  Tromaras (22001) 557. For the paternal or fraternal love as expression of affection, cf. Hor. Sat. 1.3.43 – 44: ac pater ut gnati, sic nos debemus amici | siquod sit vitium non fastidire (‘we ought to behave to a friend as a father to his son and not feel aversion for him if he has a defect’); [Tib.] 3.1.23 – 24: Haec tibi vir quondam, nunc frater, casta Neaera, | mittit et accipias munera parua rogat (‘the man who now is like your brother but once he will be your husband, chaste Neaera, sends you all these and asks to accept these gifts, even though they are humble’).  For the intertextual connection between Maximianus’ El. 2.11– 18 and Tib. 1.2.91– 98, see Bussières (2020) 894– 896.

70

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

man’ (Tr. 4.3.51: si turpe putas mihi nupta videri).³⁷ Thus, we may deduce that the main ingredients of this poem are elegiac: its metrics and its length, its limited narrativity, the cruel behaviour of the dura domina, and the efforts of the poetlover to preserve their lifelong relationship.

3.2.2 The ‘Guest’ Genres Roman Comedy Roman comedy is a genre that had an important effect on the genre of Roman love elegy. Likewise, it had a great impact on Maximianus’ poetry as well. The Roman comedic elements in Elegy 2 concern its protagonists, the poet-lover and his beloved. These two aged characters seem incompatible with the genre of classical love elegy. We have seen that Augustan elegists’ love did not suit old men. Also, their puellae were young meretrices. The anus (‘old woman’) of their elegies played the role of the lena (‘procuress’) or saga (‘witch’).³⁸ However, in Maximianus’ Elegy 2, the lover and his sweetheart are transformed. Moreover, they both draw their origin from the genre of Roman comedy. Maximianus presents himself as a senex amator, cf. El. 2.6: imbellem decrepitum senem (‘a gutless and impotent old man’) and 8: reddidit ipsa senem (‘she made me an old man’), a stock character of Roman comedy, and more specifically that of Plautus.³⁹ The phrase decrepitus senex occurs mainly in Plautus,⁴⁰ and is a typical example of the use of the Plautian language by Maximianus.⁴¹ As we will see below, in Elegy 3, where our poet narrates his love affair with Aquilina during his youth, he identifies himself with another comic persona, that of the adulescens inamoratus. Now he is the former adulescens that has grown old, the senex amator. This transformation hides a metapoetic dimension too, as I will try to prove in the next section of this chapter.

 Wasyl (2011) 137– 139; Fielding (2017) 153 – 154 and especially 154, where he comments on the connection between Ov. Tr. 4.3.51 and El. 2.18 that Maximianus ‘finds it difficult to distinguish between a voluptuous elegiac meretrix and a virtuous matrona’.  E. g., cf. Tib. 1.2, 1.5; Ov. Am. 1.8.  Juster (2018) 147. For senex amator in Plautus, see Cody (1976); Ryder (1984); McCarthy (2000) 99. On the senex amator in Roman love elegy, see Gardner (2013) 220 – 221.  Cf. Plaut. Asin. 863: decrepitus senex (‘impotent old man’), Merc. 291: senex vetus, decrepitus (‘ancient old man, impotent’), 314: decrepitus senex (‘impotent old man’), Cas. 559: illum […] decrepitum, meum virum (‘that impotent man, my husband’), Epid. 666: nos vetulos decrepitos duos (‘we two impotent old men’).  Juster (2018) 148 – 149. For the language of the Roman comedy, see Karakasis (2014) and Karakasis (2019).

3.2 Generic Interplay

71

Szövérffy argued that Elegy 2 has a satirical character. In fact, he characterized it as ‘an anti-feministic satire’, with which Maximianus aims to condemn women as cruel and unfaithful creatures.⁴² I agree entirely with Wasyl and Fielding, however, who believe that Maximianus describes Lycoris’ personality with sympathy and, therefore, we cannot speak in terms of a satirical edge to the elegy.⁴³ On the contrary, Maximianus degrades himself by using the character of the senex amator from Roman comedy. Like the poet-lover, the elegiac puella of Elegy 2 is different from that of the Augustan elegy. She is as aged as Maximianus, but her beauty remains, as time spares what is beautiful (El. 2.25 – 32).⁴⁴ Therefore, we can deduce that the elegists’ warning to their beloved ones that beauty will be lost with time’s passing – which is a locus communis in the classical love elegy⁴⁵ – here has changed. Maximianus’ Lycoris is an old woman, but remains charming and retains her confidence.⁴⁶ What interests her is to find other, young lovers, and she is indifferent to money (i. e. she does not seek a dives amator) – one more difference from the classical elegiac puella. ⁴⁷ In other words, Lycoris of Elegy 2 behaves as an elegiac puella, but is actually an anus who chases young lovers – again a stock character of the genre of Roman comedy.⁴⁸ Epic By addressing his coeval Lycoris, Maximianus recalls their old relationship and advises her to let respect prevail over love (El. 2.71– 72). Encouraging her to acquire a feature that is consistent with her age, that of pietas, he reminds us again of Catullus, who mentions pietas as the main ingredient of the foedus amoris,⁴⁹ but also of Baucis, the wife of Philemon from Ovid’s Metamorphoses,⁵⁰ who at Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 362.  Wasyl (2011) 137; Juster (2018) 147.  On the contrary, cf. Hor. Carm. 1.25, 3.15 and 4.13, where the poet satirizes his aging former lovers; see Esler (1989).  Cf. Tib. 1.8.41– 46; Prop. 3.24.31– 36; Ov. Ars am. 1.31– 32. See Fielding (2017) 153.  The description of Lycoris’ remaining beauty reminds us of Ovid’s tender description of his wife’s appearance, as he imagined it in his exile, cf. Ov. Pont. 1.4.1– 6. For a parallel between Maximianus’ Lycoris and Ovid’s wife, see Bellanova (2004) 113; Wasyl (2011) 137– 138; Fielding (2017) 153 – 154.  Wasyl (2011) 136.  Henderson (1987); Rosivach (1994).  Cf. Catull. 76.2– 3: cum se cogitate esse pium, | nec sanctam violasse fidem, nen foedere nullo (‘when he cogitates that he was pious and that he did not betray sacred ties’). Also, see Henry (1950); McGushin (1967).  Cf. Ov. Met. 8.616 – 724.

72

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

tributes to her this feature, cf. Ov. Met. 8.631: pia Baucis (‘pious Baucis’). As is well known, Ovid’s aged couple offers their humble hospitality to the disguised gods Jupiter and Mercury.⁵¹ In our elegy, Maximianus advises Lycoris not to seek latent hospitality, but to trust only what she has known well for many years, cf. El. 2.51– 52: Tu tantum bene nota tibi atque experta relinquis, | hospitia et potius non manifesta petis (‘you only abandon what is proven and well-known to you, and you seek instead hospitality not clear to you’). In other words, he advises her to seek hospitality only from him, who is after all a humble man, cf. El. 1.53: pauperiem…amavi (‘I loved the poverty’).⁵² Therefore, our poet wishes to restore his beloved to the right order and identify her with a symbol of senile respect, Baucis, apparently aiming at parody, cf. El. 2.65: sit gravitas sitque ipsa tibi veneranda senectus (‘let the solemnity and the old age itself be respected by you’). Maximianus hints that his Lycoris is not a typical young elegiac puella, like that of Cornelius Gallus. She is an old woman who is playing the wrong role. Instead of respecting her old partner and the solemnity of old age by being the beloved of the poet-lover (who is now also old), she plays the inappropriate role of a young protagonist of the elegiac genre. Maximianus’ Lycoris grew old and no longer fits within love elegy, but rather in a mythological epic, like that of Ovid. The faithfulness that Maximianus desires from his beloved characterizes the faithful Roman women, not the elegiac puellae. ⁵³ In other words, it is as if our poet wants to render the first elegiac puella, Lycoris, into a respectful Roman woman, a character that belongs to the epic genre. Hymns Maximianus often addresses Lycoris in the second singular person of the personal pronoun (Du Stil, cf. El. 2.51: tu and tibi, 55: tu, 66: te), using the well-known method of hymnic poetry.⁵⁴ It seems that by doing so, he aims to parody the ancient hymns to gods (Gebetsparodie),⁵⁵ a practice that he taught by the Augustan elegists⁵⁶ and which he also followed in Elegies 3 and 5.⁵⁷

 See Fyntikoglou (1996).  Cf. Ov. Met. 8.663 (for Philemon and Baucis): paupertatemque fatendo (‘by confessing their poverty’).  Wyke (1989) 130 – 131.  See Alexiou (22002) 172– 173.  Norden (1913) 143 – 166.  Watson (1982); Pappas (2016a) 50, 94, 119 and 151.  See Chapters 4 and 6 respectively.

3.2 Generic Interplay

73

Philosophy In verses El. 2.45 – 62, Maximianus tells his beloved that the intimacy that animals feel for their nests, and their places of residence in general, or even that people feel for their colleagues (e. g. the young soldier towards the veteran) proves that it is right for people who once lived together, or are the same age (as they are) to approach each other. This idea appears to be relative to the maxim ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ ἀεὶ πελάζει (‘the same always approaches the same’) that Plato includes in his Symposium. ⁵⁸ In fact, this idea exists in the same context with our elegy, but has a different meaning. Plato argues that the god of Love, a young man himself, wants to be connected only with people of the same age and hates the elderly. Maximianus applies the same idea of similarity and intimacy, but in a love affair of old people, i. e. his relationship with Lycoris. Therefore, we can observe once more the generic interplay that takes place in Elegy 2, as a serious literary genre (belonging to gravitas), i. e. that of philosophy, is hosted by the light elegiac genre, a practice that apparently aims at parody. As several scholars have noted,⁵⁹ verses 45 – 50 have a lot in common with Cassiodorus’ Variae 1.21, i. e. Theodoric’s note to Maximianus and Andreas. In paragraph 3, Cassiodorus mentions the intimacy that the fishes and the wild beasts feel for their nests.⁶⁰ This similarity proves that the recipient of Theodoric’s note in Cassiodorus is likely our Maximianus.⁶¹ Thus, we can deduce that a main feature of Late Antiquity poetics, that of generic mixture, also occurs here in Elegy 2, as in the entirely of Maximianus’ work, as we will see below. But what about Lycoris? She draws her origin from Roman comedy (anus), and Maximianus advises her in order to be trans Cf. Pl. Symp. 195b: φεύγων φυγῇ τὸ γῆρας, ταχὺ ὂν δῆλον ὅτι· θᾶττον γοῦν τοῦ δέοντος ἡμῖν προσέρχεται. ὃ δὴ πέφυκεν Ἔρως μισεῖν καὶ οὐδ᾽ ἐντὸς πολλοῦ πλησιάζειν. μετὰ δὲ νέων ἀεὶ σύνεστί τε καὶ ἔστιν· ὁ γὰρ παλαιὸς λόγος εὖ ἔχει, ὡς ὅμοιον ὁμοίῳ ἀεὶ πελάζει (‘and it is by his nature that Love hates old age and does not approach it even from afar. And always, as he is young too, hangs out with young people; because the old saying is right: the same always approaches the same’). Also, cf. Pl. Lys. 214b: τὸ ὅμοιον τῷ ὁμοίῳ ἀνάγκη ἀεὶ φίλον εἶναι (‘the same has to be friend of the same always’).  Agozzino (1970) 184; Spaltenstein (1983) 187.  Cf. Cassiod. Var. 1.21.3: Aves ipsae per aera vagantes proprios nidos amant: erratiles ferae as cubilia dumosa festinant voluptuosi pisces campos liquidos transeuntes cavernas suas studiosa indagatione perquirunt cunctaque animalia ubi se norunt refugere longissimi cupiunt aetate constare. Quid tam de Roma debemus dicere quam fas est ipsis liberis plus amare? (‘birds themselves drifting through the air love their own nests, wandering beasts hurry to their bushy lairs, delightful fish traversing the watery plains search for their dens with an eager hunt, and all the animals desire for the longest time to remain when they know they find refuge. What should we say now about Rome other than it is right for its own free people to love it more?’, transl. Juster (2018) 81).  Juster (2018) 153.

74

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

formed into a pious Baucis. However, we must not forget that her name signifies the auctor of the elegiac genre, i. e. Cornelius Gallus, and therefore the genre itself. In the following section, I offer a metapoetic reading of our elegy.

3.3 A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy The name Lycoris is undoubtedly of Greek origin, and is seemingly related to Apollo, either through Λυκωρεύς Apollo, a cult-title of the god at Delphi, or through Λύκειος Apollo (meaning apparently wolf-like or Lycian Apollo).⁶² In Rome, the women who bore this name were Greek courtesans (hetaerae), as is proven by the texts of Latin literature, papyri, and inscriptions.⁶³ In this context, one more etymological connection is revealed; Lycoris < λύκος, consequently lupa (she-wolf), i. e. a female prostitute in Rome.⁶⁴ The etymological connection of Lycoris with Apollo also signifies the poetological content of this name. Apollo was the god of lyric poetry, so the scriptae puellae that bore this name appear in it – especially in the genre of Roman love elegy. It is no coincidence that Maximianus’ first beloved shares the same name with the first puella of the elegiac genre. Maximianus chose this name in order to reveal the generic identity of the poem, and his work in general.⁶⁵ However, I believe that our poet’s Lycoris does not function purely as a generic indicator. Lycoris’ aging is fully identified to the aging of love elegy. Her role is mainly metapoetic, as she acts as the personified Elegy of Maximianus’ era. After all, Maximianus’ master, Ovid, personified Elegy in Am. 3.1 and, as we will see, all the sciptae puellae of our poet can be read as personifications of the elegiac genre. Maximianus, as a self-conscious poet, is aware of his lateness. In this section, I will try to prove that by using the name of the first elegiac puella, he first aims to close the cycle of love elegy, which began with Cornelius Gallus, and to reveal to his readers that the elegiac genre had grown old and obsolete during his era. Second, he covertly expresses his thinking for how to renew the elegiac genre in his era. The feeling of passing time exists throughout Elegy 2. The noun annus (‘year’, ‘time’) – which also reminds us of the anus – is repeated four times in

 Keith (2011) 29. See also, LSJ, s.v. Λύκειος, and CGL, vol. 2, s.v. Λύκειος and s.v. Λυκωρεύς.  See Solin (2003) 276, who identifies fourteen Lycorides in epigraphs. See also Keith (2011) 26 – 38. Of course, apart from these fourteen Lycorides in epigraphs, the name occurs several times in Latin literature, see Pappas (2021c) 93, n. 5. For Lycoris the mime, see Traina (2001).  Keith (2011) 29.  Harrison (2007) 28 – 30.

3.3 A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy

75

the poem, at the beginning, the middle and the end of it (El. 2.3: annos, 28: annos, 31: anni and 73: annos). The relationship between Maximianus and Lycoris lasted many years, but now she looks for young lovers: Post multos quibus indivisi viximus annos respuit amplexus heu pavefacta meos; Iamque alios iuvenes aliosque requirit amores. El. 2.3 – 5 After the many years we lived together inseparable, alas, now she hates me and rejects my embrace. Now she seeks other young lovers and other loves.

Although they shared a life together for a long time, Lycoris now seeks new love adventures. Here Maximianus refers to both the past and present of their relationship. The ‘symbolic metonym’ amor (= love poetry) allows us to read this passage in metapoetic terms:⁶⁶ Lycoris/Elegy lived with Maximianus when he was young, a necessary condition of Augustan elegists, cf. Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor (‘it is a shameful thing to love in old age’), but now she seeks new lovers/ poets (El. 2.5: alios iuvenes) and new love poetry (El. 2.5: alios amores). The poet confesses that he and Lycoris/Elegy were inseparable for many years (El. 2.3: multos…indivisi viximus annos). This means that when he was young, the elegiac genre was entirely content with him. After all, in Elegy 1 he informs us that he was an elegiac poet during his youth (El. 1.11: Saepe poetarum mendacia dulcia finxi, ‘I often composed sweet lies of the poets’). However, in the same elegy he mentions that he lost this ability in his old age (El. 1.129: non blanda poemata fingo, ‘I do not compose alluring poems’).⁶⁷ In this context, what Maximianus is implying in El. 2.3 – 5 is that Lycoris/the genre of love elegy, which was cultivated by Maximianus in the past, now needs new poets and new inspiration. Lycoris/Elegy is ungrateful and forgetful: nec meminisse volet transactae dulcia vitae nec me quod potius reddidit ipsa senem; Immo etiam causas ingrata ac perfida fingit, ut spretum vitio iudicer esse meo. El. 2.7– 10 And she does not want to remember the sweet joys of our past life and that she is the one who made me an old man. But, on the contrary, she, ungrateful and unfaithful, claims that it is my fault that she despises me.

 Harrison (2007) 31– 33.  See Chapter 2.

76

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

In verse El. 2.7, we encounter the word meminisse that, as I mentioned above, serves as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’. The sensation of memory exists everywhere in the poem (El. 2.38: nullius amplexus quod memoretur habet, ‘I have no one’s embrace that I can remember’, 2.44: Nil de transactis quod memoremus erit?, ‘will anything from the past be preserved in order to remember it?’, 2.57: si modo non possum, quondam potuisse memento, ‘and if now I cannot, remember that once I could’, 2.74: est grave quod doleat commemorare diu, ‘it is difficult to remember for a long time what hurts you’), as is also the case in the entirety of Maximianus’ work.⁶⁸ But to which literary past or intertexts do these ‘Alexandrian footnotes’ refer? As White argues, in Maximianus memory functions as a metaliterary term.⁶⁹ This means that memory is exclusively poetic and refers to the norms and conventions of the Augustan love elegy. After all, according to the same scholar, Gauricus was the first to read the function of memory in our poet in the same way, in order to explain how these late poems could be attributed to the first elegist (he presented Maximianus’ work as ‘the last of the four books of Gallus’s elegies written in Egypt shortly before his death’).⁷⁰ In this context, the sweet joys (El. 2.7: dulcia) that Lycoris/Elegy is reluctant to remember are the sweet elegiac poems of the past.⁷¹ Moreover, Maximianus confutes Lycoris’/Elegy’s accusations that he is responsible for the aversion she feels for him (El. 2.10: ut spretum vitio iudicer esse meo) by saying that she is responsible for his age (El. 2.8: nec me quod potius reddidit ipsa senem). In metaliterary terms, Maximianus states that it is the fault of the elegiac genre that it now despises him, and then claims that the elegiac genre made him an old man. In any case, it seems that Lycoris/Elegy non est quae fuerat no longer. She is not Gallus’ young beloved/elegy anymore, but is transformed into Maximianus’ old beloved/elegy. Although she continues to be perfida (‘unfaithful’, in El. 2.9), a stock epithet

 Cf. indicatively, El. 1.49: hinc etiam rigidum memorant valuisse Catonem (‘and they remind us that even stern Cato had this power too’), 1.280: hoc quoque difficile est commemorasse seni (‘and this is difficult too for an old man to remember’), 1.292: Dura satis miseris memoratio prisca bonorum, | et gravius summo culmine mersa ruit (‘remembering happy old days is hard enough for the unhappy people’), 3.1: nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae (‘it is now worth telling something of my youth’), 4.17: semper memorare libebat (‘always I remembered her with pleasure’), 5.45: nec memorare pudet tali me vulnere victum (I am not ashamed to remember that I was defeated by such a wound’).  White (2019) 11. See also, Sharrock (2018) 22– 26.  White (2019) 7.  For dulcis as elegiac term, see Chapter 2, footnote 74.

3.3 A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy

77

for the elegiac puellae,⁷² now she is ingrata (‘ungrateful’, in El. 2.9), and not grata, like a typical Augustan elegiac girl.⁷³ Lycoris wonders if this old man she now sees is that which she once loved: ‘Huic ego saepe, nefas, oscula blanda dedi?’ Nauseat et priscum vomitu ceu fundit amorem. El. 2.14– 15 ‘What a horror! To that man I often gave my seductive kisses?’ She feels sick and spits our old love like vomit.

In the past, Lycoris acted as Elegy personified, offering seductive kisses (El. 2.14: oscula blanda) to her young poet/lover. Blandus is a typical poetological adjective that implies the elegiac genre.⁷⁴ In fact, Maximianus himself had used it in order to define his elegiac poems: El. 1.129: non blanda poemata fingo (‘I do not compose alluring poems’). But now she is disgusted with her old poet/lover and vomits their former love (El. 2.15: priscum amorem). If we recall that the word amor equates to love poetry (cf. Gallus’ and Ovid’s Amores),⁷⁵ we will understand that this phrase has a metapoetic function and means the elegiac past, namely the Augustan love elegy. In Maximianus’ era, Lycoris/Elegy seeks new loves (El. 2.5: Iamque alios iuvenes aliosque requirit amores), i. e. a poetic renovation. In passage El. 2.25 – 32, Maximianus describes Lycoris’ beauty, even in her advanced age: Atque tamen nivei circumdant tempora cani et iam caeruleus infecit ora color, Praestat adhuc nimiumque sibi pretiosa videtur atque annos mecum despicit illa suos. Et, fateor, primae retinet monimenta figurae, atque inter cineres condita flamma manet. Ut video, pulchris etiam vos parcitis, anni, nec veteris formae gratia tota perit. El. 2.25 – 32 And yet, although snow-white hairs surround her forehead and now a dark colour stains her face, even now she stands out and seems so precious to herself and she despises the years she spent with me. And, I admit, she retains the traces of her youthful appear-

 See Chapter 6, footnote 147.  See Chapter 2, footnote 96.  Cf. Prop. 1.8.40: blandum carmen (‘alluring poem’); Ov. Am. 1.11.14: blanda…manu (‘with seductive hand’), Ars am. 2.477: blanda…voluptas (‘seductive pleasure’), Rem. am. 379: blanda Elegia (‘alluring Elegia’).  Fielding (2017) 155.

78

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

ance, and the hidden flame remains among the ashes. Even you, time, I see, spare the beautiful and all the grace of the old beauty is not lost.

These verses recall another beautiful old woman, Philosophy, as Boethius describes her appearance in his prison cell. She too was an extremely beautiful old woman, who appeared to not belong to Boethius’ era (Cons. 1.P1.1: visa est mulier reverendi admodum vultus, oculis ardentibus […] ita aevi plena fore ut nullo modo nostrae crederetur aetatis, ‘I saw a beautiful woman with fiery eyes […] she was so full of years that you cannot believe that she belonged to our time’). In Boethius’ work, Philosophy drives away the elegiac Muses (scenicas meretriculas, ‘the theatrical little whores’) from the philosopher, in order to make him devote himself to philosophy (Cons. 1.P1.8: ‘Quis’, inquit, ‘has scenicas meretriculas ad hunc aegrum permisit accedere […]?’, ‘ “Who permitted”, she said, “to these little theatrical whores to approach this sick man?” ’). As in Boethius, where Philosophy expels the elegiac genre, in Elegy 2 Lycoris/Elegy rejects the old elegiac genre (El. 2.15: Nauseat et priscum vomitu ceu fundit amorem) and seeks new inspiration (El. 2.5: iamque alios iuvenes aliosque requirit amores).⁷⁶ Furthermore, apart from the connection between Maximianus and Boethius, the passage El. 2.25 – 32 implies an extra metapoetic reading too. I believe that here our poet is speaking metaphorically: he parallelizes old Lycoris with the old elegiac genre, which may be obsolete, but retains its beauty and attractiveness (cf. El. 2.27: Praestat adhuc nimiumque sibi pretiosa videtur, ‘even now she stands out and seems so precious to herself’, and El. 2.29 – 30: Et, fateor, primae retinet monimenta figurae | atque inter cineres condita flamma manet, ‘and, I admit it, she retains the traces of her youthful appearance, and the hidden flame remains among the ashes’).⁷⁷ After all, elegies did not stop being written in Late Antiquity, even though their content was different. We know of many late elegiac poems with no amatory subject, and many non-elegiac poems that had nothing to do with love.⁷⁸ Maximianus, as a self-conscious poet, admits that there is a past between him and love elegy (cf. El. 2.28: atque annos mecum despicit illa suos, ‘she despises the years she spent with me’). Moreover, he implies that time and literary trends cannot destroy the grace of this old genre (cf. El. 2.31– 32: Ut video, pulchris etiam vos parcitis, anni, | nec veteris formae gratia tota perit, ‘even you, time, I see, spare the beautiful and all the grace of the old beauty is not lost’).  Fielding (2017) 152– 154.  This motif of the graceful older women is also found in the Byzantine epigrammatists, as in Paul the Silentiary and Agathias, see Fielding (2016) 333.  Green (2013) 257.

3.3 A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy

79

In the following verses, Maximianus speaks of the habit of young men to remember their old love-affairs: Reliquiis veterum iuvenes pascuntur amorum, et, si quid nunc est, quod fuit ante placet. Ante oculos statuunt primaevi temporis actus atque in praeteritum luxuriantur opus. El. 2.33 – 36 Young men are fed by remnants of their old loves and, if something that existed before still exists, it is pleasing. They set before their eyes the deeds of their previous age and flourish in their past work.

This passage is a hidden metapoetic discourse, as Fielding has noted.⁷⁹ The phrase reliquiis veterum amorum (El. 2.33) actually means the poetic memory, and more precisely the genre of love elegy in the past (given that the term amor is identified with love poetry, cf. again Gallus’ and Ovid’s Amores). As the same scholar writes, actus of El. 2.35 might imply that Gallus’ Lycoris profession was that of a mime actress,⁸⁰ and the phrase praeteritum opus (‘past work’) of El. 2.36 may refer to Ovid’ Ars Amatoria, and perhaps, I would add, to the Augustan love elegy in general.⁸¹ In El. 2.51– 54, Maximianus advises Lycoris to trust the things that are wellknown and familiar to her: Tu tantum bene nota tibi atque experta relinquis, hospitia et potius non manifesta petis. Nonne placet melius certis confidere rebus? Eventus varios res nova semper habet. El. 2.51– 54 You only abandon what is proven and well-known to you, and you seek instead hospitality not clear to you. Is it not better to trust certain things? A new situation always has uncertain results.

Maximianus’ advice to Lycoris to not seek something unknown and obscure could also be read in metaliterary terms. Our poet presents himself as Apollo’s counterpart, who urges Callimachus to avoid the common and trite themes and seek new and unknown poetic paths, cf. Callim. Aet. Prol. 26 – 28 (Pfeiffer): ἑτέρων ἴχνια μὴ καθ᾽ ὁμά / δίφρον ἐλ]ᾶ̣ ν μηδ᾽ οἷμον ἀνὰ πλατύν, ἀλλὰ κελεύθους /  Fielding (2017) 154– 155.  For mime actresses in Late Antiquity, see Webb (2008) 95 – 138.  Fielding (2017) 155. Cf. Ov. Rem. am. 12: nec nova praeteritum Musa retexit opus (‘the new Muse does not destroy my past work’), where Ovid refers to Ars Amatoria.

80

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς, εἰ καὶ στε[ι]ν̣ οτέρην ἐλάσεις (‘do not follow the footsteps of others, nor the wide boulevard, but restless streets, even your path is narrow’). Maximianus appears to transform Lycoris into an anti-Callimachean puella. Thus, it is as if he is admitting that old Lycoris/Elegy has reached its end, and thus the literary genre has completed its course. In verses El. 2.53 – 54 in particular, Maximianus appears to reveal his metapoetic self-consciousness and share with his readers some of his thoughts regarding the evolution of the elegiac genre: as it is best for Lycoris to trust only her old lover because new adventures are dangerous, should the elegiac poet also follow the well-known and safe path? A new situation (El. 2.54: res nova), a phrase that could mean a new, different poetic work, always has uncertain results (El. 2.54: eventus varios). I believe that in this passage, Maximianus delivers a hidden metapoetic discourse, as he admits that the elegiac genre can no longer be original. In other words, it cannot find new (Callimachean) literary paths. So, what is needed is to add variety (variatio, cf. El. 2.54: eventus varios) to the genre, in order to bring about a possible renewal of it (El. 2.54: res nova). As we saw above, in Elegy 1 Maximianus has already highlighted the need for variatio in the elegiac genre, a variation that concerns the process of the generic mixture, cf. El. 1.30: ut semper varium plus micat artis opus (‘since variety always makes a work of art shine more’). Moreover, as we will see, our poet implies in Elegy 5 that the genre of love elegy must be renewed, cf. Graia puella’s words towards him in El. 5.68: proice tristitias et renovare ioco (‘leave your sadness and renew by fun’). In passage El. 2.57– 58, Maximianus reminds Lycoris that in the past he pleased her: Si modo non possum, quondam potuisse memento, sit satis ut placeam me placuisse prius. El. 2.57– 58 And if now I cannot, remember that once I could. Suffice it to please you that I pleased you before.

On a dramatic level, here the poet urges Lycoris to remember her sexual past. Verse El. 2.57 includes a sexual overtone, as does the verb placere. ⁸² The erotic success of Maximianus in the past, and his failures in the present, recall similar incidents in Elegy 5, where he completed his sexual duties on the first night, but failed on the second, El. 5.47– 50: Set mihi prima quidem nox affuit, ac sua solvit | munera grandaevo vix subeunda viro; | proxima destituit vires, vacuusque recessit | ardor, et in Venerem segnis ut ante fui (‘but the first night came and I paid my  See OLD, s.v. placeo, meaning 1d.

81

3.3 A Metapoetic Reading: Lycoris as Elegy

duty that I could hardly bear as an old man that I was. The next day my strength abandoned me, my hollow desire left and I was lazy in love, as before’). However, this couplet includes a metapoetic reading as well, as is proved by the existence of memory (cf. El. 2.57: memento) once again. Addressing Lycoris/Elegy, Maximianus exhorts her to remember their poetic past, when he was able to please her (El. 2.58: me placuisse prius), i. e. to compose love poetry. This allusion may be connected with his statement in Elegy 1 that he often composed elegies in the past, cf. El. 1.11: Saepe poetarum mendacia dulcia finxi, ‘I often composed sweet lies of the poets’), an ability that he has lost now that he is old, cf. El. 1.129: non blanda poemata fingo (‘I do not compose alluring poems’). However, our poet also mentions that he continues to compose poetry, even in his old age: Nec me adeo primis spoliavit floribus aetas: En facio versus et mea dicta cano. El. 2.63 – 64 So far, my age has not stripped my early blossoming. Look! I compose verses and I sing my words.

Therefore, the poet may feel that the Augustan love elegy is now old and obsolete, but he, though an old man, maintains his first poetic blossoming. We know that flowers and wreaths were metapoetic symbols of the Callimachean aesthetics in Hellenistic and Latin poetry.⁸³ Other poets of Late Antiquity, such as Claudian and Reposianus, also used these symbols in the same way.⁸⁴ In El. 2.64, Maximianus claims that, although he is now old, he composes verses and sings his words (El. 2.64: En versus facio et mea dicta cano, ‘Look! I compose verses and I sing my words’). If we carefully read this verse alongside that of El. 1.129 (non blanda poemata fingo, ‘I do not compose alluring poems’), we can deduce that Maximianus hints that he was an elegiac poet in his youth and continued to be a poet during his old age, but with one main difference: now he merely composes verses and sings his words (El. 2.64: facio versus et mea dicta cano), rather than writing alluring poems (El. 1.129: blanda poemata). In Maximianus’ time, the elegiac poetry is merely verses (versus), not poetry (poemata). Maximianus ends this elegy by citing a maxim:

 Gutzwiller (1998) and Gutzwiller (2007) 35; Karakasis (2016) 201; Myers (2019) 131– 132.  For Claudian, see Pappas (2020) 166. For Reposianus, see Pappas (2021a).

82

3 Lycoris grew old: Elegy 2

His lacrimis longos, quantum fas, flevimus annos, est grave quod doleat commemorare diu. El. 2.73 – 74 For long years I cried with these tears – more than I should have. It is difficult to remember what hurts you for a long time.

As I mentioned above, Wasyl has noted the connection between this couplet and the end of Elegy 1 (El. 1.291– 292). This last couplet serves as an epigrammatic acumen. It includes three generic indicators of the elegiac genre (El. 2.73: lacrimis, flevimus, 74: doleat). Once again, the sense of memory is used (El. 2.74: commemorare). Here too, memory has a metapoetic dimension, as it refers to the mournful love elegy, which is many years away from Maximianus’ era (El. 2.73: longos annos, 74: diu).

3.4 Conclusions Maximianus’ Lycoris grew old, just like the elegiac genre of the 6th century AD. Despite his own age and that of his poetry, our poet-lover continues to compose verses and praise the immortal beauty of his now aged elegiac puella. Maximianus does not create a repetition of the Augustan prototype. Through the generic interaction that takes place in Elegy 2, he composes something new: the song of the exclusus amator, who is now aged, as is his entire era (senectus mundi). Accordingly, he implies a hidden metapoetic discourse for the advanced age of love elegy in his time.

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3 4.1 Introduction: The Elegy 3 4.1.1 Summary Maximianus begins his third elegy with a statement to his readers; he will now narrate a tale from his youth (1– 4). When he was an inexperienced young boy, he fell in love with a girl named Aquilina (5 – 8). Their love was mutual, as she had the same feelings for him; love dominated her heart, and her only care was to see him (9 – 16). However, as usually happens in the genre of love elegy, obstacles stood in the way of their passion: his paedagogus ¹ pursued him and her mother guarded her strictly (17– 20). The two lovers communicated with each other through secret signs (21– 28), but not for long: her mother discovered their tryst and beat her (29 – 31). However, as always, forbiddance and punishment have a different result; their love passion increased (31– 34). Aquilina did not hesitate to take off her torn garment and reveal the wounds that she suffered for him (35 – 42). Young Maximianus was in despair, and lost any hope of salvation (43 – 46). Suddenly, the great philosopher of the 6th century, Boethius, shows up; he recognized the symptoms of love in young Maximianus and, as a praeceptor amoris, offered him his treatment: the young poet must be impious, daring and perhaps offer presents to his sweetheart; in the end, he could be violent towards her (47– 70). In the meantime, Boethius bribed Aquilina’s parents and in this way made them accept Maximianus as their daughter’s lover (71– 74). But as their attitude changed, the young couple’s passion disappeared (75 – 78). The girl left him, whereupon he realized that he was unhappy when he was in love; he thus maintained his virginity (79 – 84). When he announced his decision to Boethius, the philosopher (surprisingly) congratulated him (85 – 90). The elegy ends with the poet’s statement that having permission to sin made him choose a chaste life without his previous sweetheart (91– 94).

 I agree with Lind (1988) 328, who believes that paedagogus is Maximianus’ and not Aquilina’s (see Juster (2018) 49), as it is more possible that he (as a boy) would have had a paedagogus, see Brown (1998) 4. However, we know of paedagogi attached to girls of aristocratic Roman families, see Rawson (2003) 198. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-005

84

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

4.1.2 Elegies 3 and 4 As we have already seen in Chapter 1, it appears that Maximianus’ Elegies 3 to 5 follow a chronological order in terms of the poet-lover’s age. Thus, he is a young man in Elegy 3, a mature man in Elegy 4, and an old man in Elegy 5.² It is true that the scenario of Elegy 3 has a lot in common with that of Elegy 4. First, the existence of the parents of the puellae: at the beginning of the poems, they correspond to their roles as impedimenta amoris, but afterwards they do not obey the elegiac scenario, whether there is a realistic reason (bribery in the case of Elegy 3) or not (in Elegy 4 Candida’s father lurks in order to discover information regarding his daughter’s relationship with our poet, but in the end, we are not sure if he does anything, as Maximianus ends the plot of the poem). Furthermore, in both elegies the poet chooses the chaste way of life, cf. El. 3.83 – 84: sancta virginitas (‘saint virginity’) and El. 4.49: sanctae gravitatis (‘saint solemnity’), a choice that makes him unhappy, cf. El. 3.93: Ingrati, tristes pariter discedimus ambo (‘unsatisfied, similarly sad we both separated from each other’), El. 4.51: infelix tota est sine crimine vita (‘my whole life with no crime is unhappy’) and El. 4.53 – 54: Deserimur vitiis, fugit indignata Voluptas; | nec quod non possum non voluisse meum est (‘I am abandoned due to my defects and indignant pleasure goes away, as I cannot do what I wanted to do’).³ Moreover, the erotica pathemata of the poet-lover are similar in these two elegies.⁴ In Elegy 3, Maximianus was captured by his love for Aquilina and lost his mind, as in Elegy 4, cf. El. 3.5 – 6: captus amore tuo demens, Aquilina, ferebar, | pallidus et tristis captus amore tuo (‘crazy and captured by your love, Aquilina, I was wandering, pale and sad, captive to your love’) and El. 4.23 – 24: O quotiens demens, quotiens sine mente putabar! | Nec, puto, fallebar: non bene sanus eram (‘Oh how often crazy, how often stupid I was considered by people! And, I do not think they were wrong – I was quite mad’). Finally, it is clear that the proems of Elegies 3 and 4 are connected: Nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae atque senectutis pauca referre meae, quis lector mentem rerum vertigine fractam erigat et maestum noscere curet opus. El. 3.1– 4

 See Schetter (1970) 161– 162; Fo (1986) 15 – 18 and Fo (1986 – 1987) 94– 96; Roberts (2018) 7– 8.  See Wasyl (2011) 148 – 149. This conscious choice of sexual abstinence recalls the epilogue of the De ave phoenice (161– 170), which may be read as a crypto-Christian allusion to virginity, see Nikitas (1992) 55 – 57 and (1995) 117.  Wasyl (2011) 147.

4.2 Aquilina and Boethius

85

It is now worth telling something from my youth and mention little of my old age, in order to cheer the reader’s mind that is broken down by the world’s whirling and make him interested in learning my mournful work.

and Restat adhuc alios turpesque revolvere casus atque aliquo molli pascere corda ioco. Conveniunt etenim delirae ignava senectae, aptaque sunt operi carmina vana meo. Sic vicibus variis alternos fallimus annos et mutata magis tempora grata mihi. El. 4.1– 6 It still remains to narrate other shameful ventures and nourish the heart with a tender and funny story. For idle deeds fit silly old age and my foolish poems are what I need now. This is how I am deceived by the varying seasons of year and the changing of time gives pleasure to me.

In both of these passages we hear the ‘voice’ of the poet, who reveals to us the main purpose not only of these two elegies, but also of his entire collection (or his carmen continuum): to offer his readers pleasure.⁵ Furthermore, he highlights his method to alternate the temporality of his narration between the present (old age) and the past (youth).⁶ Therefore, we can deduce that Elegies 3 and 4 share several common features. Also, in both poems we have the phenomenon of ‘erotic elegy without love’,⁷ as love is fulfilled in none of them: in Elegy 3 – in which Maximianus describes an initial reciprocation of love by his sweetheart (a convention incompatible with the genre of Augustan love elegy) – there is a sudden change in the erotic behavior of the couple; in Elegy 4, there is a pause in the plot, with no mention of a possible fulfillment or frustration of the love affair.

4.2 Aquilina and Boethius Aside from the protagonist, the poet-lover Maximianus, in this elegy we have two other main characters, Aquilina and Boethius. In the following section, I offer a  As I have noted already in Chapter 1, verses 3 – 4 (lector mentem rerum vertigine fractam | erigat) of Elegy 3 may have a political meaning, as verse 110 (non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos) of Elegy 5. These phrases may have a metapoetic reading as we will see.  For a further parallelism between the opening of Elegies 3 and 4, see Franzoi (2011) 162.  See Wasyl (2011) 144.

86

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

preliminary presentation of these personae, based mainly on the interpretative approaches made by several scholars. In the fourth part of this chapter, I will analyze my reading regarding their metapoetic role in the poem.

4.2.1 Aquilina The name of the scripta puella of Elegy 3 is Aquilina.⁸ Critics have discussed the meaning of her name; Franzoi and Spinazzè believe that it is the opposite of the name of the puella of Elegy 4: the name Aquilina derives from the word aquilus, i. e. a color between black and brown,⁹ and contrasts with the name Candida (the feminine form of the adjective candidus, -a, -um) of Elegy 4, which means ‘white’ or ‘shining’, or even ‘pure’.¹⁰ Uden expresses the opinion that Aquilina’s name has Christian connotations, and links the name of Maximianus’ puella with Saint Aquilina, who was known for a church dedicated to her in Constantinople, which was destroyed in the Nika Riots of 532.¹¹ This historical fact may hint at Maximianus’ anxiety about civil disorder.¹² In any case, the name of Aquilina perhaps suggests other things as well, such as the black/brown bruises made by her mother’s beating (El. 3.30 – 31), or ‘the girl who comes from the North’ (perhaps an Ostrogoth, like Theodoric?),¹³ or even ‘the girl who is like an eagle’,¹⁴ in contrast with Lycoris, the name of the protagonist of Elegy 2, whose name (apart from Cornelius Gallus’ puella) reminds us of the Greek word λύκος (‘wolf’).¹⁵ Bussières expresses a very stimulating idea: perhaps the names of the girls in Elegies 2, 3, and 4 are a combined intertext to Martial’s 4.62: Tibur in Herculeum migravit nigra Lycoris, | omnia dum fieri candida credit ibi (‘black Lycoris has left Rome for Tivoli, which is sacred to Hercules, as she believes that everything becomes white there’). In this distich, Martial mentions a Lycoris and the adjectives nigra and candida, which lead us to Aquilina and Candida, respectively.¹⁶  See Wyke (1987); Juster (2018) 157.  Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 168. See OLD 158, s.v. aquilus.  See OLD 264– 265, s.v. candidus, -a, -um, meanings 1, 2 and 8. Mastandrea (2005) 156 also believes that Aquilina means ‘a girl of dark skin’.  Uden (2009) 215.  Juster (2018) 157.  See OLD 158, s.v. aquilo, meanings 1 and 3.  See OLD 158, s.v. aquilinus, -a, -um. Schneider (2003) 101 believes that her name perhaps means ‘a small dark eagle’. See also Wasyl (2011) 139, n. 105; Malick-Prunier (2011) 42.  See Montanari (32016), s.v. λύκος.  Bussières (2020) 900 – 901.

4.2 Aquilina and Boethius

87

Aquilina is a young girl who is still under the protection of her parents (El. 3.71: parentum), more precisely that of her cruel mother (El. 3.17: tristissima mater). At first sight, it seems that she must be a Roman girl, who had to remain a virgin until her marriage (perhaps with Christian connotations, if we remember that we speak of the 6th century).¹⁷ At the beginning of the poem, Aquilina’s parents seem to be conservative and care about their daughter’s modesty.¹⁸ However, when Boethius bribes them in order to consent to their daughter’s love affair, they give their permission, cf. El. 3.71– 72: Interea donis permulcet corda parentum | et pretio faciles in meo vota trahit (‘in the meantime he softens the hearts of her parents with gifts | and with money he makes them to do whatever I wish’). Aquilina’s parents turned out to be not so moral after all, as they act like lenones of their own child. This perhaps means that this scripta puella is probably a meretrix too, like the other puellae of Maximianus’ Elegies (Lycoris, Candida and Graia puella), who are specialists in the arts (dance, music, singing) but not so compatible with the role of the Roman virgo or matrona. Aquilina was also an expert in songs, as Maximianus tells us, cf. El. 3.11: carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant (‘songs, tasks that she loved so much, now were thrown away’). However, I believe that Aquilina does not only play the role of Maximianus’ scripta puella here; I think that her function is mainly metapoetic, an argument that I will develop below.

4.2.2 Boethius In Elegy 3, a real (historical) person appears (the only one to do so in Maximianus’ elegies): Boethius (ca. 480 – 524 or 525 AD), the great philosopher and politician of the 5th and 6th centuries AD. As is well known, Boethius was consul in 510, but in 523 he was imprisoned and a year later (524 or 525 AD) was executed, by order of the Ostrogoth king Theodoric the Great, who accused him of conspiring in favor of the Eastern Roman Empire.¹⁹ As we saw in the Introduction of the

 See Clark (1993) 28 – 62; Wilkinson (2015) 5 – 27 and 117– 138.  As Wilkinson (2015) 14 writes, the terms pudicitia (‘purity’), verecundia (‘respect’), pietas (‘piety’) and castitas (‘chastity’) are cognate to the Roman virtue of modestia (‘modesty’). It is quite remarkable that the aforementioned terms exist in Elegy 3: 94: vita pudica (‘chaste life’), 23: verecundia (‘respect’), 61: verecunda silentia (‘respectful silence’), 64: pietas (‘piety’), 68: pius (‘pious’), 66: castus amor (‘chaste love’), as if Maximianus intends to highlight this virtue that leads him to 84: virginitas (‘virginity’).  See Gibson (1981).

88

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

book, several scholars were based on his presence, in order to offer a concrete chronology for Maximianus and his work. Furthermore, they have studied the impact and intertextual relationship between Maximianus’ poems (mainly Elegy 3) and Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae. ²⁰ They have also tried to interpret Boethius’ presence in this poem, his behavior as a praeceptor amoris towards the young poet-lover (El. 3.47– 70), and his sudden change in this respect, as – after Maximianus’ renuntiatio amoris – he consents to the poet’s decision to remain a virgin (El. 3.87– 90).²¹ Introducing Boethius to his readers (El. 3.47– 48), Maximianus describes him as a ‘great searcher of important things’, implying the Greek etymology of his name (Boethius < βοηθῶ = help): Hic mihi, magnarum scrutator maxime rerum, | solus, Boethi, fers miseratus opem (‘you, Boethius, who are a great searcher of important things, and only you, you spared me and offered me your help’).²² The word scrutator has an ambiguous meaning, as critics have noted: it may imply the charge of sorcery against Boethius,²³ or it may be used ironically with mocking connotations;²⁴ perhaps Maximianus was punning on scortator (‘the man who associates with prostitutes’) too, given Boethius’ role in this elegy as a procurer.²⁵ From another perspective, scrutari is a terminus technicus denoting a medical examination.²⁶ Finally, Boethius’ representation as an expe-

 E. g. cf. the beginning of Elegy 3 (verses 1– 6) and the elegiac preface of the work of Boethius (I.M I.9 – 16), where we clearly see an imitation of Boethius’ complaints about his miserable old age. See Barnish (1990) 22; Fielding (2017) 142– 143. According to Relihan (2007) 101– 107, in Elegy 3 Boethius takes Philosophy’s role in the Consolatio Philosophiae and Maximianus takes the role of the prisoner Boethius. See also, Mitchell (2003) 378, who comments on El. 3.53 – 55: ‘The general approach and the figurative language clearly recall the opening of the Consolatio where Lade Philosophy interrogates the prisoner Boethius, stunned and silently languishing’.  See Manitius (1889); Webster (1900) 94– 102; Wilhelm (1907); Alfonsi (1942); Boano (1949); Anastasi (1951); Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 360 – 361; Bertini (1981); Shanzer (1983) 186 – 188, where she summarizes some critical opinions on the historical problems raised by Elegy 3); Fo (1986 – 1987) 98 – 100; Barnish (1990) 21– 28; Wasyl (2011) 139 – 145; Tandy (2016); Fielding (2017) 19 – 20, 141– 145 and 155 – 163; Juster (2018) 156 – 181.  See Fielding (2016) 332; Juster (2018) 163.  Barnish (1990) 27.  See Shanzer (1983) 189 – 190, where she notes: ‘The tone is, I think, gently ironic. […] The word [scrutator] is normally used for poking, delving, or grubbing around for things. […] It is used in mockery by Lactantius in mort. 10.1 of Diocletian anxiously poking at viscera to discover the future’.  Juster (2018) 162.  Zurli (1991) 313 – 314; Wasyl (2011) 141, n. 111 and n. 112.

4.2 Aquilina and Boethius

89

rienced adviser perhaps recalls Cassiodorus’ Variae 1.10, 1.45, and 2.40, where he is presented as a technical assistant to the government.²⁷ Undoubtedly, the most striking subject of this elegy is the representation of Boethius’ personality, which contradicts his traditional image as the great thinker of Late Antiquity.²⁸ In El. 3.53, Boethius asks Maximianus the cause of his unhappiness: dicito et unde novo correptus carperis aestu! (‘tell me, from where did you catch this new fever!’)²⁹ and acts as a praeceptor amoris, offering his advice to young Maximianus that fully agrees with the teachings of the elegiac genre, e. g. his exhortation to be violent towards the girl: El. 3.69 – 70: unguibus et morsu teneri pascuntur amores, | vulnera non refugit res magis apta plagae (‘tender loves are fed by scratches and bites, | a situation more suited to blows, it does not avoid blows’), a practice that Ovid also recommended to young lovers, cf. Cf. Ov. Ars am. 1.673: grata est vis ista puellis (‘girls like violence’). But the philosopher goes even further, as he is not only the adviser of the inexperienced poet-lover; he acts as a pander, bribing Aquilina’s parents in order to bring together the couple together. Critics have tried to interpret Boethius’ image as an amatory persona. Shanzer invokes the testimony of (contemporary to Boethius) Ennodius (473/474– 521 AD), who in his epigram 2.132 (De Boetio spatha cincto) describes the great philosopher as a lover.³⁰ There, Boethius is characterized as inbellis (i. e. not a warrior, but a lover),³¹ a word that fits the idle elegiac poets and is also included in an amatory context.³² Ennodius’ testimony for Boethius includes other elegiac terms as well, such as emollit (‘soften’) and languescit (‘become languid’), words with poetic connotations.³³ Moreover, the last term appears to have inter-

 Barnish (1990) 20. For an overview of interpretations proposed by critics for this scene, see Goldlust (2013) 155 – 157.  For further details on Boethius, see Marenbon (2003) 7– 16 (for his life and work), and 164– 183 (for his influence in the Middle Ages). See also, Moorhead (2009).  See Fielding (2016) 332, who argues that Boethius’ pressure on Maximianus to reveal to him the cause of his sadness resembles a Greek epigram by Maccius (Anth. Pal. 5.130), ‘in which the speaker questions another reticent lover about the reason for their tears’.  See Shanzer (1983) 183, where she cites the six-line poem of Ennodius and its English translation. See also, Kossaifi (2000) 231– 232; O’Daly (1991) 10 – 11, and 38.  Cf. Ennodius Carm. 2.132.3: inbellis dextra Boeti (‘the right hand of unwarlike Boethius’).  Cf. Hor. Carm. 1.6.10: inbellique lyrae (‘unwarlike lyre’), 1.15.15: inbelli cithara carmina (‘songs by unwarlike guitar’); Ov. Am. 1.10.20 (for Venus and Cupid): inbelles…deos (‘unwarlike deities’), 3.15.19 (for elegiac verses): inbelles elegi (‘the unwarlike elegies’).  Emollio comes from mollis, a technical term of the elegiac genre, see Miller (2002) 4– 5; Blanco Mayor (2017) 87, especially n. 107). For languor and languesco, see Shanzer (1983) 184, n. 1; Fielding (2017) 158 – 159.

90

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

textual associations with Maximianus’ Elegy 3, as it exists three times within the latter (44: langebam, 77: languidus, 78: languida). Ennodius also expresses his low opinion of Boethius in Epist. 8.1.26: avidus maximum rerum possessor (‘a very greedy owner of things’) in the context of a real estate disagreement between them (i. e. Boethius denied Ennodius a house in Milan).³⁴ This negative image of Boethius is probably in agreement with his tendency, in our elegy, to offer gifts in theory (in his advice to Maximianus) as well as in practice (his bribery of Aquilina’s parents): El. 3.63: ‘fare’ ait ‘ut placitae potiaris munere formae’ (‘ “tell me”, he says, “if you can win your beloved girl by gifts” ’), and 71: Interea donis permulcet corda parentum (‘in the meantime he softens the hearts of her parents with gifts’). As Brooke Hunter has noted in a highly stimulating paper, this negative or humorous depiction of Boethius also existed in a Medieval pseudo-Boethian work entitled De disciplina scolarium, a work that was likely composed ca. 1230 – 1240 and had widespread popularity. It was considered a genuine Boethian text until at least the end of the 15th century and beyond.³⁵ In this work, Boethius presents himself as a comical schoolmaster who advises his students using several shocking stories. As in the case of Maximianus’ Elegies, De disciplina was also a widely-read text in schools.³⁶ According to Hunter, Maximianus’ depiction of Boethius in Elegy 3 ‘resembles the thirteenth-century treatment of other respected auctores like Aristotle, Virgil, and Ovid and resonates with the moral ambiguity of De disciplina’s similarly off-kilter lessons, producing a complicated vision of the medieval Boethius and his auctoritas that was an important part of the medieval Boethian corpus’.³⁷ Boethius’ similar portrayal in these two works (dated to approximately the beginning and the end of the Middle Ages, respectively), which were highly popular school books, prove that the medieval curriculum used humour as a pedagogical tool.³⁸ Perhaps this humoristic depiction of Boethius shocks only us modern readers, but not those from medieval times.

 Shanzer (1983) 185; Juster (2018) 163.  Brooke (2015) 161– 162. The attribution of the De disciplina scolarium to Boethius until the 16th century recalls the same ‘adventure’ of Maximianus’ Elegies, which were attributed to Cornelius Gallus until the 18th century; see Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 62, who note that in 56 editions of Maximianus’ work between 1502 and 1794, only four (all belonging to the 17th century) contained Maximianus’ name in the title.  Hunter (2015) 162.  Hunter (2015) 173.  Hunter (2015) 176 – 179.

4.2 Aquilina and Boethius

91

Furthermore, Boethius’ representation as a praeceptor amoris (and therefore, as an elegiac lover) perhaps implies that he wrote poetry in his youth.³⁹ After all, it seems that young Prudentius also wrote love poetry.⁴⁰ In this context, perhaps Maximianus brings Boethius to the scene as his literary predecessor.⁴¹ However, after the renunciation of love by the young Maximianus (El. 3.83 – 84), his adviser changes his attitude as well; he congratulates him for his choice and becomes a supporter of virginity (El. 3.87– 90).⁴² The former lascivious teacher is restored to the well-known author of philosophy. How can this change in Boethius’ behavior be explained? Wilhelm believes that he was testing Maximianus’ virtue and is pleased when the elegiac poet does not fall into his trap.⁴³ Shanzer, meanwhile, believes Maximianus used the persona of Boethius in this elegy in order to create a kind of counterpart between them: Boethius in his youth was an unwarlike lover (cf. Ennodius’ testimonies), but in his older life became a philosopher who died as a political martyr. On the contrary, Maximianus lived a chaste life as a young man, but later became a lascivious old man.⁴⁴ Moreover, this praise of virginity by Maximianus agrees with the Christian way of life – we must remember the surprising popularity of our poet during the medieval period (manuscripts of his work have been found in monasteries).⁴⁵ In this context, several scholars have supported that Boethius is not actually a praeceptor amoris but rather a praeceptor castitatis, and that this elegy (and indeed Maximianus’ entire body of work) is ‘a form of protreptic for sexual renunciation’.⁴⁶

 Shanzer (1983) 193, where she notes: ‘Boethius […] was also a poet in his youth. We have lost all his early opera, but the Anecdoton Holderi tells us of a Carmen bucolicum’. See also O’Daly (1991) 10 – 11 and 38; Fielding (2017) 130.  Fielding (2017) 8.  Shanzer (1983) 192. Franzoi believes that the episode of Boethius (El. 3.47– 94) is a literary fiction that is mainly based on the norms of the elegiac genre, see Franzoi (2016).  According to Roberts (2018) 10, ‘Boethius’ congratulations to Maximianus for overcoming his erotic desires (3.87– 90) evoke a similar context in a satire of Horace, where the elder Cato offers congratulations to a young man who has also gained control of his sexual impulses, though by a rather different strategy, by patronizing a brothel (1.2.31– 35)’.  Wilhelm (1907) 611– 612.  Shanzer (1983) 194.  See Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 352– 353; Juster (2018) 168 – 169 and Chapter 1. For virginity from the classical era to Late Antiquity, see Kelly (2000) 1– 16. To protect the virginity of Roman girls, see Caldwell (2015) 45 – 78. Also, cf. Ambrosius’ works De virginibus, De viduis, De virginitate, De institutione virginis and Exhortatio virginitatis, and the De Virginitate of Avitus of Vienne.  Wasyl (2011) 145. Perhaps Boethius’ behavioral change comes from the genre of Roman comedy; cf. the change of Hegio in Plautus’ Captivi, where he is a kind old man at the beginning, is later transformed into an angry old man, and then becomes kind again, see O’Bryhim (2020) 128.

92

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

In El. 3.25 – 32, Maximianus describes the secret signs and trysts between the young couple, a motif that is likely derived from the story of the tragic lovers Pyramus and Thisbe in Ovid’s Met. 4.55 – 126, as several critics have noted.⁴⁷ This story inspired Augustine’s friend, Licentius, and inspired him to try to write a poem on the subject – an attempt that Augustine rebuked.⁴⁸ Augustine’s conversion of Licentius has been identified as a model for Philosophy’s conversion of Boethius in the Consolatio. ⁴⁹ Based on this intertextual connection, Fielding makes a very interesting syllogism: perhaps Boethius saves Maximianus ‘from becoming another Pyramus in the second half of the third elegy’,⁵⁰ acting as Augustine did for Licentius’ sake. Thus, Maximianus’ portrayal of Boethius has been interpreted in various ways. Some believe it is ironic and satirical,⁵¹ and even hostile (given Ennodius’ negative representation of Boethius or his condemnation by Theodoric).⁵² Others maintain that Boethius’ image is positive, and that he plays the role of therapist.⁵³ Shanzer, commenting on the almost total absence of myth in Maximianus’ poetry, expresses the opinion that Boethius in Elegy 3 is actually a substitute for the traditional mythological characters.⁵⁴ Critics have demonstrated the intertextual relationship between Boethius’ advisory attitude in Maximianus’ Elegy 3, Philosophy’s appearance in Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae, and that of Elegy in Ovid’s Amores 3.1.⁵⁵ In other words,

 See Fo (1986 – 1987) 98 – 99; Consolino (1997) 378; Wasyl (2011) 140 – 141; Fielding (2017) 157; Juster (2018) 158 – 159.  Cf. August. De ord. 1.8.24.  See Shanzer (1991) 142; Fielding (2017) 158 – 159.  Fielding (2017) 159.  See Alfonsi (1941– 1942); Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 361; Vitiello (2006) 185; Juster (2018) 165. The satirical attitude against Boethius might be justified by the common practice of Roman authors to ridicule philosophers, see Wasyl (2011) 143.  See Anastasi (1948) and Anastasi (1951); Barnish (1990) 21. I would add that perhaps the phrase in El. 3.61: prostratus pedibus (‘lying in his feet’), which describes the practice of lying prostrate at later Roman emperors and kissing their robes (see Juster (2018) 165), hides a satirical political meaning, presenting the enemy of the Gothic regime as an emperor.  See Agozzino (1970) 88 – 89; Bertini (1981) 283; Mastandrea (2005) 157.  Shanzer (1983) 192.  Shanzer (1983) 190; Wasyl (2011) 141– 143; Fielding (2017) 19 – 20 and 130 – 134. Barnish (1990) 22 does not believe that Boethius imitated Ovid’s Am. 3.1 in this, but rather Propertius’ 4.8. He argued that the driving out of the elegiac Muses by Philosophy in Boethius’ Concolatio ‘is derived from the plot of a bawdy love elegy: the unexpected return of Propertius’ mistress, and her expulsion of the tarts she finds with him’, and that Maximianus ‘consciously reverses the Boethian reworking of Propertius’. For possible influences of Propertius on Maximianus,

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

93

it seems there is a linear connection between them; Maximianus imitated Boethius, who imitated Ovid. The Augustan poet rejected Tragedy (a serious genre) and preferred Elegy (a light genre), but the philosopher reversed this choice, as he rejected the scenicas meretriculas (‘theatrical little whores’, i. e. the elegiac Muses),⁵⁶ and preferred Philosophy (a serious genre). Some scholars believe that Boethius’ praecepta to Maximianus plays the same role as that of Philosophy to himself in Consolatio Philosophiae; as Philosophy urged him to reject the (meaningless) elegiac genre (and consequently his love life) and adopt philosophy and morality, so Boethius – rendering Maximianus’ sweetheart easy to get – managed to make the young lover reject his love life and choose a chaste way of life.⁵⁷ On the contrary, Fielding argues that Elegy 3 is Maximianus’ response ‘to the criticisms leveled against elegy by Boethius’ Philosophy’,⁵⁸ since the chaste life (that Boethius’ Philosophy proposed) does not offer happiness or pleasure here, but unhappiness: El. 3.93 – 94: ingrati, tristes pariter discedimus ambo: | Discidii ratio vita pudica fuit (‘unsatisfied and sad, we both separated from each other: the chaste life was the reason for our separation’).⁵⁹ Undoubtedly, the intertextual relationship between Elegy 3 and Consolatio Philosophiae is certain. However, I believe that Maximianus uses the great philosopher here within the context of the main feature of Late Latin poetics, i. e. that of generic mixture.⁶⁰ For this reason, in the following section I will examine (among other things) the generic identity of Boethius’ persona and its role in the generic interplay of the poem.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay As critics have noted, in Elegy 3 (as in Elegies 2 and 4), we have an ‘elegy without love’ or an ‘anti-elegy’.⁶¹ This means we read a love-story that leads nowhere (as in the case of the Augustan love elegy). Unlike the classical Roman love elegy,

see Foster (1909) 60; Enk (1946) 74; Altamura (1981) 821; Merone (1948) 336; Uden (2012) 459 – 460.  Cf. Cons. 1.P.1.8. See Fielding (2017) 133.  See Wilhelm (1907) 611– 612; Agozzino (1970) 86 – 89; Bertini (1981) 280 – 283; Barnish (1990) 23 – 24; Mastandrea (2005) 157.  Fielding (2017) 143.  There is a great deal of discussion regarding the identity of ambo; for the scholars’ opinion and mine, see below.  Wasyl (2011) 7– 9.  See Wasyl (2011) 144; Juster (2018) 167.

94

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

here the love of the young couple is mutual. Furthermore, Aquilina seems to be a docta puella, cf. El. 3.11: carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant (‘songs, tasks that she loved so much, now were thrown away’), but not a dura domina. ⁶² Therefore, what is the generic status of this poem? Maximianus begins the elegy by saying that he will remind us (El. 3.1: memorare) of a story from his youth (El. 3.1: iuventae). This story is, of course, his amatory episode with Aquilina. The word memorare serves as an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ here, as it underlines our poet’s compliance to the norms of the elegiac genre,⁶³ which require that love is compatible only with young people (cf. Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor, ‘it is a shameful thing to love in old age’). However, after this, he states that his reader’s mind is ‘broken down by the world’s whirling’ (El. 3.3: mentem rerum vertigine fractam). This phrase perhaps implies the generic mixture that takes place here.⁶⁴ In this section, I study the generic interplay between the ‘host’ genre (that which keeps the ‘dominant generic role’), i. e. ‘elegy’, and other genres that play the role of ‘guest’ genres in Elegy 3.⁶⁵ As is proven, this technique was a common practice for Roman poets, from the Golden Age of Latin literature (70 BC – 18 AD), to the so-called Silver Age of Latin literature (18 AD – 133 AD) and the late Latin literature (3rd – 6th centuries AD),⁶⁶ which has a tendency to mix various genres and styles as one of its main poetic features.⁶⁷

4.3.1 The ‘Host’ Genre Apart from the elegiac couplet and the existence of a couple in love, we have several elegiac ‘generic markers’ in our poem. Thus, in the programmatic opening (El. 3.1– 4), Maximianus gives the initial indication of his poem(s);⁶⁸ it is a maes-

 See Wyke (2001) 21– 45; James (2003b) 71– 152. For a possible echo of Propertius in El. 3.11, see Merone (1950) 336; Altamura (1981) 821; Uden (2012) 459 – 460.  See Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; White (2019) 11– 12.  For the metaphorical meaning of the word vertigo as ‘a changing cycle’, see OLD, s.v. vertigo, meaning 1b. As we saw in Chapter 1, this phrase may have a political reading as well, a strong connection with the phrase non privatum, sed generale chaos fleo of Elegy 5 (see also, Chapter 6). Also, see Uden (2009) 219 – 220.  For the terminology, see Harrison (2007) 16.  Indicatively, for Virgil and Horace, see Harrison (2007); for Calpurnius Siculus, see Karakasis (2013a); for Claudian, see Pappas (2020).  Wasyl (2011) 7.  Harrison (2007) 30.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

95

tum opus (‘a mournful work’, in El. 3.4),⁶⁹ i. e. an elegiac poem. He continues by offering some ‘symbolic metonyms’ of the genre (El. 3.5 – 6),⁷⁰ as he writes that he is suffering from the well-known erotica pathemata of the elegiac lover:⁷¹ he is sad (6: tristis),⁷² pale (6: pallidus),⁷³ crazy for her (5: demens)⁷⁴ and captured by his sweetheart’s love (6: captus tuo amore, a phrase that is repeated in the pentameter, apparently for emphasis).⁷⁵ All these indicators define the elegiac setting of the poem. In particular, the adjective tristis (and the noun tristitia in verse 50: causas…tristitiae, ‘the causes of your sadness’) is used several times (e. g., cf. El. 3.6: tristis, 17: tristissima mater, ‘the sternest mother’, 80: tristis abit ‘she, sad, left me’, 93: tristes…discedimus, ‘we, sad, were separated’) in our elegy, as if Maximianus wishes to underline its generic identity. Furthermore, the reference to the three deities responsible for love is made from the beginning (El. 3.7: Amor…Venus, 9: Cupidine), while the word amor is repeated ten times (El. 3.5 and 6: amore, 12: amor, 29: amorem, 34: amore, 66: amor, 69: amores, 73: amor…amorem, 87: amoris) throughout the poem, in order to again emphasize its elegiac character (as amor means love elegy, cf. Gallus’ and Ovid’

 El. 3.4. See OLD, s.v. maestus, -a, -um, meaning 1a.  Harrison (2007) 31– 33.  See Wasyl (2011) 140; Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 169; Juster (2018) 157.  Tristis is a typical elegiac word, cf. Tib. 1.13.19: tristia dixi (‘I said unhappy things’), 2.3.33: tristi fronte (‘with unhappy forehead’), 2.4.3: servitium…triste (‘sad slavery’); Prop. 1.16.14: supplicis a longis tristior excubiis (‘I become more unhappy from the long vigils of a suppliant’), and Ovid’s Tristia.  The erotic pallor is common in the elegiac genre, cf. Prop. 2.5.30: hic tibi pallori, Cynthia, versus erit (‘this verse, Cynthia, will make you pale’), 3.8.25: semper in irata pallidus esse velim (‘I would always wish to be pale at any angry girl’); Ov. Am. 3.6.25 – 26: Inachus in Melie Bithynide pallidus isse | dicitur (‘they say that Inachus became pale for Melie the Bithynian’), Ars am. 1.729: Palleat omnis amans: hic est color aptus amanti (‘let all lovers be pale; this is the fitting color for a lover’), and 731– 732: pallidus in Side silvis errabat Orion, | Pallidus in lenta naide Daphnis erat (‘pale Orion wandered in the woods for Side, Daphnis was pale for his tough Naiad’). See also, Juster (2018) 157.  Cf. Tib. 1.5.20: fingebam demens (‘I imagined in my madness’), 1.9.78: tune aliis demens oscula ferrens mea (‘you, crazy one, offering my kisses to other men’); Prop. 1.13.20: tantus erat demens…furor (‘so big was my insane furor’); Ov. Am. 2.4.4: in mea nunc demens crimina fassus eo (‘I confess that I am going now in my madness against my crimes’), 3.6.101: demens narrabam fluminum amores (‘I was narrating madly the loves of rivers’), Ars am. 2.591: demens stulte fecisse fateris (‘you, in your madness, confess that you acted in a foolish way’).  The phrase captus amore (‘captured by love’) is common in amatory context, in several genres, cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.10: captus amore leget (‘he, captured by love, reads’), Aen. 12.392: Iasides, acri quondam cui captus amore (‘Iasus’ son, captured once by deep love for someone’); Ov. Her. 1.76: peregrino captus amore (‘captured by a a foreign love’), 15.63: meretricis captus amore (‘captured by the love for the courtesan’).

96

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

Amores). Other elegiac terms occur in our poem as well, as in 41: fides (‘faith’), and 43: stimulis (‘with goads’).⁷⁶ Maximianus informs us that he suffered from his awkwardness (El. 3.8: rusticitate mea), as he had not yet felt the power of love and igneous Venus (El. 3.7: Nondum quid sit Amor vel quid Venus ignea noram). I do not believe that the term rusticitas here implies a possible rustic origin for Maximianus.⁷⁷ Webster and Goldlust believe that by using this term Maximianus imitates his master, Ovid, who used it to describe someone inexperienced in amorous adventures.⁷⁸ The term rusticitas and its opposite, i. e. urbanitas, have a specific meaning in Roman rhetoric; rusticitas described a provincial, rural, and boorish style and was not a desirable quality. On the contrary, Cicero considered urbanitas essential to a good’s orator style.⁷⁹ In Latin poetry, especially in the era of Late Republic, urbanitas is connected to Catullus and the neoteric way of life and poetics,⁸⁰ while rusticitas was considered ‘the quality of being a countryside bumpkin’.⁸¹ Tibullus expresses his preference for rusticitas (a rejection of luxury, a moral way of life), while Propertius and Ovid preferred urbanitas. ⁸² Rusticitas is also a technical term that denotes the genre of pastoral poetry.⁸³ I believe that Maximianus’ rusticitas is exclusively poetic: he pretends that in his youth he was an inexperienced poet-lover, who did not yet know the boundaries and conventions

 For fides in Christian literature, see Uden (2009) 214. As elegiac term, cf. Prop. 1.1.16: tantum in amore fides et benefacta valent (‘such is the value of faith and benefits in love’), 1.18.18: non ulla meo clamat in ore fides (‘no faith cries in my face’), 2.20.18: ambos una fides auferret (‘one faith carried away the two of us’), 2.26b: multum in amore fides (‘there is lot of faith in love’); Ov. Am. 2.6.14: longa tenaxque fides (‘long and tenacious faith’), Her. 2.102: ut tua sit solo tempore lapsa fides (‘that your faith was lapsed through time alone’), 10.78: morte soluta fides (‘faith released from death’), Ars am. 1.644: fraude tuenda fides (‘faith that must be watched for fraud’), 3.758: infida…fides (‘unfaithful faith’). For stimuli, cf. Prop. 3.19.10: rabidae stimulos frangere nequitiae (‘crash the goads of your raging villainy’); Ov. Ars am. 2.444: acribus est stimulis eliciendus amor (‘love must be enticed with sharp goads’), Fast. 2.779: iniusti stimulis agitatus amoris (‘aroused by the goad of an unjust love’), Pont. 2.11.19: quod fuerat stimulis factura sine ullis (‘she would have done that without any rash’).  See Juster (2018) 157– 158.  See Webster (1900) 95; Goldlust (2013) 150. Cf. Ov. Ars am. 1.671– 684 and Her. 17.188: vi mea rusticitas excutienda fuit (‘my rustic simplicity had to be expelled by force’). For rusticitas in elegy, see Scivoletto (1976) 57– 58, 71 and 86; Booth (1981) 2692.  Cf. Cic. De or. 1.17, Brut. 170, 285. For the terms urbanitas and rusticitas in general, see Ramage (1957). For urbanitas in Cicero and Quintilian, see Ramage (1963); La Bua (2019) 244– 245.  See Fitzgerald (1995) 88 – 93; Krostenko (2001); Roman (2014) 65; Karakasis (2011) 79, n. 90.  See Miller (2002) 18.  See Otis (21970) 15; Tzounakas (2006); Ziogas (2017) 203 – 204.  See Karakasis (2016) 55, and n. 35.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

97

of the elegiac genre. This is why he needed the assistance of an experienced praeceptor amoris like Boethius. The presence of the great philosopher (and probably former poet-lover, as we saw above) is necessary here in order to teach the young poet the norms of the elegiac genre and help him to expel his poetic rusticitas. ⁸⁴ In El. 3.17– 29, Maximianus describes the furtive character of the couple’s love and their trysts. They communicate with each other through secret signals and signs (El. 3.19: nutus, 20: signa, 26: superciliis luminibusque), and deceive their guards (El. 3.27: fallere sollicitos) with secret meetings at night (El. 3.28: tota nullo currere nocte sono). Their love was a furtivus amor, as the poet says (El. 3.29: furtivum…amorem). With this phrase, Maximianus highlights the elegiac identity of the poem, as furtivus amor was a necessary premise for this genre.⁸⁵ The secret communications between lovers and the deception of their guards reminds us of Tibullus’ 1.2, where the poet-lover describes how lovers can communicate with chatty nods, lustful words and secret signs even in front of the girl’s husband (Tib. 1.2.21– 22: illa viro coram nutus conferre loquaces | blandaque compositis abdere verba notis, ‘she permits loquacious signs in a husband’s presence and lustful words in hidden notes’).⁸⁶ As Fielding notes, in this passage, ‘Maximianus combines numerous elegiac commonplaces’ (cf. El. 3.26 – 28: superciliis luminibusque loqui, | fallere sollicitos, suspensos ponere gressus | et tota nullo currere nocte sono, ‘to speak with our eyebrows and eyes, to deceive the guards, to place our footsteps softly, and run all night without a sound’).⁸⁷ Moreover, the phrase furtivus amor of our poem is a ‘generic marker’ that highlights its elegiac nature. However, as we will see, the erotic trysts are a topos that also occur in other genres.

 It is possible that Maximianus’ rusticitas agrees perfectly with his last choice in our poem, i. e. the decision to cease his love affair with Aquilina and adopt a moral way of life, cf. El. 3.83 – 84: sancta…virginitas (‘holy virginity’).  Cf. Tib. 1.2.19: Illa docet molli furtim derepere lecto (‘she teaches someone to creep secretly from a soft bed’), 1.2.36: celari volt sua furta Venus (‘Venus wants her thefts to be concealed’), 1.5.7: parce tamen, per te furtivi foedera lecti (‘spare me, by the bond of our secret bed’), 1.5.65: pauper ad occultos furtim deducet amicos (‘the poor man will lead you secretly to hidden friends’), 1.5.75: Nescio quid furtivus amor parat (‘I do not know the secret love prepares’); Prop. 1.16.20: nescia furtivas reddere mota preces (‘you are not moved and you do not know to return my secret prayers’). For furtivus amor of Roman love elegy, see Musurillo (1970); Yardley (1978) 22; Pappas (2016c) 52– 53.  Also, cf. Ov. Am. 1.4.13 – 20, where we read Ovid’s advice to Corinna for a secret communication in front of her husband at a dinner-party, and 2.5.13 – 20, where Corinna, who thinks that Ovid is asleep, communicates secretly with another lover.  Fielding (2017) 157, n. 123.

98

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

Another principal feature of the genre of elegy is featured here, namely the obstacles to love (impedimenta amoris).⁸⁸ These impediments to love could be bad weather (rain, wind, cold, etc.),⁸⁹ a door that forbids the lover’s entrance to his sweetheart’s home (e. g. in elegies-paraclausithyra, such as Tib. 1.2, 1.5 and Prop. 1.16), or persons who derive their origin mostly from the genre of comedy (e. g. custos, ianitor, leno/lena, dives amator, vir/maritus etc.).⁹⁰ The existence of obstacles is a necessary premise for the composition of a love elegy, which is the genre of amatory failure and mourning. In the elegiac scenario, the impedimenta amoris must play their role in order to contribute to the sad ending that the genre of Roman love elegy requires.⁹¹ Maximianus’ paedagogus keeps an eye on him (El. 3.17: me paedagogus agit) and Aquilina’ tristissima mater abuses her brutally, when she realizes her erotic adventures (El. 3.30: vulneribus; 35: visceribus…anhelis; 36: suppliciis). However, it seems that the obstacles to love in Elegy 3, which have a comedic origin (as we will see below), do not obey the rules of the elegiac game; Maximianus’ paedagogus is a shadowy figure that is mentioned only once (El. 3.17: paedagogus), after which he disappears, while Aquilina’s parents change their attitude (after their bribery by Boethius) and consent to the former furtive love. As has been noted by critics, here Maximianus probably had in mind Ovid’s Am. 2.19,⁹² where the poet-lover (acting, as usual, as a praeceptor amoris) begs his sweetheart’s husband to play his role and guard her more strictly, in order to give him the opportunity to be a genuine elegiac exclusus amator. ⁹³ As in Ovid’s Am. 2.19, money is responsible for the consent given to the illicit love (and consequently for the destruction of the elegiac love); in Ovid’s poem, the girl’s husband is accused of being a leno maritus, just

 Obstacles to love are not a Roman conception. The Greeks were the first to identify love with lack, deprivation, and obstacles in general. It seems that the love desire was associated with failure; cf. Aristophanes’ speech in Plato’s Symposium (189c-193d). Also, see Carson (1986) 11.  Cf. Tib. 1.2.31: hibernae frigora noctis (‘the cold of the winter’s night’), 1.2.32: cum multa decidit imber aqua (‘the rain that pours vast waters on me’); Prop. 1.16.26: frigidaque Eoo me dolet aura gelu (‘and the icy wind of chill dawn feels sorry for me’).  For custos, ianitor, and leno/lena, cf. Tib. 2.4.39 – 40, 2.6; Prop. 1.16, 2.17; Ov. Am. 1.6, 1.8, 2.2.16, 3.4. For dives amator, cf. Tib. 1.2, 1.6; Prop. 2.9, 2.16, 2.17; Ov. Am. 3.4. For vir/maritus, cf. Tib. 1.5, 1.6, 2.3; Prop. 4.8; Ov. Am. 3.8.  See Pappas (2016a) 25 – 26.  Also, cf. Philodemus, Anth. Pal. 12.173.5 – 6 = 11 Sider: οὐ γὰρ ἔτοιμα / βούλομαι, ἀλλὰ ποθῶ πᾶν τὸ φυλασσόμενον (‘I do not want what is available, but I desire everything is guarded’). See Uden (2009) 217 (who cites Ov. Am. 3.4.45 – 46 as well); Fielding (2017) 162.  See Hardy (1923); Pappas (2016a) 127– 135.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

99

as Aquilina’s parents became parentes lenones. ⁹⁴ As in Ovid, in Elegy 3 Maximianus reveals his poetic self-consciousness: if the obstacles of love do not play their role, they will subvert the main feature of the elegiac genre, i. e. the failure of love. In other words, the permission they give to the love-couple cured (and therefore destroyed) the elegiac love (El. 3.77– 78: permissum fit vile nefas, fit languidus ardor, | vicerunt morbum languida corda suum, ‘but a sin that is allowed becomes vile, and the desire sluggish, and our sluggish hearts won this sickness’, and 91– 92: sic mihi peccandi studium permissa potestas | abstulit atque ipsum talia velle fugit, ‘so, the ability to sin removed the desire to sin from me and this very will to do this has left me’), which was considered as sickness (El. 3.78: morbum).⁹⁵ Thus, our poet (imitating his master, Ovid) adopts the persona of praeceptor amoris (where amor means love elegy) and composes a renuntiatio amoris, a well-known topos of the ‘host’ genre.⁹⁶ Boethius plays his role as praeceptor amoris perfectly, as he offers instructions to Maximianus in order to be a genuine elegiac lover: he can win the girl with presents (the elegiac munera), cf. El. 3.63: ‘Fare’ ait ‘ut placitae potiaris munere formae’ (‘ “Tell me”, he says, “if you can win your beloved girl with gifts” ’), and even be violent towards her (El. 3.65 – 70) – a piece of advice that agrees with the norms of the elegiac genre.⁹⁷ However, the violence in our elegy comes from Aquilina’s mother and not from the poet-lover, cf. El. 3.30 – 31: Et medicare parans vulnera vulneribus | increpitat caeditque, ‘and ready to heal the wounds by wounds, she [her mother] becomes furious and beats her’). In fact, in verses 39 – 42 we hear the girl’s voice concerning the cor Cf. Ov. Am. 2.19.57: cum lenone marito (‘with your husband as a pimp’). It seems that Ovid in Am. 2.19 implies the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis (18 BC), see Tracy (1976); McGinn (1998) 140 – 247.  For love as an incurable disease, cf. Lucretius 4.1068 – 1072. See Kennedy (1993) 46 – 63; Caston (2006). See also, White (2019) 12.  Cf. Tib. 1.9; Prop. 3.24, 3.25; Οv. Am. 2.9, 3.11b, 3.12. Also, see Pinotti (1989) 188 – 190; Fielding (2017) 162.  For munera, cf. Tib. 1.8.29: munera ne poscas: det munera canus amator (‘do not ask for gifts; let the aged lover offer gifts’), 1.9.11: muneribus meus est captus puer (‘my boy was captured by gifts’); Prop. 1.10.12: accipe commissae munera laetitiae (‘accept the gifts for the joy of trust’), 1.16.36: victa meis numquam, ianua, muneribus (‘door that you never won by my gifts’), 2.8.11: munera quanta dedi (‘how many gifts I gave’); Ov. Am. 1.8.67: poscet sine munere noctem (‘he asks for a night without offering gifts’), 2.13.24: ipse feram ante tuos munera vota pedes (‘I myself will offer at your feet the gifts I promised you’), Her. 2.110: munera multa dedi (‘many gifts I offered’), 14.124: quaeque tibi tribui munera (‘the gifts I offered to you’), Ars am. 2.166: cum dare non possem munera, verba dabam (‘when I was not able to offer gifts, I was offering words’). For violence towards girls, cf. Ov. Ars am. 1.673: grata est vis ista puellis (‘girls like violence’). For violence in Roman elegy, see Fredrick (1997); O’Rourke (2018).

100

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

poral punishment she suffered by her mother; Aquilina’s words remind us of the feminine speech that occurs in Augustan love elegy.⁹⁸ However, her speech is not actually a complaint, like those of the desertae puellae in Ovid’s Heroides,⁹⁹ but more like a proud boast about the plagues she has suffered for her love.

4.3.2 The ‘Guest’ Genres Roman Comedy As in Elegy 2, here too the genre of Roman comedy is the essential ‘guest’ genre. Its intervention is implemented in two ways: a) the existence of typical human characters that originate from comedy (namely Boethius, Aquilina’s mother and paedagogus); and b) several linguistic markers of the genre. As we saw above, Boethius is an elegiac praeceptor amoris, who, like Ovid in Ars Amatoria, offers his valuable advice to the young inexperienced man. But he is also a go-between, as he bribes Aquilina’s parents, and manages to bring the young couple together. This behavior reminds us of the persona of servus callidus or servus fallax from Roman comedy. As Karakasis notes, ‘the main dramatic role of this slave is to help his young master (adulescens) overcome obstacles in his struggle to win the object of his affection. These obstacles include […] stern parents. These adulescentes in amore […] for the most part, rely on slaves, who try to secure them, via fraud, the money required to buy their beloved from a pimp and to unite the two lovers facetis fabricis et doctis dolis (“with witty wiles and intelligent inventions,” Pl. Mil. 147)’.¹⁰⁰ Here, Maximianus adopts the typical dependence of the adulescens inamoratus on his servus callidus that existed in the genre of Roman comedy (especially in Plautus) and was bequeathed to the genre of love elegy.¹⁰¹ In Elegy 3, Boethius is actually a servus callidus, who acts like a go-between for the young couple. As Juster notes, ‘the role played by Boethius here – a man asked for advice by a lovesick young man – was a stock character in Roman comedy’.¹⁰² In this context, it seems that Maximianus parodies the great philosopher of his time, presenting him as a slave.¹⁰³ Furthermore, Boe-

 See James (2003a) and James (2003b) 108 – 152; Michalopoulos (2011); Drinkwater (2013b).  See Vaiopoulos (2014); Vaiopoulos (2019) 33 – 34.  See Karakasis (2013b) 212.  See indicatively, Yardley (1987); James (1998) and James (2003b) 215.  Juster (2018) 164.  However, he is a slave who Maximianus is begging, lying at his feet (61: prostratus pedibus). With this behavior, Maximianus reminds us of Ov. Am. 1.6, where Ovid begs his sweetheart’s ianitor to open her door and presents him (who was a slave), as the mighty Jupiter (cf. Am. 1.6.16:

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

101

thius giving advice to the young Maximianus agrees with the advisory behavior of older slaves towards their young masters, another feature typical of Roman comedy.¹⁰⁴ Boethius’s intervention as a servus callidus recalls the go-between role of nutrix in Seneca’s Phaedra. ¹⁰⁵ The truth is that nutrix was initially opposed to Phaedra’s incestuous passion for her stepson and was trying to change her mind, but was later convinced to help her. On the contrary, it was Boethius who first offered his help to the young lover, but then praised his decision for a chaste way of life. In these two works, the male protagonists (Hippolytus and young Maximianus) have a special affection for virginity. Moreover, it seems to me that El. 3.66 castus amor Veneris dicito quando fuit? (‘tell me, when Venus’ love was ever saint?’) and the phrase sancta…virginitas (‘holly virginity’) of verses 83 – 84 are an ironic answer to nutrix’s statement that ‘pure love exists only in humble houses’ (Sen. Phaedr. 211: cur sancta parvis habitat in tectis Venus). It is as if Maximianus is saying that love (with its basic meanings, as sexual passion or sexual intercourse)¹⁰⁶ is a sin in any case and in any social class, which is perhaps a comment with Christian connotations. Furthermore, perhaps Boethius’ name itself implies an extra metapoetic clue that underlies the interaction of the genre of Roman comedy in this elegy. Given that his name in Greek means ‘the man who helps’, this leads us to connect his presence with the role of Auxilium (= ‘Aid’), a divinity who is a prologue-speaker in Plautus’ Cist. 149 – 202, and is perhaps a translation of the Greek Boētheia, ‘who would have played the role in the Menandrian original’, as Konstan writes.¹⁰⁷ In this context, in accordance with Plautus’s Auxilium, Boethius ceases to be the real, historical person of the 6th century and instead becomes an artificial narrative tool that contributes to the elegy’s plot.¹⁰⁸ At the beginning of our poem, Aquilina’s mother was opposed to her daughter’s amatory adventures. She is called ‘a second punishment for such misfortune’ (El. 3.18: tanti poena secunda mali) and, when she realized their secret

tu, me quo possis perdere, fulmen habes, ‘you hold the thunderbolt by which you can destroy me’).  See Berger (2021).  See Raios (32015: 143), where he notes that the behavior of Phaedra’s nutrix reminds us of slaves in Roman comedy.  See OLD, s.v. amor, meanings 1 and 2.  Konstan (1983) 113.  I would like to thank Professor E. Karakasis for this comment. For Plautus’ Auxilium, see indicatively Konstan (1983) 113 – 114; Sharrock (2009) 50 – 51 and 60; Stockert (2012) 134– 147; Connors (2016) 276 – 279.

102

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

love, punished her with a beating (El. 3.30 – 31: Et medicare parans vulnera vulneribus | increpitat caeditque, ‘and ready to heal the wounds by wounds, she becomes furious and beats her’). Until this point, we (the readers) believe that we are dealing with a severe (perhaps Christian) family from Late Antiquity; Aquilina’s mother so far plays her role properly, as one of her duties was the preservation of her daughter’s virginity.¹⁰⁹ After all, beating children was a common practice in the later Roman world¹¹⁰ and corporal punishment was usual in monasteries.¹¹¹ Aquilina’s mother seems that she is probably a Roman matrona, and her daughter a Roman virgo. The behavior of Aquilina’s mother recalls a typical feature of New and Roman comedy, that of violence.¹¹² In Menander’s Perikeiromene, Glykera is abused by Polemon, who cuts off her hair. Like Glykera, Aquilina is also a puella clausa that suffers from domestic violence.¹¹³ Korzeniewski and Karakasis proved that Calpurnius Siculus was influenced by Menander’s work in composition of his Eclogue 3.¹¹⁴ In Nemesianus’ Eclogue 2, Donace is also a puella clausa. ¹¹⁵ Karakasis adds that Menander’s Perikeiromene ‘seems to have had a widespread distribution, as evidenced by its being mentioned by Philostratus (Epist. 16) and Ovid (Am. 1.7) […]’.¹¹⁶ Thus, Maximianus may have been inspired by his master’s (Ovid) source, i. e. Menander’s Perikeiromene. But when the bribery of Boethius comes, Aquilina’s parents consent to their daughter’s relationship. In Roman comedy (especially in Plautus), parents-pimps are mainly women. According to Dutsch, the male pimp (leno) owns slave meretrices, but lena (who is always a freedwoman and former prostitute) acts as a procurer for her own daughter.¹¹⁷ Here we also see the impact of Roman comedy on our poem: servus callidus Boethius, corresponding to his role, bribes Aquilina’s mother, who is a mater/lena, in order to gain the girl for his master, i. e. the adulescens inamoratus. ¹¹⁸ This interpretation might also bring a change to the social status of Aquilina and her mother: the young girl may be transformed into a mer-

 See Cooper (1996); Nathan (2000) 149 – 154. For attitudes towards sex, see Brown (1988).  See Laes (2005); Mustakallio and Laes (2011); Hillner (2013).  See Hillner (2009); Leyser (2010).  See indicatively, Rosivach (1998) 13 – 50; Paraskeviotis (2013); Lape (2017).  For the term see Walter (1988) 34.  See Korzeniewski (1972) 215, n. 5; Karakasis (2013a) 258 – 259.  Cf. Nemes. Ecl. 2.10: Donacen duri clausere parentes (‘the cruel parents imprisoned Donace’).  Karakasis (2013a) 258.  See Dutsch (2019) 202.  See Dillon and Garland (2005) 382; Dunkan (2006) 258 – 259.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

103

etrix who, as an infamis of the Late Republic or Early Empire, suffers a corporal punishment. Moreover, her mother is no longer presented as a Roman matrona, but as a freedwoman (or ex meretrix herself).¹¹⁹ After all, in several Plautian comedies, lovers offer gifts to their beloved ones and their mothers/lenae, in order to access them freely, e. g. in Plautus’ Cist. 92– 93, where Selenium says that Alcesimarchus gained her and her mother’s (Melaenis) approval with favours and gifts: in amicitiam insinuavit cum matre et mecum simul | blanditiis, muneribus, donis (‘he won his way into my mother’s friendship and mine with winning words, favors, gifts’) and in Mil. 105 – 107, where Palaestrio, Pleusicles’ slave, says that the rich soldier got to know Philocomasium and her mother by offering gifts and wine: insinuat sese ad illam amicam eri | occepit eiius matri subpalparier | vino, ornamentis opiparisque opsoniis | itaque intumum ibi se miles apud lenam facit (‘he became close with the girlfriend of master. He began to put the soft touch on her mother with wine, jewelry and sumptuous food, and so the soldier gets himself on good terms with the lena’).¹²⁰ Another (minor) obstacle of love is Maximianus’ paedagogus, who appeared only once, cf. El. 3.17: me paedagogus agit (‘my tutor is chasing me’). In ancient Rome, paedagogi were (mainly Greek) adult male slaves, who (usually) accompanied¹²¹ Roman boys (from the age of six) from middle-class and wealthy families to school and acted as their guards, teaching them how to behave in public (in several cases, they did not hesitate to punish recalcitrant boys).¹²² In Late Antiquity, the social origin of paedagogi appears to have changed; households mainly relied on family members as educators (of course, slave educators also existed).¹²³ Paedagogus is a typical character of Greek and Roman comedy,¹²⁴ but also exists in Christian texts, as Christ is compared to a paedagogus. ¹²⁵ Maximia-

 See Fitzgerald (2019) 195 – 196. For infames in ancient Rome, see Edwards (1997). See Bond (2014) 2, who notes that in the fourth century AD the term infamia applied to those ‘who did not conform to religious standards’.  The translation of these two passages come from Rosivach (1998) 59 and 66 respectively.  We know of paedagogi attached to girls of wealthy Roman families, see Rawson (2003) 198. For paedagogus in Greek Late Antiquity, see Kyrtatas (1994).  See Brown (1998) 4– 5; Laes (2011) 123 – 132; Wrenhaven (2015) 469 – 471.  See Laes (2016) 206.  See Wasyl (2011) 140, n. 109; Juster (2018) 159. For Greek New Comedy, cf. Daos and Lydos, who are paedagogi in Menander’s Aspis and Dis Exapaton respectively. For Roman comedy, cf. Plautus, Bacch. 138: non paedagogum iam me, sed Lydum vocat (‘he does not call me paedagogus anymore, but Lydus’), Merc. 91: mihi paedagogus fuerat (‘he was my paedagogus’), Pseud. 447: hic illi est paedagogus (‘this man is his paedagogus’).  Cf. Apostle Paul’s Galat. 3.24– 25: Itaque lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo (‘thus, the law is our paedagogus in Christ’), 1 Cor. 4. 15: nam si decem milia pedagogorum habeatis in Christo

104

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

nus’ generic interplay is apparent here, as he adds again in his elegy a stock character from Roman comedy, which in his era also had Christian connotations. Apart from stock characters, Maximianus uses two verbs in the imperative mood, which occur in the genre of Roman comedy. Thus, dicito is repeated two times in the distich El. 3.53 – 54, and appears thirty-four times in the comedies of Plautus, as Juster notes. The scholar wonders if by this comedic term Maximianus is implying the comic content of this scene and adds that with the anaphora of this verb, the poet reinforces the theatricality of this distich.¹²⁶ Another imperative, maneto (‘stay’) in verse 83, also occurs in Plautus and Terence.¹²⁷ Christian Associations As Fielding notes, ‘Maximianus’ collection makes no explicit reference to the doctrines of Christianity’.¹²⁸ This does not mean that it does not also include words, phrases, or even persons that occur in Christian literary genres.¹²⁹ Wolfgang Schneider mentioned the strong connection between Aquilina’s character and Christian martyrs, albeit without analyzing it further.¹³⁰ In his important paper,¹³¹ James Uden argued that ‘in the character of Aquilina, the poet parodically blends the two character types of the puella from Augustan elegy and the virgin martyr from late antique popular hagiography’.¹³² According to Uden, Maximianus blends these two characters in order to highlight the conventions of the elegiac genre, such as violence towards the puellae, as well as to parody the representation of women in martyrological texts (such as Prudentius’ Peristephanon and especially the poems 3 and 14 for St. Eulalia and St. Agnes respectively,

(‘because if you have ten thousand paedagogi in Christ’). See Laes (2016) 188 – 189. In this article, the scholar mentions two passages from Cassiodorus, but not this by Maximianus, see Laes (2016) 193.  Juster (2018) 164.  Cf. Plaut. Merc. 498: domi maneto me (‘keep me in the house’); Ter. Hec. 443: maneto: curre (‘stay; run’).  Fielding (2017) 144.  It might not be a coincidence that many of Maximianus’ manuscripts were found in monasteries along with other ethical works, such as Disticha Catonis and the Fables of Avianus, see Wasyl (2011) 113, n. 5. Critics have tried to find a Christian meaning in Maximianus’ Elegies, see Roberts (2018) 11. Ratkowitsch (1986) 63 – 127 believes that they were read by monks aiming for moral elevation and the avoidance of sexual pleasure.  See Schneider (2003) 87.  Uden (2009).  Uden (2009) 209.

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

105

and the Passio Agnetis).¹³³ In his examination of the passages El. 3.35 – 42 and 3.63 – 70, Uden offered convincing examples for this generic mixture, explaining how the words of El. 3.35: visceribus (‘the innermost parts of the body’) and anhelis (‘breathing hard’), 37: memorare (‘to remember’), 41: fides (‘faith’), 42: passio (‘passion’), 69: unguibus and morsu (‘scratches’ and ‘bite’), vulnera (‘wounds’) and 70: plagae (‘blows’) also belong to the genres of love elegy and Christian hagiography.¹³⁴ Moreover, in the paradoxical verse 68: impius hic fueris, si pius esse velis (‘here you must be impious, if you want to be pious’), Maximianus appears to intentionally blend the words pius and impius, as they occur in the love elegiac and Christian context as well.¹³⁵ Thus, he implies the interaction between these different generic environments. In his commentary on Elegy 3, Juster highlights the Christian coloring of various passages: that the phrase mentem…erigat (‘cheer the mind’) in verses 3 – 4 has strongly Christian overtones;¹³⁶ that with the revolvere vestes of verse 37 (‘rolling back the clothes’)¹³⁷ the poet satirizes the bloodstained clothes of Christian martyrologies;¹³⁸ that the salutis of verse 44 perhaps suggests the Christian meaning of salvation;¹³⁹ that by the phrase veniam vis tibi tanta dabit (‘a great power will provide you forgiveness’) of verse 60 Maximianus may be satirizing the Christian rite of confession,¹⁴⁰ and that with the word dominator (‘master’) of verse 87 the poet reminds us of the Christian authors of Late Antiquity, who used this word to refer to God (‘the Lord’).¹⁴¹

 Uden (2009) 209 – 211. For Prudentius’ Agnes in Peristephanon 14 as a Christianized elegiac puella, see Tsartsidis (2021).  Uden (2009) 210 – 219.  E. g. for pius in love elegy, cf. Tib. 2.2.3: urantur pia tura focis (‘let fire burn the sacred incense’), 2.5.119: Messalla meus pia det spectacula turbae (‘let my Messalla give the pious sight to the crowd’); Prop. 3.3.10: ad pia vota (‘to pious vows’), 3.18.31: pias hominum…umbras (‘pious shadows of people’). For impius, cf. Tib. 1.3.52: impia verba (‘impious words’), 1.3.70: impia turba (‘impious crowd’). For pius and impius in Christian texts, cf. August. De civ. D. 2.2: ad impios ingratosque peruenerint…pios cum impiis pariter adflixerint? (‘to impious and ungrateful have gone…have stroke the pious men to the same degree as the impious’); Arnobius, Adv. nat. 4.37.1: esse pro diis pios (‘to be pious before gods’). This verse of Maximianus reminds us the Catullan idea of 16.5 – 6, that ‘a pious poet should be chaste, but his verses not be’ (nam castum esse decet pium poetam | ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est).  Juster (2018) 157, where he notes the parallel passage from Augustine’s Serm. 4.352.2 and Ennodius’ Dictio 8.1.18.  For this verse, see Traina (1987) and Traina (1988).  Juster (2018) 161.  Juster (2018) 162.  Juster (2018) 165.  Juster (2018) 169.

106

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

Therefore, although Christian teachings do not exist in Maximianus’ Elegies, Christian literature (and mainly the genre of Christian hagiography) is nonetheless present here, through phrases, words and persons that also occur (in a different context) in the genre of love elegy. Possible Other ‘Guest’ Genres: Epic, Novel and Pastoral As I have already noted, the motif of secret signs and trysts between lovers is common in the genre of love elegy. In El. 3.25 – 32, Maximianus narrates the deception of guards by the young lovers, their nodes, and their secret rendezvous during the night. As mentioned above, this passage recalls the tragic story of Pyramus and Thisbe in Ovid’s Met. 4.55 – 126,¹⁴² a story that was a popular subject for school exercises since Maximianus’ era.¹⁴³ Consolino associates the restrictions that Aquilina has with those of Dido and Scylla in the pseudo-Virgilian Ciris. ¹⁴⁴ In this passage, we thus see a complex epic intervention in Elegy 3, as scenes (trysts of lovers, i. e. Pyramus and Thisbe) and characters (restricted women in love, i. e. Dido, Scylla) that – although they have an elegiac origin – exist in epic works (Aeneid 4, Metamorphoses, and Ciris),¹⁴⁵ return to their proper generic context, i. e. love elegy.¹⁴⁶ As Wasyl has noted, it appears that the genre of novel is also interwoven here.¹⁴⁷ The sudden change in Maximianus’ attitude towards his former beloved reminds us of the surprising reversals (peripeteiae) that exist in novels.¹⁴⁸ Furthermore, we have several other features of the adventure romance, such as (temporary) enslavement (as Aquilina was restricted by her parents at the beginning of the story), the protection of chastity (as the poet and Aquilina decided to adopt a chaste way of life), and a happy ending, as the poet-lover wins trophies for his decision, cf. El. 3.88: sume…trophaea (‘receive trophies’).¹⁴⁹ Moreover, the mother-daughter relationship is crucial in our elegy, just as it is in novels.¹⁵⁰

 For the scholars who have noted this intertextual connection, see footnote 47.  See Glendinning (1986).  See Consolino (1997) 378. As Webster noted (1900) 98, the phrase peste teneri (‘I am gripped by sickness’) in verse 51 echoes Verg. Aen. 4.90: peste teneri.  For the impact of elegy to Virgil’s Aeneid 4, Ovid’ s Metamorphoses, and pseudo-Virgilian Ciris see indicatively Thomason (1923); Cairns (1989) 129 – 150; Blanco Mayor (2017).  See Wasyl (2011) 141.  See Wasyl (2011) 143 – 144.  See Rebenich (1999) 164; Wasyl (2011) 143; Lateiner (2018) 387.  See Rebenich (1999) 169; Whitmarsh (2008).  See Panayotakis (2002).

4.3 Generic Status: ‘It’s Complicated’ or Generic Interplay

107

In Elegy 3 we also find similarities with the pastoral genre. Aquilina is a puella clausa and, as Wasyl notes, ‘the girl kept and guarded by her parents resembles the one presented in eclogue 2 by Nemesianus’. ¹⁵¹ Moreover, the offering of gifts occurs in Nemesianus’ Eclogues 2 and 4, two pastoral poems whose elegiac mode is obvious (they are in fact ‘elegiac-pastoral’ compositions).¹⁵² Finally, as we saw above, the domestic violence that Aquilina suffers recalls the same behavior in Calpurnius Siculus’ Eclogue 3 – attitudes that, as we had already seen, originate from the genre of comedy.¹⁵³ Legal and Medical Terms Aside from the motifs, human types, words and phrases that Elegy 3 shares with the aforementioned genres, it also includes terms belonging to legal and medical texts.¹⁵⁴ Thus, reddere in verse 14 (‘to give back, to return) occurs as a legal term, meaning ‘to pay back a loan or whatever one owes to another’.¹⁵⁵ In the same verse, we find the noun notis, another legal term containing several meanings, such as ‘stenographic symbols’ or ‘commentary annotations to the edition of a work of an earlier jurist’.¹⁵⁶ The emptum (‘bought’) of verse 36 links the passage of El. 3.35 – 36 with the legal term of emptio (‘buying’)¹⁵⁷ and contributes to parody; it is as if Maximianus is implying that Aquilina is an emptor who bought him due to her punishment (suppliciis…suis).¹⁵⁸ Moreover, the edicti of verse 54 (edicti sume doloris opem, ‘receive help of your admitted pain’) has a legal meaning, as it comes from edictum (‘edict’).¹⁵⁹ Also, the phrases res…causae and veniam in verses El. 3.59 – 60, occultae satis est res prodita causae, | pone metum, veniam vis tibi tanta dabit (‘the cause of the hidden case has been sufficiently revealed, let the fear go. A great power will offer you forgiveness’) have a legal flavor too; res causae meant ‘legal relations, judicial matters’ (as Ulpian notes in Dig. 50.16.23),¹⁶⁰ and venia could mean the venia aetatis (‘forgiveness for age’), ‘which allowed people younger than the age of majority…to appeal

 Wasyl (2011) 140, n. 109. See also, D’Amanti (2020) xxxi-xxxii.  See Karakasis (2011) 297– 320 (for Ecl. 2) and 321– 338 (for Ecl. 4).  Calpurnius’ Ecl. 3 includes several features of comedy in elegy, see Karakasis (2013a).  For the use of legal vocabulary by Maximianus, see Fo (1987) 359.  See Berger (1953) s.v. reddere.  See Berger (1953) s.v. notae.  See Berger (1953) s.v. emptio.  This passage has Christian associations too; see Uden (2009) 214.  See Berger (1953) s.v. edictum; Juster (2018) 164.  See Berger (1953) s.v. res. Webster (1900) 99 – 100 argues that causae has a medical meaning, see Juster (2018) 165.

108

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

for the rights of adulthood’.¹⁶¹ Finally, the words crimen (‘crime’) of 74 and discidii (‘breaking up’, ‘divorce’) of 94 also belong to the vocabulary of Roman law.¹⁶² It seems that our poet imitates a practice that occurs in Roman comedy (the main genre that intervenes in his elegy), namely the use of legal language – it is well-known that Plautus is a major source of knowledge about Roman law.¹⁶³ Maximianus uses several medical symptoms of old age in his collection, as critics have noted.¹⁶⁴ Elegy 3 includes some medical terms too: the characterization of Boethius as scrutator has a medical flavor, as we have seen, and is a term that occurs in Latin medical texts or in texts with a similar context.¹⁶⁵ The peste (pestilence) of verse 51 is a medical term that is used for diseases affecting humans.¹⁶⁶ The words causas and causae of verses 50 and 59 respectively may be read as medical terms as well, as the noun causa also means ‘medical symptoms, a medical case’.¹⁶⁷ The phrase curatio morbi (‘treatment for disease’) of verse 55 has medical meaning too;¹⁶⁸ morbus is a word that Maximianus uses four times in his collection: El. 1.153: iam subeunt morbi (‘now the diseases come’), 3.55: nulla est curatio morbi (‘there is no cure for the disease’), 3.78: vicerunt morbum (‘they won the disease’), 5.108: morbo…graviore (‘from a worse disease’). In conclusion, the generic interplay of Elegy 3 consists of features (persons, motifs, and vocabulary) from several genres: love elegy, Roman comedy, Christian hagiography, epic, novel, and pastoral. Furthermore, Maximianus also enriches his poem with legal and medical terms. This practice agrees with the literary trend of his era, and contributes to Maximianus’ attempts to innovate the elegiac genre via generic enrichment. In this context, the phrase of verse 3, men-

 Juster (2018) 165. Venia might have Christian connotations as well, see Nikitas and Tromaras (2019), s.v. venia, meaning 2d.  For crimen, see Berger (1953) s.v. crimen. For discidium, see Berger (1953) s.v. discidium. For legal connotations of the word in our elegy, see Webster (1900) 102.  See Karakasis (2003); Gaertner (2014).  See Neuburger (1947); Das and Fielding (2016).  E. g. see Plin. HN 1.1.3: causas morborum scrutari Herophilus instituerat (‘Herophilus had learned to scrutinize the causes of the diseases’); Cels. Med. proem. 23: eorum viscera atque intestina scrutari (‘to scrutinize the viscera and the internal parts of the body’); Tert. De anim. 10: Herophilus ille medicus…ut naturam scrutaretur (‘Herophilus the doctor…to scrutinize the nature’).  See OLD, s.v. pestis, meaning 2b.  See OLD, s.v. causa, meaning 13. Also, see Webster (1900) 99 – 100.  See OLD, s.v. curatio, meaning 3 and s.v. morbus, meaning 1. Also, see Agozzino (1970) 43 – 44; Das and Fielding (2016).

4.4 A Metapoetic Reading

109

tem rerum vertigine fractem (‘the mind that is broken down by the world’s whirling’), may suggest the state of the reader’s mind in Late Antiquity, which was confused due to the whirling (or mixture) of literary genres.¹⁶⁹

4.4 A Metapoetic Reading In this section, I examine some passages of Elegy 3, in which, I believe, Maximianus includes a hidden poetic discourse. I will try to prove that, as a self-conscious poet, he implies that during his era the genre of love elegy became old, and for this reason he tries to innovate it. I argue that Maximianus does this in two ways: a) by turning the typical elegiac system upside down, subverting some of its basic rules; and b) by identifying his scripta puella, Aquilina, with Elegy, he actually implies the breakup (discidium) between himself (the poet) and the traditional genre of love elegy, and therefore its transformation.

4.4.1 The Roles Were Reversed In Augustan love elegy, the poet-lover (who describes himself as pathetic and helpless) at times becomes violent and threatens his beloved,¹⁷⁰ and even on occasion beats her.¹⁷¹ However, in Elegy 3 it is Aquilina’s mother that beats her and not Maximianus, a fact that is to be expected, since their love is mutual and the young girl is not the dura domina of classical love elegy, but a girl who responds to his love. Thus, the traditional generic roles have changed, as violence comes from the mother, and the poet’s sweetheart collaborates with him. In verses El. 3.39 – 40 we hear Aquilina’s voice, who proudly displays her wounds to her lover: ‘Pro te susceptos iuvat’ inquit ‘ferre dolores, tu pretium tanti dulce cruoris eris’. El. 3.39 – 40 ‘For you’, she says, ‘I received these blows. You are the sweet reward for so much blood’.

 See Uden (2009) 220.  Cf. Tib. 1.6.73 – 74; Prop. 2.8.25 – 28, 2.15.17– 20; Ov. Am. 2.5.30, 45 – 48.  Cf. Ov. Am. 1.7. See Fredrick (1997) 172– 196; James (2003a) and James (2003b) 108 – 152; O’Rourke (2018).

110

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

First, we see that Aquilina addresses her lover in the second person of the personal pronoun (39: pro te, 40: tu), a practice that occurs in the typology of divine hymns (Du Stil),¹⁷² and is used by Maximianus himself, apparently for parody (Gebetsparodie),¹⁷³ as his literary predecessors did.¹⁷⁴ However, here we see a reversal of an elegiac norm, as the puella highlights her sacrifices for her lover – in the Augustan elegy the poet-lover does this, as he reminds his sweetheart of his services to her when she was in difficult position (e. g. illness).¹⁷⁵ As we have already seen, Boethius, as an elegiac praeceptor amoris or a comic servus callidus, asks the young poet-lover whether he thinks he could gain his beloved by gifts, cf. El. 3.63: ‘fare’ ait ‘ut placitae potiaris munere formae’ (‘ “tell me”, he says, “if you can have the woman you like by gifts” ’). The word munus is an elegiac term, and means the gifts that must be offered to the puella. ¹⁷⁶ More specifically, munera are the ‘weapons’ of the poet-lover’s rival, i. e. the dives amator,¹⁷⁷ who in several cases is an old man.¹⁷⁸ In Augustan love elegy, dives amator and lena collaborate in order to lead the poet-lover to play his role, i. e. to fail in love.¹⁷⁹ In our elegy, Boethius tries to help Maximianus by bribing Aquilina’s parents-lenones, cf. El. 3.71: interea donis permulcet corda parentum (‘in the meantime, he softens the hearts of her parents by gifts’). In this  See Norden (1913) 143 – 166.  See Kleinknecht (1937).  Cf. Tib. 1.2.7: te verberet imber (‘may the rain whip you’), 1.2.8: te…fulmina…petant (‘let the thunderbolts chase you’), 1.2.11: mala sique tibi dixit dementia nostra (‘and if my madness said bad things to you’), 1.2.13: te meminisse decet (‘you should remember’); Prop. 1.16.25: tu sola humanos numquam miserata dolores (‘only you have never felt pity for human sorrows’), 35: tu sola mei, tu maxima causa doloris (‘only you, you were the greatest cause of my pain’), 37: te non ulla meae laesit petulantia linguae (‘you were not insulted by any vituperations from my tongue’), 41: at tibi saepe novo deduxi carmina versu (‘but I often composed for you songs in neoteric verse’); Ov. Am. 1.6.15: te…timeo (‘Ι am afraid of you’), 1.6.16: tu…fulmen habes (‘you hold the thunderbolt’), 1.6.45: tecum tua nunc requiscit amica (‘now you are lying with your girlfriend in your arms’). See Yardley (1978) 31– 34; Watson (1982); Laigneau (2000) 321; Pappas (2016a) 50, 94, 119 and 121.  Cf. Tib. 1.5.9 – 16; Ov. Am. 2.13 and 2.14. See James (2003b) 173 – 180; Vaiopoulos (2003) and Vaiopoulos (2005). According to Malick-Prunier (2011) 44, in El. 3.37– 40 we see the generic mixture between elegy, comedy, and Greek novel.  See above, footnote 97.  For the persona of dives amator in love elegy, cf. Tib. 1.5.47– 48, 1.6.53 – 54, 1.9.53, 2.3.59 – 60; Prop. 4.5; Ov. Am. 1.8.23, etc.  Cf. Tib. 1.8.29: det munera canus amator (‘let the aged lover to offer gifts’); Ov. Ars am. 3.531: munera det dives (‘let the rich man offer gifts’). See James (2003b) 35 – 68.  Cf. Tib. 1.5.47– 48: haec nocuere mihi, quod adest huic dives amator; | venit in exitium callida lena meum (‘these things harmed me, because a rich lover is there with her; a cunning procuress wants to destroy me’).

4.4 A Metapoetic Reading

111

way, he transforms the young poet-lover into a dives amator and subverts the norms of the elegiac system that require the poverty of the poet-lover (an ideal of the Callimachean poetic theory).¹⁸⁰ In classical love elegy, the poet-lover must be poor, in order to fail.¹⁸¹ In Maximianus’ Elegy 3, the poor poet-lover becomes dives amator, but this change is not sufficient to lead to the union of the couple. On the contrary, it contributes to the young man’s indifference towards his former beloved. With this reversal of the traditional roles, Maximianus, as a self-conscious poet, manages to reveal the conventional character of the elegiac genre and simultaneously correspond to the main aim of the genre, i. e. failure in love. It is as if he is saying to his readers that one way or another (i. e. whether there is a dives amator, as the Augustan love elegy required, or if the poet-lover becomes a dives amator himself, as in the case of Maximianus’ late love elegy) the love-story is doomed to fail. Maximianus reverses the traditional roles of the poet-lover and the elegiac puella once again in verse 87. There, Boethius characterizes the poet as proprii dominator amoris (‘lord of your own love’). As Juster notes, Seneca was the first author to use the term dominator. ¹⁸² We saw above that dominator also has Christian associations. I believe that by this word, Maximianus wishes to subvert the elegiac system again, since he does not include the classical representation of a dura domina in this elegy, but rather the dominus (or the dominator), who is the poet-lover himself; therefore, it is the first time in the genre of love elegy that the male has control over the female. This representation in enforced by the use of proprii, which, as Juster notes, ‘makes the independence of the male lover even clearer’.¹⁸³ Unlike the Augustan love elegy, here the poetlover (and not his beloved) is the hard guy. Furthermore, I believe that this phrase also has a metapoetic reading, as we can interpret the word amoris not only as love, but also as a love poem (i. e. love elegy). Thus, it is as if Boethius – who probably started his literary career as a love-poet (cf. Ennodius and the scenicas meretirculas of Consolatio) – is congratulating the young poet (El. 3.88: sume trophaea, ‘take the rewards’) for managing to conquer the genre of love elegy and make it his own (proprii amoris), i. e. that Maximianus’ Elegies have their own character and style, features that distinguish them from the traditional Augustan love elegy. In other words, by presenting the praeceptor

 See Myers (1996) 13.  Cf. Tib. 1.5.61: pauper erit…pauper adibit (‘the poor man will be, the poor man will come’), 1.5.63: pauper…fidus comes (‘the poor man, as your faithful follower’), 1.5.65: pauper…deducet amicos (‘the poor man will lead you to your friends’).  See Juster (2018) 169 – 170.  Juster (2018) 169.

112

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

amoris/elegiae Boethius as congratulating him, Maximianus implies his poetic recognition, and therefore his metapoetic self-consciousness.

4.4.2 Aquilina as Elegy Elegy 3 appears to be a conventional renuntiatio amoris. ¹⁸⁴ In Augustan love elegy, due to incidents of infidelity or jealousy, the poet makes a public denouncement of his beloved’s character and renounces his love for her.¹⁸⁵ This topos occurs mainly at the end of a book or a collection, where the poet tries to get rid himself of the chains of love and return to his reasonable behavior.¹⁸⁶ This implies that the poet wants to cure himself from the disease of love, which is a prerequisite of the elegiac genre – therefore, he wants to renounce the elegiac genre itself.¹⁸⁷ In our poem, Aquilina does not have a bad character. On the contrary, she is not a dura domina and her parents finally adopt a favorable attitude towards the poet-lovers. The absence of the cruel character of the puella, as well as the lack of love obstacles, contributes to Maximianus’ loss of amatory interest (cf. Ov. Am. 2.19, as we have already seen), and thus the composition of a renuntiatio amoris. In this section, I will try to prove that Maximianus implies that Aquilina is actually the personification of Elegy (like in Ov. Am. 3.1). I believe there are three passages that include a metapoetic reading about the genre’s destiny in Maximianus’ era. Aquilina is likely a young meretrix who is under the protection of her mater/lena. In verses 11– 14 she is described as a docta puella,¹⁸⁸ who had abandoned the songs she liked due to her love for Maximianus: Carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant, solus amor cordi curaque semper erat. Nec reperire viam, caecum qua pasceret ignem, docta nec alternis reddere verba notis. El. 3.11– 14 The songs¹⁸⁹ she loved so much were lying abandoned. Only love was the eternal concern of

 See Pinotti (1989) 188 – 190; Fielding (2017) 162.  Cf. Tib. 1.9; Prop. 3.24, 3.25; Οv. Am. 2.9, 3.11b, 3.12.  See Cairns (1972) 79 – 82; Antoniadis (2015) 28; Fielding (2016) 335 – 336, n. 49.  See Lilja (1965) 89 – 99; Conte (1994b) 43 – 44; Hardie (2006) 173 – 176; Caston (2012) 29 – 33; Pappas (2016a) 25.  See James (2003b) 71– 107.  For carmina as ‘carding combs’, see Webster (1900) 96; Juster (2018) 158.

4.4 A Metapoetic Reading

113

her heart. Nor did she find a way to feed her blind fire, nor witty words to give back with ambiguous notes.

This is the first passage of our elegy that, in my opinion, includes a hidden discourse about poetics. From a metapoetic point of view, it can be read as follows: Aquilina is a girl who very much enjoyed songs/poems (El. 3.11: carmina), which mattered in the past (El. 3.11: procul), but in Maximianus’ era have become flat (El. 3.11: iacebant).¹⁹⁰ Carmina pensa could be interpreted as ‘poems with a specific weight’¹⁹¹ or ‘approved/valued poems’.¹⁹² I think that here Maximianus identifies Aquilina with Poetry, and by speaking of her literary taste, offers a hint of the poetic trend of his era until his work: Aquilina/Poetry so far liked weighty/heavy poems (carmina pensa), e. g. epic poetry.¹⁹³ But now these poems fell flat (iacebant) and, due to Maximianus, only love (El. 3.12: solus amor), i. e. love elegy, is her concern. Now Aquilina/Poetry does not know how she can express her feelings of love (El. 3.13: Nec reperire viam, caecum qua pasceret ignem, ‘nor did she find a way to feed her blind fire’); nor can she produce cultivated words (El. 3.14: docta…verba) with alternating signs (El. 3.14: alternis…notis). This means that although she liked poetry, Aquilina could not produce verses that fit an elegiac docta puella. This reading is fortified by the phrase alternis notis, as alternus is a poetic adjective meaning the alternation of hexameter and pentameter in the elegiac couplet.¹⁹⁴ In other words, Maximianus appears to say that until his first ‘love’ for Aquilina, the genre of love elegy was in shadow, as we saw in Chapter 1. This passage from Elegy 3 is strongly connected with verses 31– 32 of Elegy 1. They share almost similar vocabulary (cf. El. 1.31: perpensa, 32: alterno…decore) and the same metapoetic meaning.¹⁹⁵ After the renunciation of love, in verses 79 – 80 Maximianus describes how Aquilina – since she saw that nothing from the couple’s pursuits could proceed – left the young poet-lover with her body untouched: Illa nihil quaesita videns procedere, causam odit et illaeso corpore tristis abit. El. 3.79 – 80

 For iaceo as referring to rhythm and style and meaning ‘fall flat’, see OLD, s.v. iaceo, meaning 5d.  See OLD, s.v. pendo, meaning 2.  See OLD, s.v. pensus, -a, -um.  For pendeo, see Mozley (1933).  See OLD, s.v. alternus, -a, -um, meaning 1c. Also, see Pappas (2017– 19) 774– 775 and Pappas (2021a) 467.  See Chapter 2.

114

4 Generic Interplay and Poetics in Elegy 3

She, seeing that our pursuits were not proceeding, hating our relationship and sad, she left me, with her body untouched.

Maximianus’ beloved, who was transformed into an elegiac puella for a while, now – after the consent of her parents to her relationship and the following indifference of the poet for her – has decided with sadness (El. 3.80: tristis) to leave him with her body untouched (El. 3.80: illaeso corpore). I believe this passage also has a metapoetic reading: Aquilina, who is defined by a typical adjective that serves as ‘generic marker’ of love elegy, i. e. tristis, decides to leave the poet-lover, as the obstacles of love no longer exist and, therefore, the elegiac game cannot be played. Aquilina is now identified with Elegy, which is incompatible with the chaste way of life. In an Augustan elegiac scenario, scripta puella must be abused by her lover-poet, and not by her mother (as Aquilina). Maximianus’ poetic collection or carmen continuum is intact (El. 3.80: illaeso corpore)¹⁹⁶ from love, so tristis Elegia must go. At the end of the poem, Maximianus announces the end of their relationship: Ingrati, tristes pariter discedimus ambo: Discidii ratio vita pudica fuit. El. 3.93 – 94 Unsatisfied and sad, we both broke up. And the reason for our separation was a pure life.

Regarding this ambo (‘we both’), critics’ opinions differ; Anastasi¹⁹⁷ and Shanzer¹⁹⁸ believe this word refers to the poet-lover and Boethius, but Barnish,¹⁹⁹ Wasyl,²⁰⁰ Fielding²⁰¹ and myself believe that by ambo Maximianus means Aquilina and himself. Maximianus ends this elegy by stating that the former elegiac couple, unpleased, broke up. We can observe that here, again, the poet includes the generic marker of tristes. The elegiac couple must be sad, as the elegiac genre requires. However, they are ingrati; the adjective grata is used by the Augustan elegists in descriptions of the elegiac puellae. ²⁰² Maximianus uses it in El. 5.16

 For corpus as a collection of writings, see OLD, s.v. corpus, meaning 16a.  See Anastasi (1951) 74– 76.  See Shanzer (1983) 191.  See Barnish (1990) 25.  See Wasyl (2011) 144, n. 120.  See Fielding (2017) 163, n. 146.  Cf. Tib. 1.9.84: et grata sis, dea, mente rogat (‘and he asks you, goddess, to be grateful to him by your spirit’); Prop. 2.25.35: at si saecla forent antiquis grata puellis (‘but if the centuries are

4.5 Conclusions

115

for Graia puella, and in Elegy 1 to describe himself (cf. El. 1.71– 72: Sic cunctis formosus ego gratusque videbar | omnibus, ‘thus, everyone was looking on me as a handsome man, I was pleasant for all’). Here the poet uses a conflicting (for the genre of love elegy) couple of words in order to show that in his kind of elegy, sad lovers are unsatisfied due to the chaste life (El. 3.94: vita pudica) they have to follow. They must be apart, not because of the existence of stubborn obstacles of love, but because they chose to live in purity. In other words, in Elegy 3 Maximianus follows the main principle of the elegiac genre, i. e. the failure of love, but without love (‘elegy without love’). Thus, he manages to transform the elegiac genre by replacing love – the main motif of his Augustan predecessors – with a chaste way of life. As in classical elegists love brought pain and sadness, so vita (or natura) pudica (cf. El. 1.73 – 74: nam me natura pudicum | fecerat, et casto pectore durus eram, ‘because nature made me pure and I was cruel having a chaste heart’) brings sadness and dissatisfaction (ingrati, tristes) to the elegist of Late Antiquity.

4.5 Conclusions Elegy 3 is extremely important for the entire poetic collection (or the carmen continuum) of Maximianus, and it is perhaps no coincidence that it is located in the middle of his work. The generic interplay is manifold here, as the ‘host’ genre (love elegy) interacts with several ‘guest’ genres (Roman comedy, Christian hagiography, epic, novel, and pastoral) as well as language from legal and medical texts. The two main characters of this elegy, Boethius and Aquilina, play crucial metapoetic roles; Boethius is identified with the servus callidus of Roman comedy, while Aquilina, who also comes from the same genre (as she reminds us of the meretrix that is under protection of the mater/lena), acts like Elegy personified, who reveals Maximianus’ poetic self-consciousness. At the same time, our poet subverts the well-known norms of the Augustan love elegy. Therefore, by composing an elegy in which a chaste life is the cause of the poet lover’s grief, rather than his unfulfilled love for his mistress, he manages to renew a genre that was obsolete until his appearance. In other words, five centuries after Ovid’s death, Maximianus imitates his master and transforms the elegiac genre.²⁰³

grateful to the ancient girls’), 4.3.72: salvo grata puella viro (‘a grateful woman for her safe husband’).  See Fielding (2017) 209.

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Summary At the beginning of the elegy, the poet speaks of the past and states that the purpose of his poem is to narrate shameful stories from the past,¹ in order to give pleasure to his readers and himself, with the passage of time (1– 6). Maximianus then starts his narration of the past; the girl he was in love with was called Candida, who took her name from her white skin (candidus, ‘bright’, ‘white’).² She was a musician, dancer and singer (7– 14) – therefore, a girl of low social class (a professional entertainer). After this, the poet describes his symptoms of love (erotica pathemata). He was crazy for her and, although he had seen her only once, she was always on his mind (15 – 24). One anonymous witness of this mad behavior towards Candida revealed that Maximianus was in love with a singer (25 – 26). Indeed, love cannot be hidden; the paleness and redness of his face betray that he is in love, as do his dreams and restless sleep (27– 34). Maximianus called to his beloved in his sleep, but unfortunately her father, who was standing nearby, heard him. The father waited to hear more, but soon realized that the poet was being deceived by the illusions of sleep (35 – 48). Thus, the poet, who was considered a respectable man, was betrayed by his own mistake and now, as an old man, lives an unhappy life without being able to do what he wished in the past (49 – 54). In the last three couplets, Maximianus moralizes by saying that even a great man can desire something that hurts him, and that sometimes people have the defect of wanting what they cannot keep (55 – 60).³ From this, we can deduce that there is no real action in Elegy 4, nor a definitive end. Maximianus narrates that in the past he was madly in love with Candida, that he dreamed of her in his sleep and her father listened to his stirring, but he ends the narration of this love episode there, with no more action. At the end of the poem, he is transferred to the present, in his old age, and seems to

 It is no coincidence that in the part of the elegy where Maximianus narrates his adventure with Candida (El. 4.1– 50), he uses mainly past tenses (past continuous and present perfect), while at the end of the poem (El. 4.51– 60), where he discusses the present, he uses the adverb nunc (‘now’) in El. 4.51 and simple present.  See OLD, s.v. candidus-a-um, meanings 1a and 2a.  This chapter is a revised and enriched (with new research and bibliographic data) version of my article in Greek, see Pappas (2022). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-006

5.1 Introduction

117

regret that back then he did not seize the opportunity to have a love affair with the young girl. Therefore, we have to make do with an ‘almost love’ episode, which eventually develops into a story without love, as in fact is the case with all of Maximianus’ stories.⁴ As Wasyl has noted, Elegy 4 is for the main part narrative, as the poet simply narrates the story, using direct speech only three times (El. 4.26, 35 – 36 and 43 – 44) – this is in contrast to Elegy 3, which is the most dramatic poem, as the poet uses three characters (Aquilina, Boethius and himself) and plenty of dialogue.⁵ Here, Maximianus mainly discusses the phenomenon of love’s passion, rather than the relations between the characters within the poem.

5.1.2 Elegy 4 and the Other Elegies Elegy 4 is the briefest of the Elegies in which Maximianus narrates his love episodes (i. e. El. 2, 3, 4 and 5). Its best-known verse is 26, where the poet states that an unknown speaker mentions his name, El. 4.26: Cantat, cantantem Maximianus amat (‘he sings, Maximianus loves the singer’). As is well-known,⁶ Pomponius Gauricus deleted the couplet El. 4.25 – 26, in order to attribute Maximianus’ work to Cornelius Gallus.⁷ This is the only time that our poet mentions his name. Furthermore, the poet informs us that he was considered by everyone to be a respectable and wise man, El. 4.49: qui cunctis sanctae gravitatis habebar (‘I, who was considered by everyone as a respectful and holy man’), and 4.58: gnarus et ut sapiens noxia saepe velit (‘since when does a well-known and wise man wish what is harmful to him?’).⁸ Maximianus does not tell us exactly what age he was when he loved Candida, as he does in other Elegies. As we have seen in Chapter 1, some scholars believe that he was then of a mature age (between his youth and his old age), and thus creates a temporal circle in his entire work, as in El. 2 and 5 he presents himself as an old lover, and in El. 3 and 4 as a young and mature man, respectively.⁹ After all, as our poet admits, ‘thus, I deceive alternating years by various

 Wasyl (2011) 148.  Wasyl (2011) 146 – 147.  See Chapter 1.  White (2019) 6.  Some editors have the text as clarus instead of Schneider’s gnarus. For the attribution of gnarus (or clarus) and sapiens of El. 4.58 to Candida’s father or to Boethius, see Juster (2018) 178.  See Chapter 1.

118

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

turns and changes of time are very pleasant to me’ (El. 4.5 – 6: Sic vicibus variis alternos fallimus annos | mutata magis tempora grata mihi). In the last three couplets of the poem (El. 4.55 – 60), Maximianus speaks of the misery of old age and the desires that a wise man should have, and makes a moral commentary on the defects of humans, who desire what they cannot attain. The truth is that this passage does not seem to be connected to the content of Elegy 4, but rather agrees more with that of Elegy 5, serving as its introduction. In several manuscripts, Elegy 4 is interrupted in verse 54.¹⁰ Several scholars have dealt with this subject, but most editors include verses 55 – 60 within Elegy 4.¹¹ But what is the intratextual relation that exists between Elegy 4 and the other Elegies? As I have noted in the previous chapter, there are certain indicators that connect Elegies 3 and 4 (the role of parents in both poems, the similarity of their proems, etc.).¹² Aside from the previous elegy, it seems that Elegy 4 is also linked to Elegies 1 and 5. In El. 4.1, Maximianus states that he will narrate other shameful events as well (Restat adhuc alios turpesque revolvere casus, ‘it still remains to tell other embarrassing events’), just as he had wondered in Elegy 1 about the other damages that might come with his old age (cf. El. 1.279: at quos fert alios quis posset dicere casus?, ‘but who can say how many disasters may come?’). Furthermore, there is a contradiction between these two poems: although in Elegy 1 the poet states that he despises the white faces of girls, unless they had a shade of pink, rosy color, El. 1.89 – 90: candida contempsi, nisi quae suffusa rubore | vernarent propriis ora serena rosis (‘I despised the pale girls, except those who had faces blooming with the pink color of the rose with a quiet blush’), here he reveals that he was in love with Candida, who took her name from the white color, El. 4.7– 8: Virgo fuit, species dederat cui candida nomen | Candida (‘there was a girl, whose white appearance had given the name Candida’). The puella of Elegy 4 might belong to this exception – a fact that we will never know, as Maximianus does not offer much more detail when describing her beauty. Of course, this contradiction is part of the general contradiction of Elegy 1 within the elegies that follow, in which the poet narrates his love adventures with several women (Lycoris, Aquilina, Candida, Graia puella), as in the introductory elegy Maximianus says that he remained alone in his bed and pure in his heart, and that no girl seemed worthy to be his beloved.¹³

   

Roberts (2018) 6 and 14, n. 13. Fo (1986 – 87) 102– 1015; Schneider (2003) 222. See Chapter 4. Cf. El. 1.71– 78.

5.1 Introduction

119

Elegy 4 is also strongly connected with Elegy 5. The puellae of these two poems are both singers, musicians and dancers, cf. El. 4. 9 – 12: Huic ego per totum vidi pendentia corpus | cymbala multiplices edere pulsa sonos; | nunc niveis digitis, nunc pulsans pectine chordas | arguto quicquam murmure dulce loqui (‘I saw cymbals hanging all around her body and making multiple sounds when she pressed them; now with her snowy fingers, now with the pick she struck the chords and uttered something sweet with a melodious murmur’), 4.15: Hanc ego saltantem subito correptus amavi (‘suddenly seized by her dancing I fell in love’), 4.26: cantantem Maximianus amat (‘Maximianus loves the singer’), and El. 5.10: nescio quid Graeco murmure dulce canens (‘she sings something, I do not know what, in Greek murmur’), 5.17– 18: docta loqui digitis et carmina fingere docta | et responsuram sollicitare lyram (‘she was trained to speak with her fingers, trained to write verses and played her lyre that was ready to respond’). Candida and Graia puella are professional entertainers. Therefore, they are probably infames, i. e. the shameful professions in Rome with limited legal rights (such as gladiator, actor and prostitute).¹⁴ This feature also connects Candida with Aquilina – if we remember that Aquilina’s parents were bribed in order to agree to her relationship with Maximianus, thus acting as lenones. ¹⁵ As we saw in the previous chapter, even the names of these two puellae have an etymological contrast, as Candida means the white, shining girl, while Aquilina means the black, dark one.¹⁶ Furthermore, the girls of Elegies 4 and 5 recall the scenicae metetriculae in Boethius’ Cons. 1.PI.8, the elegiac Muses that Philosophy had expelled from Boethius’ prison cell, as they drive men to false pleasures that harm the human soul.¹⁷ Thus, we can deduce a strong intratextual relationship between Elegy 4 and Elegies 3 and 5. We might say that our elegy is the cohesive link between them, playing the role of ‘bridge’.

 Edwards (1997) 66 – 69.  See Chapter 4.  See Chapter 4.  Fielding (2017) 164– 165. The same scholar mentions that the moralists of Late Antiquity (e. g. John Chrysostom) argued that frequent visits to the theatre damage the human soul. For a reading of Elegy 4 as a parody of Boethius’ Consolatio Philosophiae, see Relihan (2007) 104– 105.

120

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

5.2 Candida The name of Maximianus’ beloved, Candida, is also associated with Ovid’s beloved, Corinna.¹⁸ She is a perfect elegiac puella, who knows perfectly well the crafts of a libertine meretrix.¹⁹ However, our poet twice calls her virgin (El. 4.7: virgo, 38: virginis) and once puella (El. 4.14). Given that these terms are not exactly synonymous, and virgo usually occurs in the epic genre,²⁰ perhaps here Maximianus aims to mock the conventions of the elegiac genre itself and present an elegiac puella as an epic virgin. Nevertheless, it seems that Roman poets did not distinguish between these two terms, and used them according to their metrical needs.²¹ Another poet of Late Antiquity, Claudian, calls Diana, the greatest symbol of virginity, ‘candida regina’ (‘chaste queen’) in DRP 2.18. Perhaps by using the name Candida – in connection with the term virgo and Claudian’s definition of Diana – Maximianus also aims to foretell the end of this elegy, i. e. the fact that it is an elegy without love.²²

5.3 Elegy 4 and Intertextuality As in all of Maximianus’ work, Ovid exists in this poem too. Scholars have noted the intertextuality between Maximianus’s Elegy 4 and several poems of the poet from Sulmo (especially from Amores, Metamorphoses and his exile poetry), as well as other poets (e. g. Lucretius, Tibullus, etc.).²³ In this section, I will not present all of these intertexts, but will instead focus only on those that are related to a metapoetic reading of Elegy 4. Fielding argues that the couplet El. 4.7– 8: Virgo fuit, species dederat cui candida nomen | Candida; diversis nam bene compta comis, (‘there was a girl, whose the white appearance had given the name Candida; she was very charming in-

 Wasyl (2011) 146, n. 125; Fielding (2017) 167. Some scholars supported that Maximianus’ Candida is related to candida scrofa of Juvenal 12.72, see Butrica (2005); Juster (2018) 171.  See Webster (1900) 103, where he notes that her name probably shows that she belonged to the women of the demi-monde, where all these names were frequent. Candida reminds us of the pseudo-Virgilian Copa and the crotalistria (‘cymbal player’) Quintia of Priapeum 27, see D’Amanti (2020) xxxiv, who wrongly states that Quintia exists in Priapeum 26.  Watson (1983) 119.  Hallett (2013) 204– 205. For puella, sponsa, and virgo in late Latin poetry, see Malick-Prunier (2011).  See OLD, s.v. candidus-a-um, meaning 8b.  See Webster (1900) 102– 106; Wasyl (2011) 145 – 149; Fielding (2017) 163 – 169; Juster (2018) 171– 179.

5.3 Elegy 4 and Intertextuality

121

deed, with her hair parted’) is related to Ovid’s Am. 1.1.20: aut puer aut longos compta puella comas (‘either a boy, or an elegant girl with long hair’), and 1.5.10: candida dividua colla tegente coma (‘with parted hair covering her white neck’).²⁴ He also mentions Hinds’ note that that the first four syllables of Am. 1.5.10 (candida di‐) – which are reproduced by Maximianus in El. 4.8 – lead to the phrase candida diva of Catullus (68b.70).²⁵ I believe that Maximianus also had Ov. Am. 3.5 in mind. Sleeping and dreaming are two situations that are common in both elegies.²⁶ Moreover, the color of Maximianus’ sweetheart is similar to the white cow that Ovid dreams of, cf. Ov. Am. 3.5.10 – 11: constitit ante oculos candida vacca meos, | candidior nivibus (‘a white cow stood in front of my eyes, whiter than snow’). Fielding notes some other intertexts between Maximianus and Ovid; there is a very interesting correlation between El. 4.15: correptus amavi (‘seized…I fell in love’) and 4.19: velut visae laetabar imagine formae (‘I was happy with her image of her beauty as if I was seeing her’) with Ov. Met. 3.416 – 417: visae correptus imagine formae | spem sine corpore amat (‘captured by the image of beauty he saw; he fell in love, the hope without a body’). Maximianus is in love with an image, an illusion (El. 4.19: imagine formae), as Candida is not before his eyes, just as Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection (Ov. Met. 3.416: imagine formae). Both (Maximianus and Narcissus) suffer from their elegiac furor, namely a melancholic obsession for images in their imagination. Their love with an illusion relates to the lies of poets, which they both mention.²⁷ From a metapoetic perspective, this kind of love reveals the fictitiousness of what they desire, and thus the ‘elegiac illusion’.²⁸ Fielding also links the almost vivid sketching of Candida in Maximianus’ dream (cf. his mumbling in El. 4.35 – 36: ‘Candida,’ clamabam ‘propera! Cur, Candida, tardas? | Nox abit et furtis lux inimica redit!’, ‘ “Candida”, I shouted, “hurry up! Why, Candida, are you late? The night is gone and the light, which hates secret loves, returns” ’) with Lucretius’ simulacra in DRN 4.1030 – 1036, which – ac-

 Fielding (2017) 163 – 164.  Fielding (2017) 163 – 164. See also, Hinds (1987) 7– 9.  See Wasyl (2011) 148, where she notes that ‘the motif of a lover fulfilling his desire only in dreams belonged to the very canon of topics in erotic literature’.  Cf. El. 1.11: Saepe poetarum mendacia dulcia finxi (‘I often composed sweet lies of the poets); Ov. Am. 3.6.17: prodigiosa loquor veterum mendacia vatum (‘I speak of marvellous lies of ancient poets’), 3.11a.21: turpia quid referam vanae mendacia linguae (‘what should I refer for the vile lies of my idle tongue’), Fast. 6.253: valeant mendacia vatum (‘the lies of poets have power’), Tr. 2.355 – 356: magnaque pars mendax operum est et ficta meorum | plus sibi permisit compositore suo (‘and most of my poems are deceptive and fictitious and are more permissive than their author’).  See Hardie (2002); Fielding (2017) 165 – 167.

122

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

cording to the epic poet – appear in dreams and correspond to attractive bodies that no one can possess, and are thus identified with love (this is Ovid’s belief too).²⁹ Dreams and dream-like scenes are a frequent motif throughout Greek and Latin literature, across several genres, including epic, tragedy, lyric poetry, elegy, and novel.³⁰ Lucretius and Tibullus deal with dreams (DRN 5.1158 – 1160 and Tib. 1.9.26 – 27), as does Apuleius in his Metamorphoses (4.26 – 27, 9.31, 11.20, etc.) and Macrobius (In Somn. 1.3.4).³¹ The illusions of the amatory furor also appear in El. 4.43 – 44: ‘Vana putas an vera? Sopor ludibria iactat | an te verus’ ait ‘pectoris ardor agit? (‘ “do you think that these are vain or true? Sleep throws illusions to you, or does a true passion”, he says, “move you?” ’), a passage that reminds us of the characterization of real life as ‘vain illusions’ in Martial’s epigrams, cf. 14.7: vana…ludibria. ³² Fielding notes two other interesting intertexts. In El. 4.49 – 50: Sic ego, qui cunctis sanctae gravitatis habebar, | proditus indicio sum miser ipse meo (‘so, I, who was considered as a respectful saint by everyone, I was betrayed myself, me the miserable, by my own fault’), Maximianus argues that he has hurt his reputation with his mistake (i. e. his love for Candida). These verses appear to come from Ovid’s Tr. 2.2: ingenio perii…miser ipse meo (‘I, the miserable one, was damaged by my own mind’). Finally, the same scholar notes that El. 4.53: Deserimur vitiis, fugit indignata Voluptas, (‘I am abandoned due to my defects and indignant pleasure goes away’), where Maximianus wonders about the value of moral life without pleasure, is linked to Silius Italicus’ Pun. 15.123 – 124 sed enim indignata Voluptas | non tenuit voces (‘but indignant pleasure did not restrain her voice’), where Pleasure reacts because Scipio has rejected her in favor of Virtue.³³ Maximianus’ reference in Voluptas recalls the Epicurean voluptas,³⁴ which was rejected by our poet’s friend, Boethius, but appears to agree with Graia puella’s praise of the mentula in El. 5.109 – 152, and, therefore, with our poet’s adoption of this Epicurean idea.³⁵ In fact, it seems that aged Maximianus regrets that he is unable to sin and that he lived a life without any romantic

 Fielding (2017) 167.  For dreams in Antiquity, see Hanson (1980). For dreams in epic, see Khoo (2019). For dreams in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses, see Kenaan (2004); Hunink (2006). For dreams in Late Antiquity, see Cox Miller (1994).  See Spaltenstein (1983) 235; Consolino (1997) 385; Wasyl (2011) 147– 148; Fielding (2017) 167, n. 159. For dreams in Macrobius, see Cox Miller (1994) 94– 99.  Fielding (2017) 168.  Fielding (2017) 169.  For Epicurean voluptas in Late Antiquity, see Brown (1982); Ramelli (2014).  See Chapter 6.

5.4 Generic Interplay

123

crime, El. 4.51– 52: et nunc infelix tota est sine crimine vita | et peccare senem non potuisse pudet (‘and now my whole life is unhappy without any crime, and I am ashamed that as an old man I cannot sin’). From all of these, we can deduce the impact of several poets on Elegy 4, predominantly that of Ovid. I believe it is highly significant that many of these intertexts are used by Maximianus in order to imply the Ovidian ‘lies of poets’. He thus highlights the dream-like character of the genre of love elegy, as well as underlining one of its key ingredients, the elegiac fiction. I will analyze this subject below.

5.4 Generic Interplay We can observe that in Elegy 4, Maximianus displays some of the well-known ingredients of the elegiac genre, ingredients that originate from the elegiac vocabulary, including fundamental features of the genre (such as the elegiac fiction and the furtivus amor). In his other Elegies, the practice of generic interaction is more widespread, as several ‘guest’ literary genres interplay with the ‘host’ elegiac genre (e. g. Roman comedy, hymn, lament, epigrams, philosophy, Christian poetry, etc.).³⁶ In our poem, the generic interaction is limited, and is restricted into two main genres, Roman comedy and novel.

5.4.1 The ‘Host’ Genre The elegy contains many indicators of the elegiac genre. Words such as turpes (4.1), molli…ioco (4.2), arguto (4.12) and dulce (4.12) / dulces (4.22) are terms that occur frequently in the Augustan love elegy.³⁷ Furthermore, the ‘symbolic metonym’ of love occurs three times in the poem (El. 4.15: amavi, 4.26: amat, 4.37: amatae).³⁸ The poetic metalanguage of Elegy 4 is also revealed from

 For the impact of epigrams on Maximianus’ Elegies, see Bussières (2020) 899 – 902.  Cf. Tib. 1.2.19: Illa docet molli furtim derepere lecto (‘she teaches how someone slips secretly from a soft bed’); Prop. 1.7.19: et frustra cupies mollem componere versum (‘and you desire in vain to compose sweet verses’), 1.16.7: et mihi non desunt turpes pendere corollae (‘and disgraceful garlands are not lacking, hung on me’), 1.16.11– 12: nec tamen illa suae revocatur parcere famae, | turpior et saecli vivere luxuria (‘neither she cares to save her fame, living more sinfully than this luxurious age’), 1.16.16: arguta referens carmina blanditia (‘repeating tuneful songs with charm’). For turpis in Maximianus, see Bussières (2020) 893 – 894 and 896 – 897.  Harrison (2007) 31– 33.

124

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

many words that highlight the relationship between singing/music and the elegiac genre, e. g. cf. El. 4.4: carmina (‘songs, poems’), 4.10: cymbala (‘cymbals’) and multiplices sonos (‘multiple sounds’), 4.26: cantat, cantantem (‘sings’, ‘the singer’), etc.³⁹ Some of these terms, e. g. El. 4.14: variis modis (‘various ways’) and El. 4.22: dulces…modos (‘sweet ways’) concern elegiac metre, as I will discuss below. In this way, Maximianus presents himself as a self-conscious poet and reveals the self-reflexive nature of the elegiac genre.⁴⁰ In El. 4.31– 47, Maximianus narrates the appearance of Candida in his sleep and her father’s attempt to draw further information from his mumbled speech. The Augustan love elegists sometimes narrate the dreams and ambitions they had for the relationships with their sweethearts (e. g. Tibullus 1.5), while in other cases describe the dreams containing their puellae (e. g., cf. Prop. 2.26a and 33, and Ov. Am. 3.5). Scholars have proven that these dreams can be interpreted in metaliterary terms and that they are strongly connected with the poetic composition.⁴¹ It seems that our poet uses the dream motif mainly in order to reveal two fundamental ingredients of the elegiac code: a) the elegiac fiction, and b) the illicit love (furtivus amor). By using the delusion of dreaming and repeating terms that show off the vanity of the elegiac world,⁴² Maximianus mirrors one of the structural features of the elegiac code, that of the elegiac fiction.⁴³ The poet cites several terms that prove that this elegy (and his entire body of poetry in general) is an opus fallax. ⁴⁴ He defines his poems as vain (El. 4.4: carmina vana), and mentions that he deceives the seasons of the year (El. 4.5: Sic vicibus variis alternos fallimus annos, ‘thus, I deceive alternating years by various turns’) and that he was happy with the image of his sweetheart’s beauty (El. 4.19: laetabar imagine formae, ‘I was happy with the image of her beauty’), although he was far away from her (El. 4.20: absenti voce manuque fui, ‘although I was far away from her voice and hands’). The passage where Maximianus implies a comment on the elegiac

 See Szöverffy (1967– 1968) 358 – 359, where he notes for Elegy 4: ‘This love experience of Maximianus is closely related with the experience of music; she turns everything into music around him’.  Papanghelis (22001) 172.  For Tibullus’ 1.5, see Scioli (2015) 55 – 89; Pappas (2016b). For Propertius’ 2.26a, see Wiggers (1980); Flaschenriem (2010). For his 3.3, see Scioli (2011– 2012). For Ovid’s Am. 3.3, see Scioli (2015) 45 – 54.  Just like his master, Ovid, did; see Rosati (1983) 37– 50; Hardie (2002).  See Allen (1950); Griffin (1985) 48 – 64; Veyne (1988).  Cf. Prop. 4.1.135: At tu finge elegos, fallax opus: haec tua castra! (‘But you, deceptive art, make elegies; this is your camp!’). See Nethercut (1976); Warden (1980).

5.4 Generic Interplay

125

fiction is El. 4.43 – 46, where we hear Candida’s father wondering whether the relationship of his daughter with Maximianus is real or not: ‘Vana putas an vera? Sopor ludibria iactat an te verus’ ait ‘pectoris ardor agit? Credo equidem assuetas animo remeare figuras, et fallax studium ludit imago suum.’ El. 4.43 – 46 ‘Do you think that these are vain or true? Sleep throws illusions to you, or does a true passion’, he says, ‘move you? I truly believe that familiar shapes return to his mind and that an illusory image deceives his desire’.

Candida’s father, an elegiac obstacle (impedimentum amoris) that ultimately remains inactive (as Maximianus suddenly stops the love episode),⁴⁵ asks himself whether the poet’s sleep brings to mind images that correspond to reality or are just illusions (El. 4.43 – 44). Consolino notes that his questions resemble those of Macrobius, who examines the function of dreams on humans.⁴⁶ I believe that in this way, Candida’s father imitates the reader of the love elegy who wonders whether the elegiac puellae are real or fictional characters (scriptae puellae).⁴⁷ However, immediately after this, Candida’s father, who on a dramatic level is trying to interpret Maximianus’ incomprehensible phrases in his sleep, on a metapoetic level also reveals one of the main ingredients of the elegiac code: he assures us that in the poet-lover’s mind, familiar figures return (El. 4.45: assuetas animo remeare figuras), i. e. the scriptae puellae of the elegiac poets, and that the false image (of his sweetheart) plays with his desire (El. 4.46: fallax studium ludit imago suum), i. e. his desire to write love elegy. In fact, I believe that Maximianus placed the adjective fallax (which defines the imago) next to studium on purpose, in order to remind us of Propertius’ opus fallax, i. e. the elegiac fiction. Aside from the vanity of the elegiac world, Maximianus reveals to us another of its main features, namely that of illicit love (furtivus amor).⁴⁸ The poet confesses that he loved Candida silently, El. 4.16: et coepi tacitus vulnera grata pati (‘and I silently began to suffer these pleasant wounds’), a statement that he emphasiz-

 For paternal power in Late Antiquity, see Arjava (1998).  Consolino (1997) 385.  Wyke (2002).  Cf. indicatively Tib. 1.5.7: parce tamen, per te furtivi foedera lecti (‘yet spare me, in the name of the bond of our secret bed’), 1.5.75: Nescio quid furtivus amor parat (‘I do not know what the illicit amor prepares’), 1.8.57: Nota Venus furtiva mihi est (‘I am familiar with illicit Venus’); Prop. 1.16.20: nescia furtivas reddere mota preces (‘you do not know to be moved and return my secret prayers’).

126

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

es by an alliteration of the s in the following verse, El. 4.17: Singula visa semel semper memorare libebat (‘once I saw her unique features, it was pleasant to remember her forever’). Following this, he admits that it was difficult to hide his love, El. 4.27: difficile est abscondere pectoris aestus (‘it is difficult to hide passion from your heart’), a fact that he again represents by the same alliteration in El. 4.31– 32: Nec minus ipsa meas prodebat somnia curas | somnia secreto non bene fida meo (‘no less my own dreams betrayed my cares, my dreams, which I did not well trust with my secret’). In verse 36, he characterizes his love as a tryst, El. 4.36: Nox abit et furtis lux inimica redit (‘the night leaves and the light, which hates trysts, returns’).⁴⁹ As a self-conscious poet, by repeating the sense of secrecy throughout the poem, Maximianus implies the necessary presupposition of the elegiac scenario, i. e. the existence of the illicit love.

5.4.2 The ‘Host’ Genres Roman Comedy Several scholars have noted that Roman comedy makes a brief appearance here. These comic features are related to linguistic and thematic similarities. Juster notes that the type fallebar of verse 24 (El. 4.24: Nec, puto, fallebar: non bene sanus eram, ‘nor was I deceived, I think; Ι was not quite sane’) belongs to the ‘humble’ vocabulary of Roman comedy.⁵⁰ Franzoi and Spinazzè argue that the imperative propera of verse 35 (El. 4.35: Candida, clamabam, propera! Cur, Candida, tardas?, ‘Candida, I cried, hurry up! Why are you late?’) comes from Plautus.⁵¹ The father’s attempt to eavesdrop on Maximianus’ mumbling and secretly spying upon a sleeping man are common practices in Roman comedy, as Juster notes.⁵² Finally, the intervention of a daughter’s father in the plot of Elegy 4 re-

 Cf. Ov. Ep. 15.291: Iuppiter his gaudet, gaudet Venus aurea furtis (‘Jupiter enjoys these trysts, the gold one Venus enjoys them too’); Claud. VI Cons. Hon. prol. 7: furto gaudet amans (‘the lover enjoys the trysts’).  Juster (2018) 174, where he quotes Plaut. Epid. 239: nec sermonis fallebar tamen (‘I was not deceived by a word they said’).  Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014) 190. Cf. Plaut. Aul. 270: propera atque elue (‘hurry up and clean’), Bacch. 100: propera, amabo (‘hurry up, I will love’), Cas. 491: abi atque obsona, propera (‘go away and purchase, hurry up’).  Juster (2018) 175. The scholar notes that Plautus used this practice nine times, and Terence fourteen.

5.4 Generic Interplay

127

minds us of analogous behaviors of the same persona in Roman comedies (e. g. the role of the father of the uxor dotata in Plautus’ Menaechmi).⁵³ Roman Novel Dreams play an important role in the ancient novel.⁵⁴ More specifically, scholars have proven that Apuleius used dreams and dream-like stories in his Metamorphoses, predominantly as vehicles of truth for the protagonists, and that they contribute to the continuation of the narration, not to its pause.⁵⁵ Nevertheless, Apuleius’ use of dreams causes his readers to wonder about ‘the reliability of the various voices that may be heard in this narrative text, and about the nature of prose fiction as such’.⁵⁶ I believe that Maximianus uses the device of dreams for the same purpose, i. e. to make his readers question the reliability of all that he says, and therefore to discover the elegiac fiction. In other words, Maximianus follows Apuleius by using a dream in order to continue his narration. Accordingly, like the novelist, he uses the dream as a form of metaliterary symbolism, in order to reveal the dream-like character of the elegiac genre itself. I believe that Apuleius may have affected Maximianus’ Elegy 4 in two other respects – the father-daughter relationship, and Candida’s name. Thus, in Met. 9.31 Apuleius includes a story based on the motif of ‘cuckolding’. Therein, the truth about the stepmother’s bad behavior is revealed through a dream: the dead father tells everything about her to his loyal daughter.⁵⁷ This triangular relationship (daughter, father, and stepmother) recalls that of Candida, her father, and the poet-lover. As the father in Apuleius’ story wants to protect his child from the wicked stepmother, in the same way Candida’s father aims to prevent his daughter’s exploitation by Maximianus. In Met. 11.20, Lucius learns in a dream about a slave of his, Candidus, who has arrived from Thessaly. The next morning, his slaves bring him a white horse that once belonged to Lucius. We can easily deduce the connection between Thessaly and horses, as well as between the slave’s name and the color of the horse. Perhaps this last parallel influenced Maximianus for his Candida (i. e. Candidus and white horse in Apuleius – Candida and her white skin in Maximianus).

 See Duckworth (1971) 242– 248; Dinter (2019); Dutsch (2019). Candida’s father lying down in the grass (El. 4.37– 38) recalls the bucolic contests (and thus the pastoral genre); see D’Amanti (2020) xxxii.  Kenaan (2004) 251.  Hunink (2006) 24– 25 and 27.  Hunink (2006) 21.  Hunink (2006) 25.

128

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

5.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Candida as Elegy At the beginning of the poem, Maximianus describes Candida’s appearance and talents: Virgo fuit, species dederat cui candida nomen Candida; diversis nam bene compta comis. Huic ego per totum vidi pendentia corpus cymbala multiplices edere pulsa sonos; nunc niveis digitis, nunc pulsans pectine chordas arguto quicquam murmure dulce loqui. Sic me diversis tractum de partibus una carpebat variis pulcra puella modis. El. 4.7– 14 There was a girl, whose white appearance had given her the name Candida; she was very charming indeed, with her hair parted. I saw cymbals hanging all around her body and making multiple sounds when she pressed them; now with her snowy fingers, now with the plectrum, she struck the chords and uttered something sweet with a melodious murmur. Thus, seduced from different sides, a beautiful girl plucked me in various ways.

In verses 7– 8, Maximianus speaks of Candida’s whiteness, her elegance and her hair (?), which were divided into various braids. I place a question mark next to the word ‘hair’, because some editors have modis in verse 8 instead of the comis of Schneider, which I follow.⁵⁸ The passage El. 4.9 – 12 is full of musical terms: 9 – 10: pendentia cymbala (‘hanging cymbals’), 10: multiplices sonos (‘multiple sounds’), 11: pectine (‘plectrum’) and chordas (‘chords’), 12: arguto murmure (‘melodious murmur’). Candida’s description, I believe, proves that Maximianus uses her as the personification of Elegy, a practice that he follows for all of his scriptae puellae. ⁵⁹ First, the writing comis of verse 8 recalls the hair of the personified Elegy and Tragedy in Ov. Am. 3.1 (7: venit odoratos Elegia nexa capillos, ‘Elegy came, with her perfumed hair in a knot’, and 11– 12: venit […] Tragoedia | fronte coma torva, ‘Tragedy came, with her wild hair in her forehead’), and that of Corinna in Ov. Am. 1.14, a poem about hairstyling and its metaliterary dimensions, as Papaioannou has proven.⁶⁰ It also reminds us of Graia puella’s hair (El. 5.25 – 26: grande erat inflexos gradibus numerare capillos | grande erat in niveo pulla colore coma, ‘it was intense to count her hair that was wavy at intervals, it was an intense thing her dark hair on snowy skin’), which also works on a

 See Schneider (2003) 183; Juster (2018) 171.  See Chapters 3, 4 and 6.  Papaioannou (2006).

5.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Candida as Elegy

129

metapoetic level.⁶¹ However, if we accept the writing of modis in verse 8, we also have a metapoetic depiction of Candida, as she is presented as having different (8: diversis) ways, i. e. different rhythms, a variety of poetry.⁶² The possible phrase diversis modis in verse 8 is connected to diversis partibus (‘different sides’) in verse 13 and variis modis (‘various ways’) in verse 14, phrases that imply a metapoetic meaning, as they could refer to the variety of the elegiac distich (i. e. the alternation of dactylic hexameter and pentameter), as well as to the feature of variatio that defines Maximianus’ poetry and the poetics of Late Antiquity in general (cf. El. 1.30: ut semper varium plus micat artis opus, ‘since variety always makes a work of art shine more’, and 2.54: eventus varios res nova semper habet, ‘a new situation always has uncertain results’).⁶³ In the same verse, Candida is characterized as compta (‘elegant’), a word that could also define her as Elegy personified, meaning the ‘elegant, neat, polished’ elegiac genre.⁶⁴ Candida’s corpus in verse 9 can be identified with Maximianus’ poetic collection,⁶⁵ as our poet’s master, Ovid, identifies Corinna’s body with his elegiac work.⁶⁶ Moreover, I believe that the phrase pendentia cymbala (‘hanging cymbals’) in verses 9 – 10 implies the elegiac metrics, i. e. the hanging of dactylic hexameters above the pentameters.⁶⁷ After all, Maximianus also uses the similar verb pendĕre and its compounds to hint at the metrics in his other Elegies, cf. El. 1.31: nam quaecumque solent per se perpensa placere (‘because these things that are carefully balanced by themselves are usually agreeable’), El. 3.11: carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant (‘the songs she loved so much were lying abandoned’), and El. 5.24: suspensosque novis plausibus ire pedes (‘and her feet hovering with each new applause’).⁶⁸ The noun digitis in verse 11 also has a metapoetic meaning, as it signifies the dactylic metre (cf. the Greek δάκτυλος). It seems that our poet uses this word with the same meaning in the next elegy, cf. El. 5.17: docta loqui digitis et carmina fingere docta (‘she was trained to speak with her fingers, trained to write verses’) and 5.58: meque etiam digitis sollicitare suis (‘and arouse me by her fingers too’).⁶⁹ The words pectine (‘plectrum’) and chordas (‘chords’) in

 See Chapter 6.  See OLD, s.v. modus, meaning 8.  See Chapters 2 and 3.  See OLD, s.v. comptus-a-um, meaning 2.  For corpus as a collection of writings, see OLD, s.v. corpus, meaning 16a.  See Keith (1994) 30 – 31. For the female body in Maximianus, see Malick-Prunier (2011) 30 – 54. For the female body in Latin love poetry, see Zimmermann Damer (2010).  See OLD, s.v. pendeo, meaning 3. See Mozley (1933).  See Chapters 2, 4 and 6.  See Chapter 6.

130

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

verse 11 signify that Candida plays lyric poetry. Pectine recalls Ovid’s statement that he will sing the Nonae in elegiac couplets, cf. Ov. Fast. 2.121: dum canimus sacras alterno pectine Nonas (‘while I sing the holy Nonae with my plectrum in alternate rhythm’). Finally, the phrases arguto murmure and dulce in verse 12 belong to the elegiac vocabulary, as an elegiac puella could only utter sweet poems with a melodious murmur. Maximianus confesses that he fell in love with Candida the moment he saw her. After their first and only meeting, she was always on his mind and sang her favorite songs: Singula visa semel semper memorare libebat, haerebant animo nocte dieque meo. Saepe velut visae laetabar imagine formae, et procul absenti voce manuque fui; saepe, velut praesens fuerit, mecum ipse loquebar, cantabam dulces, quos solet illa, modos. El. 4.17– 22 Once I saw her unique features, it was pleasant to remember her forever and they stuck in my mind through night and day. I was often happy with the image of her beauty as if I were seeing her, although I was far from her voice and hands. Often, as if she were in front of me, I talked to myself, I sang the sweet rhythms that she used to sing.

I believe that here too, Maximianus identifies Candida with the personification of Elegy. We saw above that in Maximianus, memory works as a metaliterary term. Here too, the infinitive memorare is an ‘Alexandrian footnote’ that implies the elegiac past,⁷⁰ i. e. each Augustan elegy that Maximianus saw at least once (El. 4.17: Singula visa semel, ‘once I saw her unique features’), and urged him to devote his life to the elegiac genre (El. 4.18: haerebant animo nocte dieque meo, ‘they stuck in my mind through night and day’). In this context, perhaps Maximianus means the Augustan elegies that he actually saw being played in his era, as we know that Ovid’s Amores were presented in theatres by mimic actors during Late Antiquity.⁷¹ Moreover, our poet admits that Candida/Elegy is a fictional character, as he was content only with the image of her beauty (El. 4.19: laetabar imagine formae, ‘I was happy with the image of her beauty’). Therefore, he implies the feature of elegiac fiction and the fact that his beloved is a creature of his imagination (scripta puella). Maximianus also mentions the distance that divides him from Candida/Elegy: the adverb procul of verse 20 (‘far away’) signifies the temporal distance between our poet and the classical love  See Ross (1975) 78; Hinds (1998) 1– 5; White (2019) 11.  Fielding (2017) 9 – 10 and 133, n. 23.

5.6 Conclusions

131

elegy.⁷² Just one meeting between Maximianus and Candida/Elegy was enough, as he started to sing sweet (elegiac) poems afterwards (El. 4.22: cantabam dulces, quos solet illa, modos, ‘I sang the sweet rhythms that she used to sing’). Maximianus says that this love symptoms (erotica pathemata), such as paleness and blushing, made him conceal his love: Nam subito inficiens vultum pallorque ruborque internum clausae vocis habebat opus. El. 4.29 – 30 Because the paleness and blushing that suddenly painted my face were the internal task of a private voice.

This distich reveals once again one of the main ingredients of the elegiac genre, i. e. the furtivus amor (El. 4.30: clausae vocis, ‘private voice’). Furthermore, I believe that with verse 30 Maximianus implies the private character of elegiac poetry. The word opus could mean a literary work,⁷³ and with the adjective internum and the phrase clausae vocis he highlights the internal voice of the narrator, the ‘lyrical ego’. Below, Maximianus addresses Candida and advises her to hurry up, cf. El. 4.35: ‘Candida,’ clamabam ‘propera! ‘Cur, Candida, tardas?’ (‘ “Candida”, I shouted, “hurry up! Why, Candida, are you late?” ’). I believe that here our poet reveals his self-consciousness; he knows that his Candida is late (tardas) – and thus that his elegiac poems are late. In fact, he also implied the lateness of his genre at the beginning of Elegy 1, again in a question, El. 1.2: Cur et in hoc fesso corpore tarda venis? (‘Why do you come lately to this tired body?’).⁷⁴ In sum, Maximianus represents Candida as an alter ego of Elegy, a practice that he follows with all his scriptae puellae. With this personification, he implies several features of the genre, such as the elegiac metrics, the elegiac fallacy, and the lateness of his elegiac poems.

5.6 Conclusions In Elegy 4, Maximianus aims to offer a hidden discourse on elegiac writing and prove that love is not a necessary precondition for the composition of an elegiac

 Cf. El. 3.11: carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant (‘The songs she loved so much were lying abandoned’).  See OLD, s.v. opus, meaning 9.  See Chapter 2.

132

5 A Deceitful Dream: Elegy 4

poem (as this poem is actually a love elegy without love, given that nothing substantial happens).⁷⁵ Candida’s father is an impedimentum amoris that does not exactly correspond to his role, but does contribute to the revelation of one of the main conventions of the elegiac genre, namely the elegiac fiction. Furthermore, in several passages our poet implies that furtivus amor is the necessary background for a love elegy. This elegy contains many intertexts from classical Roman poets (especially Ovid), and strong intratextual links with Elegies 1, 4 and 5. To conclude, it is a poem that ‘speaks’ for its genre (as is also demonstrated by Candida’s identification with Elegy) and serves as a ‘bridge’ between Elegies 3 and 5.

 Wasyl (2011) 148.

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 Summary In the fifth elegy, the protagonist is Maximianus’ last beloved, the Graia puella. Scholars consider this his most important poem,¹ as can be seen from the number of studies conducted on it.² Maximianus is now an old man. He plays away from home, as he is on a diplomatic mission to the East. In his attempt to reconcile the opposing kingdoms – apparently those of Ravenna, the capital of Ostrogothic kingdom,³ and Constantinople – he finds himself trapped in the unholy war of love (1– 4). A Greek girl, using the tricks of her homeland,⁴ pretended to be fascinated by him and made him, a naïve man from Italy, fall in love with her (5 – 8). She sang a sweet Greek song outside his window, presenting all the wellknown erotica pathemata, including tears, groans, sighs and paleness, which made him even more piteous for her love (9 – 14). She was an extremely beautiful and educated singer, dancer and an expert on lyre, thus, her profession is the same as the other beloveds of our poet (Lycoris, Aquilina, and Candida) in Elegies 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The hair of the Greek girl was black, but her skin was white; her breasts and thighs aroused him like Ulysses hearing the Sirens’ song (15 – 30). Maximianus’ weight caused her to suffer during their intercourse (31– 38). The poet confesses that he was captured by her love and her Greek tricks; after all, Hector himself could not save Troy from the Greek wiles, and Zeus did not avoid the flames of love (39 – 46). On the first night, the old lover managed to please her (47– 48). But the next day, Maximianus proved impotent. She became angry with him and tried to arise his dead penis by hand, but with

 Wasyl (2011) 157.  Indicatively, see Webster (1900) 106 – 113; Ramírez de Verger (1984); Arcaz Pozo (1995); Knox (2011); Wasyl (2011) 149 – 157; Fielding (2016); Das and Fielding (2016); Fielding (2017) 170 – 181; Juster (2018) 179 – 196.  See Britannica, s.v. Theodoric, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodor ic-king-of-Italy (seen 28.7. 2020) and Juster (2018) 180.  Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.44: dolis Danaum (‘the tricks of Greeks’), 2.65: Danaum insidias (‘the ambushes of Greeks’); Hor. Epist. 1.2.14– 16: plectuntur Achivi. | seditione, dolis, scelere atque libidine et ira | Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra (‘the Achaeans suffer. By rebellion, tricks, crime, lust and anger, things are wrong inside and outside the walls of Troy’). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-007

134

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

no success. She blamed him for having sex with another woman, but he claimed that his professional duties made him anxious and impotent (49 – 70). He says that he, as an old man, is incapable of having sex,⁵ and gave the control of his dead part to her (71– 80). She tries again to arise his penis, but all in vain (81– 86). Then, she sings her first song, her lament for the dead mentula (87– 104). Maximianus answers her that it is in fact her who is ill, and not himself (105 – 108). Then, the Greek girl sings her second and more extensive song, in praise of the mentula, which she presents as the guarantor of human relationships and marriage, and the peacemaker of the universe (109 – 152). In the last couplet, we again hear the voice of the poet-lover, who closes the elegy (153 – 154).⁶

6.1.2 The Mission in the East But what about the diplomatic mission of Maximianus in the East, where he had to negotiate with the two realms (Ostrogothic Italy and Byzantium)⁷ and bring peace between them? Missus ad Eoas legati munere partes tranquillum cunctis nectere pacis opus, dum studeo gemini componere foedera regni […] El. 5.1– 3 Sent to Eastern lands, with the task of ambassador to close a peaceful agreement of peace for all, as I was busy to compose a treaty between twin kingdoms […]

As we have already seen in Chapter 1, this testimony has caused critics to try to ascertain the exact chronology of this mission, in order to date Maximianus’ poetic collection. Most critics agree that (if Maximianus and this setting are not fictional)⁸ the diplomatic mission that our poet describes must have taken place in the period 534– 536. We know that before the invasion of Justinian in Italy (535 – 554), there were negotiations between Theodahad and the Emperor (533 – 534),⁹ and that a mission was sent by Amalasuintha and Theodahad to Constantinople  See McLaren (2007) 12, where he notes: ‘The ancients took it as a given that old men would become impotent’.  For the structure of the elegy, see Ramírez de Verger (1984) 149.  For ‘Eoas…partes’ meaning ‘Egypt’ as one of Gauricus’ arguments for attributing Maximianus’ work to Cornelius Gallus, see Chapter 1; White (2019) 6.  See Barnish (1990) 17, n. 7.  See Merone (1948) 345 – 350; Barnish (1990) 17; Juster (2018) 179.

6.2 The Graia Puella: Not a Classical Elegiac Mistress

135

(534– 535).¹⁰ Procopius mentions a certain Maximinus who took part in the peace mission between the Ostrogoths and Justinian.¹¹ Our poet might also be referring to other diplomatic missions between these two parts in 535 and 536, but likely not to these of 538 or 539 and 546 or 549 that followed.¹² Fielding argues that, if we accept that our poet was ten years younger than his friend Boethius (who was born ca. 480), then in 535 he would have been around forty-five years old, an age in which he could characterize himself as senex (cf. El. 5.40, 42, 73), since the great philosopher mentions his grey hair of old age in his Consolatio Philosophiae at the age of forty-four.¹³ Furthermore, as I have noted, the phrase of Graia puella, that she was afraid of the universal and not the private chaos (El. 5.110: non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos!, ‘I do not mourn the private, but the general chaos!’),¹⁴ contributes to the established theory that the historical context of this elegy is probably around 535, when Justinian started his military campaign against Italy.

6.2 The Graia Puella: Not a Classical Elegiac Mistress Maximianus’ sweetheart in this elegy shares the same features that all his scriptae puellae have: she is extremely beautiful like Lycoris (El. 2),¹⁵ young (cf. the noun puella and her body) like Aquilina (El. 3),¹⁶ and a professional singer, gui-

 See Romano (1968 – 1969) 317; Juster (2018) 179.  Cf. Procop. Goth. 6.29.1: Τότε δὲ καὶ πρέσβεις ἐκ βασιλέως ἀφίκοντο, Δόμνικός τε καὶ Μαξιμῖνος, ἐκ βουλῆς ἄμφω, ἐφ’ ᾧ τὴν εἰρήνην κατὰ τάδε ποιήσονται (‘Then ambassadors from the king arrived, Dominicus and Maximinus, both from the parliament, authorized to arrange a peaceful agreement’), and 29.7: ᾿Aκούσας δὲ Βελισάριος […] ξυγκαλέσας ἅπαντας, Δομνίκου τε καὶ Μαξιμίνου παρόντων, ἔλεξε τοιάδε (‘when Belisarius heard these, he called everyone – in the presence of Dominicus and Maximinus – and said the following’). See Mastandrea (2005) 161– 162.  See Juster (2018) 179.  Fielding (2016) 335.  Bertini (1981) 282 suggests that Maximianus travelled to Constantinople in 546 and that he was more than fifty years old. Schneider (2003) 52 has the same opinion.  Cf. El. 5.15: Haec erat egregiae formae vultusque modesti (‘she was extremely beautiful with a modest face’), and El. 2.1.: nimium formosa Lycoris (‘extremely beautiful Lycoris’).  See OLD, s.v. puella, meanings 2 and 3. Cf. El. 5.27– 28: Urebant oculos stantes duraeque papillae | et quas astringens clauderet una manus (‘Her breasts, firm and hard, my eyes were burning and in one hand you could grab them and squeeze them’), and El. 3.1: Nunc operae pretium est quaedam memorare iuventae (‘Now it’s worth remembering something from our youth’), and the fact that Aquilina was under the protection of her mother, cf. El. 3.17– 18: illam tristissima mater | servabat (‘her awful mother guarded her’), El. 3.1.29 – 30: genetrix furtivum sensit amorem. | Et

136

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

tarist and dancer like Candida (El. 4).¹⁷ For a Roman, her Greek origin offers a note of exoticism, culture, but also licence, too.¹⁸ It makes a lot of sense that our poet, as is the case with Propertius,¹⁹ is fascinated by her intellectual skills and captured by her love.²⁰ Aside from the same external characteristics, there are also intratextual markers that link all Maximianus’ puellae; Lycoris calls our poet ‘a warless and impotent old man’ (El. 2.6: me vocat imbellem decrepitumque senem) prophesying his shameful condition in Elegy 5. The pretence of the Greek girl to be in love with Maximianus (El. 5.7: cum se nostro captam simularet amore, ‘even though she pretended she was captured by my love’ and 5.12: et quicquid nullum fingere posse putes, ‘and anything you would think no one can pretend’) reminds us of the elegiac fiction that is diffuse in Elegy 4²¹ and leads to the teachings of the great master, Ovid. Furthermore, Candida says ‘something sweet with an elegant murmur’ (El. 4.12: arguto quicquam murmure dulce loqui), just as the Greek girl utters a sweet song in Greek murmur, which the poet ignores: El. 5.10: nescio quid Graeco murmure dulce canens (‘she sings something, I do not know what, in Greek murmur’). We could say that the Greek girl is actually a combination of all of Maximianus’ girls, and that she has ‘the whole package’, as singing and music are ‘talents much admired in the docta puella of Roman love elegy’.²² But does that mean the Greek girl is a typical elegiac puella, like those of the Augustan elegists? Critics have noted that Maximianus likely followed Ovid in his description of her. First, her name, Graia puella, is the same as the Augustan

medicare parans vulnera vulneribus (‘her mother realized our secret love and was ready to heal her wound by beating her’). For the relationship between parents and their children in Late Antiquity, see Arjava (1996) 28 – 110.  Cf. El. 5.17– 18: docta loqui digitis et carmina fingere docta | et responsuram sollicitare lyram (‘she was trained to speak with her fingers, trained to write verses and played her lyre that was ready to respond’), and El. 4.9 – 12: Huic ego per totum vidi pendentia corpus | cymbala multiplices edere pulsa sonos; | nunc niveis digitis, nunc pulsans pectine chordas | arguto quicquam murmure dulce loqui (‘I saw cymbals hanging all around her body and making multiple sounds when she pressed them; now with her snowy fingers, now with the plectrum, she struck the chords and uttered something sweet with a melodious murmur’), and 4.26: cantantem Maximianus amat (‘Maximianus loves the singer’). Aquilina also enjoyed songs, cf. El. 3.11: Carmina, pensa procul nimium dilecta iacebant (‘The songs she loved so much were lying abandoned’).  Malick-Prunier (2011) 49.  Cf. Prop. 2.3.9 – 16.  Wyke (2002) 115.  See Chapter 5. On the elegiac fiction, see indicatively Allen (1950); Veyne (1988) 31– 49 and 169 – 179; Wyke (2002) 19.  Fielding (2017) 171.

6.2 The Graia Puella: Not a Classical Elegiac Mistress

137

elegist uses for Helen of Troy in Ars am. 1.54.²³ Regarding her looks and behaviour, most critics agree that Maximianus followed his master’s depiction of Corinna in Am. 1.5 and 3.7.²⁴ Even in her attempt to raise the poet’s fallen penis, the Graia puella acts like Corinna in Am. 3.7, where she uses her hand to masturbate Ovid.²⁵ The description of the Greek girl’s body (5.27– 30) clearly echoes that of Corinna’s in Am. 1.5.20 – 22.²⁶ Her lament and complaints for the poet’s dead mentula have many parallels with those of Corinna in Am. 3.7 (and also with those of Circe in Petronius’ Sat. 130).²⁷ However, in a very interesting paper, Fielding doubts that Maximianus exclusively followed his great master in his description of the Greek girl. With convincing arguments, he proves that our poet’s model was not Ovid’s Am. 3.7, but a Hellenistic epigram of Philodemus included in the Palatine Anthology (Anth. Pal. 5.132 = 12 Sider).²⁸ The many parallels and similarities between these poems are indeed impressive. As Fielding notes, ‘music and dancing are among the many talents of the docta puella in Roman elegy, but it is the Greek erotic poets who give attention specifically to gynaikes kitharōdoi and orchēstrides’.²⁹ After all, Maximianus’ stay in Constantinople around the middle of the sixth century agrees perfectly with the resurgence of interest in epigrams by the Byzantine intellectual milieu in that era,³⁰ e. g. the Cycle of Agathias of Myrina, who included several poems with sexual content in his collection. He also appears to have followed Latin models in many cases, including Catullus

 Cf. Ov. Ars am. 1.54: Raptaque sit Phrygio Graia puella viro (‘The Greek girl was raped by the Phrygian man’). See Butrica (2005) 563; Fielding (2017) 170, n. 172; Juster (2018) 181.  See Fielding (2017) 171– 172.  Cf. El. 5.58: Contrectare manu coepit flagrantia membra | meque etiam digitis sollicitare suis (‘She started to touch my burning member by her hand and arouse me by her fingers too’), and Ov. Am. 3.7.73 – 74: Hanc etiam non est mea dedignata puella | molliter admota sollicitare manu (‘Not even this my girl did scorn to do, to rouse me gently with her moving hand’). We notice that the two elegists use the same verb, sollicitare, a verb of Latin sexual vocabulary, see Adams (1982) 184; Juster (2018) 182.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 452– 453; Fielding (2016) 327– 328 and Fielding (2017) 172.  See Agozzino (1970) 82– 83; Fo (1987) 350 – 352; Pinotti (1989) 195; Consolino (1997) 387– 389; Uden and Fielding (2010) 451– 452; Wasyl (2011) 151– 152; Das and Fielding (2016) 153; Fielding (2017) 171– 174.  Fielding (2016); Bussières (2020) 900.  Fielding (2016) 326. Propertius mentions that Cynthia knew how to play the lyre, cf. Prop. 1.2.27– 28: cum tibi praesertim Phoebus sua carmina donet | Aoniamque libens Calliopea lyram (‘when Phoebus donates you, above all, his songs, and Calliope her Aonian lyre with pleasure’), 2.3.20: par Aganippeae ludere docta lyrae (‘she plays the lyre as Aganippe does’).  See Fielding (2016) 326.

138

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

and Ovid,³¹ as well as the epigrams of Paul the Silentiary (a poet who may also have been familiar with Latin literature),³² who also revisited the topos of the old man that surrenders to love in one of his epigrams (Anth. Pal. 5.234 = 49 Viansino).³³ In other words, according to Fielding, Maximianus perhaps makes a ‘double allusion’ or a ‘window reference’ to Philodemus through Ovid’s Am. 3.7, a Callimachean technique of the Augustan elegist himself.³⁴ It is true that Maximianus’ sweetheart is more aggressive than Ovid’s puella, sharing common features with Petronius’ Circe.³⁵ She is also far more talkative, as can be seen from her two extensive songs (El. 5.87– 104 and 109 – 152), which is not so common in Augustan love elegy (cf. compare Corinna’s reaction to Ovid’s impotence in Am. 3.7.77– 80 to that of the Greek girl).³⁶ She corresponds to the norms of the elegiac genre that require the reversal of traditional Roman gender roles,³⁷ but simultaneously plays the role of the poet-lover as well, as she sings a paraclausithyron outside Maximianus’ window, suffering from the well-known erotica pathemata of the elegiac lover (tears, groans, sighs, and paleness), cf. El. 5.9: Pervigil ad nostras astabat nocte fenestras (‘awake, at night, she was standing outside my windows’), and 11– 12: Nunc aderant lacrimae, gemitus suspiria pallor | et quicquid nullum fingere posse putes (‘and now there are tears, groans, sighs and paleness and anything you would think no one can pretend’).³⁸ She is actually the real protagonist of this

 For the Cycle of Agathias, see Cameron and Cameron (1966); McCail (1969). For the impact of Catullus upon Agathias, see Alexakis (2021b) 1308 – 1310; for Ovidian echoes in the same Byzantine poet, see Alexakis (2008), Alexakis (2021a) and Alexakis (2021b) 1315 – 1318.  See Yardley (1980); De Stefani (2006); Fielding (2016) 326 and 333.  Fielding (2016) 335, n. 48 and Fielding (2017) 152, n. 105.  See Fielding (2016) 330. For the concept of ‘window reference’, see Thomas (1999) 130, where he notes: ‘[A window reference is] the very close adaptation of a model, noticeably interrupted in order to allow reference back to the source of that model: the intermediate model thus serves as a sort of window onto the ultimate source, whose version is otherwise not visible. In the process the immediate, or chief, model is in some fashion “corrected” ’. See Hunter (2008) 845 – 866, where he reads the Circe’s story of Petronius’ Satyrica as a ‘window reference’ to Plato’s Symposium and Phaedo through Ov. Am. 3.7.  See Lavery (2014) 59; Fielding (2016) 328.  See Drinkwater (2013b) 330. It is true that Propertius includes several passages of female speech in his elegies, see Flaschenriem (1998); James (2010); Michalopoulos (2011). For the female part in Augustan love elegy, see James (1998); Wyke (2002).  See Greene (1998) 38; Drinkwater (2013b) 329.  See Wasyl (2011) 150; Fielding (2016) 327 and Fielding (2017) 171. According to McKeown (1979) 77– 78, the genre of mime offered the motif of the excluded lover to the elegiac paraclausithyron, but in the mime’s case the excluded protagonist was a lascivious woman. By having a woman singing a paraclausithyron outside his window, our poet restores the persona of the ex-

6.2 The Graia Puella: Not a Classical Elegiac Mistress

139

elegy, and steals the poet’s thunder. Accordingly, she appears to be a mixture of female personae from several (and relative) genres, such as Hellenistic epigram, Roman love elegy and novel. Moreover, as I will try to prove below, her words have political and metapoetic dimensions too. The Greek girl loves sex and is disappointed when Maximianus cannot satisfy her. Szövérffy, who believes that the entire body of work of our poet is satirical, considers this elegy as a ‘cleverly formulated invective against women, who are always bent on their own pleasure and who regard pleasure and sexual satisfaction as the center of not only their own life but also of the whole universe’.³⁹ This opinion agrees with a primary characteristic of the genre of Roman satire, i. e. to insult women, particularly on the grounds of their sexual appetite.⁴⁰ Apart from her sensual profile, Das and Fielding have argued that Graia puella needs sex for her health. In a highly stimulating paper, they study the verses El. 5.107– 108: Dum defles nostri languorem, femina, membri, | ostendis morbo te graviore premi (‘woman, as long as you mourn the laziness of my member, you show that you are suffering from a worse disease’). They believe that from a medical point of view, the gravior morbus, which Maximianus says is what tortures his sweetheart, is actually the gynaecological disease of uterine suffocation (hysterike apnoia or hysterike pnix), caused by lack of sex.⁴¹ With arguments that come from Greek medical theory, the two critics offer a reasonable interpretation of this distich.⁴² After all, as we have already seen, Maximianus includes several medical terms in his work. Thus, Graia puella’s intense sexual desire corresponds to a literary representation of women’s sexual attitude (especially that of infames, like herself)⁴³ and likely also to an objective health problem.⁴⁴ In conclusion, Graia puella deviates from the classical elegiac mistress. Her appearance is elegiac, but her talents and character combine the generic features of love elegy, Hellenistic epigram and Latin novel. Simultaneously, she seems like a real woman, who suffers from a gynaecological disease. Also, as we will see in the following section, she reflects the political conditions of the cluded lover to its (original) female gender. According to D’Amanti (2020) xxix, this gender reversal in the Greek girl’s paraclausithyron recalls the Fragmentum Grenfellianum.  Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 364. See also, Lavery (2014) 28.  See Richlin (1984).  Das and Fielding (2016).  See Das and Fielding (2016) 155 – 156.  See Edwards (1997). See also, Webb (2002). For sexuality in Greco-Roman world in general, see Skinner (22014), and especially 253 – 292.  See Nathan (1993); Sessa (2018) 176 – 179. There is a vast bibliography on woman’s position in Late Antiquity, see indicatively Brown (1988) 5 – 32; Cooper (1996) 1– 19; Brundage (1996); Harper (2013) 1– 79); Sessa (2018) 181– 184.

140

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

6th century, while her forthright attitude reminds us some of the ancestral characteristics of the Greek tribe. Furthermore, as I will try to prove in Section 5, the Greek girl plays a very important metapoetic role, as she offers a hidden discourse on the elegiac genre in Late Antiquity. For all these reasons (and more besides), Elegy 5 is rightly considered the ‘the most important among Maximianus’ love episodes’.⁴⁵

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading 6.3.1 ‘It’s Not Responding’: Maximianus’ Impotence and the Role of the Greek Girl In verses 47– 50, the poet-lover states that, while he managed to fulfil Graia puella’s sexual appetite on the first night, he proved impotent during the second one (El. 5.47– 50: Set mihi prima quidem nox affuit, ac sua solvit | munera grandaevo vix subeunda viro; | proxima destituit vires, vacuusque recessit | ardor, et in Venerem segnis ut ante fui, ‘but the first night came and I paid my duty that I could hardly bear as the old man that I was. The next day my strength abandoned me, my hollow desire left and I was lazy in love, as before’). After this confession, we hear her complaints, the narrator’s voice, and a dialogue between the two lovers.⁴⁶ Finally, we learn that Graia puella’s attempts to rouse Maximianus’ mentula are in vain: his penis is not responding, so she starts to lament its death.⁴⁷ The motif of male impotence is very common in Greek and Latin poets before Maximianus.⁴⁸ It exists in several poems of Latin lyric poetry and love elegy, either parenthetically or within the entire poem. It is well-known that Catullus’ passer poemata (2a, 2b, and 3) have been interpreted as an allegorical representation of the poet’s impotence to fulfil his beloved Lesbia.⁴⁹ Horace also includes instances of impotence in his works (e. g. Sat. 1.5.83 – 85; Epod. 12.14– 17).⁵⁰ Tibullus, in his attempts to forget Delia, tries to make love to another woman, but can-

 Wasyl (2011) 157.  Cf. El. 5.51– 82.  Cf. El. 5.83 – 86.  See Fielding (2016) 333, n. 43, where he cites several examples of the use of this motif by Greek and Latin poets. Impotency poems occur often in European literature as well, see Lavery (2014) 63 – 174.  See McLaren (2007) 4; Lavery (2014) 17 and 13 – 23 (for Catullus’ impotence and its political and social dimensions).  See Lavery (2014) 23 – 29 (for Horace’s impotence and its political and social dimensions).

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

141

not respond to his sexual duties. The other woman accuses him of being enchanted by Delia’s magic spells.⁵¹ This recalls Corinna’s reaction to Ovid’s impotence,⁵² and consequently that of the Greek girl in our poem: El. 5.61– 62: ‘Quae te crudelis rapuit mihi femina?’ dixit, | ‘cuius ab amplexu fessus ad arma redis?’ (‘ “What heartless woman has stolen you from me?”, she said, “from whose embrace do you come back exhausted to my arms?” ’). Lavery believes that Propertius includes a brief incidence of impotence in 2.15.7– 8,⁵³ aiming to respond ‘to Tibullus 1.5 with his own incorporation of a momentary loss of sexual vigor […], and that this is part of a broader attack he makes on Tibullus in that Book, as a rival poet producing works at that time’.⁵⁴ The model for Maximianus’ impotence is likely Ovid’s Am. 3.7, or Philodemus (Anth. Pal. 11.30 = 19 Sider), according to Fielding.⁵⁵ Furthermore, several scholars have pointed out the strong relationship between Ovid’s impotence in Am. 3.7 and that of Encolpius in Petronius’ Sat. 126.12– 128.4 and 131.8 – 132.5,⁵⁶ and consequently the triangular liaison between the aforementioned passages and Maximianus’ impotence in Elegy 5.⁵⁷ Thus, apart from the aforementioned similarities between Ovid and Maximianus, I mention here some resemblance between Petronius and Maximianus: the two opportunities that the male lovers have to satisfy their sweethearts (in Encolpius’ case his failure is double),⁵⁸ the intense reaction of the girls,⁵⁹ and some intertextual markers, such as the presence of Jupiter⁶⁰ and the Sirens.⁶¹

 Cf. Tib. 1.5.39 – 42: Saepe aliam tenui, sed iam cum gaudia adirem, | admonuit dominae deseruitque Venus. | Tunc me discedens devotum femina dixit | et pudet et narrat scire nefanda meam (‘Often I hugged another woman, but when I was too close to come, Venus remembered me my sweetheart and left. Then the other woman leaving me called me enhanced and, my shame, she said that my beloved knew magic spells’).  Cf. Ov. Am. 3.7.77– 80: ‘quid me ludis?’ ait, ‘quis te, male sane, iubebat | invitum nostro ponere membra toro? | aut te traiectis Aeaea venefica lanis | devovet, aut alio lassus amore venis’. (‘ “Why are you playing with me?”, she said, “Who liked to invite your unwilling body to my bed, if you are sick? Or a sorceress from Aeaea bewitched you with her needle and her wool? Or you came to me exhausted by the love of another woman?” ’). For the connection between Tibullus’ 1.5 and Ovid’s Am. 3.7, see Lavery (2014) 38 – 39.  Cf. Prop. 2.15.7– 8: illa meos somno lapsos patefecit ocellos | ore suo et dixit ‘Sicine, lente, iaces?’ (‘She opened my throwing to sleep eyes and said to me with her mouth: “Is this how you lie here, sluggish man?” ’).  Lavery (2014) 5.  See Fielding (2016) 333 – 334.  See McMahon (1998); McLaren (2007) 1– 24; Hallett (2012b); Karakasis (2012) 333; Antoniadis (2013); Lavery (2014) 53 – 62.  See Webster (1900) 106; Wasyl (2011) 151– 152.  Cf. El. 5.47– 50 and Petron. Sat. 130.6.  Cf. El. 5.51– 70 and Petron. Sat. 129.

142

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

Lavery sees a strong intertextual relationship between the impotency poems of Catullus, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, Ovid, and Petronius.⁶² This bond is mainly justified for political and literary reasons: Catullus expresses the failed values of Roman society due to civil war,⁶³ while Horace makes an allusive critique for the collapse of Roman ideals in his era.⁶⁴ Propertius intends to answer his literary rival, Tibullus.⁶⁵ It seems that in Am. 3.7, Ovid makes an indirect critique of Augustus’ legislation (lex Iulia), ‘which sought to control citizens’ body and mind’.⁶⁶ Moreover, Lavery reads Petronius’ impotency episodes as a response to Ovid’s Am. 3.7, as well as a hidden allusion to the corrupted Roman society under the rule of Nero.⁶⁷ From ancient times until our era, sex and politics are strongly combined.⁶⁸ Impotence is a subject that was discussed a great deal by the ancients, and is connected to their notions of masculinity, sex and gender. A ‘macho’ Roman man had to be potent and aggressive. McLaren writes that ‘normative male desire, the ancients believed, was fueled by aggression and anger; female desire by passivity. Penetration was likened to a beating, representing the domination of one partner and the submission of the other. Men were explicitly taught to use sex not for intimacy but control’.⁶⁹ In other words, sexual potency and penetra Cf. El. 5.45 – 46: Nec memorare pudet tali me vulnere victum, | sudbitus his flammis Iuppiter ipse fuit (‘I am not ashamed to remember that I was defeated by such a wound, from the moment Zeus himself succumbed to these flames’), and Petron. Sat. 126.18: quid factum est, quod tu proiectis, Iuppiter, armis | inter caelicolas fabula muta iaces? (‘What is come to pass, Jupiter, that thou hast cast away thine armour, and now liest silent in heaven and become an idle tale?’, transl. Heseltine (31987) 331). We can observe that in Maximianus, Zeus is presented as an elegiac lover, but in Petronius he is presented as sexually inactive, see Karakasis (2012) 327– 328.  Cf. El. 5.19 – 20 (for Graia puella’s singing talent): Illam Sirenis stupefactus cantibus, aequans | efficior demens alter Ulisses ego (‘Stunned by her songs, I compared her to the Sirens, and as madman, I became another Ulysses’), and Petron. Sat. 127.5 (for Circe’s sweet voice): ut putares inter aures canere Sirenum concordiam (‘you would think that you were listening to the symphony of Sirens’).  See Lavery (2014) 9 – 62.  See Lavery (2014) 28 – 29.  See Lavery (2014) 29 and 4, where he notes: ‘His impotency verse […] suggests that the fault for the current degradations of the Roman people can be found within contemporary social practices, positing that a return to military campaigning can restore order’.  See Lavery (2014) 4– 5 and 32– 34.  See Lavery (2014) 50.  See Lavery (2014) 5 and 59 – 62.  For Antiquity, see indicatively, Keuls (1985); Edwards (1993); Kurke (1997); Janan (2001). For modern times, see indicatively, Weeks (1989); Fausto-Sterling (2000).  McLaren (2007) 23.

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

143

tion were linked to the masculine gender identity and politics: a powerful Roman politician had to be a potent and imperious lover (or, at least, he must have this image). After all, it is no accident that in law and politics the opponents accused each other of effeminacy and softness (mollitia).⁷⁰ In literature, impotence often has a metaphorical use, meaning a failure in politics.⁷¹ As Lavery has argued, the impotency poems of Augustan love elegy are connected with the political and social context of this era.⁷² This sub-genre of elegy describes the sexual failures of men of the Roman elite (i. e. the three classical elegists, who were equites) reflecting their weakness to take an active role in the administration of the Roman state. Several scholars have noted that the dominance of the elegiac puellae over their poet-lovers can be interpreted as a confession of their political impotence and a comment on the social corruption of their times.⁷³ Thus, private poetry such as love elegy also plays a public role, imitating the character of the epic genre.⁷⁴ The Augustan elegists composed their work in the context of the political and social destabilization that followed the civil wars.⁷⁵ Facing a continual threat, they opposed their preference in otium and their militia amoris. ⁷⁶ During the fourth to sixth centuries AD, the political conditions appear to have been the same, as military threats were almost everywhere.⁷⁷ After the intellectual flourishment in Italy under the rule of Theodoric (471– 526 AD),⁷⁸ the campaign of Justinian against the West followed, where terror, depression and intellectual collapse prevailed in Italy.⁷⁹ As is well-established, it is during this period that Maximianus composes his work. In troubled times (like these of Augustan elegists), he again uses the forgotten genre of love elegy and the motif of militia amoris. ⁸⁰ Either we accept that Maximianus really existed and was a diplomatic magistrate aiming to negotiate between West and East or that he was a fictional person, but the result is the same: the dramatic setting of Elegy 5 is Constantinople, before Justinian’s arrival to Italy. Several critics read the poem as a political al          

See McLaren (2007) 3; Lavery (2014) 10. See McLaren (2007) xii. See Lavery (2014) 2– 10 and 20 – 22. See Hallett (1989); Richlin (1992) and (1997); Janan (2001) 19 – 22 and 175 – 177. See Lavery (2014) 2. Cf. Prop. 1.22.4: duris temporibus (‘hard times’). See Murgatroyd (1975); Drinkwater (2013a). See Uden (2012) 469 – 470. See Uden and Fielding (2010) 444 and n. 9. See Uden (2009) 205 – 207; Uden and Fielding (2010) 444– 445. See Barnish (1990) 20 – 21; Uden (2012) 471– 473; Fielding (2017) 170.

144

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

legory;⁸¹ Maximianus is an old man, who comes from an old and (in his days) weak empire (senectus mundi). On the contrary, Graia puella is a young, beautiful, aggressive and assertive girl, who comes from the young and vigorous Eastern Roman Empire. Apparently, Maximianus is implying that crumbling Italy is ready to succumb to vibrant Byzantium. As we saw above, the Augustan elegists used the motif of impotence quite frequently in order to imply their critique on the political and social circumstances of their time. I believe that Maximianus similarly also uses his impotence in Elegy 5 for political and social reasons. I will try to prove that on a political level, his impotence is identified with Italy’s impotence to defeat the Byzantines, as it was old and weak. His impotence on a social level is identified with the renunciation of sexual pleasure that Christianity imposed; for this reason, I believe, Graia puella’s second song (El. 5.109 – 152) is – among other things – a protest against the puritanism that characterized the reign of Justinian.⁸² ‘In an “impotency poem” a speaker narrates an episode of sexual impotence, often placed in the context of previous sexual potency’, Lavery writes.⁸³ This also occurs in our elegy, as Maximianus corresponded to his sexual role on the first night. On the second night, however, as an old man,⁸⁴ he failed to have sex.⁸⁵ According to ancients’ opinions on sex and the role of masculinity therein, the first time our poet proved a true and powerful man, as he penetrated the Graia puella, but the second time he transformed into an effeminate and powerless man. In other words, at the beginning of his love story he was active and aggressive, but at the end he became sexually inactive, and thus pathetic. I believe that this change in two different temporal circumstances has a political meaning that corresponds perfectly to the historical past and present of the West and East, and more precisely the relationships between the naïve Romans (who were descended from Etruscans) and the cunning Greeks, cf. El. 5.5 – 6: Hic me suscipiens Etruscae gentis alumnum | involvit patriis Graia puella dolis (‘here a Greek girl grabbed me, a descendant of Etruscans, and trapped me by the deceits of her homeland’), 39 – 40: Subcubui, fateor, Graiae tunc nescius artis, | subcubui, Tusca simplicitate senex (‘I succumbed, I confess, ignorant of the Greek tricks. I succumbed, an old man with Tuscan simplicity) and 81: Protinus Argivas admovit turpiter artes (‘she applies her shameful Greek tricks immediately’). Maximianus

 See Schneider (2003) 110; Juster (2018) 181.  See Harper (2013) 1.  Lavery (2014) 2.  Aside from the Augustan elegists’ opinion that love does not fit with the elderly, Aristotle believed that having sex was harmful for old people, see McLaren (2007) 12.  Cf. El. 5.47– 50.

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

145

(and consequently the Romans) was potent when he met the Greek girl (and thus the Greeks) for the first time (i. e. the conquest of Greece by the Romans in 146 BC). But now, in their second ‘conflict’, our poet (just like the Western Roman Empire) is weak, insufficient and ready to succumb to the tricks of a Greek meretrix, i. e. his eternal (on a political and literary level) enemy, the Greeks. In the sixth century AD, a Greek girl (and therefore the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire) was sexually active, i. e. politically aggressive. On the contrary, the West was old and impotent. After all, it is no coincidence that the only time Maximianus does not mention his sweetheart’s name is in Elegy 5. However, he highlights her origin; she is Greek – a very reasonable fact, since the poem’s setting is Constantinople. As opposed to his other Elegies, where the puellae do not have total control over the poet, here the girl makes him love her by pretending that she loves him, and using Greek tricks that mislead him, a simple old man from Italy. The origin of this swindler is not a mere coincidence. We must remember that during the composition of Maximianus’ Elegies, Justinian (i. e. the Eastern Greek-speaking Roman Empire) had started his campaign against the West (i. e. the Latin Roman Empire).⁸⁶ However, these ‘Greek tricks’ (81: Argivas…artes) refer not only to our poet’s contemporary era.⁸⁷ Greek treachery (especially that which came from Eastern Greek world) was thought extremely dangerous even in Cicero’s time. Several Latin sources mention the Greeks’ cunning and unreliability.⁸⁸ Greeks were thought to be liars, loquacious, voluptuary, and arrogant (especially those from the East, like the Graia puella).⁸⁹ Moreover, Greeks had a special interest in the arts, theatre and literature (like the Greek girl), a fact that contradicts the Romans’ preference for the military and politics (recall the diplomatic mission of Maximianus).⁹⁰ In other words, the Greek origin of Maximianus’

 See Chapter 1.  Cf. Cassiod. Var. 5.40.5: instructus enim trifariis linguis non tibi Graecia quod novum ostentaret invenit nec ipsa, qua nimium praevalet, te transcendit argutia (‘Since you are trained in three languages, Greece found nothing new to show you; nor did she surpass you in the cunning in which she excels’, transl. Barnish (22006) 88). See also, Barnish (1990) 20.  The negative behaviour of Cato against Greeks is well-known, cf. Plut. Cato 12.5, 20.3 – 5, 22.1– 5, 22.4, 23.2, 23.3 – 4; Gellius NA 18.7.3; Plin. NH 7.112, 29.14; Cic. Rep. 3.9. Cicero, who admired Greek culture and literature, seems to have not had the same opinion of his contemporary Greeks, especially those of Eastern Greek-speaking world, cf. Cic., Rab. Post. 35 – 36; Fam. 16.4.2; Att. 7.18.3; Scaur. 3.4; De or. 1.221; Mil. 55; and especially Flac. 9 – 12, 15 – 17, 19, 21– 22, 24, 26, 34, 35, 37, 42, 60 – 61, 66. See also, Trouard (1942); Pappas (2015).  See Petrochilos (1974) 35 – 42.  See Petrochilos (1974) 126; Pappas (2015) 84.

146

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

sweetheart is justified not only by the political circumstances of the poet’s era, but also by the (historical and literary) past between Romans and Greeks. During the Late Republic and Augustan times, several Roman authors had adopted this behaviour towards Greeks; after all, they were the conquerors of mainland Greece and the Eastern Greek-speaking world.⁹¹ However, in the middle of the sixth century AD the situation was reversed; the Latins were at a disadvantage, as the Greek threat was coming against them from the East. Thus, Maximianus’ Graia puella has a political dimension, although it should be noted that this dimension is related to a practice whose foundations are detected throughout classical Latin literature, namely a typically negative attitude towards Greeks (at least in works with a political context). Our poet implies this literary tradition when he mentions that, since the Trojans (Romans’ considered ancestors), with Hector as their leader, were defeated by the Greeks by treachery (the Trojan horse),⁹² is it not natural that he, a tired old man, was captured by a tricky Greek girl? (El. 5.41– 42: Qua defensa suo superata est Hectore Troia, | unum non poterat fraus superare senem?, ‘since Troy was defeated, although Hector himself defended it, could not a fraud defeat one old man?’). Notice how the geography of the two literary episodes (the fall of Troy and Maximianus’ ‘defeat’ by Graia puella) is almost the same (Asia Minor and Constantinople, respectively). Maximianus claims that his political duties caused his impotence, presenting it as the result of his stress from the mission he undertook. After confessing that he had forgotten the serious reason for his visit to Constantinople due to love (El. 5.43 – 44: Muneris iniuncti curam studiumque reliqui | deditus imperiis, saeve Cupido, tuis, ‘I left the care and concern for the task I had undertaken and I surrendered at your command, cruel Love’),⁹³ he answers Graia puella’s accusations that he did not manage to satisfy her by saying it was due to the many serious thoughts he had in his mind, thoughts that apparently had to with his diplomatic work, cf. El. 5.63 – 64: Iurabam curis animum mordacibus uri | nec posse ad luxum tristia corda trahi (‘I swore that my soul was burning by bitter worries and that my sad heart cannot be drawn to pleasures’). ⁹⁴ In order to cure him of his impotence, the Greek girl urges him to forget his worries and abandon his ‘package’, and thus be released from his psychological burden:

 See Fraenkel (1964) 583 – 598; Petrochilos (1974); Balsdon (1979); Ferrary (1988); Malkin (2001); Isaac (2004) 381– 405; Ronald Mellor (2008).  See Gärtner (2004) 147.  The word munus belongs to the terminology of love elegy as well, see Chapter 4, footnote 97.  For the worries of old age, cf. Mimnermus, frg. 1 (West), 5 – 7: ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ὀδυνηρὸν ἐπέλθηι / γῆρας … / αἰεί μιν φρένας ἀμφὶ κακαὶ τείρουσι μέριμναι (‘but when the painful old age comes…terrible worries constantly torture the man’s soul’).

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

147

proice tristitias […]. Obtundunt siquidem curarum pondera sensus, intermissa minus sarcina pondus habet. El. 5.68 – 70 Leave your sadness […]. Of course, the burdens of your worries make your senses lazy, but if you abandon your package, the load becomes less.

I believe that in these verses, Maximianus implies a political meaning; Graia puella wishes to cure the poet’s impotence, which he justifies as the outcome of his many responsibilities. His sweetheart, who made him love her by pretending that she is in love with him, is anxious to restore his penis – therefore to make him forget politics and his initial purpose, that of uniting the West and the East. The noun sarcina can be interpreted as ‘soldier’s kit’.⁹⁵ Thus, what she is really saying is that he should leave aside his mission, i. e. renounce the negotium (political affairs) and return to otium. ⁹⁶ In this way, she restores him to the elegiac order (since a typical elegiac lover must be indifferent to politics), but also manages to distract him from his patriotic and diplomatic purpose.⁹⁷ His impotence causes Maximianus to surrender his weapons to the Greek girl – weapons that are weak due to being long disused: En longo confecta situ tibi tradimus arma, arma ministeriis quippe dicata tuis. El. 5.77– 78 Look, I give you my weapons, which are weak due to their long uselessness, weapons, that I dedicate, of course, to your services.

Here we notice another elegiac technique, that of combining sermo militaris with sermo amatorius (militia amoris).⁹⁸ As is well known, the word arma has both military and sexual connotations.⁹⁹ From a political point of view, Maximianus (a Roman) surrenders himself to a Greek woman who acts like a spy: she uses sex in order to destabilize him and perhaps extract secrets from him. Perhaps,

 See OLD, s.v. sarcina 1b. See Juster (2018) 187, where he notes ‘the term sarcina (“weight”) is a favorite of Augustine, who used it at least sixty-nine times’.  See Fagan (2010); Uden (2012) 469 – 470.  This passage also has a metapoetic reading (see below).  This was a common practice among Augustan elegists, e. g., cf. Propertius in 1.16, see Yardley (1979); Nappa (2007).  See Adams (1982) 244; Karakasis (2012) 328.

148

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

therefore, what we have here is espionage, and more precisely sexpionage.¹⁰⁰ Graia puella is anxious to render Maximianus sexually active again, in order to make him (and therefore, Italians) politically impotent. The poet realizes his situation, presenting himself as the ‘ship of the state’,¹⁰¹ cf. El. 5.21– 22: Et quia non poteram tantas evadere moles, | nescius in scopulos et vada caeca feror (‘and because I could not evade such reefs, in my ignorance I was borne onto rocks and unseen shoals’). In the late 530s, the once powerful Western Empire is now ready to collapse due to the arrival of a young and vibrant power, the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire. A new order appears to approach. The aged ambassador, Maximianus, whose mission was to negotiate between the old (West) and the new (Byzantium) kingdoms, felt an intense sexual attraction to a young citizen from the latter; he thus tries to approach his political rival, who is so different from him: she appreciates the joys of life (love, singing and dancing, poetry) and is a hypocrite. On the contrary, he is a glum old man, a simple and honest Italian, with many serious thoughts in his mind. These different ways of life could by no means be reconciled. However, the old man (representing the collapsed Empire) wishes to follow the young woman (representing the upcoming Empire). This means that things have been turned upside down, not only in his private life, but (mainly) in public life, as Graia puella says (El. 5.110: non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos!, ‘I am not crying for the private, but for the general chaos’). The flirtation between and old man and the young woman, and its political allusions, reminds us of Yannis Ritsos’ Moonlight Sonata,¹⁰² where the roles are vice versa: there is a young, strong man, who represents the socialist world and leftist ideology (Ritsos was a member of the Greek Communist Party),¹⁰³ and an old woman, who represents the aged aristocracy. The old woman wants to go along with the young man: she decides to flee from her ‘broken house’,¹⁰⁴ i. e. the collapsed old political regime, and visit the ‘city of day work’,¹⁰⁵ the new left regime. However, the young man leaves her house, com Of course, espionage is an ancient phenomenon, see indicatively Richmond (1998); Koutrakou (2015). For sexpionage, see indicatively, Bower (1990); West (2009).  Cf. Plato Resp. 488a-489d; Hor. Carm. 1.14.  The poem Moonlight Sonata (H σονάτα του σεληνόφωτος) was first published in 1956. For this poem Ritsos was awarded by the first State Prize of Poetry in the same year.  See Britannica, s.v. Yannis Ritsos, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/ Yannis-Ritsos (seen 7. 8. 2020).  Cf. Moonlight Sonata 217– 218: Γιατί, ἐπιτέλους, πρέπει νὰ βγῶ ἀπ’ αὐτό τὸ τσακισμένο σπίτι (‘because I finally have to get out of this crumbled house’).  Cf. Moonlight Sonata 219 – 220: Πρέπει νὰ δῶ […] τὴν πολιτεία τοῦ μεροκάματου (‘I must see […] the city of day work’).

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

149

menting that in reality she is ‘a decline of this era’.¹⁰⁶ In the same way, Maximianus wishes to approach the Greek girl, but in the end they both realize that they belong to two different worlds: a vast and general chaos (generale chaos) exists between them. Maximianus’ political impotence is actually the outcome of the general chaos that dominated Italy in the 6th century under the threat of Justinian. Graia puella’s confession that she mourns this ‘universal chaos’ is perfectly connected with our poet’s statement that his reader’s mind is ‘is broken down by the world’s whirling’ in El. 3.3 – 4 (lector mentem rerum vertigine fractam | erigat ).¹⁰⁷ Thus, it seems that into this political turmoil, the body and spirit of each man suffers from a general impotence.¹⁰⁸

6.3.2 Love Hurts? Sex is Not a Bad Thing Christian authors of Late Antiquity renounced sexuality.¹⁰⁹ It seems that into this ‘haze of ruin and violent puritanism that characterized the reign of Justinian’,¹¹⁰ the Greek girl’s hymn to the mentula (109 – 152) is actually a response to this refusal of sexual satisfaction. Furthermore, we must remember that Maximianus had been a school text in the Middle Ages,¹¹¹ and often appeared alongside Ovid’s Remedia amoris, intended to deter pupils from sexual pleasures.¹¹² Scholars have pointed out that Graia puella’s praise of the penis has many parallels with Lucretius’ prooemium of De rerum natura and his hymn to Venus.¹¹³ This Lucretian imitation could be interpreted as Maximianus’ adoption ‘of the Epicurean ideal of pleasure, which was widely denounced by Christian authors in Late Antiquity’.¹¹⁴ We know that our poet’s friend, Boethius, rejected

 Cf. Moonlight Sonata (in the prose epilogue): Σὲ λίγο, ὁ Νέος θὰ σωπάσει, θὰ σοβαρευτεί καὶ θὰ πεῖ “Ἡ παρακμὴ μιᾶς ἐποχῆς” (‘Very soon the young man will be silent and serious, and he will say “The decline of an era” ’).  See Chapter 4.  These two passages have a metapoetic reading too, see Chapter 4 and below.  See Consolino (1997) 394– 99; Brown (1988); Schneider (2001) 463 – 464; Uden and Fielding (2010) 455 – 456; Wasyl (2011) 154– 157; Das and Fielding (2016) 159.  Harper (2013) 1.  See Szövérffy (1967– 1968) 352 and 365 – 366; Schneider (2003) 151– 153; Wasyl (2011) 128 – 134; Lavery (2014) 64; Carlson (2016) 73; White (2019) 5.  See Ratkowitsch (1986); Lutz (1974) 214– 215; Fielding (2014) 107 and Fielding (2017) 179.  See Malick-Prunier (2011) 52– 53; Uden (2012) 472; Fielding (2016) 337– 339; Juster (2018) 12.  Fielding (2016) 338.

150

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

the Epicurean voluptas. ¹¹⁵ He expelled the elegiac scenicas meretriculas (who are linked with sexual pleasures) and preferred the solemn Philosophy (who imposes the denial of sexual pleasures). But it seems that here Maximianus disagrees with the philosopher and adopts the Epicurean philosophy, perhaps also following Philodemus in this sense.¹¹⁶ Das and Fielding, who offer an interesting medical reading of verse 5.108, argue that the Greek girl blames Maximianus’ erectile dysfunction on a lack of sex.¹¹⁷ Thus, not having sex makes men impotent, and therefore the general chaos is extended (since there is no chance for reproduction in humans and the animal kingdom), cf. El. 5.111– 112: Haec genus humanum, pecudum volucrumque, ferarum | et quicquid toto spirat in orbe, creat (‘this created the race of people, herds, birds and beasts and everything that breathes in the whole world’). Moreover, Maximianus highlights the important role of sex in marriage and how it ensures balance between sexes, cf. El. 5.113 – 114: Hac sine diversi nulla est concordia sexus | hac sine coniugii gratia summa perit (‘without this, there is no match between the opposite sexes; without this, the supreme grace of marriage dies’), and 117– 118: Pulchra licet pretium, si desit, femina perdit, | et si defuerit, vir quoque turpis erit (‘if this is missing, the woman, though beautiful, loses her value, and if this is gone, the man will be soft as well’).¹¹⁸ According to our poet, the renunciation of sex brings impotence, discord to all of nature, and consequently, a general chaos. Graia puella’s hymn to the mentula (whether based on Maximianus’ potential Epicurean philosophy or not) is a true defence of sex, and is opposed to the puritanism of this period. Like Lucretius, Maximianus praises the regenerative force of love (Venus). This is in opposition to how Venus’ powers are presented in De ave phoenice, an elegiac poem that is attributed to Lactantius, an early Christian author of the third and fourth centuries AD (ca. 240-ca. 320).¹¹⁹ Lactantius (or an anonymous poet), praising the virginal chastity of the phoenix, mentions that sexual love (Venus) brings death, and not life.¹²⁰ Perhaps the Greek girl’s hymn to the

 See Fielding (2016) 338, where he cites Boethius, Cons. 3.P2.12.  See Schneider (2003) 93 – 96; Fielding (2016) 336 – 338 and Fielding (2017) 173 and 178. For Epicurean voluptas in Late Antiquity, see Brown (1982); Ramelli (2014).  See Das and Fielding (2016) 153 – 154. Cf. El. 5.104: occidit assueto quod caret officio (‘it dies, because it lacks regular service’, transl. Das and Fielding (2016) 153).  See Wasyl (2011) 155 – 156, n. 157, where she mentions that Ennodius, a Christian author, emphasized the value of love (and sexuality) in marriage.  See Nikitas (1992) 43 – 57; Roberts (2017).  Cf. De ave phoenice 163 – 166: femina [seu sexu] seu mas est sive neutrum, | felix, quae Veneris foedera nulla colit. | mors illi Venus est, sola est in morte voluptas | ut possit nasci, appetit ante mori (‘whether it is female in gender, or male, or neither of the two, | it is lucky to abide by no

6.3 Politics and a Sociological Reading

151

penis is a kind of an ‘answer’ to the older crypto-Christian poem. Furthermore, verses 115 – 116 of our elegy (Haec geminas tanto constringit foedere mentes, | unius ut faciat corporis esse duo, ‘it [the penis] brings together twin souls by a great bond, and unites them into one body’), where Maximianus writes that the mentula is responsible for the union of a man and a woman into one, recalls the Christian corporeal affinity of the first man and woman: Eve was born from Adam’s rib, as Dracontius (a Latin poet who flourished in the fifth century AD in Vandal Africa)¹²¹ describes in his De laudibus Dei. ¹²² It seems as if in Elegy 5 Maximianus implies a protest of the sexual renunciation¹²³ imposed by Christian authors (or ascetism).¹²⁴ I do not believe that this behaviour contradicts his former decision to adopt chastity for himself (Elegies 1, 3, and 4),¹²⁵ but is in fact complementary, mainly because they all aim to parody.¹²⁶ Furthermore, his refusal of sexual love does not seem to bring him real happiness,¹²⁷ and in metaliterary terms, his attitude corresponds to his metapoetic self-consciousness – he is aware of his era’s lateness (senectus mundi).¹²⁸ On the other hand, the Greek girl’s role is twofold: she brings to our poem the atmosphere of change and renewal, but also reminds us of the

bonds of sexual love. | Sexual love is its death – only in death is its pleasure; so that it may be born, first it seeks to die’, transl. Uden (2012) 466). See also, Heck (2003); Uden (2012) 465 – 467.  For Dracontius, see Wasyl (2001) 13 – 109.  Cf. De laudibus Dei 1.387– 390: Excutitur somno iuvenis, videt ipse puellam | ante oculos astare suos, pater, inde maritus, | non tamen ex coitu genitor, sed coniugis auctor. | somnus erat partus, conceptus semine nullo (‘The young man was shaken from sleep, and saw the girl | standing before his eyes – he was her father, and then her husband, | yet no parent from sexual union, but the originator of his own wife. | Sleep was her birth. Her conception was without seed’, transl. Uden (2012) 467).  See Schneider (2001) 464, where he notes: ‘With her song, the sensual Greek woman responds directly to the denial of the corporeal world propagated in that time by the shepherds of the Christian community to their flock.’  See Wasyl (2011) 155, n. 156, where she notes that Graia puella’s song was not actually a criticism of Maximianus towards Christianism, but against the ascetism of his era.  Cf. El. 1.71– 78, 3.83 – 84: sancta virginitas (‘saint virginity’), and 4.49: sanctae gravitatis (‘saint solemnity’).  See Chapters 2, 4 and 5.  Cf. El. 3.93: Ingrati, tristes pariter discedimus ambo (‘unsatisfied, similarly sad we both separated from each other’), 4.51: infelix tota est sine crimine vita (‘my whole life without no crime is unhappy’) and 4.53 – 54: Deserimur vitiis, fugit indignata Voluptas; | nec quod non possum non voluisse meum est (‘I am abandoned due to my defects and indignant pleasure goes away, | as I cannot do what I wanted to do’).  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 443.

152

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

happy pagan past.¹²⁹ Therefore, the generale chaos of Maximianus’ time has a political and social dimension; it predicts Justinian’s upcoming power and implies the prevalence of a puritanism that the genre of Augustan elegy never had. The end of an era has come, and in Elegy 5 Maximianus presents its funeral: El. 5.154: me velut expletis deserit exequiis (‘she abandoned me, as if the funeral were fulfilled’). Finally, I think that the narrativity of Elegy 5 shows that our poet is implying a critique of the sexual renunciation of his era. As Wasyl mentions, while we see first-person narration (i. e. the voice of the poet himself) throughout Maximianus’ work, in Elegy 5 the narrative voice has changed, and we predominantly hear the voice of one of his protagonists.¹³⁰ Therefore, perhaps Maximianus narrates his own ideas about sex through the Greek girl, because – in a Christian society – he could not pronounce them in his own words.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay In this section, I will discuss the generic interplay that takes place in Elegy 5. I will start by highlighting the features that signify the ‘host’ genre, i. e. elegy. I will then study the intervention of several ‘guest’ genres within it, such as epic and comedy.¹³¹ As in all of Maximianus’ work, we will see that the generic identity of this elegy is complex, agreeing with the general literary trend of Late Antiquity, i. e. that of generic mixture.

6.4.1 The ‘Host’ Genre The Aristotelian idea of appropriateness (τò πρεπόν, decorum)¹³² can be easily identified in Elegy 5. The elegiac couplets, and the subjects of love and laments signify the elegiac identity of the poem. Furthermore, it features several ‘symbol-

 Cf. Conte (1994a) 724, where he notes of Maximianus’ poems: ‘the imminence of death and the sadness of growing old are seen as representing the end of pagan culture and its joy in living’.  See Wasyl (2011) 160 – 161.  See Harrison (2007) 16: ‘The “guest” genre can be higher or lower than the “host” in the conventional generic hierarchy (e. g. tragic elements in lyric or epigrammatic elements in epic), but the “host” in all cases retains its dominant and determining role, though the “guest” enriches and enlarges its “host” genre for now and for the future’.  See Harrison (2007) 5.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

153

ic metonyms’.¹³³ The words amans, amor and the associated deities (Venus and Cupido) occur several times in the poem.¹³⁴ Other elegiac ‘ingredients’ exist as well; the feeling of sorrow (cf. tristis and tristitia, lacrima, miser, etc.),¹³⁵ the erotica pathemata ¹³⁶ and the motifs of paraclausithyron (which now is sung by the poet’s sweetheart),¹³⁷ militia amoris and servitium amoris,¹³⁸ the beautiful appearance and talents of the elegiac docta puella,¹³⁹ other ‘generic markers’, such as

 See Harrison (2007) 31– 33.  Cf. El. 5.7– 8: Nam cum se nostro captam simularet amore, | me potius vero fecit amore capi (‘That is, even though she pretended to be captured by my love, she really made me fall in love with her instead’), 13: Sic velut afflictam nimium miseratus amantem (‘Just like I felt so sorry for her, who was struck by love’), 44: deditus imperiis, saeve Cupido, tuis (‘and at your command I surrender, cruel Love’), 50: in Venerem segnis ut ante fui (‘I was lazy in love, as before’), 65 – 66: ‘Non’ inquit ‘fallis amantem, | plurima certus amor lumina semper habet’ (‘ “You do not fool your lover”, she said, “love that is confirmed has always many eyes” ’), 74: ne meus extinctus forte putetur amor (‘maybe it is considered, perhaps, that my love is gone’), 80: grandior est hostis, quod minus ardet amor (‘the enemy is stronger, since love burns less’), 138: quae Veneris sunt inimica magis (‘these that Venus likes even more’), and 146: blandus amans redditur ipse leo (‘the lion itself becomes a lustful lover’). The phrase saevus Cupido (‘fierce Love’) is common for Cupid and Venus in classical poetry and in that of Late Antiquity as well, cf. Hor. Carm. 1.19.1 and 4.1.5: mater saeva Cupidinum; Ov. Met. 1.453: saeva Cupidinis ira; Juv. 14.175: saeva cupido; Reposianus 52: saeve puer, 176: saeve Cupido.  Cf. El. 5.11: Nunc aderant lacrimae (‘Now here are the tears’), 13 – 14: Sic velut afflictam nimium miseratus amantem | efficior potius tunc miserandus ego (‘Just like I felt so sorry for her, who was struck by love, then I became more pathetic than she’), 64: nec posse ad luxum tristia corda trahi (‘my sad heart could not return to pleasures’), 68: proice tristitias (‘let the grief go’), 72: effusis lacrimis talia verba dedi (‘full of tears, I said the following words’), 75: Me miserum, cuius non est culpanda voluntas! (‘How unhappy I am, me that my desire should not be blamed’), 89: quo te deiectam lacrimarum gurgite plangam? (‘with what flood of tears shall I cry your fall?’), 105 – 106: Hanc ego cum lacrimis deducta voce canentem | irridens dictis talibus increpui (‘As she sang full of tears in a silent voice, I burst out laughing and derided her with the following words’).  See above, Chapter 2, footnotes 63 and 64.  Cf. El. 5.9: Pervigil ad nostras astabat nocte fenestras (‘Awake, at night, was standing outside my windows’), and 139 – 140: Nam tibi pervigiles intendunt saepe labores | imbres insidiae iurgia damna nives (‘Because sleepless struggles often target you, rains, tricks, quarrels, disasters, and snow’). See D’Amanti (2020) 328 – 329.  Cf. El. 5.4: inveni cordis bella nefanda mei (‘I found unholy wars for my heart’), 45: Nec memorare pudet tali me vulnere victum (‘I am not ashamed to remember that I was defeated by such a wound’). Also, see above, Chapter 2, footnote 95.  Cf. El. 5.15 – 18, where two typical adjectives of the elegiac puella occur, i. e. grata (16) and docta (twice, at the beginning and the end of verse 17). Also, cf. El. 5.23 – 30.

154

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

the elegiac terms mollis, tener, and munus,¹⁴⁰ puella’s accusations of infidelity to the poet-lover,¹⁴¹ and the elegiac fallacy.¹⁴² Although it may seem that we have a typical love elegy, in fact things are turned upside down.¹⁴³ In our poem, we find several derogations from the Augustan elegiac genre. These changes concern gender reversal and the poet-lover’ status. In Elegies 3 and 4 there is a generic orthodoxy, as it is there that the poet-lover suffers from the erotica pathemata (tears, groans, sighs, paleness), and not his sweetheart, as in Elegy 5.¹⁴⁴ Furthermore, it is now the puella who is an exclusa amatrix, rather than her male lover. In fact, she is not excluded for a long time, as she gains access to Maximianus’ bedroom.¹⁴⁵ This version of the paraclausithyron contradicts its classical form, as in Roman paraclausithyra the amator always remains exclusus and never receptus. ¹⁴⁶ Also, the characterization of the male lover as unfaithful (El. 5.109: perfide) fortifies Maximianus’ method of gender reversal, as it is well known that in Augustan elegy this word was used mainly for the elegiac puellae. ¹⁴⁷ Moreover, the Greek girl’s ‘exhausted chest’ (5.30: sub exhausto pectore) is likely connected to the Roman belief that sexually active men became skinny, and corresponds perfectly to the gender reversal in our elegy.¹⁴⁸ In El. 5.41– 42,¹⁴⁹ Maximianus, comparing his  Cf. El. 5.1: legati munere (‘having the task as ambassador’), 31: Terrebar teneros astringere fortiter artus (‘I was scared to squeeze her tender limbs tightly’), 38: mollis spuma (‘soft foam’), 43: Muneris iniuncti curam studiumque reliqui (‘I left the care and concern for the task I had undertaken), 48: munera grandaevo vix subeunda viro (‘I paid my duty that I could hardly bear as an old man that I was’), 135: non mollis convenit actus (‘not a lazy act is suitable for you’). For these words, see Chapter 4.  See above, footnotes 51 and 52.  Cf. El. 5.7– 14. See Chapter 5.  See Wasyl (2011) 150; Juster (2018) 181.  See Chapters 4 and 5.  See Fielding (2016) 327.  See Copley (1956) 17 and 33.  Cf. Tib. 1.8.63: subito sed perfida fallit (‘she suddenly deceives faithlessly’); Prop. 1.11.16: perfida communis nec meminisse deos? (‘unfaithful, do you not remember our common gods?’), 1.16.43: ante tuos quotiens verti me, perfida, postes (‘how many times I turned myself in front of your doors, you deceitful one’), 2.5.3: dabis mihi, perfida, poenas (‘you will pay it to me, you unfaithful one’), 2.18b.19: at tu etiam iuvenem odisti me, perfida (‘but you hated me even when I was young’); Ov. Am. 3.3.10: per quos mentita est perfida saepe mihi (‘through them often you told me unfaithful lies’). However, Dido uses this adjective for Aeneas, cf. Verg. Aen. 4.305, 366 and 421. Also, Phyllis, Dido, Ariadne and Medea use the address perfide for the lovers who abandoned them, cf. Ov. Her. 2.78, 7.79, 7.118, 10.58, 12.37. Thus, it is possible that here Maximianus echoes Virgil’s Aeneid 4 or Ovid’s Heroides (where gender reversal is a fundamental feature; see Vaiopoulos, Michalopoulos and Michalopoulos (2021) 66).  See Juster (2018) 183.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

155

love story with the Trojan War, presents himself as Graia puella’s helpless victim, again reversing the typical gender roles.¹⁵⁰ Finally, as Wasyl noted, while in the most famous Roman impotence episodes, i. e. Ovid’s Am. 3.7 and Petronius’ Sat. 130, we see men’s obiurgatio to their fallen penis, in Maximianus’ Elegy 5 it is mainly the girl that complains about her lover’s failure.¹⁵¹ However, as Karakasis proved, Petronius had previously used the gender reversal in Sat. 127.9, when Encolpius is likened to Leda and Circe to Homeric Zeus in their failed intercourse.¹⁵² It seems that the inversion of gender roles is Maximianus’ favourite technique, as he follows it in Elegy 3 as well, presenting the poet-lover as a dives amator, while the puella reminds him of her previous sacrifices to him.¹⁵³ In this way, Maximianus manages to renew the elegiac genre (through changes of his own inspiration) and simultaneously demonstrate the conventional character of the genre. Furthermore, he highlights one of the fundamental features of the love elegy, namely failure. Another deviation from the norms of the Augustan elegiac genre and our poet’s originality in Elegy 5 is the combination of his vita activa and vita contemplativa, in other words the otium and negotium, two Roman ways of life that are highly different. Maximianus is the only elegist that combines them, here and in Elegy 1 as well.¹⁵⁴ At the beginning and end of his work, our poet highlights his multitasking nature: he is a politician and a lover (although not successful in both). I do not think that Consolino is right in arguing that these changes and inversions by Maximianus are justified by the fact that the fundamental principles of Augustan elegy had no impact on the sixth century.¹⁵⁵ I fully agree with White’s opinion that Maximianus composes a kind of an ‘ironical commentary on the genre of Roman love elegy’,¹⁵⁶ which includes (among other subjects, such as politics) his thoughts for the genre’s fate in Late Antiquity. Elegy 5 reminds us of two other subcategories of the elegiac genre, i. e. the exilic and the aetiological elegy. Several critics have studied the profound impact of Ovid’s exile poetry on the elegists of Late Antiquity, such as Rutilius Namatia-

       

See above, Section 6.3.1. See Juster (2018) 184– 185. See Wasyl (2011) 152– 153. See Karakasis (2012) 329 – 330. See Chapter 4. Cf. El. 1.21– 50. See Consolino (1997) 396 – 397. White (2019) 14.

156

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

nus (De reditu suo)¹⁵⁷ and our poet.¹⁵⁸ In our poem, Maximianus is of course not in exile, but he is far from home (as Tibullus in 1.3) being critical towards the inhabitants of his destination, as was Ovid (cf. the description of the barbarian people of Tomis in Tr. 3.10 and 5.10). Furthermore, Graia puella’s encomium of the mentula (El. 5.109 – 152) somewhat recalls the genre of aetiological elegy, as she presents the penis as the aetion of the creation of the entire universe. Thus, Maximianus seems to imply a parody of this solemn elegiac subcategory (e. g., c.f. Propertius’ Book 4 and Ovid’s Fasti).

6.4.2 The ‘Guest’ Genres Epic However, Elegy 5 is not only elegiac in nature. Generic enrichment is everywhere, and to a greater extent than Maximianus’ other elegies. This interplay is depicted by thematic and linguistic similarities as well, and once again reveals our poet’s intention to renew the aged elegiac genre. Maximianus includes several epic features in this poem. The name of his beloved (Graia puella) links her with Helen of Troy, and thus with Homer’s Iliad. ¹⁵⁹ Her tricks¹⁶⁰ remind us of Ulysses and the Greek deceits during the Trojan War.¹⁶¹ Our poet again adds an epic intervention when he states that, since Troy was captured by Greek frauds (although Hector himself protected it), he, an old man, is of course not capable of withstanding the Greek girl’s tricks (El. 5.41– 42).¹⁶² But Ulysses is not only identified with the poet’s sweetheart, but with himself as well; the Odyssey is here too, as Maximianus compares himself to Ulysses trying to resist the Sirens’ song: Cf. El. 5.19 – 20: Illam Sirenis stupefactus cantibus, aequans | efficior demens alter Ulisses ego (‘ecstatic from her

 For Rutilius Namatianus, see Britannica, s.v. Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Rutilius-Claudius-Namatianus (seen 27. 8. 2020).  See indicatively, Tissol (2002); Soler (2006); Fielding (2017) 52– 88.  See Juster (2018) 181.  See above, Section 6.3.1.  Cf. Verg. Aen. 2.44: dolis Danaum (‘the deceits of Greeks’), 2.65: Danaum insidias (‘the ambushes of Greeks’). See also above, footnote 4. It is true that Ulysses was not a typical hero of Greek mythology, see Stanford (1954). He was used in ‘lighter’ genres as well; see Gratwick (1993) 223, where, commenting upon Plautus’ Men. 902 (meus Ulixes), he notes: ‘in Attic drama his [Ulysses’] guile and unscrupulousness are emphasized (Soph. Phil.), and in the travesties of Attic Middle Comedy his parasitic traits were no doubt exploited as we know they were in Italy from contemporary Campanian vase-painting depicting Doric farce’.  See above, Section 6.3.1.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

157

songs, I equated her with the Sirens, and in my madness I became another Ulysses’).¹⁶³ Apart from Homer’s works, Maximianus uses the epic figures of Giants and the theme of Gigantomachy (the battle between the Giants and the Olympian gods), as well as Mars’ love for Venus: Tu mihi saepe feri commendas corda tyranni, sangineus per te Mars quoque mitis erit. Tu post extinctos debellatosque gigantes excutis irato tela trisulca Iovi. El. 5. 141– 144 You frequently recommend the hearts of fierce tyrants to me, while the bloody Mars is mild for you. After the giants were defeated and destroyed, you shake off the spear with three forks of angry Jupiter.

There are many references to Giants and their individual battles with gods (e. g. the battle of Zeus and Typhon and the war of the giant Aloadai twins against the gods) in Greek and Roman authors,¹⁶⁴ but few for Gigantomachy: Apollodorus and Diodorus Siculus narrate this story,¹⁶⁵ and Ovid includes it in his Metamorphoses. ¹⁶⁶ Nevertheless, it seems that this myth was famous in Late Antiquity, if we recall that Claudian (4th century AD) wrote a mythological epic entitled Gigantomachy both in Greek and Latin.¹⁶⁷ I believe it is no coincidence that in Maximianus’ text, Venus and the Giants are textually close (El. 5.138 and 141 respectively), as in this way our poet perhaps imitates Hesiod’s practice, who before narrating Venus’ birth (Theog. 188 – 206), mentions the birth of the Giants (Theog. 185: γείνατ᾽ Ἐρινῦς τε κρατερὰς μεγάλους τε Γίγαντας, ‘[the Earth] gave birth to powerful Furies and big Giants’). The love story of Mars and Venus – whose connection is also implied in Elegy 5 by their textual vicinity, cf. El. 5.138: Veneris sunt inimica magis (‘are more delightful to Venus’) and 142: per te Mars quoque mitis erit (‘the bloody Mars is mild for you’) – occurs in several Greek and Latin epic poems, from Hom Sirens exist in the impotence episode of Petronius too, see footnote 61. See also, Antoniadis (2014) 126.  For references to Giants, cf. Hes. Theog. 185; Paus. 8.29.2; Lucr. 5.119 – 122; Hor. Carm. 3.53 – 58; Ov. Fast. 3.439 – 440, Tr. 4.7.17; Macrob. Sat. 1.20.9. For the battle between Zeus and Typhon, cf. Hes. Theog. 820 – 870; Aesch. PV 349 – 374; Apollod. Bibl. 1.39 – 44. For the war between Aloadai and gods, cf. Apollod. Bibl. 1.53; Nonnus, Dion. 20.35; Verg. Aen. 6.580 – 586; Hyg. Fab. 28.  Cf. Apollod. Bibl. 1.6 and Diod. Sic. 4.21.  Cf. Ov. Met. 1.151– 162.  See Britannica, s.v. Claudian, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Clau dian (seen 13. 8. 2020).

158

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

er’s era to Late Antiquity. Demodocus sings it in Odyssey (Hom. Od. 8.266 – 366), and Quintus Smyrnaeus (14.47– 54) and Nonnus of Panopolis (Dion. 29.328 – 361) include it in their poems as well. Lucretius mentions it in the prooemium of De rerum natura (1.29 – 40), Virgil in Georgics 4.345 – 347, Ovid in his Metamorphoses 4.171– 189, and Reposianus composes his epyllion De concubitu Martis et Veneris inspired by this myth.¹⁶⁸ It is true that Elegy 5 is the only love episode where Maximianus includes myths in his narration (the Trojan War, Sirens, Gigantomachy). Wasyl notes that the absence of mythology in his other elegies is ‘one of the main differences between Maximianus and his Augustan models’.¹⁶⁹ I believe that she is partially right, if we consider that Tibullus rarely used myths either.¹⁷⁰ The chaos that the Greek girl worries about (110) has epic connotations too; Hesiod says that ‘first of all Chaos was created’ (Theog. 116: πρώτιστα Χάος γένετ’), a theme that – through Callimachus (Aet. fr. 2.3 Pfeiffer: Χάος γένεσιν, ‘creation of chaos’) – passed to Ovid’s epic work (Met. 1.6 – 7: unus erat toto naturae vultus in orbe, | quem dixere chaos, ‘one was the nature of the whole universe, and they called it chaos’), and to his Fasti (1.103: me Chaos antiqui…vocabant, ‘the ancients called me Chaos’).¹⁷¹ Furthermore, as Fielding successfully demonstrated, the characterization of the mentula by the Greek girl as a festorum cultrix operosa dierum in verse 87 (‘hardworking cultivator of festive days’) is linked with the Ovidian passages Fast. 1.101: vates operose dierum (‘hardworking poet of our days’) and 3.177: Latinorum vates operose dierum (‘hardworking poet of the Latin diary’), where Janus and Mars, respectively, praise Ovid.¹⁷² As in Ovid’s case, Maximianus may be making a pun (operosa dierum) that hints at Hesiod’s didactical epic Opera et dies (Works and Days).¹⁷³ To conclude, Maximianus here includes several features that are related to heroical, didactical, and mythological epic. In addition to this practice, he places into an amatory, elegiac frame a persona with an epic background, as he is an ambassador with many serious (epic) thoughts in his mind. By combining elegy with epic, he mainly aims to give a comic effect in the poem, as he presents

 See Cristante (1999) 6 – 7; Pappas (2021a). Of course, the myth of the furtivus amor of Mars and Venus occurs in other genres as well, e. g. Livy 22.10.9; Ov. Ars am. 2.561– 590; Claud. carm. min. 29; Drac. Rom. 2.  Wasyl (2011) 152.  See Putnam (1973) 104– 105; Lee-Stecum (1998) 171.  See Hardie (1991) 59; Barchiesi (1991) 14– 17. Roberts (2002) 411– 413 proved that the depiction of Chaos at the beginning of Metamorphoses had a great impact on late Latin poetry.  See Fielding (2017) 175.  See Pasco-Pranger (2000).

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

159

a girl and himself, an impotent old man, as a great Homeric hero and mythical characters in love. Therefore, he tries to renew the elegiac genre through epic ingredients. Parody of Lament and Hymn Graia puella speaks a great deal in the poem. We hear her voice in direct speech in verses El. 5.87– 104 and 109 – 152. Most scholars agree that these passages should not be mixed.¹⁷⁴ In the first section (El. 5.87– 104), Maximianus’ sweetheart mourns his fallen penis, and in the second one (El. 5.109 – 152), she praises the mentula for its many virtues. It is obvious that these two sections of the poem are parodic. As Ramírez de Verger has proven, in the first passage Maximianus parodies the style and structure of a ritual lament.¹⁷⁵ The second is a parody of a hymn (or encomium),¹⁷⁶ which, as we saw above, has much in common with Lucretius’ prooemium and includes a political and sociological critique of the poet’s era. Lament is not just an essential ingredient of the elegiac genre – it is its very nature.¹⁷⁷ Ramírez de Verger classified the Graia puella’s lament to the type of gόos, i. e. a personal weeping for the dead’s kinswomen.¹⁷⁸ He divides it into three parts: a) the apostrophe to the dead (87– 88) and initial questions of anxiety and pain (89 – 90); b) the narrative part (91– 102), which is divided into (i) the past (praise of the penis’ past deeds, in 91– 98), and (ii) the present (where the Greek girl expresses her sorrow for the penis’ present situation, in 99 – 102); and c) the epilogue (103 – 104), where she repeats her lament.¹⁷⁹ The mentula is fully personified, and Graia puella’s tender addresses to it reminds us of Catullus ad-

 See Ramírez de Verger (1984) 150; Consolino (1997) 390. To the contrary, Kleinknecht (1937) 195 – 199) considers all these verses as a parodic hymn.  See Ramírez de Verger (1984). See also, Schneider (2003) 93 – 96), where he supports that Graia puella’s lament is Lucretian.  See Ramírez de Verger (1984) 150; Consolino (1997) 390.  See Nelson (2019).  For the discrimination of the kinds of lament (threnos, gόos, kommόs) in Homeric and archaic era, see Alexiou (22002) 102– 103: ‘It was suggested […] that Homeric and archaic usage may have distinguished threnos and gόos according to the ritual manner of their performance, using threnos for the set dirge composed and performed by the professional mourners, and gόos for the spontaneous weeping of the kinswomen. Further, early instances point to the threnos as being more ordered and polished, often associated with divine performers and a dominant musical element’. For γόοι in the Iliad, see Tsagalis (2004). For laments in Greek and Roman literature, see indicatively Holst-Warhaft (1992); Fantham (1999); Richlin 2001; Voigt (2004); Keith (2008); Voigt (2016).  Ramírez de Verger (1984) 153.

160

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

dressing Lesbia’s sparrow in his passer poemata,¹⁸⁰ which, as is well-known, can be interpreted as the poet’s lament for his impotent penis. In verses 97– 100, we observe that Maximianus uses military language (El. 5.97– 100: Quo tibi fervor abit, per quem feritura placebas, | quo tibi cristatum vulnificumque caput? | Nempe iaces nullo ut quondam perfusa rubore, | pallida demisso vertice nempe iaces, ‘Where did this flame of yours go, with which you hit me and I liked it? Where is your head with the plume that caused my wounds? Of course, now you lie down without the red color you once had, of course, now you lie pale with your helmet down’), a practice that fits such a context.¹⁸¹ Furthermore, the use of the second personal pronoun (Du Stil), ‘a fundamental part of the ancient hymn and lament’,¹⁸² is widely used by Maximianus in this passage.¹⁸³ Graia puella’s second song (El. 5.109 – 152) is a hymn or encomium of the mentula. ¹⁸⁴ As Fielding notes, this passage recalls Ovid’s Ars am. 2.467– 492, where the poet from Sulmo narrates the cosmogonic power of love. Thus, the Greek girl acts like an Ovidian praeceptor amoris. ¹⁸⁵ Furthermore, it seems that Maximianus here imitates Ovid (as well as Tibullus and Propertius) by composing a hymn that is actually a parody of divine hymns (Gebetsparodie).¹⁸⁶ The use of the second personal and possessive pronouns (Du Stil) is widely extended in this part,¹⁸⁷ more so than in the Greek girl’s lament for the mentula. As we already have seen, it seems that Gebetsparodie is one of Maximianus’ favourite techniques, as he uses it in Elegies 2 and 3 as well.¹⁸⁸ Our poet does not only apply this practice to the Greek girl’s second song. In verses 51– 52, he presents her angry response to Maximianus’ impotence: Illa velut proprium repetens infesta tributum instat et increpitat: ‘Debita redde mihi.’

 See Wasyl (2011) 153. Cf. El. 5.88: quondam deliciae divitiaeque meae (‘once a pleasure and wealth for me’), and 94– 95: consors laetitiae tristitiaeque meae, | conscia secreti semper fidissima nostri (‘partner in my happiness and sorrow, always the most faithful trustworthy of my secrets’), with Catull. 2a.1 and 3.4: passer, deliciae meae puellae (‘Sparrow, joy of my girl’), and 2.7: et solaciolum sui doloris (‘and consolation of her pain’). For the connection between Catullus’ 3, Ovid’s Am. 3.7 and the Greek girl’s lamentation, see Arcaz Pozo (1995).  Cf. Hecuba’s lament for Hector in Il. 22.435 – 436. See Alexiou (22002) 172– 173.  Alexiou (22002) 177.  Cf. El. 5.89 and 103: te, 91 and 93: tu, 97, 98, and 101: tibi.  See Fielding (2016) 337– 338; Das and Fielding (2016) 159.  See Fielding (2017) 178.  See Chapter 4. Also, see Pappas (2016d) 158 – 159.  Cf. El. 5.121: Tecum, 124, 125, 127, 135, and 147: tibi, 126 and 136: tuis, 128: tuae, 131: tuo, 141, 143, 145, and 148: tu, 142 and 146: per te.  See Chapters 3 and 4.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

161

El. 5.51– 52 She, hostile, as if demanding back her tax, threatens and scolds me: ‘give me back what you owe me!’

Graia puella’s order debita redde mihi (52) recalls the words of the exclusus amator towards his sweetheart’s closed door in Propertius 1.16.43 – 44: ante tuos quotiens verti me, perfida, postes, | debitaque occultis vota tuli manibus! (‘how often I turned myself in front of your jambs, you treacherous one, and I brought to you the required offering with covered hands!’). In the Propertian text, the phrase debita vota probably implies the offers which are due ex voto, i. e. to a deity, as a reward for the accomplishment of a prior request.¹⁸⁹ Maximianus presents Graia puella as a goddess, who demands what he owes her.¹⁹⁰ Thus, he fortifies the hymnic parody depicting the main protagonists of his poem (i. e. the Greek girl and the penis) as deities. Apart from the link of Graia puella’s hymn to the mentula with that of Lucretius to Venus in the prooemium of De rerum natura, it seems that there is also a special connection of the Graia puella’s hymn to the mentula with hymns to the god of love that occur in the genre of tragedy, which has not been noted by critics. The first is Greek, the famous third stasimon (781– 800) of Sophocles’ Antigone. Within it, Chorus narrates the power of Love, who captures virgins, and makes humans and gods mad (781– 790): Ἔρως ἀνίκατε μάχαν, Ἔρως, ὃς ἐν κτήμασι πίπτεις, ὃς ἐν μαλακαῖς παρειαῖς νεάνιδος ἐννυχεύεις, φοιτᾷς δ᾽ ὑπερπόντιος ἔν τ᾽ ἀγρονόμοις αὐλαῖς· καί σ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἀθανάτων φύξιμος οὐδεὶς οὔθ᾽ ἁμερίων σέ γ᾽ ἀνθρώπων. ὁ δ᾽ ἔχων μέμηνεν. Soph. Ant. 781– 790 Love, the unconquered in battle, Love, you who descend upon riches, and watch the night through on a girl’s soft cheek, you roam over the sea and among the homes of men in the

 See Yardley (1979) 158. For the religious (and possible topographical) meaning of this Propertian verse, see Corbeill (2005).  See Juster (2018) 185, where he mentions Spaltenstein’s opinion [(1983) 260] that ‘debita (“what’s owed”) has a sense of conjugal obligation common among Christian authors of Late Antiquity’.

162

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

wilds. Neither can any immortal escape you, nor any man whose life lasts for a day. He who has known you is driven to madness.¹⁹¹

Maximianus mentions these ‘victims’ of sex/love as well.¹⁹² The second passage is Latin and occurs again in the lyric part of a tragedy: in Seneca’s Phaedr. 274– 357, Chorus sings an encomium of Love and praises its powers. In verses 290 – 295, Seneca mentions exactly the same ‘victims’ of love as Sophocles and Maximianus: humans (young and old),¹⁹³ virgins, and gods: […] Iuvenum feroces concitat flammas senibusque fessis rursus extinctos revocat calores, virginum ignoto ferit igne pectus et iubet caelo superos relicto vultibus falsis habitare terras. Sen. Phaedr. 290 – 295 [Love] rouses fierce fire to young people, while in tired old men again recalls flames that had been extinguished. It smites virgins’ breast with unknown fire, and orders the gods leave heaven and dwell on earth in deceptive forms.

In verses 337– 351, Seneca narrates that the entire animal kingdom feels the power of love (birds, bulls, dears, tigers, wild boars, lions, whales, and elephants), a notion that Maximianus includes in Graia puella’s words as well.¹⁹⁴ It is impressive that our poet mentions only two wild animals by their names, i. e. tigers and lions (El. 5.145 – 146: tu cogis rabidas affectum discere tigres, | per te blandus amans redditur ipse leo, ‘you force the fierce tigers to learn the passion, and thanks to you the lion himself becomes a lustful lover’), which also occur in Seneca’s catalogue (Phaedr. 344– 345: tunc virgatas | India tigres decolor horret, ‘then dark India fears the striped tigers’, and 348 – 349: Poeni quat-

 The translation comes from Perseus Digital Library: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0186%3Acard%3D781 (seen 18. 8. 2020).  Cf. El. 5.111– 118 (for humans), 131– 134 (especially for young girls), and 141– 144 (for the gods).  We notice that Seneca, as with Maximianus, argues that love’s passion can also appear in the elderly.  The poet of the Pervigilium Veneris also mentions that plants and the animal kingdom feel the power of love, cf. 76: rura fecundat voluptas, rura Venerem sentiunt (‘The pleasure makes the fields fertile, the fields feel Venus’), and 81: ecce iam subter genestas explicant agni latus, | quisque tutus quo tenetur coniugali foedere (‘the lambs are already spreading their ribs under the bushes and everyone is securely united by marital bonds’). See Barton (2018).

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

163

tiunt colla leones, | cum movit Amor, ‘then the lions of Carthage shake their manes, when Love moves them’).¹⁹⁵ Conclusively, the genres of lament and hymn exist in Graia puella’s songs in order to cause laughter, parody, and imply a metapoetic reading. More specifically, regarding her second song, we can deduce that Maximianus includes some intertextual references of hymns to love/Venus, which occur in ‘higher’ genres, such as didactical epic (Lucretius) and (Greek and Roman) tragedy (Sophocles and Seneca).¹⁹⁶ Thus, he succeeds in following a well-known practice of his Augustan elegiac models, i. e. the parody of hymns, but simultaneously manages to add an extra dynamic to it via this complex generic enrichment. In other words, he not only inserts features from another genre, such as hymn, into his elegy, but also includes hymnic characteristics that were integrated into other genres as well, such as epic and tragedy. Roman Comedy As we have seen in Elegies 2, 3, and 4, the genre of Roman comedy had a great influence on Maximianus’ work. Our poet includes well-known themes and personae of the Roman comedy (such as senex decrepitus, lena, anus, etc.) in his elegies, and Plautian phrases as well.¹⁹⁷ In Elegy 5, aside from the existence of the senex amans, it seems that Roman comedy is scarcely present, and consists of just a few linguistic similarities with Plautian works. Thus, verse 60: perstitit in medio frigus ut ante foco (‘the frost remained in the middle of the fire, as before’) recalls Plaut. Aul. 7– 8: in medio foco | defodit (‘he buried it in the middle of fire’), and 386: in foco nostro Lari (‘in the fire of our Lar’).¹⁹⁸ Moreover, the use of the rare verb ludificare in verse 92 (atque aestus animi ludificare mei, ‘and tease me for the flame of my soul’) occurs several times in Plautus, e. g. Bacch. 523: quod eum ludificatus est (‘since teased him’), Cas. 558: lepide ludificatus (‘pleasantly teased’), Most. 832: ubi ludificat cornix una volturios duos? (‘where a simple raven teases two vultures?’), etc.¹⁹⁹

 It seems that the lion/tiger pairing is frequent in Roman poetry, see Spaltenstein (1983) 164.  Also, cf. El. 5.141: Tu mihi saepe feri commendas corda tyranni (‘You often recommend the hearts of cruel tyrants to me’), and pseudo-Sen. Oct. 88: fera quam saevi corda tyranni (‘than the fierce heart of the cruel tyrant’).  See Chapters 3, 4 and 5.  Juster (2018) 186.  Cf. also, Plaut. Bacch. 642, Cas. 592, Cist. 214– 215, Epid. 671, Merc. 920, Mil. 927, Most. 1040, 1124, 1147, Poen. 548, 1097, 1281. See also, Juster (2018) 189 – 190.

164

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

Christian and Philosophical Connotations As in the case of Elegies 1 and 3, there are some Christian connotations here as well. Aside from the ‘hidden protest’ against the sexual renunciation imposed by Christian authors of Late Antiquity (or ascetism), Maximianus includes in his narration phrases, ideas, and persons that also exist in Christian literature. Some words and phrases in our poem are likely of Christian origin. Juster notes that ‘the verb vivificare (“revive”) in verse 82 seems to have been a term of Christian writers, perhaps beginning with Zeno of Verona’,²⁰⁰ and that laniata of verse 85 may come from early martyrologies.²⁰¹ Furthermore, the same scholar writes that the phrase per totam noctem (‘through the whole night’) was used by several Christian authors of the late fourth and early fifth centuries.²⁰² The elegiac couplet of El. 5.37– 38 (Non lac sic durum permixta coagula reddunt | nec liquidi mollis spuma liquoris erit, ‘thus, no mingled rennet gives forth fresh curds, and there will be no soft foam of clear liquid’, transl. Das and Fielding²⁰³), which was considered as a later interpolation,²⁰⁴ describes the outcome of a sexual act, and refers either to Maximianus’ semen or to the Greek girl’s anatomy.²⁰⁵ Spaltenstein believes that here Maximianus parodies Prudentius’ Cathemerinon 3.66.70 (spumea multra gerunt niveos | ubere de gemino latices, | perque coacula densa liquor | in solidum coit, et fragili | lac tenerum premitur calatho, ‘foaming pales bear the snow-white milk drawn from a pair of teats; and by means of thickening rennet the liquor solidifies, and the soft curd is pressed in a frail wicker basket’, transl. Thompson²⁰⁶).²⁰⁷ In this passage, Prudentius describes the process of a Christian diet, and our poet uses similar terms for the desired effect of intercourse, aiming, of course, to parody. Apart from these linguistic reminiscences from Christian texts, it seems that Christian ideas are scattered throughout Elegy 5. Verses El. 5.115 – 116, where Maximianus speaks of the union of two souls into one flesh,²⁰⁸ may include a Christian meaning, as they remind us of passages from the Vulgate. ²⁰⁹ This may be linked to Dracontius’ De laudibus Dei 1.366 – 368 as well, where the poet de Juster (2018) 188.  See Juster (2018) 189.  See Juster (2018) 190.  Das and Fielding (2016) 156.  See Schetter (1970) 154– 156.  See Das and Fielding (2016) 157.  See Thompson (1949) 23.  See Spaltenstein (1983) 258.  See above, Section 6.3.2.  Cf. Vulg. Gen. 2:24, Matthew 19:5, and Mark 10:8 (the quotations are all from Juster (2018) 192).

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

165

scribes the mental harmony between a couple of a man and a woman.²¹⁰ However, there is a possible philosophical impact in this passage, although in the opposite order: Aristophanes, in his famous myth of love in Plato’s Symposium (189c-193e), narrates how man and woman were formed from one body. Furthermore, according to Diogenes Laertius, when Aristotle was asked for friendship (not love), he answered that ‘it is a soul that dwells in two bodies’.²¹¹ In the couplet El. 5.129 – 130, Maximianus writes that the universal wisdom obeys the orders given by the mentula: Ipsa etiam totum moderans sapientia mundum | porrigit invictas ad tua iussa manus (‘even wisdom itself, which rules the whole world, reaches out invincible hands to your orders’). As Juster rightly notes, ‘for most Late Antique poets, a personification of wisdom would have evoked the Old Testament’, but perhaps our poet here satirizes Boethius’ personification of Philosophy.²¹² Finally, the virgin who wishes to be deflowered in verses 131– 134 (El. 5.131– 134: Sternitur icta tuo votivo vulnere virgo | et perfusa novo laeta cruore iacet. | Fert tacitum ridetque suum laniata dolorem | et percussori plaudit amica suo, ‘the virgin lies down, smitten by your wound that wishes to come and lies happily immersed in her new blood. Struck, she endures and laughs with her silent pain and, as a friend, applauds her pursuer’) reminds us of Aquilina in Elegy 3,²¹³ and, thus the virgins of Christian martyrologies who enjoy the tortures that suffered for their faith.²¹⁴ We deduce that Maximianus intervenes several features of Christian texts (terms and themes), sometimes blended with philosophical ideas. Thus, he imitates the reverse practice of several Latin Christian authors of Late Antiquity, who included echoes of the three Augustan elegists in their works.²¹⁵ Alongside the aforementioned passage (El. 5.115 – 116), where we detect Christian associations blended with philosophical ideas, as well as the obvious impact of Lucretius in Graia puella’s hymn to the penis, philosophy appears to exist here as well. Fielding, who has studied in depth the triple intertextual relationship between the elegiac Muses of Ov. Am. 3.7, those of Boethius’ Consola-

 See Uden (2012) 468.  Cf. Diog. Laert., Aristotle 5.21: ἐρωτηθεὶς τί ἐστι φίλος, ἔφη, ‘μία ψυχὴ δύο σώμασιν ἐνοικοῦσα’ (‘when he was asked what thing is a friend, he said “one soul that lives in two bodies”’). Ovid also includes the same idea in Tr. 4.4.72 where, describing the friendship between Orestes and Pylades, he writes that qui duo corporibus, mentibus unus erant (‘they were a single mind in two bodies’).  Juster (2018) 194.  See Chapter 4.  See Uden (2009).  See Green (2013) 260 – 262.

166

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

tio Philosophiae, and the Greek girl in Elegy 5,²¹⁶ argues that she is identified with Greek Elegia, and is actually a counterpart to Boethius’ Greek Philosophy that ‘demonstrates that Ovid’s elegiac Muses cannot be dismissed after all’.²¹⁷ Indeed, Maximianus compares the Graia puella to a Siren, cf. El. 5.19: Illam Sirenis stupefactus cantibus, aequans (‘Stunned by her songs, I compared her to the Sirens’), as Philosophy characterizes the elegiac Muses in Boethius’ Cons. 1.P1.2 (Sirenes usque in in exitium dulces, ‘Sirens, sweet to the point of ruin’, transl. Fielding).²¹⁸ Graia puella considers Maximianus’ impotence to be the result of his relationship with another woman, who forbids him to have sex with her: El. 5.61– 62: ‘Quae te crudelis rapuit mihi femina?’ dixit, | ‘cuius ab amplexu fessus ad arma redis?’ (‘ “What cruel woman snatched you from me”, she said, “from whose grasp do you return tired to my arms?” ’). That woman, cruel as she is (61: crudelis…femina), can probably be identified as Boethius’ Philosophy, who banishes his elegiac puellae. ²¹⁹ The concept that love is the guarantor of the universe, which unites and governs the whole world, is a widespread philosophical idea that exists in Platonic tradition (cf. Plato’s Symposium),²²⁰ and Epicurean philosophy as well (cf. Lucretius’ prooemium-hymn to Venus, and Philodemus’ epigrams).²²¹ Maximianus adopts this idea in Elegy 5, an idea that he may have drawn from the second book of Boethius’ Consolatio, ‘where Philosophy sings a hymn to imperitans amor (“governing love” Cons. 2.M8.15), through which “the universe alternates in harmonious changes” (Cons. 2.M8.1– 2 mundus … | concordes variat vices) and “warring elements maintain a perpetual treaty” (Cons. 2.M8.3 – 4 pugnantia semina | foedus perpetuum tenent)’, as Fielding notes.²²² I believe that Maximianus uses Christian and philosophical intertexts and ideas with the intent of parody. For example, the happiness of the deflowered virgin that recalls the virgins of Christian martyrologies, or the Graia puella who demands that her poet-love return to voluptas and acts like the counterpart of Boethius’ Philosophy, undoubtedly contribute to this purpose.  See Fielding (2017) 174– 180.  Fielding (2017) 180.  See Fielding (2017) 171.  See Fielding (2017) 175. Also, see Hunter (2015) 173, where she notes: ‘The beautiful Greek girl of the fifth of the Elegies, who stands in Maximianus’ room singing improvised songs with a modest face and sparkling eyes, is reminiscent of both the Consolatio’s Philosophy and the siren Muse of Poetry. Like Philosophy, this Graia also sings a hymn to universal forces (cf. Consolatio 3M9)’.  See Barnish (1990) 26.  See Schneider (2003) 93 – 96; Fielding (2016) 336 – 338 and Fielding (2017) 178 – 179.  Fielding (2017) 178 – 179.

6.4 Generale chaos or Generic Interplay

167

Legal and Medical Terms As in the other Elegies, there are a number of linguistic similarities with legal and medical texts in Elegy 5.²²³ Juster notes three cases with legal allusions; the phrase munera…subeunda (‘the debt I have to suffer’) of verse 48,²²⁴ the verb vindicor (‘Ι am free from charges’) of verse 76,²²⁵ and the word damna (‘damage’) of verse 86, which has a financial and legal meaning too.²²⁶ Regarding the medical terms in Elegy 5,²²⁷ Das and Fielding read the verse 108 (morbo graviore, ‘worse disease’) from a medical point of view, and believe that the impact of ancient medicine on this elegy is in general very important.²²⁸ In his monograph, Fielding also highlights the medical flavor of Elegy 5.²²⁹ In conclusion, the generic interplay of Elegy 5 consists of features of elegy (love elegy, and to a lesser extent, aetiological and exilic elegy), epic (heroical, didactical and mythological), lament and hymn, Roman comedy, and includes Christian and philosophical connotations, as well as medical and legal terms. As is the case throughout his work, Maximianus enriches the generic background of Elegy 5. In this context, we can interpret Graia puella’s phrase in verse 110 fleo…generale chaos, as having a metapoetic usage, meaning neither the primeval nothingness,²³⁰ nor the political chaos of the 6th century, nor Christian Hell,²³¹ but rather the chaos of Late Antiquity poetics, where the boundaries between genres were indistinguishable, and – as in Maximianus’ case – generic interaction was a highly widespread literary practice.²³² In other words, the chaos may refer to the literary generic chaos of the era, an interpretation that is fortified by the adjective generale, which may mean ‘generic’, and ‘a whole that shares common features’.²³³ Juster notes that ‘the generale chaos may recall the sponsus generalis of El. 1.72 so that we contrast the earlier vision of order and optimism with the later vision of decay and despair’.²³⁴ However, it seems to me that these two phrases communicate on a metapoetic level too, as sponsus gen-

 For medical and legal terms in Elegy 3, see Chapter 4. For the use of legal vocabulary by Maximianus, see Fo (1987) 359.  See Juster (2018) 185. Cf. Cod. Iust. 10.40.3 and Cod. Theod. 12.1.140.  See Juster (2018) 188, where he rightly quotes in OLD, s.v. vindico, meanings 3 and 4.  See Juster (2018) 189. See also OLD, s.v. damnum, meaning 1.  For Maximianus’ medical knowledge, see Neuberger (1947).  See Das and Fielding (2016).  See Fielding (2017) 176 – 178.  See OLD, s.v. chaos, meaning 1.  See Juster (2018) 191.  See Greatrex (2015).  See OLD, s.v. generalis-is-e, meaning 1a.  Juster (2018) 191– 192.

168

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

eralis may be interpreted as ‘a suitor for all’, but also ‘a generic suitor’, i. e. a poet who flirts with (or mixes) several literary genres. The question that remains is why the Greek girl would mourn for the generic interplay of Maximianus’ era. This is what I will attempt to answer in the following section.

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy Fielding has noted that Elegy 5 can be read in metapoetic terms. He has argued that the Greek girl could be a manifestation of the Greek Elegia that corresponds to the appearance of the Greek Philosophia to Boethius at the beginning of the Consolatio. Furthermore, he underlines the indisputable fact that the Graia puella has many similarities to Corinna in Ovid’s Am. 1.5, as well as to the personified Elegy in Am. 3.1.²³⁵ Just as the appearance of Corinna in Am. 1.5 anticipates that of Elegy in Am. 3.1,²³⁶ so it seems that Graia puella plays a metapoetic role that functions as the personification of Elegy in Late Antiquity.²³⁷ Furthermore, we must not forget the connection between Elegy 5 and Ovid’s Am. 3.7, where the poet’s impotence is identified with his difficulty to continue writing love poetry.²³⁸ Could Maximianus’ impotence be interpreted as an inability to compose and preserve the genre of love elegy in Late Antiquity? I agree entirely with Fielding’s metapoetic reading; I will try to add more arguments in this direction, and to justify the personification of the Greek girl as Elegy. As I demonstrated above, in Elegy 5 Maximianus follows the practice of generic interplay, as he does in his entire collection. Nevertheless, the form (elegiac couplets) and content of the poem is undoubtedly elegiac (e. g. the love story, the inverted paraclausithyron, the militia amoris, the description of female beauty, the journey abroad, etc.).²³⁹ It seems that Maximianus, as a self-conscious poet and faithful student of Ovid, offers us an abundant discourse of elegiac subjects and motifs. Furthermore, the Greek girl is a genuine elegiac puella, as she is grata (16) and docta (17):

 For a metapoetic reading of the description of Corinna’s body, see Keith (1994), and especially 30 – 31.  See Papanghelis (1989); Perkins (2011).  Fielding (2017) 171– 172. For similarities between the Greek girl and Corinna of Ov. Am. 3.1, see Schmidt (2017) 210 – 213.  See Sharrock (1995).  As Schmidt (2017) 209 writes, ‘the poem is a learned synthesis of the entire tradition of elegiac genre’.

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy

169

docta loqui digitis et carmina fingere docta et responsuram sollicitare lyram. El. 5.17– 18 She was trained to speak with her fingers, trained to write verses and played her lyre that was ready to response.

The repetition of docta at the beginning and end of verse 17 highlights her generic identity. Moreover, the fact that she composes poems-songs (carmina), which can be fictional (fingere)²⁴⁰ recalls the elegiac fiction, an essential ingredient of this genre.²⁴¹ Also, Graia puella plays the lyre (lyram), and thus belongs to lyric poetry, within which elegy is included.²⁴² The noun digitis has a metapoetic meaning as well, as it signifies the dactylic metre (cf. the Greek δάκτυλος). In other words, the Greek girl composes lyric poems in dactyls, i. e. elegies. In verses 23 – 26, Maximianus describes the dance moves of the Greek girl. I believe that in this passage, Graia puella is identified with Elegy and that the poet implies the metrics of this genre: Quis referat gressus certa sub lege moventes suspensosque novis plausibus ire pedes? grande erat inflexos gradibus numerare capillos; grande erat in niveo pulla colore coma. El. 5.23 – 26 Who can describe her steps moving under a certain beat and her feet hovering with each new applause? It was intense to count her hair that waved at intervals, it was an intense thing her dark hair on snowy skin.

These verses include several metrical terms; the word gressus and pedes can be interpreted – among other meanings – as metric feet as well.²⁴³ Lex could mean the dancing beat, but also a rule of versification.²⁴⁴ Juster believes that suspensos pedes may mean ‘arching feet’ or ‘on tiptoes’.²⁴⁵ I believe that this phrase in-

 For fingere as a term for poem composition and uttering something insincere, see OLD, s.v. fingo, meanings 6a and 10b respectively.  See Chapter 5.  See Britannica, s.v. elegy, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/art/elegy (seen 16.9. 2020).  For gressus as a metrical term, see OLD, s.v. gressus, meaning e. For pes, see OLD, s.v. pes, meaning 11.  See OLD, s.v. lex, meaning 6.  See Juster (2018: 182). For the interpretation ‘on tiptoes’, see OLD, s.v. suspendo, meaning 6b.

170

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

cludes a metapoetic reading; suspensi pedes could mean the dactylic hexameters hanging on the pentameters, and therefore verses 23 – 24 imply the continuous repetition of the elegiac couplet and its stable rhythm. Juster comments of verse 24 that ‘the use of end rhyme, still rare in this period, may reflect Maximianus’ aspirations for lyrical intensity and surprise’.²⁴⁶ My opinion is that the poet here implies the metrical nature of the elegiac genre; the use of adjective novis contributes to this metapoetic reading as well, as it recalls the great impact of poetae novi (and therefore of Callimachean poetics) in elegy, and the poetae novelli of the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.²⁴⁷ The infinitive numerare of verse 25 recalls the noun numerus, a word that, as Alison Sharrock has proven, Ovid used for metrics.²⁴⁸ Furthermore, the word gradus includes a poetical usage, meaning a musical interval.²⁴⁹ The combination of two words meaning hair, i. e. capillos (25) and coma (26), reminds us that Ovid used the exact two words for the hair of Elegy and Tragedy in Am. 3.1 respectively (Am. 3.1.7: venit odoratos Elegia nexa capillos, ‘Elegy came, with her perfumed hair in a knot’, and 11– 12: venit […] Tragoedia | fronte coma torva, ‘Tragedy came, with her wild hair in her forehead’). The same words occur in Am. 1.14, where Corinna is upset about her hair loss (Am. 1.14.1: medicare tuos desiste capillos, ‘stop dyeing your hair’, 2: iam tibi nulla coma est, ‘now you have no hair’). As Papaioannou has proven, hairstyling has a metapoetic dimension in Ovid’s Am. 1.14,²⁵⁰ as it has in his aforementioned elegies as well. It is no coincidence that he sent his book in Rome from exile in unadorned situation, rough, with straggling hair (Ov. Tr. 1.1.12: hirsutus sparsis ut videare comis). Furthermore, the repetition of the word grande (El. 5.25 – 26) appears to signify the generic mixture of Maximianus’ poetics, as it also refers to the grand style of higher genres (such as epic).²⁵¹ A metapoetic reading is implied in verses 29 – 34 too: A, quantum mentem stomachi iunctura movebat atque sub exhausto pectore pingue femur!

 Juster (2018) 182.  For poetae novelli, see Brill’s New Pauly, s.v. poetae novelli, accessible at: https://refer enceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/poetae-novelli-e929350 (seen 18.9. 2020).  See Sharrock (1995) 160 – 161.  See OLD, s.v. gradus, meaning 6d.  See Papaioannou (2006), and especially 49, where she notes for Ov. Am. 1.14: ‘The elegiac mistress identifies with the elegiac writer but not with the elegiac text; the latter receives an interesting, novel treatment through its projection on the imagery of the hair. The severance of the puella from her hair reviews the semiotics of elegiac symbolism, offering alternative interpretative possibilities, and hence a fresh impetus’.  See OLD, s.v. grandis-is-e, meaning 6a.

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy

171

Terrebar teneros astringere fortiter artus: visa per amplexus ossa sonare meos. ‘Grandia’ clamabat ‘tua nunc me brachia laedunt, non tolerant pondus subdita membra tuum.’ El. 5.29 – 34 Ah, how the joint of her stomach roused my mind, and the plump thigh under her exhausted chest! I was scared squeezing her tender limbs tightly, her bones seem to crack with my hugs. She shouted, ‘now your heavy hands hurt me, my limbs below your body cannot bear your weight!’

This passage is textually problematic, mainly regarding the word iunctura in verse 29, which I prefer, following the edition of Schneider. Other critics have adopted the text fultura or factura. ²⁵² If the word iunctura is the original text of Maximianus, this line could have an ambiguous meaning, as iunctura could refer to poetic composition, or more precisely mean the juxtaposition of syllables.²⁵³ The Greek girl has plump thighs (30: pingue femur), a feature that reminds us of the juvenile thigh of Corinna (Ov. Am. 1.5.22: iuvenale femur), and simultaneously is opposed to tenuis, which is the typical poetical adjective of an elegiac puella, a term that defines a ‘light’ literary genre (genus tenue) of Callimachean aesthetics. On the other hand, the term pinguis is anti-Callimachean and characterizes the large, coarse literary works, and therefore the epic genre as a whole.²⁵⁴ However, the Graia puella may have epic fat, but is above all an elegiac puella. Her limbs are tender (31: teneros artus), and the old poet-lover with his epic background (he was a diplomat after all) is afraid that he is going to crack her bones (31– 32). His arms are heavy, epic (33: grandia), as is his weight in general (34: non tolerant pondus). Pondus could refer to Maximianus’ weight as an old man, but in metaliterary terms it could also imply the genre that corresponds to his persona in Elegy 5, i. e. epic.²⁵⁵ The limbs of Graia puella, which are placed below her lover’s body, cannot bear Maximianus’ weight (34: non tolerant pondus subdita membra tuum). The word membra (aside from its sexual connotations)²⁵⁶ can be interpreted as the sections of a literary work.²⁵⁷ Our poet’s master, Ovid, probably used the same word with the same meaning to signify the process of reducing the five books of his Amores to three in their second edition (Ov. Am. 1.6.5 – 6: longus amor tales corpus tenuavit

     

See See See See See See

Knox (2011) 411– 412; Juster (2018) 183. OLD, s.v. iunctura, meaning 2b. OLD, s.v. pinguis, meaning 7b; See Papanghelis (1991); Fielding (2017) 172. OLD, s.v. pondus, meaning 7. Adams (1982) 185 – 186. OLD, s.v. membrum, meaning 5b.

172

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

in usus | aptaque subducto pondere membra dedit, ‘long-term love thinned my body for such use, and made my limbs apt with reduced weight’).²⁵⁸ In this context, Graia puella’s/Elegy’s parts are naturally placed below (subdita) Maximianus’ epic persona, as this position agrees with the classification of the ancient literary genres. In other words, here too the Greek girl is partly identified with Augustan love Elegy; she has tender limbs (tenuis), but is simultaneously fat (pinguis), a feature that reflects the trend of generic mixture in Late Antiquity. Moreover, Graia puella’s/Elegy’s fear for her safety under Maximianus’ weight implies the poet’s doubts about the fate of the genre in his era. Verses 55 – 58 feature an intratextual connection with the passages above (membra, digitis, sollicitare). After his sexual failure, Maximianus says: Erubui, stupuique, simul verecundia mentem abstulit et blandum terror ademit opus. Contrectare manu coepit flagrantia membra meque etiam digitis sollicitare suis. El. 5.55 – 58 I blushed; I froze, since shame made me lose my mind and terror cut off my lustful work. She started to touch my burning member by her hand and arouse me by her fingers too.

As we saw above, the impact of Ovid’s Am. 3.7 on Elegy 5 as a whole, and more precisely on verses 57– 58, where the Greek girl tries to raise Maximianus’ penis by masturbation, is obvious. In Ovid’s case, Sharrock has demonstrated that his impotence signifies his difficulty to continue to write love elegy.²⁵⁹ But in Maximianus’ case, his impotence signifies his difficulty to write love elegy at all. His previous elegies (2, 3 and 4) narrate love stories without actual love, and Elegy 5 serves as an epilogue to this practice. Graia puella/Elegy tries, with her metrics (digitis), to arouse Maximianus’ love poems (57– 58: flagrantia membra…sollicitare), but with no success: terror took away his lustful work (56: blandum opus). Opus has an ambiguous meaning: it is often used in a sexual context to mean the penis,²⁶⁰ but could also be interpreted as a literary work.²⁶¹ The adjective blandus (as with the noun bladitia) is a typical poetological word implying the elegiac genre. Maximianus himself uses the word in this sense (El. 1.129: non

   

See Pappas (2016a) 125 – 126. Sharrock (1995) 160 – 162. See Adams (1982) 157. See OLD, s.v. opus, meaning 9.

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy

173

blanda poemata fingo, ‘I do not write lustful poems’), as did his predecessors.²⁶² In other words, despite Graia puella’s/Elegy’s efforts, Maximianus confesses his impotence/inability to write love elegy. In her attempt to convince Maximianus to have sex with her, the Greek girl urges him to enjoy their game: Quin potius placito noli unquam parcere ludo proice tristitias et renovare ioco. Obtundunt siquidem curarum pondera sensus, intermissa minus sarcina pondus habet. El. 5.67– 70 What’s more, do not reject our pleasing game, leave your sadness and renew by fun. Of course, the burdens of your worries make your senses lazy, but if you abandon your package, the load becomes less.

Alongside the political meaning of this passage, here the poet implies a metapoetic reading as well. In Elegy 5, Maximianus is a diplomat, a representative of the negotium. Graia puella’s advice to our poet are full of elegiac terms (67– 68: ludo, tristitias, ioco).²⁶³ Literally, she advises him to leave aside the stress of political affairs and renew himself with their love game. In verses 67– 68, I believe that Graia puella/Elegy urges the poet to quit the sad character of his elegiac writing (elegy without love, old poet-lover, senectus mundi), and renew the genre (68: renovare) with joy – in other words, to render his Muse an Ovidian Musa iocosa. It seems that the Greek girl, and therefore Maximianus, as a selfconscious poet, agrees with Conte’s comment on his poetry: ‘the imminence of death and the sadness of growing old are seen as representing the end of pagan culture and its joy in living’.²⁶⁴ In the couplet of 69 – 70, Maximianus’ sweetheart exhorts him to abandon the burden (69: pondera, 70: pondus) of his worries. This weight corresponds to the epic persona of our poet in Elegy 5, who is a diplomat with many responsibilities. Using the motif of militia amoris, she presents her poet-lover as holding a sarcina, a soldier’s knit,²⁶⁵ which is an

 For blandus, cf. Prop. 1.8.40: blandum carmen (‘alluring poem’); Ov. Am. 1.11.14: blanda… manu (‘with seductive hand’), Ars am. 2.477: blanda…voluptas (‘seductive pleasure’), Rem. am. 379: blanda Elegia (‘alluring Elegia’). For blanditia, see footnote 275.  Augustan elegiac poets (except for Tibullus) defined their poems as lusus or nugae, see Michalopoulos and Michalopoulos (2015) 28. Tristis and tristitia are typical elegiac terms (cf. Ovid’s Tristia). For iocus, cf. Ov. Rem. am. 387: si mea materiae respondet Musa iocosae (‘if my Muse responds to its frivolous material’), Tr. 2.354: Musa iocosa mea (‘my frivolous Muse’).  Conte (1994a) 717.  See OLD, s.v. sarcina, meaning 1b.

174

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

epic accessory. Thus, what she is saying to him is to leave his epic background. Thus, we see that Maximianus’ role is compromising, not only in political sphere (West and East), but in the poetical too, as he attempts to connect love elegy with epic, to remove the sad atmosphere of his aged era and renew a genre that was close to its end. The poet, disappointed by his impotence, addresses his beloved and surrenders his weapons to her: En longo confecta situ tibi tradimus arma, arma ministeriis quippe dicata tuis. Fac quodcumque potes, nos cessimus hoc tamen ipso grandior est hostis, quod minus ardet amor. El. 5.77– 80 Alas, I give you my weapons that are weak due to their long disuse, weapons, of course, that I dedicate to your services. Do what you can, I give up. But for this reason, the enemy is stronger; because love burns less.

The word arma has military and sexual connotations, but also a poetical usage as well.²⁶⁶ In this context, the poet-lover appears to entrust his poetic weapons, which are weak due to their long disuse, to Graia puella/Elegy, in order to give them new life (77– 78). This long-term uselessness appears to correspond to the idleness of the genre of love elegy for the past five hundred years (since Ovid’s death in 17 AD). In other words, Graia puella is the genre of love elegy itself, asking Maximianus to resurrect it. However, our poet is impotent to put his rusty weapons to work. He offers his talent to do whatever Graia puella/ Elegy wants, but now (in his era) the enemy is stronger (79: grandior est hostis): love burns less (80: minus arder amor). The question that arises is: who is this enemy? Juster views it as ‘impotency or the broader physical decay that has rendered him impotent’.²⁶⁷ I believe that here Maximianus is speaking metaphorically, and in fact means that in his era, when the conservatism of Christianity and ascetism had imposed sexual renunciation, it was difficult to compose love elegy. Love poetry (80: amor) burns less, because sexual love was considered a bad thing in an aged world (senectus mundi), where melancholy is a feeling that prevails not only in Maximianus’ Elegies, but in poetry in general.²⁶⁸

 Cf. Ov. Am. 1.1– 2. See also, Hinds (1992a) and Hinds (1992b).  Juster (2018) 188.  See Mazzini (2012).

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy

175

Finally, the Greek girl, disappointed by Maximianus’ erectile dysfunction – and therefore his inability to compose love elegy – realizes that this state will be permanent: Ast ubi dilecti persensit funera membri nec velut expositum surgere vidit opus El. 5.83 – 84 But when she felt the death of her beloved member and saw that the tool would not rise, as if it had come out.

The death of Maximianus’ penis (83: funera membri), which Graia puella loved, is actually the death of Maximianus’ elegiac inspiration, and therefore the death of the elegiac genre itself.²⁶⁹ This passage includes several metaliterary terms; apart from membri (83) and opus (84), the verb surgere recalls the Ovidian practice of using it in order ‘to characterize the movement of the hexameter in the elegiac couplet’, as Fielding notes.²⁷⁰ Graia puella/Elegy made desperate efforts to excite her poet-lover; the first time, the outcome was successful (the couple made love, so an elegy could apparently appear). However, their second and final contact was disastrous; the penis/love elegy (84: opus) did not manage to arise, and a hexameter that seemed to appear (84: expositum), ultimately disappeared. Thus, Graia puella/Elegy, deeply disappointed, sings her two songs for the mentula, in order to mourn the death of the literary genre and simultaneously praise its previous glory. As we saw above, our poet adds the genre of the lament in the generic interplay of Elegy 5. On a superficial level, this parody of a gόos aims to make readers laugh. However, I believe that this passage includes a deeper (metapoetic) reading. I believe that verse El. 5.104: occidit assueto quod caret officio (‘it dies, because it lacks regular service’) – aside from its sexual meaning – implies that in our poet’s era, the elegiac genre is dying because it is not sufficiently cultivated. Verses 95 – 96 describe the main generic features of the Augustan elegy: conscia secreti semper fidissima nostri; astans internis pervigil obsequiis. El. 5.95 – 96 Always the most faithful trustworthy of my secrets, standing tall and vigilant in private duties.

 Bussières (2020) 897– 899.  Fielding (2017) 181. Also, cf. Ov. Am. 1.1.17: cum bene surrexit versu nova pagina primo (‘when it gets up well, in the first line, on a new page’).

176

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

Secrecy (furtivus amor),²⁷¹ fides (fidissima),²⁷² pervigilium (pervigil), which is one of the main features of the exclusus amator,²⁷³ and obsequium (obsequiis), i. e. the duty of a lover to courtship (i. e. servitium amoris),²⁷⁴ are the main elegiac ingredients. Now, there are no suitable conditions for a further development of the genre: Nil tibi blanditiae, nil dulcia carmina prosunt, non quicquid mentem sollicitare solet. El. 5.101– 102 Neither my blandishments, nor my sweet songs benefit you at all, nor anything that used to stimulated your mind.

Elegiac persuasion (blanditia)²⁷⁵ no longer works, nor do the sweet elegiac poems (dulcia carmina).²⁷⁶ The inspiration for love elegy is gone. Thus, the elegiac genre in Late Antiquity is out of service. Therefore, the intervention of the lament genre in Elegy 5 works in a metaliterary way as well, acting as a parodic criticism in the literature trends of Maximianus’ era.²⁷⁷ It is actually ‘a lament for a lost poetic heritage’.²⁷⁸ The Greek girl’s lamentation for the death of the elegiac genre brings about Maximianus’ reaction: Hanc ego cum lacrimis deducta voce canentem irridens dictis talibus increpui: ‘Dum defles nostri languorem, femina, membri, ostendis morbo te graviore premi.’ El. 5.105 – 108

 For furtivus amor, see Chapter 4.  See Conte (1994b) 39 – 43; Racette-Campbell (2013); Wallis (2018) 46 – 62.  See Copley (1956) 28 – 42.  See James (2003b) 148 – 149.  Cf. Tib. 1.1.72: Dicere nec cano blanditias capite (‘nor uttering flatteries when your hair is white’), 1.2.93: et sibi blanditias tremula componere voce (‘and composed flatteries himself with tremulous voice’), 1.4.71: blanditiis volt esse locum Venus ipsa (‘Venus herself wants room for blandishments’); Prop. 1.16.16: arguta referens carmina blanditia (‘repeating his garrulous songs with blandishment’); Ov. Am. 3.7.11: et mihi blanditias dixit (‘and she said flatteries to me’), 58: blanditiis saxa movere suis (‘she could move rocks with her blandishments’), 3.11a.31: desine blanditias (‘stop your flatteries’). See also, James (2001) 226, footnote 11.  See Chapter 2.  For Aristophanes’ metapoetic and political criticism using the lament genre, see Karanika (2008).  White (2019) 14.

6.5 A Metapoetic Reading: Graia puella as Elegy

177

As she sang full of tears with subdued voice, I burst into laughter and addressed her with the following words: ‘Woman, while you mourn the laziness of my member, it seems to me that you suffer from a worse disease’.

Poetology is clear in verse 105; the word canentem signifies Graia puella’s song/ poem that preceded, while deducta could be interpreted as a metaliterary term, since deduco means – among other things – to ‘compose a literary work’.²⁷⁹ Furthermore, the noun lacrimis and the verb defles from verse 107 highlight the elegiac character of her song. Fielding connects the term languor and its derivatives, which Maximianus uses a few times within his poetry (El. 1.6: languor, 3.44: languebam, 5.107: languorem), with lethargus in Boethius’ Cons. 1.P2.5, i. e. the mental illness that the elegiac Muses cause to the philosopher.²⁸⁰ As the same scholar notes, Boethius links lethargus with morbus (a common mental disease of illusions: Cons. 1.P2.5: commune illusarum mentium morbum), as Maximianus does here with languorem (107) and morbo (108).²⁸¹ Aside from the highly interesting medical interpretation of Maximianus’ verse 5.108 that Das and Fielding offer,²⁸² Fielding, who parallelizes the Greek girl with Philosophy’s arrival in Boethius,²⁸³ believes that here ‘Maximianus appears to be telling the Greek Girl that, like the Lethean Boethius lamenting his misfortunes in elegiac verse, she has forgotten that these false pleasures will not make her truly happy’.²⁸⁴ Uden and Fielding link the morbo of verse 108 with the expulsion of elegiac Muses by Philosophy in Boethius (Cons. 1.P1.9: hominum mentes assuefaciunt morbo non liberant).²⁸⁵ Alongside these stimulating interpretations of this passage (the parallelization of the Greek girl to Boethius’ Philosophy, and the medical meaning of morbo graviore), I believe that another reading could be added: Graia puella in her first song (El. 5.87– 104) mourns the death of the love elegy. The poet interrupts her by saying that perhaps she is responsible for the idleness

 See OLD, s.v. deduco, meaning 4b. Cf. Ov. Met. 1.4: ab origine mundi ad mea deducite tempora carmen (‘spin out a song from the word’s origin to my own time’).  See Fielding (2017) 145, 147, 159 and 176. Also, cf. Ov. Tr. 3.8.24: perpetuus corpora languor habet! (‘a constant languor has the body!’), Pont. 1.10.4: non patitur vires languor habere suas (‘a languor does not allow to have my proper powers’).  See Fielding (2017) 176.  See Das and Fielding (2016).  See Fielding (2017) 179 – 180 and especially 180, where he notes: ‘Philosophy persuades Boethius that the meretricious Muses of elegy have inured him to the disease of illusory desires, but Maximianus’ Greek Girl seems to question whether Philosophy’s abstractions are not just illusions of a different kind’.  See Fielding (2017) 176.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 455.

178

6 Non fleo privatum, sed generale chaos: Politics and Poetics in Elegy 5

of his member (107: languorem membri), as she suffers from a more serious disease (108: morbo graviore). As we saw above, the word membrum could mean ‘a literary work’. Thus, it seems that – on a metapoetic level – the Greek girl/Elegy accuses Maximianus of poetical indolence. However, our poet utters his counterattack: he is not responsible for his idleness, but rather the blame is hers. I believe that the key word here is graviore (108), which is a typical literary adjective that defines the grand style of several genres, such as epic.²⁸⁶ We know that this genre continued to flourish in Late Antiquity, undergoing several subdivisions (panegyrical, mythological, biblical, hagiographical, and allegorical). ²⁸⁷ Perhaps in his imaginary dialogue with love elegy, a genre that was obsolete in his era,²⁸⁸ Maximianus is commenting upon the literary taste of Late Antiquity that preferred the highest genre, the epic. After Graia puella’s second song (El. 5.109 – 152), Elegy 5 ends with the poetlover’s voice: Conticuit tandem longo satiata dolore, me velut expletis deserit exequiis. El. 5.153 – 154 Finally, she shut up, satisfied by her long sorrow. She leaves me as if the last rites of death were fulfilled.

The Greek girl is at last satiated, after expressing her sorrow at length (153: longo dolore), a basic ingredient of the elegiac genre. The question that remains is whose funeral rites (154: expletis exequiis) were completed. It seems to me that Maximianus means Graia puella’s/Elegy’s death, implying a metapoetic reading here as well: having been satisfied with a long elegiac poem or an elegiac collection (if Maximianus’ work is an opus continuum), now she can disappear. The death of the love elegy is now a fact, and only the epilogue remains, i. e. the Elegy 6.

6.6 Conclusions Undoubtedly, Elegy 5 is Maximianus’ most important poem (or part of his opus continuum), as it includes various political and metapoetic readings. As in all of our poet’s work, several literary genres contributed to its composition. The im-

 See OLD, s.v. grandis-is-e, meaning 12c.  See Whitby and Roberts (2018) 227– 233.  See Scourfield (2007); Tsai (2007) 38.

6.6 Conclusions

179

pact of Ovid and Petronius on the poet/lover’s impotence is obvious. In my opinion, the most interesting point of this poem is its metapoetic discourse, as through the Greek girl’s complaints and replies to her, Maximianus implies the death of love elegy in Late Antiquity.²⁸⁹ The genre is obsolete and aged in his era. Perhaps the name of Graia puella/Elegy signifies the oldness of the genre, since if we transliterate the adjective Graia in Greek, the word γραῖα appears,²⁹⁰ so we have an oxymoron: the old girl, i. e. the elegiac puella that became old. In this context, the poet includes a comment on the literary trend of his era (El. 5.108: morbo graviore), and the need for a renewal of the elegiac genre (El. 5.68: proice tristitias et renovare ioco).

 For the impact of Maximianus’ impotence on Montaigne and its similar metapoetic reading, see White (2019) 21– 22.  See LSJ, s.v. γραῖα, meaning A; CGL, vol. 1, s.v. γραῖα.

7 The Last Words: Elegy 6 7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 Summary After the previous love episode with Graia puella, a coda of twelve verses follows. The poet addresses his verbose old age, warning it that it must stop revealing its faults (1– 2). It is enough that it lightly touched his unworthy shame, as crimes too long drawn out bring their own crime (3 – 4). The road to death is the same for everyone, but the manner of life and our exit from it is not the same for all (5 – 6). The same is true for boys, young people and old men, just as for the rich and poor (7– 8). For this reason, we should pass with swift steps the path that is trodden and inevitable (9 – 10). Unhappy, having completed the lament for his own funeral, although one part of him is dead, he nonetheless believes he will stay alive (11– 12).

7.2 Metapoetic Remarks Juster is of course correct when he writes that Elegy 6 ‘has the feel of a play’s epilogue’.¹ As in the prologues of Elegies 3 and 4 (El. 3.1– 4 and 4.1– 4 respectively), here too we listen to Maximianus’ talking ego. ² The imperative claude of El. 6.1 signifies that we are at the conclusion of Maximianus’ work.³ The poet ends his elegiac collection (or his opus continuum) as he started it, cf.: Claude, precor miseras, aetas verbosa, querelas! Νumquid et hic vitium vis reserare tuum? El. 6.1– 2 Verbose age, please, stop your deplorable complaints! Do you really want to reveal your defect here?

and

 Juster (2018) 196.  See Wasyl (2011) 158.  See OLD, s.v. claudo, meaning 10. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-008

7.2 Metapoetic Remarks

181

Aemula quid cessas finem properare senectus? Cur et in hoc fesso corpore tarda venis? El. 1.1– 2 Envious old age, why you are late to put an end quickly? Why do you come late to this exhausted body?

The poet makes a ring composition, as in both of these passages he addresses old age (El. 6.1: aetas verbosa, and El. 1.1: Aemula…senectus) using the same stylistic modes of speech, i. e. exhortations and questions. As we saw above, the envious old age of Elegy 1 can be identified with the poet’s aged era (senectus mundi), which comes late (El. 1.2: tarda) to a tired body of poetry (El. 1.2: fesso corpore) and tries to compete with classical poetry via the method of aemulatio (El. 1.1: Aemula). In Elegy 6, Maximianus describes his age as verbose, as Meleager did in an epigram for his own death, cf. Anth. Pal. 7.417.9 – 10: ἀλλά με τὸν λαλιὸν καὶ πρεσβύτην σὺ προσειπὼν / χαίρειν εἰς γῆρας καὐτὸς ἵκοιο λάλον (‘offer a word to bid this chatty old man farewell, and may you come to a chatty old age too’). As in Elegy 5, it seems that Maximianus was also affected (aside from Plautus, Lucretius, Ovid, Boethius, etc.) by the Greek epigrams of the Palatine Anthology. ⁴ As in El. 1.1– 2, I believe that in El. 6.1– 2 Maximianus implies an ambiguous metapoetic comment too; the elegiac genre (as the use of elegiac terms such as precor, miseras, querelas signifies) reached its old age, and Maximianus rendered it chatty. Therefore, it must stop, because its shortcomings (El. 6.2: vitium) have now been revealed.⁵ However, the phrase aetas verbosa perhaps implies the literary trend of Late Antiquity, i. e. the epic poetry, which continued to flourish; after all, two of the main characteristics of the epic genre are its large number of verses and its verbosity.⁶ Elegy 6 closes the ‘circle’ in Maximianus’ narration: Elegies 1 and 6 are the prologue and epilogue of his work, while Elegies 2 and 5 narrate his love adventures in his old age, and Elegies 3 and 4 are the amatory episodes of his youth, and perhaps his more mature age, respectively. Therefore, his collection (or his opus continuum) concludes a beginning (Elegy 1), a middle (Elegies 2 to 5), and an end (Elegy 6). This is a quasi-epic feature that contrasts with Augustan love elegy, which is a genre with limited narrativity.⁷

 See Chapter 6.  For vitium as an engineering term (vitium operis; vitium soli) and the possible connection of this word to the (also possible) public work that Theodoric assigned to Maximianus, see Juster (2018) 196.  See Harrison (2007) 24– 25; Whitby and Roberts (2018) 227– 233.  See Harrison (2007) 27; Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008b:) 2; Wasyl (2011) 159 – 160.

182

7 The Last Words: Elegy 6

As Wasyl rightly notes, the first two verses of Elegy 6 and verses 3 – 4 (Sit satis, indignum leviter tetigisse pudorem, | contractata diu crimina crimen habent, ‘let it be enough that you have slightly touched your unworthy shame, crimes too long drawn out bring their own crime’), contain two of the most important themes of Maximianus’ work: 1) the mournful tone of his poetry (El. 6.1: querelas); and 2) its content, i. e. the romantic memories of an old man.⁸ As the same scholar highlights, by using the verb tetigisse, our poet defines ‘both his narrative technique and the very essence of his oeuvre’,⁹ since in his Elegies we have the feeling that he merely touches upon several themes, but ultimately there is no action at all (e. g. El. 4). Along with the elegiac terms of verse 1 (precor, miseras, querelas), the words pudorem and contractata in the distich that follows (El. 6.3 – 4) disclose the sexual dimension of Maximianus’ poetry,¹⁰ and the phrase crimen habent (El. 6.4) recalls Ovid.¹¹ Moreover, the repetition of crimen reminds us our poet’s habit of using legal terms, and the alliteration of c and r (El. 6.4: contractata…crimina crimen) reflects Maximianus’ trepidation for his crimes. Furthermore, verse 3 includes two poetological terms: the adverb leviter has a Callimachean connotation (i. e. Μοῦσα λεπταλέη), while the adjective indignum recalls the unworthy hair of Elegy, as Ovid described it in Am. 3.9.3: flebilis indignos, Elegia, solve capillos! (‘tearful Elegy, lose your unworthy hair’). In this context, it seems that what Maximianus is saying here is that he previously dealt with the light (i. e. that of Callimachean origin) genre of love elegy only slightly, and that his crimes/love poems, which he had worked on for a long time (El. 6.4: diu, as Callimachean poetics impose), have many faults (El. 6.4: crimen habent) – which he already told us in verse 2 (vitium). In the following four verses, Maximianus develops a common truth, that all humans are equal before death: Omnibus est eadem leti via, non tamen unus est vitae cunctis exitiique modus. Hac pueri atque senes pariter iuvenesque feruntur, ac par divitibus pauper egenus erit. El. 6.5 – 8 For all humans the journey of death is the same, but the way of life and death is not the same for everyone. Boys, young and old men follow the same path and the road will be the same for the poor and the rich.

 Wasyl (2011) 159. See also Fo (1986 – 1987) 115, where he notes that these verses are actually a kind of captatio benevolentiae.  Wasyl (2011) 160.  See OLD, s.v. pudor, meaning 2b, and s.v. contrecto, meaning 2b.  See Juster (2018) 197. Cf. also, El. 1.102: crimen habet, and 180: crimen habent.

7.2 Metapoetic Remarks

183

The journey of death (leti via) ‘suggests a resonance with the Ovidian theme of exile – old age being an exile from the joys of youth’, as Juster notes.¹² Moreover, the idea that everyone is equal before death is very common in classical Latin literature.¹³ In late Latin literature, Claudian also expresses this opinion: sub tua purpurei venient vestigia reges deposito luxu turba cum paupere mixti – omnia mors aequat! […] DRP 2.300 – 302 To your feet will come purple-clad kings, their extravagant splendor laid aside and mingling with the crowd of poor – death is the leveler of all! […]¹⁴

As I recently proved, this passage by Claudian implies a generic interplay, as kings (the epic world) mix with the poor (the elegiac world) to become equal, and thus the genres of epic (the ‘host’ genre of DRP) and elegy (the ‘guest’ genre) are united.¹⁵ I believe that in El. 6.5 – 8, a metapoetic meaning is implied as well. Maximianus parallelizes the course of human life to death with the evolution of the literary genres – and more specifically that of the elegiac genre. Love elegy, whether in its youth (Augustan elegy) or its old age (Maximianus’ elegy) is doomed to the same fate, i. e. its end. Furthermore, the Callimachean (elegiac) poverty (El. 6.8: pauper egenus), and the anti-Callimachean (epic) wealth (El. 6.8: divitibus) lead to the same result.¹⁶ The noun modus (El. 6.6) fortifies this reading, as it may be interpreted as ‘poems, poetry, verse’.¹⁷ In other words, Maximianus tells us that all literary genres follow the same journey of death during his era, although they are different in their metrics and their evolution (El. 6.5 – 6: non tamen unus | est vitae cunctis exitiique modus). In the next couplet, Maximianus gives us the following advice:

 Juster (2018) 197.  Cf. Hor. Carm. 1.4.13 – 14: pallida Mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas | regumque turres (‘pale death with equal foot knocks the huts of the poor men and the towers of the kings’); Sil. Pun. 13.528: Mors communis (‘the common death’); Sen. QNat. 2.59.4.4– 5: mors omnes | aeque vocat (‘death calls everyone and by the same way’).  This translation comes from Gruzelier (1993).  Pappas (2020) 169.  See Myers (1996) 13, where she notes: ‘poverty expresses a Callimacheanism related to the rejection of the military themes of epic, as well as the rejection of the bombastic style in favour of refined technique and uncommon themes’. Also, see Pappas (2020) 169 – 170.  See OLD, s.v. modus, meaning 8b.

184

7 The Last Words: Elegy 6

Ergo quod attritum quodque est vitabile nulli festino gressu vincere praestat iter. El. 6.9 – 10 For this reason, we must endure a road that is worn and unavoidable with rapid steps.

I confess that this passage reminds me of the advice that Apollo gave to Callimachus, to follow unfrequented roads and narrow paths in his poetry, cf Aet. fr. 1.27– 28 (Pfeiffer): ἀλλὰ κελεύθους / ἀτρίπτο]υ̣ς, εἰ καὶ στε[ι]ν̣ οτέρην ἐλάσεις (‘[follow] unfrequented roads and let your course be narrower’). Of course, here Maximianus speaks of the course of life. However, I think that it implies a hidden metapoetic discourse as well. The attritum iter (‘worn path’) contrasts the κελεύθους ἀτρίπτου̣ς (‘unfrequented roads’) of Callimachus; in a metapoetic light, it seems that Maximianus means that the poets must outmaneuver or beat (El. 6.10: vincere) the epic road by moving swiftly (El. 6.10: festino gressu), i. e. with the quick movement of elegiac metre, since the word gressus can be interpreted as a metrical foot.¹⁸ The connection of Maximianus’ passage to that of Callimachus is – at least to me – quite reasonable, as the words ἄτριπτος and attritus look similar on a phonetic level. Critics have been divided on the final couplet of Elegy 6, and indeed the entire collection in general: Infelix ceu iam defleto funere surgo, hac me defunctum vivere parte puto. El. 6.11– 12 Unhappy, after the fulfilment of my funeral, I rise. Although I am dead, I think that I live by one part of mine.

First, Maximianus includes in verse 11 a typical Ovidian adjective for the elegiac poet-lover, i. e. infelix. ¹⁹ Furthermore, the phrase defleto funere highlights the mournful tone of his poetry, which is one of the basic ingredients of the elegiac genre itself. But in this passage, there is a syntactical ambiguity, as Fielding notes.²⁰ If we accept that hac parte goes together with defunctum, then this verse has a sexual meaning (‘I am dead in one of my parts’) and is linked to the lament of Graia puella for the poet’s dead penis in Elegy 5. In this context,

 See OLD, s.v. gressus, meaning e.  Cf. Ov. Am. 2.5.3: torqueor infelix (‘me, an unfortunate man, I torture myself’), Her. 2.103: Quid precor infelix? (‘for what I am praying, me, an unfortunate man?’), 11.51: quid faciam infelix? (‘what should I do, me, an unfortunate man?’).  Fielding (2017) 181.

7.2 Metapoetic Remarks

185

the verb surgere gets a literal interpretation, meaning the erection of his previous dead part. However, if we accept that the phrase hac parte is connected to vivere, then the verse gets a metapoetic interpretation, namely that Maximianus will continue to live through his poetry, even after his death. In this light, the verb surgere perhaps refers to the movement of the hexameter in the elegiac couplet, and Maximianus seems to imitate his master, Ovid, in Am. 1.1.27: sex mihi surgat opus numeris, in quinque residat (‘let my work rise in six measures: let it sink in five’).²¹ Of course, this metapoetic reading is linked to Ovid’s statements in Am. 1.15.42: vivam, parsque mei multa superstes erit (‘I will live, and the biggest part of me will survive’) and in the sphragis of his epic work, Met. 15.875 – 876: parte tamen meliore mei super alta perennis | astra ferar (‘however, I will be borne above the high stars in my best part’), and 879: vivam (‘I will live’).²² Although this passage is ambiguous, I believe that it contains this metapoetic meaning. The word infelix and the phrase defleto funere of verse 11 underline the elegiac nature of Maximianus’ poetry, and together with the Ovidian prediction of the immortality of his own work in verse 12, serve as the sphragis of the collection (or the opus continuum) of our self-conscious poet.²³ In short, Elegy 6, the epilogue of Maximianus’ Elegies, closes the narrative circle by means of a ring composition that highlights the main theme of his poetry, i. e. old age. Within these twelve verses we see the self-conscious poet once again, who includes in his speech several generic markers (e. g. miseras querelas, infelix and defleto funere),²⁴ as well as metapoetic signs (e. g. leviter, tetigisse, gressu and surgo).²⁵

 The quotation and its English translation come from Fielding (2017) 181.  See Uden and Fielding (2010) 457; Wasyl (2011) 158 – 159; Fielding (2017) 180 – 181; Bussières (2020) 897– 898. Cf. also, El. 1.5: periit pars maxima nostri (‘the biggest part of me has gone’); for its metapoetic reading, see Chapter 2.  As Uden and Fielding (2010) 457, n. 40 note, this metapoetic reading is adopted by two English translations of Maximianus, those by Ashton-Gwatkin (1975) 43, and Lind (1988) 336. However, Juster (2018) 77 translates this couplet quite differently: ‘morose, I rise now as if mourned at my last rites; | I think I’m living partly dead this way’, explaining his choice as follows: ‘my reading is darker than that of most other translators, who translate this line as an affirmation of immortality through poetry. I understand the desire to translate this line in that fashion, but in my opinion that interpretation is inconsistent with the bleak Lucretian view of the universe offered throughout the elegies’, see Juster (2018) 197.  See Harrison (2007) 31– 33.  See D’Amanti (2020) 381, who notes that the brevity of this poem agrees with the teachings of the rhetorical schools regarding the epilogue of a speech (cf. Cic. Inv. rhet. 1.109 and Rhet. Her. 2.50 [D’Amanti’s quotations]).

8 Epilogue Maximianus is the last representative of the genre of love elegy in Antiquity. His Elegies, likely composed in the middle of the 6th century AD, reflect the main motifs of the Augustan elegy, albeit from a distant perspective. As is well-known, Maximianus follows the Augustan elegists (mainly Ovid), as well as other sources (Plautus, Lucretius, Horace, Juvenal, Hellenistic epigrams, Boethius, Christian literature, etc.). However, this does not mean that he is a mannerist. On the contrary, he is a self-conscious poet who, being aware of his lateness and the generic evolution of love elegy, composes genuine and original poetry. The two dominant subjects of his poetry are love (which is rarely fulfilled) and old age. The poet-lover is not a carefree young lover anymore, but a senex amator that lives and acts within the realm of the senectus mundi and its political and social reclassifications. He differs from the Augustan elegists regarding his age and dual capacities, as he is an elegiac poet, an orator and a politician (Elegies 1 and 5). These qualities gave Gauricus an extra argument for presenting his work as the supposed fourth book of Cornelius Gallus’ Amores, who also combined the role of politician (first prefect of Egypt) and poet-lover.¹ Furthermore, his beloved women are many (Lycoris, Aquilina, Candida, Graia puella) and it seems that he follows a narrative arc – practices that do not exist in classical love elegy. Just as Gallus lived in a transitional era (the beginning of the imperium), so Maximianus lives in a time when things seem to change. The Western Empire has begun to decline, while the Eastern Empire flourishes under Emperor Justinian. And as Augustus favored the cultivation of literature, so did the Ostrogothic kings. The cultural level of the two Roman Empires was high, if we consider the fact that Maximianus belonged to the intellectual milieu of Boethius (El. 3), and that in sixth century Byzantium a genre relative to Maximianus’ poetry, the love epigram, flourished (our poet likely experienced this flourishment when he was in Constantinople, cf. El. 5).² In the current study, I analyzed the strong intratextual relationship that exists between the Elegies (or between the parts of Maximianus’ opus continuum), and the recurring meanings that characterize his poetry, such as love, old age, the feeling of shame for love, and the (poetic) memory. Furthermore, I have paid particular attention to the interaction that can be observed between the ‘host’ genre (elegy) and the ‘guest’ genres (e. g. Roman comedy, epic, hymns,  White (2019) 2.  See Chapter 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-009

8 Epilogue

187

Christian literature, philosophy, etc.). The main part of my study was focused on the metapoetic dimension of Maximianus’ oeuvre, as I examined Maximianus’ discourse on the genre of love elegy, its evolution and its fate during his era, and his thoughts for a possible renewal of it. In his longer poem, Elegy 1, the poet’s narration predominantly belongs to the motif of vituperatio senectutis, confronting his glorious past with his present sad situation. This juxtaposition likely indicates the decline of the Western Roman Empire in his era, as well as the decline of the genre of love elegy too. Here, the poet mentions that he managed to combine the vita activa with the vita contemplativa in his life, and the levitas with the gravitas in his literary production – he thus displays similarities to the first Roman love elegist, Cornelius Gallus, who was a politician and poet, and Ovid, who – among his elegiac works – composed epic (Metamorphoses) and tragedy (Medea) as well. Our poet had many Roman virtues which occur for the first time in the elegiac genre. He is also an old man throughout his poetry (in El. 3 he was a young lover, although this amatory adventure is a senile reminiscence) – a condition that was controversial to Augustan practice.³ In this elegy, Maximianus often alludes to a principal feature of the poetics of Late Antiquity, namely the generic mixture. Moreover, he indirectly expresses his questions regarding the fate of love elegy by identifying his persona as an aged lover with the aged elegiac genre. At the end of the poem, he implies the distance between his love elegy and that of the Augustan age, after his declaration that there is no literary work (opus) that does not undergo the alteration of time. Maximianus, as a self-conscious poet, knows the norms of the Augustan love elegy perfectly, as well as the literary trends of his era. This is why he presents us with a renewed version of the elegiac poet-lover, i. e. the aged poet-lover of another era, using a kind of a hidden captatio benevolentiae. ⁴ The subject of Elegy 2 is the hatred that Lycoris, an old love affair of his, feels for Maximianus. Of course, the use of the beloved’s name is not accidental, as it is the same as the puella of the auctor of Roman love elegy,⁵ Gallus. Thus, the name has a strongly metapoetic meaning, as it signifies the elegiac genre itself. Here too, our poet uses features from other genres (epic, hymns, philosophy). In my reading, Lycoris acts as the personification of an Elegy that has grown old,

 Cf. Tib. 1.1.71– 72: iam subrepet iners aetas, nec amare decebit, | dicere nec cano blanditias capite (‘soon the sluggish age will steal everything, neither will it be proper to love, nor utter flattering words when your head will be white’); Ov. Am. 1.9.4: turpe senilis amor (‘love is a shameful thing for an old man’).  See Chapter 2.  For the auctor, see Harrison (2007) 6.

188

8 Epilogue

but still remains beautiful under its ashes, seeking younger lovers, i. e. new elegiac poets and new love stories. Aged Lycoris looks like the aged elegiac metre that existed in Maximianus’ time, although not with romantic content (as love existed in other genres, such as epigram and epyllion).⁶ Maximianus asks Lycoris/Elegy to remember their beautiful common past, while admitting that we must not be content with the reminiscences of a glorious love past – therefore of glorious past poetry. Lycoris/Elegy desires renewal, but the poet expresses his fears for this, as a new situation brings varying results (El. 2.54: eventus varios res nova semper habet, ‘a new situation always has uncertain results’). However, Graia puella disagrees with this opinion, cf. El. 5.68: proice tristitias et renovare ioco (‘leave your sadness and renew by fun’).⁷ Elegy 3 is very important, mainly due to the special role played by the philosopher Boethius. The main protagonists of the poem, Aquilina and Boethius, play a metapoetic role; Boethius signifies the generic interplay of the poem (acting as an elegiac praeceptor amoris as well as a comic persona), while Aquilina acts as Lycoris and the other puellae of Maximianus, i. e. she is Elegy personified. Several scholars have dealt with Maximianus’ curious (humoristic, negative or parodic) representation of Boethius. In my opinion, Boethius here mainly reflects the interaction between the various genres that occur in the poem. Of course, the ‘host’ genre of elegy is everywhere, but the impact of Roman comedy is more than obvious: Boethius is represented as a servus callidus, who acts as a mediator between the adulescens Maximianus and his sweetheart. Meanwhile Aquilina, who at the beginning is represented as a Roman virgo that loves music, is transformed into a meretrix, who – via Boethius’ bribery to her parents – is sold to Maximianus by her mater/lena. Furthermore, the character of Maximianus’ paedagogus is derived from Roman comedy. In Elegy 3, several other features of other genres exist, such as Christian martyrologies, epic, and novel. There are also medical and legal terms, as in all of Maximianus’ oeuvre. The metapoetic reading of the poem consists of two main practices by the poet: a) the change of the typical roles of Augustan elegy; and b) the identification of Aquilina with Poetry, and more specifically with Elegy. The puella invokes the sacrifices she made for Maximianus, a practice that occurs in reverse order to Roman classical elegy, as there the poet-lover reminds his beloved of his previous benefits to her. Furthermore, Boethius urges the poet to be a ‘lord of his own love’ (El. 3.87: proprii dominator amoris), advice that differs from the classical elegiac scenario, where the elegiac puella is the domina of the poet-lover. Aquilina is the

 Uden (2012) 460 – 465; Green (2013) 257– 259.  See Chapter 3.

8 Epilogue

189

personification of Poetry in Maximianus’ era, who is bored of the well-weighted poems (perhaps those with serious content?) and now seeks only elegiac love poems. She is eagerly looking for a way to express her erotic feelings through elegiac metre (El. 3.11– 14). Elegy 3 is a renuntiatio amoris that reveals to the reader one of the main preconditions of the genre, the existence of impedimenta amoris (as in Ov. Am. 2.19). When the obstacles to love do not correspond to their roles, Elegia disappears dissatisfied (ingrata). In other words, in Elegy 3 Maximianus again implies a hidden metapoetic discourse on: a) the practice for generic mixture in Late Antiquity; b) the premise of obstacles to the existence of the genre; and c) the inconsistency of the vita pudica (which was imposed by Christianity and the puritanism of the era) with the genre of love elegy. In Late Antiquity the genre of elegy continued to be written, although not love elegy. For example, Christian poets wrote elegiac poems with serious, Christian content.⁸ Aquilina was bored of these elegiac poems and wished for the genre to be renewed. However, praeceptor amoris Boethius works as a servus callidus and destroys the necessary precondition for the existence of love obstacles. In this way, he cancels the nature of the genre and brings to the foreground the vita pudica, which is irrelevant to love elegy.⁹ In Elegy 4, Maximianus mentions his name only once (El. 4.26), saying that he was a wise and respectful man (El. 4.49 and 58). There is no particular action in this poem, as the narration is suddenly paused; at the end, there are three couplets, which some scholars believe belong to the next elegy. Elegy 4 has intratextual links with Elegies 3 and 5, acting as a kind of ‘bridge’ between them. Candida looks like the other puellae of Maximianus, while her name is in contrast to that of Aquilina. My reading is mainly metapoetic, as it seems that in this poem Maximianus implies two of the main ingredients of the elegiac genre, i. e. the elegiac fiction (opus fallax) and the illicit love (furtivus amor). The generic interaction exists here too, for example in the impact of Apuleius’ Roman novel on the poem, which is very important (and even more so the motif of dreams, which exists throughout his work). Furthermore, here too the puella acts as Elegy personified, as the poet uses several terms that are relevant to metrics and the composition of poetry. Candida is the Elegy that Maximianus saw only once and yet was struck by her songs. Simultaneously, the poet implies the privacy, the lyrical ego as one of the main features of the elegiac genre and underlines the lateness of his own poetry.¹⁰

 Uden (2012) 465 – 469.  See Chapter 4.  See Chapter 5.

190

8 Epilogue

The next poem, Elegy 5, is considered to be the most important of Maximianus’ Elegies. Its most crucial passages are the two songs by Graia puella, her lament for the dead mentula (El. 5.87– 104), and her praise of it (El. 5.109 – 152). Moreover, the poem contributes to the dating of Maximianus’ oeuvre to approximately the middle of the sixth century AD.¹¹ Graia puella looks like the other puellae of Maximianus. The impact of Ovid’s Am. 3.7 and Petronius’ Sat. 130 on this elegy is apparent. Accordingly, Graia puella has some similarities with the girls of the Hellenistic epigram, a genre that flourished during the period when Maximianus was in Constantinople (e. g. Agathias’ Cycle and the poems of Paul the Silentiary). In this way, the poet is perhaps making a ‘window reference’, with Philodemus as his model, who (as is well-known) was Ovid’s model in Am. 3.7. The Greek girl shares common features with Ovid’s Corinna and Petronius’ Circe, as well as with an everyday woman who perhaps suffers from a gynecological disease. Elegy 5 can be interpreted in political terms, as Roman poets such as Catullus, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius and Ovid used the motif of impotence with political, social and metapoetic connotations. In general, sexual impotence in Latin literature is identified with political inability and effeminacy. Several scholars have noted that the dominance of the elegiac puellae over their Augustan poet-lovers can be read as a confession of their political impotence, as well as a comment on the social corruption of their times.¹² Thus, a piece of private poetry, such as love elegy, plays a public role as well, imitating the character of epic genre.¹³ The political circumstances of the Augustan elegists and those from Maximianus’ era were similar: the Augustan elegists were living in a period of political transition (from res publica to imperium) and felt unable to play any role in the public life of Rome. Likewise, the poet of Late Antiquity, who was raised in a period of an intellectual prosperity, now – in an era when the terrorism and cultural decline were dominating due to the threat of Justinian – felt the same feeling. In this context, several critics have read the poem as a political allegory;¹⁴ Maximianus is an old man, who comes from an old and (in his time) weak Empire (senectus mundi). On the contrary, Graia puella is a young, beautiful, aggressive and assertive girl, who comes from the young and vigorous Eastern Roman Empire. Apparently, what Maximianus implies is that crumbling Italy is ready to succumb to the vibrant Byzantium.

   

See See See See

Chapters 1 and 6. Hallett (1989); Richlin (1992) and Richlin (1997); Janan (2001) 19 – 22 and 175 – 177. Lavery (2014) 2. Schneider (2003) 110; Juster (2018) 181.

8 Epilogue

191

In this context, the interpretation of Maximianus’ impotence is both political and social: political, because it marks the incapability of the aged Western Empire and, by contrast, the rise of a new power; social, because it is in fact a covert protest against the sexual renunciation that was advocated by the Christianity and ascetism of the time. The political reading, which is based on the ancient literary motif of identifying sexual potency with political dominance, is related to the historical past between Greeks and Romans. I believe that the first successful encounter of Maximianus and Graia puella equates to the Romans’ dominance over the Greeks in 146 BC. Their second unsuccessful encounter, and the ensuing accusations by the Greek girl against the Roman Maximianus, signify the reversal of the political balance during the sixth century AD, when the Greek Byzantium threatened the West. After all, the poet constantly implies the difference between the simplistic and moral Romans and the cunning Greeks, an allusion that is included in a broader literary context. In other words, the Greek origin of Maximianus’ sweetheart is justified not only by the political circumstances of the poet’s era, but also by the (historical and literary) past between Romans and Greeks. Maximianus justifies his sexual impotence due to the political worries he has. Graia puella wishes to relieve him from these, by acting as a spy – she aims to make him forget his duties through sex. On a social level, the praise of his mentula (El. 5.109 – 152) is also an indirect protest against the sexual renunciation that Christianity and ascetism provoked, and against the general puritanism of that time. The peotological reading of Elegy 5 is also highly important. Here too, a main feature of Maximianus’ poetics occurs – the generic interaction. The ‘host’ genre is apparent throughout the poem: several symbolic metonyms and generic markers exist, along with many typical elegiac motifs, such as the militia amoris and the servitium amoris. Maximianus’ practice of gender reversal is present here too (e. g. Graia puella acts as an exclusa amatrix outside the poet’s window). However, there is an essential difference between this and Augustan love elegies: the combination of vita activa with vita contemplativa. Moreover, Elegy 5 shares common features with the elegy of exile (Ovid, Rutilius Namatianus) and the aetiologicalI elegy. The ‘guest’ genres that occur in the poem are epic (e. g. Gigantomachy, Trojan war), lament (the subcategory of γόος), divine hymn (by itself, or included within the genre of Greek and Roman tragedy), philosophy (Lucretius and Boethius), Christian literature, and Roman comedy. Furthermore, Maximianus also uses words of medical and legal terminology. As with the other Elegies, in this poem (indeed predominantly in this poem) Graia puella can be read as the personification of Elegy. There are many words and phrases with a metaliterary dimension that refer to elegiac metrics or imply the elegiac nature of Graia puella – in contrast to the ‘heavy’, epic nature

192

8 Epilogue

of the old poet-lover. Maximianus’ sexual impotence equates to his incapacity to compose a love elegy. Graia puella/Elegy urges him to abandon his political/epic worries and deal with the elegiac joys (El. 5.68: proice tristitias et renovare ioco, ‘leave your sadness and renew by fun’), in order to renew himself – and thus the genre of love elegy (renovare). The poet entrusts his ‘weapons’ to the Greek girl (El. 5.77– 78: En longo confecta situ tibi tradimus arma | arma ministeriis quippe dicata tuis, ‘Look, I give you my weapons, which are weak from their long uselessness, weapons, that I dedicate, of course, to your services’), weapons that were useless for a long time – a phrase that in fact signifies that love elegy remained uncultivated for a long time. He admits that now, love ‘burns less’ (El. 5.80: quod minus ardet amor), again implying the decline of love poetry, but also the conservatism of his own era. This is why the poet says that the elegiac genre is now aged and obsolete. I believe that Maximianus makes an etymological pun with the name of Graia puella, because if we transcribe the adjective Graia in Greek, an oxymoron appears, i. e. γραῖα puella (‘aged girl’). This strange phrase, I believe, conceals the entire meaning of Maximianus’ poetics: in his poems, elegiac puellae exist, but they are now old (or reminiscences of his old age, like Aquilina). Therefore, the genre of love elegy needs to be renewed.¹⁵ The last poem, Elegy 6, is actually the epilogue of the entire work, creating a ring composition with Elegy 1. Here, as in the first poem, no reference is made to a specific love affair by Maximianus – only the subject of old age is discussed. Accordingly, there exists in these twelve verses a hidden metapoetic discourse (the use of generic markers, metrical terms and connotations of Callimachean poetics). This is alongside the poet’s desire for his future immortality (a wish that was accomplished during Middle Ages and Renaissance – albeit in Gallus’ name), imitating the last elegist of the Augustan period, Ovid.¹⁶ To conclude: Maximianus was the last poet to compose Roman love elegy, but not the last poet of Late Antiquity to write elegiac poems (this is Venantius Fortunatus).¹⁷ In his poetry, he includes several features from the Augustan elegy (especially from Ovid), enriching it with elements from other genres too. Accordingly, old age is featured throughout his oeuvre, reflecting the senectus mundi motif. All his puellae are personifications of Elegy and imply the state of love elegy in Maximianus’ era: it is considered an obsolete (aged) genre, as other literary trends have prevailed in Late Antiquity. What needs to be done is to renew

 See Chapter 6.  See Chapter 7.  Roberts (2009) 3; Wasyl (2015) 70.

8 Epilogue

193

the genre, a fact that Maximianus follows in practice: he composes love elegy with a senex amans (a man that deals with negotium and otium as well), rather than a young poet-lover (whose only occupation is to write love poetry) as its protagonist. He mixes several literary genres (following the trend of his era) and constantly uses a self-referential discourse on poetics, in which he implies his thoughts regarding the fate of the elegiac genre.

List of Abbreviations ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Berlin, 1970– CGL The Cambridge Greek Lexicon, vol. 2, K – Ω, ed.by James Diggle (Editor-in-Chief), Bruce L. Fraser, Patrick James, Oliver B. Simkin, Anne A. Thompson, and Simon J. Westripp, Cambridge 2021. LSJ A Greek– English Lexicon, ed. by Henry George Lidell and Robert Scott, revised and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, Oxford 1996, 9th edition. OCD The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. by Simon Hornblower, Antony Spawforth and Esther Eidinow, Oxford 2012, 4th edition. OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary, ed. by Peter G. W. Glare, Oxford, 1968 – 1982 (reprinted in one volume, 1994, 8th edition). TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, Leipzig, Teubner, 1900 – (available in open access form in http://publikationen.badw.de/en/thesaurus).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-010

Bibliography Adams (1982): James N. Adams, The Latin Sexual Vocabulary, London. Agosti (2019): Gianfranco Agosti, “Late Antique Poetry and Its Reception”, in: Wolfram Hörandner, Andreas Rhoby and Nikolaos Zagklas (eds), A Companion to Byzantine Poetry, Leiden and Boston, 115 – 148. Agosti (2020): Gianfranco Agosti, “Metrical Inscriptions in Late Antiquity: What Difference Did Christianity Make?”, in: Hadjittofi and Lefteratou (2020), 39 – 58. Agozzino (1970): Tullio Agozzino, Massimiano, Elegie, Bologna. Alexakis (2008): Alexander Alexakis, “Two verses of Ovid liberally translated by Agathias of Myrina (Metamorphoses 8, 877 – 78 and Historiae 2, 3, 7)”, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 101, 609 – 616. Alexakis (2021a): Alexander Alexakis, “Byzantine Intellectuals having Fun in Justinianic Constantinople”, webinar in 2. 2. 2021, hosted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (link: https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/events/details/byzantine-intellectualshaving-fun-in-justinianic-constantinople). Alexakis (2021b): Alexander Alexakis, “Lawyers having fun in Justinian Constantinople. Agathias’ poem on a case of coitus non initiatus (AP 5.294)”, in: Ioannis E. Tzamtzis, Christos Stavrakos and Panagiotis Antonopoulos (eds), Festschrift in honor of K. Bourdara, Professor of the Law School, University of Athens, Athens, vol. 2, 1299 – 1319. Alexiou (22002): Margaret Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition, revised by Dimitrios Yatromanolakis and Panagiotis Roilos, Lanham, Boulder, New York and Oxford. Alfonsi (1941 – 1942): Luigi Alfonsi, “Sulle elegie di Massimiano”, in: Atti del Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 101, 333 – 349. Alfonsi (1942): Luigi Alfonsi, “De quibusdam locis quos ex antquiis poetis Boethius et Maximianus repetisse videntur”, in: Aevum 16, 86 – 92. Allen (1950): Archibald W. Allen, “Sincerity and the Roman elegists”, in: Classical Philology 45, 145 – 160. Altamura (1981): Dionysius Altamura, “De Maximiani poetae sermone”, in: Latomus 40, 818 – 827. Anastasi (1948): Rosario Anastasi, “Boezio e Massimiano”, in: Miscellanea di Studi di Letteratura Christiana Antica 2, 1 – 20. Anastasi (1951): Rosario Anastasi, “La III elegia di Massimiano”, in: Miscellanea di Studi di Letteratura Christiana Antica 3, 45 – 92. Anderson, Parsons and Nisbet (1979): R. D. Anderson, P. J. Parsons and R. G. M. Nisbet, “Elegiacs by Gallus from Qaşr Ibrîm”, in: The Journal of Roman Studies 69, 125 – 155. Antoniadis (2013): Theodore Antoniadis, “Beyond Impotence: Some unexplored Ovidian dynamics in Petronius’ sketch of the Croton episode (Satyrica 126.1 – 140.12)”, in: Trends in Classics 5.1, 179 – 191. Antoniadis (2014): Theodore Antoniadis, “Me memini numeros sustinuisse novem (Ov. Am. 3.7.26) – από τον ερωτικό οργασμό στον ερωτογραφικό κορεσμό: μεταγλωσσικές και μετα-ειδολογικές εκφάνσεις του ρωμαϊκού χιούμορ με επίκεντρο τη σεξουαλική δυσλειτουργία και τα παρεπόμενά της”, in: Maria Voutsinou-Kikilia, Andreas Michalopoulos and Sophia Papaioannou (eds), Rideamus igitur: το χιούμορ στη λατινική γραμματεία. Πρακτικά του Θ΄ Πανελληνίου Συμποσίου Λατινικών Σπουδών, Αθήνα, 19 – 22 Μαΐου 2011, Athens, 119 – 130. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-011

196

Bibliography

Antoniadis (2015): Theodore Antoniadis, Ανθολόγιο ρωμαϊκής ελεγείας. Από τον Κάτουλλο στον Οβίδιο, Athens. Arcaz Pozo (1995): Juan Arcaz Pozo, “Passer mortuus est: Catulo (carm. 3), Ovidio (am. 3.7) y Maximiano (el. 5, 87 – 104)”, in: Cuadernos de filologia classica: Estudios latinos 8, 79 – 88. Arcaz Pozo (2011): Juan Arcaz Pozo, Maximiano Etrusco. Poemas de amor y vejez, Madrid. Arcaz Pozo (2015): Juan Arcaz Pozo, “Elementos epigrammáticos en las elegiás de Maximiano”, in: Jesús de la Villa Polo, Patricia Cañizares Ferriz, Emma Falque Rey, José Francisco González Castro and Jaime Siles Ruiz (eds), Ianua Classicorum: temas y formas del mundo classico, Actas del XIII Congresso Español de Estudios Clasicos, vol. 2, Madrid, 352 – 357. Arjava (1996): Antti Arjava, Women and Law in Late Antiquity, Oxford. Arjava (1998): Antti Arjava, “Paternal Power in Late Antiquity”, in: The Journal of Roman Studies 88, 147 – 165. Ashton-Gwatkin (1975): Frank Ashton-Gwatkin, Max.: Poet of the Final Hour, Being the Elegies of Maximianus the Etruscan, London. Bährens (1883): Emil Bährens, Poetae Latini Minores, vol. 5, Leipzig. Balsdon (1979): John P. V. D. Balsdon, Romans and Aliens, London. Barchiesi (1991): Alessandro Barchiesi, “Discordant Muses”, in: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 37, 1 – 21. Barnish (1990): Samuel J. B. Barnish, “Maximianus, Cassiodorus, Boethius, Theodahad: Literature, Philosophy, and Politics in Ostrogothic Italy”, in: Nottingham Medieval Studies 34, 16 – 32. Barnish (22006): Samuel J. B. Barnish, Selected Variae of Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, Liverpool. Barton (2018): William M. Barton, The Pervigilium Veneris. A New Critical Text, Translation and Commentary, London, New York, Oxford, New Delhi, and Sydney. Bellanova (2004): Addolorata Bellanova, “La lezione nostalgica di Ovidio negli amori senili di Massimiano”, in: Annali della Faccoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Siena 25, 99 – 124. Berardi, Filosa and Massimo (2020): Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa and Davide Massimo, “Introduction”, in: Roberta Berardi, Martina Filosa and Davide Massimo (eds), Defining Authorship, Debating Authenticity. Problems of Authority from Classica Antiquity to the Renaissance, Berlin and Boston, 1 – 10. Berger (1953): Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, Philadelphia. Berger (2021): Łukasz Berger, “Advice-Giving in Roman Comedy: Speech-Art Formulation and Im/politeness”, in: Gunther Martin, Federica Iurescia, Severin Hof and Giada Sorrentino (eds), Pragmatic Approaches to Drama. Studies in Communication on the Ancient Stage, Leiden and Boston, 264 – 290. Bertini (1981): Ferruccio Bertini, “Boezio e Massimiano”, in: Luca Obertello (ed.), Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Studi Boeziani, Pavia, 5 – 8 Ottobre 1980, Rome, 225 – 233. Blanco Mayor (2017): José Manuel Blanco Mayor, Power Play in Latin Love Elegy and its Multiple Forms of Continuity in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Berlin and Boston. Boano (1949): Giovanni Boano, “Su Massimiano e le sue elegie”, in: Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 27, 198 – 216.

Bibliography

197

Boas (1914): Marcus Boas, “De librorum Catonianorum historia atque compositione”, in: Mnemosyne 42, 17 – 46. Bond (2014): Sarah Bond, “Altering Infamy: Status, Violence, and Civic Exclusion in Late Antiquity”, in: Classical Antiquity 33.1, 1 – 30. Booth (1981): Joan Booth, “Aspects of Ovid’s language”, ANRW II.31.4, 2686 – 2700. Boucher (1965): Jean-Paul Boucher, Études sur Properce, problems d’ inspiration et d’ art, Paris. Bower (1990): Donald E. Bower, Sex Espionage, New York. Bowersock, Brown and Grabar (2001): Glenn W. Bowersock, Peter Brown and Oleg Grabar (eds), Interpreting Late Antiquity. Essays on the Postclassical World, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. Brown (1982): Emerson Brown, “Epicurus and Voluptas in Late Antiquity: The Curious Testimony of Martianus Capella”, in: Traditio 38, 75 – 106. Brown (1978): Peter Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. Brown (1988): Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men and Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York. Brown (1998): Peter Brown, Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. Brown (1984): Truesdell S. Brown, Gentlemen and Officers: Imperial Administration and Aristocratic Power in Byzantine Italy A. D. 554 – 800, Hertford. Brundage (1996): James A. Brundage, “The paradox of sexual equality in the Early Middle Ages”, in: Ralph W. Mathisen and Hagith S. Sivan (eds), Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, Aldershot, 256 – 264. Bury (21958): John Bagnell Bury, The Later Roman Empire, Theodosius I to Justinian, 2 vols, London. Bussières (2020): Marie-Pierre Bussières, “Poète et poésie prennent de l’âge: Maximien et l’élégie latine au sixième siècle”, in: Latomus 79, 889 – 905. Butrica (2005): James L. Butrica, “Review of Wolfgang C. Schneider, Die elegischen Verse von Maximian: Eine letzte Widerrede gegen die neve christliche Zeit: Mit den Gedichten der Appendix Maximiana und der Imitatio Maximiani, Stuttgart 2003”, in: The Classical Review 55.2, 562 – 564. Cairns (1972): Francis Cairns, Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry, Edinburgh. Cairns (1989): Francis Cairns, Virgil’s Augustan Epic, Cambridge. Cairns (2008): Francis Cairns, Tibullus, A Hellenistic Poet at Rome, Cambridge. Caldwell (2015): Lauren Caldwell, Roman Girlhood and the Fashioning of Femininity, Cambridge. Cameron (1993): Averil Cameron, The Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity. AD 395 – 600, London and New York. Cameron (2001): Averil Cameron, “Remaking the Past”, in: Bowersock, Brown and Grabar (2001), 1 – 20. Cameron and Cameron (1966): Averil Cameron and Alan Cameron, “The Cycle of Agathias”, in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies 86, 6 – 25. Cannon (2009): Christopher Cannon, “The Middle English Writer’s Schoolroom: FourteenthCentury English Schoolbooks and Their Contents”, in: New Medieval Literatures 11, 19 – 38.

198

Bibliography

Cannon (2015): Christopher Cannon, “Reading Knowledge”, in: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 130.3, 711 – 717. Carlson (2016): David R. Carlson, “Gower’s Amans and the Curricular Maximianus”, in: Studia Neophilologica 89.1, 67 – 80. Carson (1986): Anne Carson, Eros the Bittersweet: An Essay, Princeton. Caston (2006): Ruth R. Caston, “Love as Illness: Poets and Philosophers on Romantic Love”, in: The Classical Journal 101.3, 271 – 298. Caston (2012): Ruth R. Caston, The elegiac passion. Jealousy in Roman Love Elegy, Oxford. Ceccarelli (2018a): Lucio Ceccarelli, Contributions to the History of the Latin Elegiac Distich, Turnhout. Ceccarelli (2018b): Lucio Ceccarelli, “The Metrical Forms of the Elegiac Distich in Late Antiquity: Ovid in Venantius Fortunatus”, in: Consolino (2018), 445 – 473. Centre Traditio Litterarum Occidentalium (2010): Imitatio Maximiani, Turnhout. Charlet (1988): Jean-Luis Charlet, “Aesthetic Trends in Late Latin Poetry (325 – 410)”, in: Philologus 132, 74 – 85. Charlet (2008): Jean-Luis Charlet, “Tendances esthétiques de la poésie latine tardive (325 – 470)”, in: Antiquité Tardive 16, 159 – 167. Claassen (1999): Jo-Marie Claassen, Displaced Persons. The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius, Madison and London. Clark (1993): Gillian Clark, Women in Late Antiquity: Pagan and Christian Life-Styles, Oxford. Classen (2007a): Albrecht Classen (ed), Old Age in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Interdisciplinary Approaches to a Neglected Topic, Berlin and New York. Classen (2007b): Albrecht Classen, “Old Age in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Also an Introduction”, in: Classen (2007a), 1 – 84. Cody (1976): Jane Cody, “The senex amator in Plautus’ Casina”, in: Hermes 104, 453 – 476. Coffman (1934): George R. Coffman, “Old Age from Horace to Chaucer: Some Literary Affinities and Adventures of an Idea Author(s)”, in: Speculum 9.3, 249 – 277. Cokayne (2003): Karen Cokayne, Experience Old Age in Ancient Rome, London and New York. Connors (2016): Catherine Connors, “Nothing to do with Fides? The Speaker of the Prologue and the Reproduction of Citizenship in Plautus’ Casina”, in: Stavros Frangoulidis, Stephen J. Harrison and Gesine Manuwald (eds), Roman Drama and its Contexts, Berlin and Boston, 275 – 288. Consolino (1997): Franca Ela Consolino, “Massimiano e le sorti dell’elegia Latina”, in: Maria Luisa Silvestre and Marisa Squillante (eds), Mutatio rerum: letteratura, filosofia, scienza tra tardo antico e altomedioevo: atti del convegno di studi (Napoli, 25 – 26 nov. 1996), Naples, 363 – 400. Consolino (2009): Franca Ela Consolino, “L’elegia secondo Massimiano”, in: Roberto Cardini and Donatella Coppini (eds), Il Rinnovamento umanistico della poesia: l’epigramma e l’elegia, Florence, 183 – 224. Consolino (2018): Franca Ela Consolino (ed.), Ovid in Late Antiquity, Turnhout. Conte (1986): Gian Biagio Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitation, transl. Charles Segal, Ithaca and London. Conte (1989): Gian Biagio Conte, “Love Without Elegy: The Remedia amoris and the Logic of a Genre”, in: Poetics Today 10.3, 441 – 469. Conte (1994a): Gian Biagio Conte, Latin Literature: A History, transl. Joseph B. Solodow, rev. Don Fowler and Glenn W. Most, Baltimore and London.

Bibliography

199

Conte (1994b): Gian Biagio Conte, Genres and Readers: Lucretius, Love Elegy, Pliny’s Encyclopedia, transl. Glenn W. Most. Foreword by Charles Segal, Baltimore and London. Cooper (1996): Kate Cooper, The Virgin and the Bride. Idealized Womanhood in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Copley (1947): Francis O. Copley, “Servitium Amoris in the Roman Elegists”, in: Transactions of the American Philological Association 68, 285 – 300. Copley (1956): Francis O. Copley, Exclusus Amator: A Study in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore. Corbeill (2005): Anthony Corbeill, “The Topography of Fides in Propertius 1.16”, in: William Batstone and Garth Tissol (eds), Defining Genre and Gender in Latin Literature: Essays Presented to William S. Anderson on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, New York, 79 – 96. Cox Miller (1994): Patricia Cox Miller, Dreams in Late Antiquity. Studies in the Imagination of a Culture, Princeton, New Jersey. Cristante (1999): Lucio Cristante, Reposiani Concubitus Martis et Veneris, Roma. Cubeddu (1984): P. T. J. Cubeddu, Il senso della vecchiaia e della morte in Seneca (nat. Quest. Libro VI) e in Massimiano Elegiaco (elegie I e VI), Sassari. Cupaiolo (1997): Giovanni Cupaiolo, “A proposito dell’esametro di Massimiano”, in: Paolo D’Alessandro (ed.), Μούσα: Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Morelli, Bologna, 381 – 392. Curtius (1953): Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, transl. Willard R. Trask, Princeton. Cutino (2015): Michele Cutino, “Le renouvellement formel de la poésie élégiaque dans la littérature latine chrétienne (fin ive-moitié ve s.)”, in: Moretti, Ricci and Torre (2015), 141 – 162. D’Amanti (2016a): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “Le Elegiae di Massimiano nel ms. Oliv. 1167”, in: Studia Oliveriana 4.2, 69 – 88. D’Amanti (2016b): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “Sul testo della I elegia di Massimiano”, in: Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 112.1, 177 – 190. D’Amanti (2017a): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “La tecnica del riuso in Massimiano”, in: La Biblioteca di CC 5, 194 – 205. D’Amanti (2017b): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “Massimiano e Foscolo ‘Esuli’. La fortuna di un distico”, in: Maria Accame (ed.), Volgarizzare et tradurre 2. Dal Medioevo all’Età contemporanea: Atti delle Giornate di Studi, 3 – 4 marzo 2016, Università di Roma Sapienza, Tivoli, 247 – 270. D’Amanti (2018a): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “Tre (annose) questioni Massimianee”, in: Sileno 44, 59 – 71. D’Amanti (2018b): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “La ricenzione di Massimiano della topica Ciceroniana De Senectute”, in: Ciceroniana on line II.1, 75 – 103. D’Amanti (2019): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti, “Massimiano e la pseudepigrafa di Pomponio Gaurico”, in: Latinitas, Series Nova 7.1, 47 – 64. D’Amanti (2020): Emanuele Riccardo D’Amanti (ed., transl. and commentary), Massimiano Elegie, Fondazione Lorenzo Valla, Milan. D’Angelo (2005): Edoardo D’Angelo, “Maximianus”, in: Paolo Chiesa and Lucia Castaldi (eds), La trasmissione dei testi latini del Medioevo, Florence, 467 – 473. Das and Fielding (2016): Alien R. Das and Ian Fielding, “Maximianus Medicus: Greek Medical Theory and the Greek Girl’s gravior morbus (EL. 5.108)”, in: Philologus 160.1, 151 – 162. Dean (1997): James M. Dean, The World Grown Old in Later Medieval Literature, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

200

Bibliography

Depew and Obbink (2000): Mary Depew and Dirk Obbink (eds), Matrices of Genres: Authors, Canons, and Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. De Stefani (2006): Claudio De Stefani, “Paolo Silenziario leggeva la letteratura latina?”, in: Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 56, 101 – 112. Dillon and Garland (2005): Matthew Dillon and Lynda Garland, Ancient Rome: From the Early Republic to the Assassination of Julius Caesar, London and New York. Dinter (2019): Martin T. Dinter (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy, Cambridge. Drinkwater (2013a): Megan O. Drinkwater, “Militia amoris: fighting in love is army”, in: Thorsen (2013a), 194 – 208. Drinkwater (2013b): Megan O. Drinkwater, “The Woman’s Part: The Speaking Beloved in Roman Elegy”, in: The Classical Quarterly 63.1, 329 – 338. Duckworth (1971): George E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy. A Study in Popular Entertainment, Princeton. Dunkan (2006): Anne Dunkan, “Infamous Performers: Comic Actors and Female Prostitutes”, in: Christopher A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure (eds), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World, Wisconsin, 252 – 273. Dupont (1997): Florence Dupont, “Recitatio and the reorganization of the space of public discourse”, in: Thomas Habinek and Alessandro Schiesaro (eds), The Roman Cultural Revolution, Cambridge, 44 – 59. Dutsch (2019): Dorota Dutsch, “Mothers and Whores”, in: Dinter (2019), 200 – 216. Edwards (1993): Catherine Edwards, The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome, Cambridge. Edwards (1997): Catherine Edwards, “Unspeakable professions: public performance and prostitution in ancient Rome”, in: Hallett and Skinner (1997), 66 – 95. Ellis (1884a): Robinson Ellis, “On the Elegies of Maximianus”, in: American Journal of Philology 5.17, 1 – 15. Ellis (1884b): Robinson Ellis, “On the Elegies of Maximianus II”, in: American Journal of Philology 5.18, 145 – 163. Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017a): Jás Elsner and Jesús Hernández Lobato (eds), The Poetics of Late Latin Literature, Oxford. Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017b): Jás Elsner and Jesús Hernández Lobato, “Introduction: Notes towards a Poetics of Late Antique Literature”, in: Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017a), 1 – 22. Enk (1946): Petrus Johannes Enk, Sex. Propertii Elegiarum liber I (Monobiblos), Leiden. Esler (1989): Carol Clemeau Esler, “Horace’s Old Girls: Evolution of a Topos”, in: Falkner and de Luce (1989), 172 – 182. Fagan (2010): Garrett G. Fagan, “Leisure”, in David S. Potter (ed.), A Companion to the Roman Empire, Malden, 369 – 384. Falkner and de Luce (1989): Thomas M. Falkner and Judith de Luce (eds), Old Age in Greek and Latin Literature, Albany, New York. Fantazzi (1980): Charles A. Fantazzi, “The Latin lyric poetry of Giovanni Cotta”, in: JeanClaude Margolin (ed.), Acta Conventus Neo-Latini Turonensis: IIIe Congrès international d’études néo-latines, Tours, Université Fr. Rabelais, 6 – 10 septembre 1976, Paris, vol. 2, 1104 – 1120. Fantham (1999): Elaine Fantham, “The Role of Lament in the Growth and Eclipse of Roman Epic”, in: Margaret Beissinger, Jane Tylus, and Susanne Wofford (eds), Epic Traditions in

Bibliography

201

the Contemporary World: The Poetics of Community, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London, 221 – 235. Fausto-Sterling (2000): Anne Fausto-Sterling, Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality, New York. Fedelli (1981): Paolo Fedelli, “Elegy and Literary Polemic in Propertius’ Monobiblos”, in: Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 3, 227 – 242. Fels (2000), Wolfgang Fels, Maximianus, Elegien, der alte Mann und die Liebe; Appendix Maximiani, Von Mädchen und Mavern, Heidelberg. Ferrary (1988), Jean-Louis Ferrary, Philhellénisme et Impérialisme. Aspects idéologiques de la conquête Romaine du monde Hellénistique, Paris. Fielding (2014): Ian Fielding, “A Poet Between Two Worlds”, in: John F. Miller and Carole E. Newlands (eds), A Handbook to the Reception of Ovid, Malden, 100 – 113. Fielding (2016): Ian Fielding, “A Greek source for Maximianus’ Greek Girl: Late Latin Love Elegy and the Greek Anthology”, in: McGill and Pucci (2016), 323 – 339. Fielding (2017): Ian Fielding, Transformations of Ovid in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Fitzgerald (1995): William Fitzgerald, Catullan Provocations: Lyric Poetry and the Drama of Position, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Fitzgerald (2019): William Fitzgerald, “Slaves and Roman Comedy”, in: Dinter (2019), 188 – 199. Flaschenriem (1998): Barbara L. Flaschenriem, “Speaking of women: ‘Female voice’ in Propertius”, in: Helios 25, 49 – 64. Flaschenriem (2010): Barbara L. Flaschenriem, “Rescuing Cynthia: Dream and Commemoration in Propertius 2.26”, in: Classical Philology 105.2, 189 – 201. Floris (2015): Cecilia Floris, “Some Remarks on the Metra in Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae. Examples of Anapestic Dimeters and Elegiac Couplets”, in: Moretti, Ricci and Torre (2015), 99 – 110. Fo (1984 – 1985): Alessandro Fo, “L’Appendix Maximiani (= Carmina Garrod-Schetter): Edizione critica, problem, osservazioni”, in: Romanobarbarica 8, 151 – 230. Fo (1986): Alessandro Fo, “Il problema della struttura della racolta elegiaca di Massimiano”, in: Bolletino di Studi Latini 16, 9 – 21. Fo (1986 – 1987): Alessandro Fo, “Una lettura del ‘corpus’ Massimianeo”, in: Atti e memorie dell’Arcadia 8, 91 – 128. Fo (1987): Alessandro Fo, “Significato, tecniche e valore della raccolta elegiaca di Massimiano”, in: Hermes 115.3, 348 – 371. Fontaine (1977): Jacques Fontaine, “Unité et diversité du mélange des genres et des tons chez quelques écrivains latins de la fin du Ive siècle. Ausone, Ambroise, Ammien”, in: Manfred Fuhrmann (ed.), Christianisme et formes littéraires de l’antiquité tardive en Occident, Genoa, 425 – 472. Fontaine (1988): Jacques Fontaine, “Comment doit-on appliquer la notion de genre littéraire à la littérature latine chrétienne du Ive siècle?”, in: Philologus 132, 53 – 73. Formisano (2007): Marco Formisano, “Towards an Aesthetic Paradigm of Late Antiquity”, in: Antiquité Tardive 15, 277 – 284. Formisano (2012): Marco Formisano, “Late Antiquity, New Departures”, in: Ralph J. Hexter and David Townsend (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Medieval Latin Literature, Oxford, 509 – 534. Foster (1909): B. O. Foster, “Propertius III 24”, in: American Journal of Philology 30.1, 54 – 60.

202

Bibliography

Fraenkel (1964): Eduard Fraenkel, “Rome and Greek Culture”, in: Eduard Fraenkel (ed.), Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, Rome, vol. 2, 583 – 598. Fränkel (1945): Hermann Fränkel, Ovid: A Poet Between Two Worlds, Berkeley, California. Franzoi (2011): Alessandro Franzoi, “L’élégie latine tardive: Alanyse de proceeds compositionnels et expressifs dans les Élegies de Maximien”, in: Chappuis Sandoz L. (ed.), Au-delà de l’élégie d’amour: Métamorphoses et renouvellements d’un genre latin dans l’Antiquité et à la Renaissance, Paris, 159 – 170. Franzoi (2016): Alessandro Franzoi, “Boezio e Massimiano (Maxim. eleg. 413 – 460 = 3, 47 – 94)”, in: Maia 68, 188 – 193. Franzoi and Spinazzè (2014): Alessandro Franzoi and Linda Spinazzè, “Elegie” e “Appendix Maximiani”: Testo, traduzione, commento, Amsterdam. Fredouille (2003): Jean-Claude Fredouille, Cyprien de Carthage, A Démétrien: introduction, texte critique, traduction et commentaire, Sources chrétiennes 467, Paris. Fredrick (1997): David Fredrick, “Reading Broken Skin: Violence in Roman Elegy”, in: Hallett and Skinner (1997), 172 – 196. Freeman (2014): Arthur Freeman, Bibliotheca Fictiva: A Collection of Books & Manuscripts Relating to Literary Forgery 400 BC – AD 2000, London. Fuhrer (2013): Therese Fuhrer, “Hypertexts and Auxiliary Texts. New Genres in Late Antiquity?”, in: Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis (2013), 79 – 89. Fulkerson (2013): Laurel Fulkerson, “Servitium amoris: the interplay of dominance, gender and poetry”, in: Thorsen (2013a), 180 – 19. Fyntikoglou (1996): Vasileios Fyntikoglou, ‘Ταπεινή φιλοξενία’: μορφή και λογοτεχνία του μοτίβου στον καλλιμαχικό και ρωμαϊκό Νεοτερισμό, Thessaloniki. Gaertner (2014): Jan F. Gaertner, “Law and Roman Comedy”, in: Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 615 – 633. Gagliardi (1988): Donato Gagliardi, “Sull’elegia I di Massimiano”, in: Koinonia 12, 27 – 37. Gardner (2013): Hunter H. Gardner 2013, Gendering Time in Augustan Love Elegy, Oxford. Garrot (1910): Heathcote W. Garrot, “Poeseos saeculi sexti fragmenta quattuor”, in: The Classical Quarterly 4, 263 – 266. Gärtner (2004): Thomas Gärtner, “Der letzte klassische Elegiker? Zur Deutung der erotischen Maximians”, in: Göttingen Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 7, 119 – 161. Gauricus (1502): Pomponius Gauricus, Cornelii Galli fragmenta, Venice. Giangrande (1990): Giuseppe Giangrande, “Symptoms of Love in Theocritus and Ovid”, in: Analecta Malacitana 13, 121 – 123. Gibson (1981): Margaret T. Gibson, Boethius. His Life, Thought and Influence, Oxford. Giles (1838): John Allen Giles, Cornelii Maximiani Etrusci Galli Elegiae Sex ex recensione et cum notis Wernsdorfii, London. Gillespie (2005): Vincent Gillespie, “Moral and Penitential Lyrics”, in: Thomas G. Duncan (ed.), A Companion to the Middle English Lyric, Cambridge, 68 – 95. Glendinning (1986): Robert Glendinning, “Pyramus and Thisbe in the Medieval Classroom”, in: Speculum 61.1, 51 – 78. Gold (2012): Barbara Gold (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy, Malden. Goldhill (2020): Simon Goldhill, Preposterous Poetics. The Politics and Aesthetics of Form in Late Antiquity, Cambridge.

Bibliography

203

Goldlust (2010): Benjamin Goldlust, “Quotations, Imitations, and Re-uses in Carmen 5 of the Appendix Maximiani (= Carmina Garrod-Schetter)”, in: Revue de philologie, de literature et d’ histoire anciennes 2, 217 – 242. Goldlust (2011): Benjamin Goldlust, “Parcours narrative et parcours poétique dans les Élegies de Maximien”, in: Revue des études latines 89, 154 – 173. Goldlust (2013): Benjamin Goldlust, Maximien Élégies, Paris. Goldlust (2018): Benjamin Goldlust, “La resence d’Ovide dans l’Appendix Maximiani (carmina Garrod-Schetter): enjeux théoriques et pratiques d’intertextualité”, in: Consolino (2018), 413 – 430. Gratwick (1993): A. S. Gratwick, Plautus, Menaechmi, Cambridge. Greatrex (2015): Geoffrey Greatrex, “Introduction”, in Geoffrey Greatrex and Hugh Elton (eds), Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, Farnham, 1 – 7. Green (1993): Roger P. H. Green, “The Christianity of Ausonius”, in: Studia Patristica 28, 39 – 48. Green (2000): Roger, P. H. Green, “Review of Christina Sandquist Öberg’s Versus Maximiani: Der Elegienzyklus textkritisch herausgegeben, übersetzt und neu interpretiert, Stockholm 1999”, in: The Classical Review 50.2, 448 – 449. Green (2013): Roger P. H. Green, “Latin love elegy in Late Antiquity: Maximianus”, in: Thea S. Thorsen (2013a), 257 – 270. Greene (1998): Ellen Greene, The Erotics of Domination: Male Desire and the Mistress in Latin Love Poetry, Baltimore and London. Griffin (1985): Jasper Griffin, Latin Poets and Roman Life, London. Gruzelier (1993): Glaire Gruzelier, Claudian. De Raptu Proserpinae. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Guardalben (1993): Dario Guardalben, Massimiano: Elegie della vecchiaia; Traduzione e introduzione, Florence. Gutzwiller (1998): Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, Poetic Garlands: Hellenistic Epigrams in Context, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Gutzwiller (2007): Kathryn J. Gutzwiller, A Guide to Hellenistic Literature, Malden. Hadjittofi and Lefteratou (2020): Fotini Hadjittofi and Anna Lefteratou (eds), The Genres of Late Antique Christian Poetry, Berlin and Boston. Hallett (1989): Judith P. Hallett, “Women as same and other in classical Roman elite”, in: Helios 17.2, 59 – 78. Hallett (2012a): Judith P. Hallett, “Authorial Identity in Latin Love Elegy: Literary Fictions and Erotic Failings”, in: Gold (2012), 269 – 284. Hallett (2012b): Judith, P. Hallett, “Anxiety and Influence: Ovid’s Amores 3.7 and Encolpius’ Impotence in Satyricon 126 ff”, in: Marilia P. Futre Pinheiro, Marilyn B. Skinner, and Froma I. Zeitlin (eds), Narrating Desire. Eros, Sex, and Gender in the Ancient Novel, Berlin and Boston, 211 – 222. Hallett (2013): Judith P. Hallett, “Intersections of Gender and Genre: Sexualizing the Puella in Roman comedy, lyric and elegy”, in: EuGeStA 3, 195 – 208. Hallett and Skinner (1997): Judith P. Hallett and Marilyn B. Skinner (eds), Roman Sexualities, Princeton, New Jersey. Hanson (1980): John S. Hanson, “Dreams and Visions in the Greco-Roman World and Early Christianity”, in: ANRW II.23.2, 1395 – 1427.

204

Bibliography

Hardie (1991): Philip Hardie, “The Janus episode in Ovid’s Fasti”, in: Materiali e discussion per l’analisi dei testi classici 26, 47 – 64. Hardie (2002): Philip Hardie, Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion, Cambridge. Hardie (2006), Philip Hardie, “Lethaeus Amor: the art of forgetting”, in: Roy Gibson, Steven J. Green and Alison R. Sharrock (eds), The Art of Love: Bimillennial Essays on Ovid’s Ars Amatoria and Remedia Amoris, Oxford, 166 – 192. Hardie (2019): Philip Hardie, Classicism and Christianity in Late Antique Latin Poetry, Oakland, California. Hardy (1923): W. G. Hardy, “On Ovid Am. 2.19 and 3.4”, in: Classical Philology 18, 264 – 264. Harper (2013): Kyle Harper, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. Harrison M. L. (2013): M. Leigh Harrison, “The wisdom of hindsight in La3amon and some contemporaries”, in: Rosamund Allen, Jane Roberts and Carole Weinberg (eds), Reading La3amon’s Brut. Approaches and Explorations, Leiden, 623 – 641. Harrison (2007): Stephen J. Harrison, Generic Enrichment in Vergil & Horace, Oxford. Harrison (2013): Stephen J. Harrison, “Introduction”, in: Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis (2013), 1 – 15. Hartung (1967): Albert E. Hartung, “The Non-Comic Merchant’s Tale, Maximianus and the Sources”, in: Mediaeval Studies 29, 1 – 25. Heather (2016): Peter Heather, “A tale of two cities: Rome and Ravenna under Gothic rule”, in: Herrin and Nelson (2016), 15 – 38. Heck (2003), Eberhard Heck, “Nochmals: Lactantius und Lucretius. Antilucrezisches im Epilog des lactanzischen Phoenix-Gedichts?”, in: International Journal of the Classical Tradition 9, 509 – 523. Hedrick (2000): Charles W. Hedrick, History and Silence. Purge and Rehabilitation of Memory in Late Antiquity, Austin. Henderson (1987): Jeffrey J. Henderson, “Older Women in Attic Old Comedy”, in: Transactions of the American Philological Association 117, 102 – 129. Henry (1950): R. M. Henry, “Pietas and Fides in Catullus”, in: Hermathena 75, 63 – 68. Hernández de la Fuente (2014): David Hernández de la Fuente, “Neoplatonic Form and Content in Nonnus: Towards a New Reading of Nonnian Poetics”, in: Konstantinos Spanoudakis (ed.), Nonnus of Panopolis in Context. Poetry and Cultural Milieu in Late Antiquity, Berlin and Boston, 229 – 250. Hernández Lobato and Pietro Domínguez (2020): Jesús Hernández Lobato and Óscar Prieto Domínguez (eds), Literature Squared. Self-Reflexivity in Late Antique Literature, Turnhout. Herrin and Nelson (2016): Judith Herrin and Jinty Nelson (eds), Ravenna. Its Role in Earlier Medieval Change and Exchange, London. Heseltine, Warmington (31987): Michael Heseltine (transl. of Petronius) and W. H. D. Rouse (transl. of Seneca’s Apocolocynthosis), E. H. Warmington (rev.), Petronius and Seneca Apocolocynthosis, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London. Hillner (2009): Julia Hillner, “Monks and Children: Corporal Punishment in Late Antiquity”, in: European History Review/Revue européenne d’histoire 16, 773 – 791. Hillner (2013): Julia Hillner, “Family Violence: Punishment and Abuse in the Late Roman Household”, in: Leslie Brubaker and Shaun Tougher (eds), Approaches to the Byzantine Family, Aldershot, 21 – 45.

Bibliography

205

Hinds (1992a): Stephen E. Hinds, “Arma in Ovid’s Fasti. Part 1: Genre and Mannerism”, in: Arethusa 25.1, 81 – 112. Hinds (1992b): Stephen E. Hinds, “Arma in Ovid’s Fasti. Part 2: Genre, Romulean Rome and Augustan Ideology”, in: Arethusa 25.1, 113 – 153. Hinds (1998): Stephen E. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext, Cambridge. Hodgkin (1891): Thomas Hodgkin, Theodoric the Goth. The Barbarian Champion of Civilisation, New York and London. Holst-Warhaft (1992): Gail Holst-Warhaft, Dangerous Voices. Women’s Laments and Greek Literature, London and New York. Houghton (2017): Luke B. T. Houghton, “Elegy”, in: Victoria Moul (ed.) A Guide to Neo-Latin Literature, Cambridge, 98 – 112. Hunink (2006): Vincent J. C. Hunink, “Dreams in Apuleius Metamorphoses”, in André P. M. H. Lardinois, Marc van der Poel and Vincent J.C. Hunink (eds), Land of Dreams. Greek and Latin Studies in Honour of A.H.M. Kessels, Leiden and Boston, 18 – 31. Hunt (1991): Tony Hunt, Teaching and Learning Latin in Thirteenth Century England, vol. 1, Cambridge. Hunter (2015): Brooke Hunter, “Boethian Humor and the Pseudo-Boethian De disciplina scolarium”, in: Viator 46.1, 161 – 180. Hunter (2008): Richard Hunter, On Coming After. Studies in Post-Classical Greek Literature and its Reception. Part 1: Hellenistic Poetry and its Reception, Berlin and New York. Huygens (1954), Robert B. C. Huygens, Accessus ad auctores. Édition critique, Collection Latomus 15, Bruxelles. Huygens (1970): Robert B. C. Huygens, Accessus ad auctores. Bernard d’Utrecht. Conrad d’Hirsau. Dialogus super auctores. Edition critique entièrement revue et augmentée, Leiden. Isaac (2004): Benjamin Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, Princeton and Oxford. Jaitner-Hahner (1988): Ursula Jaitner-Hahner, “Maximian und der fucus italicus. Ein unbekannter Textzeuge”, in: Michael Borgolte and Herrad Spilling (eds), Litterae Medii Aevi. Festschrift für J. Autenrieth zu ihrem 65, Geburtstag, 277 – 292. James (1998): Sharon L. James, “Introduction: constructions of gender and genre in Roman Comedy and Elegy”, in: Helios 25.1, 3 – 16. James (2001): Sharon L. James, “The economics of Roman Elegy: Voluntary Poetry, the Recusatio, and the Greedy Girl”, in: American Journal of Philology 122.2, 223 – 253. James (2003a): Sharon L. James, “Her Turn to Cry: The Politics of Weeping in Roman Love Elegy”, in: Transactions of the American Philological Association 133.1, 99 – 122. James (2003b): Sharon L. James, Learned Girls and Male Persuasion. Gender and Reading in Roman Love Elegy, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. James (2010): Sharon L. James, “ ‘Ipsa dixerat’: Women’s words in Roman love elegy”, in: Phoenix 64.3/4, 314 – 344. Janan (2001) Micaela Janan, The Politics of Desire: Propertius IV. The Joan Palevksy Imprint in Classical Literature, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London. Jehannot and Le Dru (ca. 1945): Etienne Jehannot and Pierre Le Dru, Nugarum libellus Maximiani immitis, Paris. Juster (2018): A. M. Juster (ed. and transl.), The Elegies of Maximianus. Introduction by Michael Roberts, Philadelphia.

206

Bibliography

Karakasis (2003): Evangelos, Karakasis, “Legal Language in Plautus with Special Reference to Trinumnus”, in: Mnemosyne 56.2, 194 – 209. Karakasis (2011): Evangelos Karakasis, Song Exchange in Roman Pastoral, Berlin and New York. Karakasis (2012): Evangelos Karakasis, “ ‘Petronian Gigolo’: Encolpius’ ‘Dysfunction’ Revisited”, in: Trends in Classics 4.2, 316 – 337. Karakasis (2013a): Evangelos Karakasis, “Comedy and Elegy in Calpurnian Pastoral: ‘Generic Interplays’ in Calp. 3”, in: Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis (2013), 231 – 264. Karakasis (2013b): Evangelos Karakasis, “Masters and Slaves”, in: Anthony Augoustakis and Ariana Trail (eds), A Companion to Terence, Malden, 211 – 222. Karakasis (2014): Evangelos Karakasis, “The Language of the Palliata”, in: Michael Fontaine and Adele C. Scafuro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Comedy, Oxford, 555 – 579. Karakasis (2016): Evangelos Karakasis, T. Calpurnius Siculus: A Pastoral Poet in Neronian Rome, Berlin and Boston. Karakasis (2019): Evangelos Karakasis, “The Language of Roman Comedy”, in: Dinter (2019), 151 – 170. Karanika (2008): Andromache Karanika, “Greek Comedy’s Parody of Lament”, in: Suter (2008), 181 – 199. Keith (1994): Alison Keith, “Corpus eroticum: elegiac poetics and elegiac puellae in Ovid’s Amores”, in: The Classical World 88.1, 27 – 40. Keith (1999): Alison Keith, “Slender Verse: Roman Elegy and Ancient Rhetorical Theory”, in: Mnemosyne 52.1, 41 – 62. Keith (2008): Alison Keith, “Lament in Lucan’s Bellum Ciuile”, in: Suter (2008), 233 – 257. Keith (2011): Alison Keith, “Lycoris Galli/Volumnia Cytheris: a Greek Courtesan in Rome”, in: EuGeStA 1, 23 – 53. Kelly (2000): Kathleen C. Kelly, Performing Virginity and Testing Chastity in the Middle Ages, London and New York. Kenaan (2004): Vered Lev Kenaan, “Delusion and Dream in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses”, in: Classical Antiquity 23.2, 247 – 284. Kennedy (1985): Angus J. Kennedy, “Christin de Pizan and Maximianus”, in: Medium Aevum 54.2, 282 – 283. Kennedy (1993): Duncan Kennedy, The Arts of Love: Five Studies in the Discourse of Roman Love Elegy, Cambridge. Kennedy (2008): Duncan Kennedy, “Elegy and the Erotics of Narratology”, in: Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008a), 19 – 33. Keuls (1985): Eva C. Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens, New York. Khoo (2019): Astrid Khoo, “Dream scenes in ancient epic”, in: Christiane Reitz and Simone Finkmann (eds), Structures of Epic Poetry, vol. II.2: Configuration, Berlin and Boston, 563 – 595. Kittredge (1888): George L. Kittredg, “Chaucer and Maximianus”, in: American Journal of Philology 9.1, 84 – 85. Kleinknecht (1937): Hermann Kleinknech, Die Gebetsparodie in der Antike, Stuttgart and Berlin.

Bibliography

207

Knox (2011): Peter A. Knox, “A Modest Emendation of an Immodest Imitation of Ovid (Maxim. 5, 30)”, in: Rheinisches Museum 154, 411 – 412. Konstan (1983): David Konstan, Roman Comedy, Ithaca and London. Korzeniewski (1972): Dietmar Korzeniewski, “Die Eklogen des Calpurnius Siculus als Gedichtbuch”, in: Museum Helveticum 29.3, 214 – 216. Kossaifi (2000): Christine Kossaifi, “Jadis et maintenant: À propos de l’ Élégie III de Maximianus”, in: Bulletin de l’ Association Guillaume Budé 59, 230 – 234. Koutrakou (2015): Nike Koutrakou, “‘Eyes of the Emperor’ and ‘Real Spies’. Stories of Espionage in Byzantine Writings”, in: Leidschrift 30, 47 – 64. Kroll (1924): Wilhelm Kroll, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, Stuttgart. Krostenko (2001): Brian A. Krostenko, Cicero, Catullus, and the Language of Social Performance, Chicago and London. Kurke (1997): Leslie Kurke, “Inventing the ‘Hetaira’: Sex, Politics, and Discursive Conflict in Archaic Greece”, in: Classical Antiquity 16.1, 106 – 150. Kurz (1973): Otto Kurz, “Early art forgeries: from the Renaissance to the eighteenth century”, in: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 121.5198, 74 – 90. Kyrtatas (1994): Dimitrios Kyrtatas, Η ηθική διαπαιδαγώγηση στην ύστερη ελληνική αρχαιότητα, Athens. La Bua (2019): Giuseppe La Bua, Cicero and Roman Education, Cambridge. Laes (2005): Christian Laes, “Child Beating in Roman Antiquity: Some Reconsiderations”, in: Katariina Mustakallio, Jussi Hanska, Hanna-Leena Sainio and Ville Vuolanto (eds), Hoping for Continuity. Childhood, Education and Death in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Rome, 75 – 89. Laes (2011): Christian Laes, Children in the Roman Empire, Cambridge. Laes (2016): Christian Laes, “Educators in the Late Ancient City of Rome (300 – 700 CE)”, in: Revue belgique de philologie et d’ histoire 94.1, 183 – 207. Laigneau (2000): Sylvie Laigneau, “Ovide, Amores 1.6: un paraclausithyron très ovidien”, in: Latomus 59, 317 – 326. Lape (2017): Susan Lape, “Compassion and violence in Hellenistic New Comedy”, in Michael Champion and Lara O’Sullivan (eds), Cultural Perceptions of Violence in the Hellenistic World, London and New York, 116 – 136. Lateiner (2018): Donald Lateiner, “Recognizing Miracles in ancient Greek Novels”, in Maria Gerolemou (ed.), Recognizing Miracles in Antiquity and Beyond, Berlin and Boston, 381 – 416. Lausberg (1998): Heinrich Lausberg, Handbook of Literary Rhetoric, transl. Matthew T. Bliss, Leiden. Lavery (2014): Hannah Lavery, The Impotency Poem from Ancient Latin to Restoration English Literature, Farnham. Lee-Stecum (1998): Parshia Lee-Stecum, Powerplay in Tibullus: Reading Elegies Book One, Cambridge. Lekusch (1896), Vincenz Lekusch, “Zur Verstechnik des Elegikers Maximianus”, in: Saloman Frankfurter (ed.), Serta Harteliana, Vienna, 257 – 262. Leotta (1985): Rosario Leotta, “Un anonimo imitatore di Massimiano”, in: Giornale Italiano di Filologia 37, 91 – 106. Leotta (1989): Rosario Leotta, “Uno stilema massimianeo”, in: Giornale Italiano di Filologia 41, 81 – 84.

208

Bibliography

Leyser (2010): Henrietta Leyser, “Corporal Punishment and the Two Christianities”, in: Laurence Brockliss and Heather Montgomery (eds), Childhood and Violence in Western Tradition, Oxford, 113 – 121. Lilja (1965): Saara Lilja, The Roman Elegists’ Attitude to Women, Helsinki. Lim (2001): Richard Lim, “Christian Triumph and Controversy”, in: Bowersock, Brown and Grabar (2001), 196 – 218. Lind (1988): Levi R. Lind, Gabriele Zerbi, Gerontocomia: On the Care of the Aged and Maximianus, Elegies on Old Age and Love, Philadelphia. Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008a): Genevieve Liveley and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell (eds), Latin Elegy and Narratology. Fragments of Story, Ohio. Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008b): Genevieve Liveley and Patricia Salzman-Mitchell, “Introduction: Narrating in Couplets”, in: Liveley and Salzman-Mitchell (2008a), 1 – 13. Lobel – Page (1955): Edgar Lobel and Denys Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, Oxford. Louggis (1983): Tilemachos Louggis, “Ὁ ‘πρῶτος αὐτοκράτωρ Ρωµαίων’ καὶ ὁ ‘πρῶτος Ρωµαίων ἁπάντων’. Ἡ ἀνολοκλήρωτη Reconquista”, in: Βυζαντινά Σύµµεικτα 5, 217 – 247. Lubian (2017): Francesco Lubian, “Una nota a Maxim. Eleg. 1,63”, in: Paolo De Paolis and Elisa Romano (eds), Atti dei III Seminario nazionale per dottorandi e dottori di ricerca di studi latini, Roma 20 novembre 2015, Università degli Studi “La Sapienza” (Biblioteca di Classico Contemporaneo 5), Rome, 206 – 218. Luck (21979): George Luck, The Latin Love Elegy, London. Lutz (1974): Cora E. Lutz, “A Medieval Textbook”, in: Yale University Library Gazette 49, 212 – 216. Lyne (1979): Richard O. A. M. Lyne, “Servitium amoris”, in: The Classical Quarterly 29, 117 – 130. Malick-Prunier (2011): Sophie Malick-Prunier, Le corps féminin dans la poésie latin tardive, Paris. Malkin (2001): Irad Malkin, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Manitius (1889): Max Manitius, “Zu späten lateinischen Dichtern: über den Dichter Maximian”, in: Rheinisches Museum 44, 540 – 543. Mann (2006): Jill Mann, “ ‘He Knew Nat Catoun’: Medieval School-texts and Middle English Literature”, in: Jill Mann and Maura Nolas (eds), The Text in the Community. Essays on Medieval Works, Manuscripts, Authors, and Readers, Notre Dame, 41 – 74. Marenbon (2003: John Marenbon, Boethius, Oxford. Mariotti (1974): Scevola Mariotti, “Cornelii Galli Hendecasyllabi”, in: Gabriella Bernardoni Trezzini et al. (eds), Tra latino e vulgare. Per Carlo Dionisotti, vol. 2, Padua, 545 – 568. Mariotti (21994): Scevola Mariotti, Scritti medievali e umanistici, edited by Silvia Rizzo, Rome. Maschke (2012): Timothy Maschke, “Sixth century Christianity”, in: George Thomas Kurian (ed.), The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, vol. 4, Malden, 1 – 5. Mastandrea (2003 – 2004): Paolo Mastandrea, “Aratore, Partenio, Vigilio coetani (e amici?) di Massimiano elegiac”, in: Incontri triestini di filologia classica 3, 327 – 342. Mastandrea (2005): Paolo Mastandrea, “Per la cronologia di Massimiano elegiaco: elementi interni ed esterni al testo”, in Manuel C. Díaz and José M. Díaz de Bustamante (eds), Poesia latina medieval (siglos V-XV): actas del IV Congreso del “Internationales Mittelateinerkomitee” (Santiago de Compostela 12 – 15 de septiembre de 2002), Florence, 151 – 179.

Bibliography

209

Mauger-Plichon (1999): Brigitte Mauger-Plichon, “Maximianus: un mystérieux poète”, in: Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé: Lettres d’humanité 58, 369 – 387. Mayer (2009): Wendy Mayer, “Approaching Late Antiquity”, in: Philip Rousseau (ed.) (with the assistance of Jutta Raithel), A Companion to Late Antiquity, Malden, 1 – 13. Mazzini (2012): Innocenzo Mazzini, “Malattia melancolica da amore tra poesia e medicina nel Tardo Antico: Aegritudo Perdiccae (Ae.P.)”, in: Medicina nei Secoli arte e scienza 24.3, 559 – 584. McCail (1969): Ronald C. McCail, “The Cycle of Agathias: New Identifications Scrutinised”, in: The Journal of Hellenic Studies 89, 87 – 96. McCarthy (2000): Kathleen McCarthy, Slaves, Masters, and the Art of Authority in Plautine Comedy, Princeton and Oxford. McGill and Pucci (2016): Scott McGill and Joseph Pucci (eds), Classics Renewed: Reception and Innovation in the Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity, Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften, NF, 152, Heidelberg. McGill and Watts (2018): Scott McGill and Edward J. Watts (eds), A Companion to Late Antique Literature, Malden. McGinn (1998): Thomas A. J. McGinn, Prostitution, Sexuality and the Law in Ancient Rome, New York and Oxford. McKeown (1979): James C. McKeown, “Augustan elegy and mime”, in: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 25, 71 – 84. McLaren (2007): Angus McLaren, Impotence: A Cultural History, Chicago and London. Mcmahon (1998): Joseph, A. Mcmahon, Paralysin Cave: Impotence, Perception, and Text in the Satyrica of Petronius, Leiden. Mellor (2008): Ronald Mellor, “Graecia Capta: The Confrontation between Greek and Roman Identity”, in: Katerina Zacharia (ed.), Hellenisms. Culture, Identity, and Ethnicity from Antiquity to Modernity, Aldershot. Merone (1948): Emilio Merone, “Per la biografia di Massimiano”, in: Giornale italiano di filologia 1, 337 – 352. Merone (1950): Emilio Merone, “Maximianea”, in: Giornale italiano di filologia 3, 322 – 336. Meyers (2003): Jean Meyers, “La Figure du vieillard dans les Élegies de Maximien: autobiographie ou fiction?”, in: Béatrice Bakhouche (ed.), L’ Ancienneté chez les anciens, Montpellier, 697 – 715. Meyers (2018): Jean Meyers, “L’ Ovide travesti de Maximien”, in: RursuSpicae 1, 1 – 14. Michalopoulos (2021): Andreas N. Michalopoulos, “The emotions of Medea the letter-writer (Ovid, Heroides 12)”, in: Greece & Rome 68.1, special issue: The Emotions of Medea, 61 – 75. Michalopoulos (2011): Charilaos N. Michalopoulos, “Feminine Speech in Roman Love Elegy: Prop. 1.3”, in: Leeds International Classical Studies 10.4, 1 – 14. Michalopoulos and Michalopoulos (2015): Charilaos N. Michalopoulos and Andreas N. Michalopoulos, Ρωμαϊκή ερωτική ελεγεία, Athens. Miller (2002): Paul Allen Miller, “Introduction”, in: Paul Allen Miller (ed.), Latin Erotic Elegy. An Anthology and Reader, London and New York, 1 – 36. Miller (2004): Paul Allen Miller, Subjective Verses: Latin Love Elegy and the Emergence of the Real, Princeton. Mitchell (2003): J. Allan Mitchell, “Boethius and Pandarus: a source in Maximian’s Elegies”, in: Notes and Queries 50.4 (Dec.), 377 – 380.

210

Bibliography

Montanari (32016): Franco Montanari, Σύγχρονο Λεξικό της Αρχαίας Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Modern Greek translation by Maria Andronikou, Daniel Iakov, Ioannis Kazazis, Stephanos Mathaios, Evina Sistakou, Christos Tsagalis, Supervision by Antonios Rengakos, Philological edition by Aimilios Mavroudis, Athens. Moorhead (2009): John Moorhead, “Boethius’ Life and the World of Late Antiquity”, in: John Marenbon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Boethius, Cambridge, 13 – 33. Moralejo Álvarez (2018): José Luis Moralejo Álvarez, “De nuevo sobre la senectus mundi: Notas sobre un tόpico literario”, in: Revista de Estudios Latinos 18, 11 – 27. Moretti, Ricci and Torre (2015): Paola F. Moretti, Roberta Ricci and Chiara Torre (eds), Culture and Literature in Latin Late Antiquity, Turnhout. Morgan (2012): Llewelyn Morgan, “Elegiac meter: opposites attract”, in: Gold (2012), 204 – 218. Mozley (1933): J. H. Mozley, “The Use of Pendeo and Suspendo in Latin Poetry”, in: The Classical Weekly 713, 177 – 180. Murgatroyd (1975): Paul Murgatroyd, “Militia amoris and the Roman elegists”, in: Latomus 34, 59 – 79. Murgatroyd (1981): Paul Murgatroyd, “Servitium amoris and the Roman elegists”, in: Latomus 40.3, 589 – 606. Mustakallio and Laes (2011): Katariina Mustakallio and Christian Laes, “Introduction”, in Katariina Mustakallio and Christian Laes (eds), The Dark Side of Childhood in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Oxford and Oakville, vii-x. Musurillo (1970): Herbert Musurillo, “Furtivus Amor: The Structure of Tibullus 1.5”, in: Transactions of the American Philological Association 101, 387 – 399. Myers (1996): Sara K. Myers, “The Poet and the Procuress: the Lena in Latin Love Elegy”, in: The Journal of Roman Studies 86, 1 – 21. Myers (2019): Sara K. Myers, “ ‘Pulpy fiction’: Vergilian Reception and Genre in Columella De Re Rustica”, in: Booby Xinyue and Nicholas Freer (eds), Reflections and New Perspectives on Virgil’s Georgics, London and New York, 129 – 137. Nadin (2013): Lucia Nadin, Venezia e Albania: Una storia di incontri e secolari legami / Venice and Albania: A History of Encounters and Secular Ties, Venice. Nagle (1980): Betty R. Nagle, The Poetics of Exile: Program and Polemic in the Tristia and Epistulae ex Ponto of Ovid, Collection Latomus 170, Brussels. Nappa (2007): Christopher Nappa, “Elegy on the Threshold: Generic Self-Consciousness in Propertius 1.16”, in: The Classical World 101.1, 57 – 73. Nathan (1993): Geoffrey S. Nathan, “Medicine and sexual practices in late antiquity”, in: Epoche 18, 20 – 32. Nathan (2000): Geoffrey S. Nathan, The Family in Late Antiquity, London and New York. Neil and Simic (2020): Bronwen Neil and Kosta Simic (eds), Memories of Utopia: The Revision of Histories and Landscapes in Late Antiquity, London and New York. Nelson (2019): Thomas J. Nelson, “ ‘Most musical, most melancholy’: Avian aesthetics of lament in Greek and Roman elegy”, in: Dictynna 16, 1 – 47 (available at: https://journals. openedition.org/dictynna/1914, seen 9. 2. 2021). Nethercut (1976): William R. Nethercut, “Propertius’ Fallax Opus (4.1.135)”, in: Rheinisches Museum 119.1, 30 – 38. Neuburger (1947): Max Neuburger, “The Latin poet Maximianus on the miseries of old age”, in: Bulletin of the History of Medicine 21.1, 113 – 119.

Bibliography

211

Nikitas (1992): Dimitrios Nikitas, “Η ερωτική αλληγορία της λατινικής ποίησης του 4ου αιώνα: De ave Phoenice, Pervigilium Veneris, Cupido cruciatur”, in: Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης (Τμήμα Φιλολογίας) 2, 39 – 90. Nikitas (1995): Dimitrios Nikitas, “Η ρωμαϊκή ποίηση της Ύστερης Αρχαιότητας”, in: Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Φιλοσοφικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Πανεπιστημίου Θεσσαλονίκης (Τμήμα Φιλολογίας) 5, 113 – 126. Nikitas and Tromaras (2019): Dimitrios Nikitas and Leonidas Tromaras, Σύγχρονο Λατινοελληνικό Λεξικό, Thessaloniki. Nikolaidis (1994): Anastasios Nikolaidis, Puella formosa. Το γυναικείο κάλλος στον Κάτουλλο και τους Ρωμαίους ελεγειακούς, Athens. Nitecki (1981): Alicia Korzeniowska Nitecki, “The Convention of the Old Man’s Lament in the Pardoner’s Tale”, in: The Chaucer Review 16.1, 76 – 84. Norden (1913): Eduard Norden, Agnostos Theos. Untersuchungen zur Formgeschichte religiöser Rede, Leipzig. Öberg (1999): Christina Sandquist Öberg, Versus Maximiani: Der Elegienzyklus textkritisch herausgegeben übersetzt und neu interpretiert, Stockholm. O’Bryhim (2020): Shawn O’Bryhim, “Stock Characters and Stereotypes”, in: George Fredric Franko and Dorota Dutsch (eds), A Companion to Plautus, Malden, 121 – 133. O’Daly (1991): Gerard J. P. O’Daly, The Poetry of Boethius, Chapel Hill. O’Hara (1989): James J. O’Hara, “The New Gallus and the Alternae Voces of Propertius 1.10.10”, in: The Classical Quarterly 39.2, 561 – 562. Olsen (1982): Birger Munk Olsen: “Les classiques latins dans les florilèges médiévaux antérieurs au XIIIe siècle (suite)”, in: Revue d’histoire des textes 10, 115 – 164. Olson (2002): Kelly Olson, “Matrona and Whore: The Clothing of Women in Roman Antiquity”, in: Fashion Theory 6.4, 387 – 420. Orme (1973): Nicholas Orme, English Schools in the Middle Ages, London. Orme (2006): Nicholas Orme, Medieval Schools: From Roman Britain to Renaissance England, New Haven. O’Rourke (2018): Donncha O’Rourke, “Make War not Love: Militia amoris and Domestic Violence in Roman Elegy”, in: Monica R. Gale (ed), Texts and Violence in the Roman World, Cambridge, 110 – 139. Otis (21970): Brooks Otis, Ovid as an Epic Poet, Cambridge. Panayotakis (2002) Stelios Panayotakis, “The temple and the brothel: mothers and daughters in Apollonius of Tyre”, in: Michael Paschalis and Stavros Frangoulidis (eds), Space in the Ancient Novel, Ancient Narrative Supplementa 1, Groningen, 98 – 117. Papaioannou (2006): Sophia Papaioannou, “The Poetology of Hairstyling and the Excitement of Hair Loss in Ovid, Amores 1,14”, in: Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 83.2, 45 – 69. Papanghelis (1989): Theodore D. Papanghelis, “About the hour of noon: Ovid, Amores, 1,5”, in: Mnemosyne 42, 54 – 61. Papanghelis (1991): Theodore D. Papanghelis, “Catullus and Callimachus on Large Women”, in: Mnemosyne 44, 372 – 382. Papanghelis (22001): Theodore D. Papanghelis, Οβιδίου Ερωτική Τέχνη. Μετάφραση και ένα δοκίμιο για Λατίνους εραστές, Athens.

212

Bibliography

Papanghelis, Harrison and Frangoulidis (2013): Theodore D. Papanghelis, Stephen J. Harrison and Stavros Frangoulidis (eds), Generic Interfaces in Latin Literature. Encounters, Interactions and Transformations, Berlin and Boston. Pappas (2015): Vasileios Pappas, “Greeks are bad after all? Cicero’s opinions in pro Flacco”, in: Mediterranean Chronicle 5, 67 – 98. Pappas (2016a): Vasileios Pappas, Ρωμαϊκή ερωτική ποίηση: το παρακλαυσίθυρο στην ελεγεία, Thessaloniki. Pappas (2016b): Vasileios Pappas, “Leno poeta: Tibullus’s poem 1.5”, in: Mediterranean Studies 24.1, 77 – 98. Pappas (2016c): Vasileios Pappas, “Variety in Tibullus 1.2”, in: Rosetta 18, 48 – 64. Pappas (2016d): Vasileios Pappas, “Parody and poetics in Propertius’ 1.16”, in: Atene e Roma, 10.3 – 4, 147 – 161. Pappas (2017 – 2019): Vasileios Pappas, “Non sum qui fueram: Μαξιμιανός, μανιεριστής ή ανανεωτής ενός είδους;”, in: Βελλά. Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα της Ανωτάτης Εκκλησιαστικής Ακαδημίας Βελλάς Ιωαννίνων 8.2, 759 – 783. Pappas (2020): Vasileios Pappas, “Generic interplay and Callimachean theory in Claudian’s De raptu Proserpinae II, 277 – 306”, in: L’ Antiquité Classique 89, 157 – 171. Pappas (2021a): Vasileios Pappas, “De concubitu Martis et Veneris: πρωτοτυπία και ποιητική”, in: Dimitrios Raios and Eleni Chouliara (eds), Πρακτικά 10ου Πανελλήνιου Συμποσίου Λατινικών Σπουδών, Ιωάννινα, 2 – 4 Σεπτεμβρίου 2020, Athens and Ioannina, 443 – 475. Pappas (2021b): Vasileios Pappas, “Η Λυκωρίς μεγάλωσε: Μαξιμιανός, Ελεγεία 2”, in: Dimitrios Raios and Eleni Chouliara (eds), Στόμα πάντων δεξιόν. Συγκομιδή αφιερωμένη στη μνήμη του Φάνη Ι. Κακριδή, Ioannina, 337 – 364. Pappas (2021c): Vasileios Pappas, “The return of a familiar girl: Giovanni Cotta’s poems to Lycoris”, in: Mediterranean Chronicle 11, 93 – 125. Pappas (2022): Vasileios Pappas, “Όνειρο απατηλό: η Ελεγεία 4 του Μαξιμιανού”, in: Δωδώνη: Φιλολογία 45 (forthcoming). Paraskeviotis (2013): George C. Paraskeviotis, “Place and time of the rape scenes in Terence’s comedies”, in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientarum Hungaricae 53.1, 47 – 59. Parker (2012): Holt N. Parker, “Renaissance Latin Elegy”, in: Gold (2012), 476 – 490. Parkin (1998): Tim G. Parkin, “Ageing in antiquity: status and participation”, in: Paul Johnson and Pat Thane (eds), Old Age from Antiquity to Post-Modernity, London and New York. Parkin (2003): Tim G. Parkin, Old Age in the Roman World: A Cultural and Social History, Baltimore and London. Pasco-Pranger (2000): Molly Pasco-Pranger, “Vates Operosus: Vatic Poetics and Antiquarianism in Ovid’s Fasti”, in: The Classical World 93.3, 275 – 291. Peirano (2012): Irene Peirano, The Rhetoric of the Roman Fake. Latin Pseudepigrapha in Context, Cambridge. Pelttari (2014): Aaron Pelttari, The Space that Remains. Reading Latin Poetry in Late Antiquity, Ithaca and London. Perkins (2011): Caroline A. Perkins: “The figure of Elegy in Amores 3.1: Elegy as Puella, Elegy as Poeta, Puella as Poeta”, in: The Classical World 104.3, 313 – 331. Petrochilos (1974): Nikolaos Petrochilos, Roman Attitudes to the Greeks, S. Saripolos’ Library 25, Athens. Pfeiffer (1949): Rudolph Pfeiffer, Callimachus: Fragmenta, vol. 1, Oxford.

Bibliography

213

Pinotti (1989): Paola Pinotti, “Massimiano elegiac”, in: Giuseppe Cantanzaro and Francesco Santucci (eds), Tredici secoli di elegia latina, Assisi, 183 – 203. Pinotti (1991): Paola Pinotti, “Da Massimiano a Shakespeare: Rappresentazioni del tempo”, in: Vichiana 3.3, 186 – 216. Pinotti (1995): Paola Pinotti, “Gli elegiaci. L’epica ovidiana”, in Umberto Mattioli (ed.), Senectus: la vecchiaia nel mondo classico, vol. 2: Roma, Bologna, 137 – 182. Pinotti (2002): Paola Pinotti, L’ elegia latina: storia di una forma poetica, Rome. Pollmann (2017): Karla Pollmann, The Baptized Muse. Early Christian Poetry as Cultural Authority, Oxford. Polymerakis (2011): Photios Polymerakis, “Θρησκευτικές αντιλήψεις του Δέκιμου Μάγνου Αυσόνιου: χριστιανός ή εθνικός;”, in: Mediterranean Chronicle 1, 44 – 71. Prada (1914): Giuseppe Prada, Quae inter metri dactylici disciplinam et sermonem latinum in Maximiano poeta existent quaestiones, Ticino. Prada (1918): Giuseppe Prada, Sul valore e la parentela dei codici di Massimiano, Abbiategrasso. Prada (1920): Giuseppe Prada, Lamenti e guai di un vecchio: versione metrica delle elegie di Massimiano, Abbiategrasso. Putnam (1973): Michael C. J. Putnam, Tibullus: A Commentary, Oklahoma. Race (1983): William H. Race, “ ‘That Man’ in Sappho fr. 31 L.-P.”, in: Classical Antiquity 2.1, 92 – 101. Racette-Campbell (2013): Melanie Racette-Campbell, “Marriage Contracts, Fides and Gender Roles in Propertius 3.20”, in: The Classical Journal 108, 297 – 317. Raios (32015): Dimitrios Raios, Σενέκα Φαίδρα, Ioannina. Ramage (1957): Edwin S. Ramage, Urbanitas, rusticitas, peregrinitas, Cincinnati. Ramage (1963): Edwin, S. Ramage, “Urbanitas: Cicero and Quintilian, a Contrast in Attitudes”, in: American Journal of Philology 84.4, 390 – 414. Ramelli (2014): Ilaria L. E. Ramelli, “The Rejection of the Epicurean Ideal of Pleasure in Late Antique Sources: not Only Misunderstandings”, in: Mirabilia 18, 6 – 21. Ramírez de Verger (1984): Antonio Ramírez de Verger, “Parodia de un lament ritual en Maximiano (el. V 87 – 104)”, in: Habis 15, 149 – 156. Ratkowitsch (1986): Christine Ratkowitsch, Maximianus amat. Zur Datierung und Interpretation des Elegikers Maximian, Vienna. Rawson (2003): Beryl Rawson, Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, Oxford. Rebenich (1999): Huber G. Rebenich, “Hagiographic Fiction as entertainment”, in: Heinz Hoffmann (ed.), Latin Fiction. The Latin Novel in Context, London and New York, 158 – 179. Reiff (1959): Arno Reiff, Interpretatio, imitatio, aemulatio: Begriff und Vorstellung literarischer Abhängigkeit bei den Römern, PhD Dissertation, University of Cologne. Relihan (2007): Joel C. Relihan, The Prisoner’s Philosophy: Life and Death in Boethius’ Consolation, Notre Dame. Riché (1976): Pierre Riché, Education and Culture in the Barbarian West, Sixth Through Eight Centuries, Columbia. Richlin (1984): Amy Richlin, “Invective against women in Roman satire”, in: Arethusa 17.1, 67 – 80.

214

Bibliography

Richlin (1992): Amy Richlin, “Julia’s Jokes, Galla Placiidia, and the Roman use of women as political icons”, in: Barbara Garlick, Suzanne Dixon and Pauline Allen (eds), Stereotypes of Women in Power: Historical Perspectives and Revisionist Views, New York, 65 – 91. Richlin (1997): Amy Richlin, “Gender and rhetoric: producing manhood in the schools”, in: William J. Dominik (ed.), Roman Eloquence: Rhetoric in Society and Literature, London and New York, 90 – 110. Richlin (2001): Amy Richlin, “Emotional Work: Lamenting the Roman Dead”, in: Elizabeth I. Tylawsky and Charles G. Weiss (eds), Essays in Honor of Gordon Williams: Twenty-five Years at Yale, New Haven, 229 – 248. Richmond (1998): J. A. Richmond, “Spies in Ancient Greece”, in: Greece & Rome 45.1, 1 – 18. Roberts (1989): Michael Roberts, The Jeweled Style: Poetry and Poetics in Late Antiquity, Ithaca, NY. Roberts (2002): Michael Roberts, “Creation in Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Latin poets of late antiquity”, in: Arethusa 35.3, 403 – 415. Roberts (2007): Michael Roberts, “Bringing Up the Rear: Continuity and Change in the Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity”, in: Wim Verbaal, Yanick Maes and Jan Papy (eds), Latinitas Perennis, vol. 1: The Continuity of Latin Literature, Leiden and Boston, 141 – 167. Roberts (2009): Michael Roberts, The Humblest Sparrow. The Poetry of Venantius Fortunatus, Ann Arbor. Roberts (2010): Michael Roberts, “Late Roman Elegy”, in: Karen Weisman (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Elegy, Oxford, 85 – 100. Roberts (2017): Michael Roberts, “Lactantius’s Phoenix and Late Latin Poetics”, in: Elsner and Hernández Lobato (2017a), 373 – 390. Roberts (2018): Michael Roberts, “Introduction”, in: A. M. Juster (ed. and transl.), The Elegies of Maximianus Philadelphia, 1 – 14. Roman (2014): Luke Roman, Poetic Autonomy in Ancient Rome, Oxford. Romano (1968 – 1969): Domenico Romano, “Il Primo Massimiano”, in: Atti dell’ Accademia di Scienze e Arti di Palermo 29.4, 307 – 335. Romano (1979): Domenico Romano, Letteratura e storia nell’età tardoromana, Palermo. Rosati (1983): Gianpiero Rosati, Narciso e Pigmalione: illusione e spettacolo nelle Metamorfosi di Ovidio, Florence. Rosivach (1994): Vincent Rosivach, “Anus: Some Older Women in Latin Literature”, in: The Classical World 88.2, 107 – 117. Rosivach (1998): Vincent Rosivach, When a Young Man Falls in Love. The Sexual Exploitation of Women in New Comedy, London and New York. Ross (1975): David O. Ross, Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome, Cambridge. Ruys (2007): Juanita Feros Ruys, “Medieval Latin Meditations on Old Age: Rhetoric, Autobiography, and Experience”, in Classen (2007a), 171 – 200. Ryder (1984): K. C. Ryder, “The Senex Amator in Plautus”, in: Greece & Rome 31.2, 181 – 189. Salanitro (2011): Maria Salanitro, “Prove di autenticità dell’elegia 914 R. Attribuita a Gallo”, in: Maia: rivista di letterature classiche 63, 63 – 83. Sánchez and Macanás (1985): M. Ruiz Sánchez and O. Sánchez Macanás, “Tibulo y Maximiano”, in: Simposio Tibulliano: Conmemoraciόn del bimilenario de la muerte de Tibulo, Murcia, 391 – 397.

Bibliography

215

Sanford (1924): Eva Matthew Sanford, “The Use of Classical Latin Authors in the Libri Manuales”, in: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 55, 190 – 248. Scafoglio (2020): Giampiero Scafoglio, “Aemula senectus: le thème de la vieillesse dans la poésie élégiaque de Maximien”, in: Sandrine Coin-Longeray and Daniel Valliat (eds), Dialectiques de la vieillesse dans l’Antiquité, Actes du colloque organisé les 16 – 17 mai 2018 (Saint-Étienne) et 18 mai 2018 (Lyon), Paris, 131 – 143. Schetter (1960): Willy Schetter, “Neves zur Appendix der Elegien des Maximian”, in: Philologus 104, 116 – 126. Schetter (1970): Willy Schetter, Studien zur Überlieferung und Kritik des Elegikers Maximian, Wiesbaden. Schippers (2019): Andriana Maria Schippers, Dionysius and Quintilian: Imitation and Emulation in Greek and Latin Literary Criticism, PhD Dissertation, University of Leiden. Schmidt (2017): Pedro Schmidt, “Maximianus, the Greek Girl and the Death of Elegy”, in: Proceedings of the 8th Athens Postgraduate Conference of Philology of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, vol. 3, Athens, 208 – 213. Schneider (2001): Wolfgang C. Schneider, “Definition of Genre by Falsification. The False Attribution of the Maximianus Verses to Cornelius Gallus by Pomponius Gauricus and the ‘Definition’ of their Genre and Structure”, in: Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 129.4, 445 – 464. Schneider (2003): Wolfgang C. Schneider, Die elegischen Verse von Maximian: Eine letzte Widerrede gegen die neve christliche Zeit: Mit den Gedichten der Appendix Maximiana und der Imitatio Maximiani, Stuttgart. Schoolman (2016): Edward M. Schoolman, “Nobility, aristocracy and status in early medieval Ravenna”, in: Herrin and Nelson (2016), 211 – 238. Scioli (2011 – 2012): Emma Scioli, “The Visual Dreamscape of Propertius 3.3”, in: Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 56/57, 137 – 175. Scioli (2015): Emma Scioli, Dream, Fantasy, and Visual Art in Roman Elegy, Madison, Wisconsin. Scivoletto (1976): Nino Scivoletto, Musa iocosa. Studio sulla poesia giovanile di Ovidio, Rome. Scourfield (2007): J. H. David Scourfield, “Textual Inheritances and Textual Relations in Late Antiquity”, in: J. H. David Scourfield (ed.), Texts and Culture in Late Antiquity, Swansea, 1 – 32. Sessa (2018): Kristina Sessa, Daily Life in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Shanzer (1983): Danuta Shanzer, “Ennodius, Boethius, and the Date and Interpretation of Maximianus’s Elegia III”, in: Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 111, 183 – 195. Shanzer (1991): Danuta Shanzer, “Arcanum Varonis iter: Licentius’ verse epistle to Augustine”, in: Révue des Études Augustiniennes 37, 110 – 143. Sharrock (1990): Alison Sharrock, “Alternae Voces – Again”, in: The Classical Quarterly 40.2, 570 – 571. Sharrock (1994): Alison Sharrock, Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria II, Oxford. Sharrock (1995): Alison Sharrock, “The drooping rose: elegiac failure in Amores 3.7”, in: Ramus 24.2, 152 – 180.

216

Bibliography

Sharrock (2000): Alison Sharrock, “Intratextuality: Texts, Parts, and (W)holes in Theory”, in: Alison Sharrock and Helen Morales (eds), Intratextuality. Greek and Roman Relations, Oxford. Sharrock (2009): Alison Sharrock, Reading Roman Comedy. Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence, Cambridge. Sharrock (2018): Alison Sharrock, “How Do We Read a (W)hole?: Dubious First Thoughts about the Cognitive Turn”, in: Stephen Harrison, Stavros Frangoulidis and Theodore D. Papanghelis (eds), Intratextuality and Latin Literature, Berlin and Boston, 15 – 31. Sider (1997): David Sider, The Epigrams of Philodemus: Introduction, Text, and Commentary, Oxford. Skinner (22014): Marilyn B. Skinner, Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture, Malden. Smith (2015): Steven D. Smith, “Agathias and Paul the Silentiary: Erotic epigram and the sublimation of same-sex desire in the age of Justinian”, in: Mark Masterson, Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz and James Robson (eds), Sex in Antiquity. Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World, London and New York, 500 – 516. Smith (2019): Steven D. Smith, Greek Epigram and Byzantine Culture. Gender, Desire, and Denial in the Age of Justinian, Cambridge. Soler (2006): Joëlle Soler, “Le poème de Rutilius Namatianus et la tradition du récit de voyage antique: à propos du ‘genre’ du De reditu suo”, in: Vita Latina 174, 104 – 113. Solin (2003): Heikki Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom, vol. 1, Berlin. Spaltenstein (1977): François Spaltenstein, “Structure et intentions du recueil poétique de Maximien”, in: Études de Lettres, Bulletin de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Lausanne et de la Société des Études de Lettres 10.3, 81 – 101. Spaltenstein (1983): François Spaltenstein, Commentaire des élegies de Maximien, Rome. Spinazzè (2011): Linda Spinazzè, Per un’edizione critica digitale: il aso di Massimiano elegiaco, PhD Dissertation, Università Ca’Foscari, Venice. Stanford (1954): William B. Stanford, The Ulysses Theme: A Study in the Adaptability of a Traditional Hero, Oxford. Stephens and Havens (2018): Walter Stephens and Earle A. Havens (eds), assisted by Janet E. Gomez, Literary Forgery in Early Modern Europe 1450 – 1800, Baltimore. Stockert (2009): Walter Stockert, Titus Maccius Plautus Cistellaria. Einleitung, Text und Kommentar, Munich. Stover (2021): Justin Stover, “Review of A. M. Juster, ed. and trans., The Elegies of Maximianus, with an introduction by Michael Roberts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2018”, Speculum 96.3, 835 – 836. Strazzulla (1893): Vincenzo Strazzulla, Massimiano Etrusco elegiografo, Catania. Suter (2008): Ann Suter (ed.) Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond, Oxford and New York. Tandy (2016): Sean Tandy, “Boethius as Anti-Boethius: A Re-evaluation of the Role of Boethius in Maximianus’ ‘Third Elegy’ ”, Presentation at the 51st International Congress on Medieval Studies (ICMS), Kalamazoo, Michigan, May 12 – 15. Szövérffy (1967 – 1968): Joseph Szövérffy, “Maximianus a satirist?”, in: Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 72, 351 – 367. Thomas (1999): Richard Thomas, Reading Virgil and his Texts. Studies in Intertextuality, Ann Arbor.

Bibliography

217

Thomason (1923): Richmond F. Thomason, “The Ciris and Ovid: A Study of the Language of the Poem”, in: Classical Philology 18.3, 239 – 262. Thompson (1949): Henry J. Thompson, Prudentius, vol. 1, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Thorsen (2013a): Thea, S. Thorsen, The Cambridge Companion to Latin Love Elegy, Cambridge. Thorsen (2013b): Thea, S. Thorsen, “The Latin elegiac couplet”, in: Thea S. Thorsen (2013a), 367 – 378. Tissol (2002): Garth Tissol, “Ovid and the Exilic Journey of Rutilius Namatianus”, in: Arethusa 35.3, 435 – 446. Tracy (1976): V. A. Tracy, “The leno-maritus”, in: The Classical Journal 72, 62 – 64. Traina (1987): Alessandro Traina, “Le busse di Aquilina (Massimiano 3, 37)”, in: Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 115, 54 – 57. Traina (1988): Alessandro Traina, “Le busse di Aquilina (Massimiano 3, 37)”, in: Rivista di filologia e di istruzione classica 116, 122. Traina (2001): Giusto Traina, “Lycoris the Mime”, in: Augusto Fraschetti (ed.), Roman Women, transl. Linda Lappin, Chicago and London, 82 – 99 and 217 – 220. Tromaras (22001): Leonidas Tromaras, Κάτουλλος. Ο νεωτερικός ποιητής της Ρώμης, Thessaloniki. Trouard (1942): Mary A. Trouard, Cicero’s Attitude towards the Greeks, PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago. Tsagalis (2004): Christos Tsagalis, Epic Grief: Personal Laments in Homer’s Iliad, Berlin and New York. Tsai (2007): Kevin S.-C. Tsai, “Hellish Love: Genre in Claudian’s De raptu Proserpinae”, in: Helios 34.1, 37 – 68. Tsartsidis (2021): Thomas Tsartsidis, “Prudentius’ Agnes and the Elegiac puella: Generic Interactions in Late Antique Christian Poetry”, in: Mnemosyne 74, 1034 – 1054. Tyson (1996): Margaret Tyson, The First Elegy of Maximianus: A Translation and Commentary Based on an Analysis of Possible Earlier Latin Influences Found by a Computer Search on the Phi CD-ROM Disk, M.A. Thesis, University of Ottawa. Tzounakas (2006): Spyridon Tzounakas, “Rusticitas versus urbanitas in the Literary Programmes of Tibullus and Persius”, in: Mnemosyne 59.1, 111 – 128. Uden (2009): James Uden, “The Elegiac Puella as Virgin Martyr”, in: Transactions of the American Philological Association 139, 205 – 219. Uden (2011): James Uden, “Twentieth-Century Poets and Late Antique Latin Literature: Parkinson, Rexroth, Porter”, Presentation at the Conference ‘Renewing the Classics: Latin Poetry of Late Antiquity’ (Brown University, 10 November 2011), 1 – 23 (the paper is available at the author’s page in Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/12167936/ Twentieth_Century_Poets_and_Late_Antique_Latin_Literature_Parkinson_Rexroth_Porter, seen 8. 4. 2021). Uden (2012): James Uden, “Love Elegies of Late Antiquity”, in: Gold (2012), 459 – 475. Uden (2018): James Uden, “Nineteenth- and Twentienth-Century Vision of Late Antique Literature”, in: McGill and Watts (2018), 627 – 642. Uden and Fielding (2010): James Uden and Ian Fielding, “Latin elegy in the old age of the world: the elegiac corpus of Maximianus”, in: Arethusa 43.3, 439 – 460. Vaiopoulos (2003): Vaios Vaiopoulos, “Cum tristi morfo defessa iaceres (Tib. I, 5, 9): η ‘ασθενής’ ερωμένη στην αυγούστεια ελεγεία, μέρος Α΄”, in: Πλάτων 53, 263 – 305.

218

Bibliography

Vaiopoulos (2005): Vaios Vaiopoulos, “Cum tristi morfo defessa iaceres (Tib. I, 5, 9): η ‘ασθενής’ ερωμένη στην αυγούστεια ελεγεία, μέρος B ΄”, in: Πλάτων 54, 135 – 190. Vaiopoulos (2013): Vaios Vaiopoulos, “Ov., Her. 14: το παράπονο της Υπερμήστρας”, in: Ιόνιος Λόγος 4, 105 – 168. Vaiopoulos (2014): Vaios Vaiopoulos, “Hypemnestra as soror quaerens. Reading Ovid’s Her. 14”, in: Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 14, 273 – 314. Vaiopoulos (2019): Vaios Vaiopoulos, Ηρωίδες 18 – 19 (Λέανδρος και Ηρώ): Εισαγωγή, μετάφραση, σχόλια, Athens. Vaiopoulos, Michalopoulos and Michalopoulos (2021): Vaios Vaiopoulos, Andreas N. Michalopoulos and Charilaos N. Michalopoulos, Οβίδιος Ηρωίδες (1 – 15). Εισαγωγή – Κείμενο – Μετάφραση – Σχόλια, Athens. Veyne (1988): Paul Veyne, Roman Erotic Elegy. Love, Poetry, and the West, transl. David Pellauer, Chicago. Viansino (1963): Giovanni Viansino, Paolo Silenziario: Epigrammi, Turin. Vitiello (2006): Massimiliano Vitiello, Il principe, il filosofo, il guerriero: Lineamenti di pensiero politico nell’ Italia ostragota, Stuttgart. Vitiello (2014): Massimiliano Vitiello, Theodahad: A Platonic King at the Collapse of Ostrogothic Italy, Toronto. Voigt (2004) Astrid Voigt, Female Lamentation in Greek and Roman Epic poetry: Its Cultural Discourses and Narrative Presentation, PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford. Voigt (2016): Astrid Voigt, “The Power of the Grieving Mind: Female Lament in Statius’s Thebaid”, in: Illinois Classical Studies 41.1, 59 – 84. Vos (2020): Gary Vos, “Maximianus Renascens: Review on Paul White, Gallus Reborn. A Study of the Diffusion and Reception of Works Ascribed to Gallus Cornelius Gallus. Pp. vi + 75. London and New York: Routledge 2019”, in: The Classical Review 70.1, 254 – 256. Voutsinou-Kikilia (2001): Maria Voutsinou-Kikilia, Fortunatus. Βενάντιος Ονώριος Κλημεντιανός Φορτουνάτος. Ποιήματα αφιερωμένα στη Ραδεγούνδη και την Αγνή, Athens. Wallis (2018): Jonathan Wallis, Introspection and Engagement in Propertius. A Study of Book 3, Cambridge. Walter (1988): Horst Walter, Studien zur Hirtendichtung Nemesianus, Stuttgart. Warden (1980): John Warden, Fallax Opus: Poet and Reader in the Elegies of Propertius, Toronto. Wasyl (2011): Anna Maria Wasyl, Genres Rediscovered: Studies in Latin Miniature Epic, Love Elegy, and Epigram of the Romano-Barbaric Age, Krakόw. Wasyl (2014a): Anna Maria Wasyl, “Quemlibet dehortari ne…senectutis vicia desideret. Maximianus’s Elegy on Old Age and a Few Examples of its Medieval Reception”, in: Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae 24.2, 135 – 151. Wasyl (2014b): Anna Maria Wasyl, “Carmina nulla cano. L’ autobiografismo ostentato e le convenzioni letterarie nell’ opera elegiaca di Massimiano”, in: Maria Grazia Iodice and Mariusz Zagόrksi (eds), Carminis personae – Character in Roman Poetry, Frankfurt am Maim, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Vienna, 153 – 170. Wasyl (2015): Anna Maria Wasyl, “An Aggrieved Heroine in Merovingian Gaul. Venantius Fortunatus, Radegund’s Lament on the Destruction of Thuringia, and Echoing Ovid’s Heroides”, in: Bolletino di Studi Latini 45.1, 64 – 75. Watson (1982): Lindsay C. Watson, “Ovid Amores 1.6: A parody of a hymn?”, in: Mnemosyne 35, 92 – 102.

Bibliography

219

Watson (1983): Patricia Watson, “Puella and Virgo”, in: Glotta 61, 119 – 143. Webb (2002): Ruth Webb, “Female entertainers in late antiquity”, in: Pat Easterling and Edith Hall (eds), Greek and Roman Actors: Aspects of an Ancient Profession, Cambridge, 282 – 303. Webb (2008): Ruth Webb, Demons and Dancers: Performance in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Webster (1900): Richard Webster, The Elegies of Maximianus. Edition, Translation and Commentary, Princeton. Wedeck (1952): Harry E. Wedeck, “An Analysis of the Techniques of Maximianus Etruscus”, in: Latomus 2, 487 – 495. Weeks (1989): Jeffrey Weeks, Sex, Politics and Society: The Regulation of Sexuality since 1800, London. Welsh (2011): Jarrett T. Welsh, “Notes on the Text of Maximianus”, in: Exemplaria Classica 15, 213 – 224. West (1972): Martin L. West, Iambi et elegi graeci, Oxford. West (2009): Nigel West, Historical Dictionary of Sexpionage, Lanham, MD. Wheeler (2015): Stephen M. Wheeler, Accessus ad Auctores: Medieval Introductions to the Authors (Codex latinus monacensis 19475), Kalamazoo. Whitby and Roberts (2018): Mary Whitby and Michael Roberts, “Epic Poetry”, in: McGill and Watts (2018), 221 – 240. White (2019): Paul White: Gallus Reborn. A Study of the Diffusion and Reception of Works Ascribed to Gaius Cornelius Gallus, London and New York. Whitmarsh (2008): Tim Whitmarsh, “Introduction”, in: Tim Whitmarsh (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Greek and Roman Novel, Cambridge and New York, 1 – 14. Wickham (1981): Chris Wickham, Early Medieval Italy: Central Power and Local Society 400 – 1000, Totowa, N. J. Wiggers (1980): Nancy Wiggers, “Variations on a Theme: Nightmare and Daydream in Propertius II.26”, in: Latomus 39, 121 – 128. Wilhelm (1907): Friedrich Wilhelm, “Maximianus und Boethius”, in: Rheinisches Museum 62, 601 – 614. Wilkinson (2015): Kate Wilkinson, Women and Modesty in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Winsbury (2009): Rex Winsbury, The Roman Book. Books, Publishing and Performance in Classical Rome, London and New York. Wrenhaven (2015): Kelly Wrenhaven, “Slaves”, in: W. Martin Bloomer (ed.), A Companion to Ancient Education, Oxford, 464 – 473. Wyke (1987): Maria Wyke, “Written Women: Propertius’ Scripta Puella”, in: The Journal of Roman Studies 77, 47 – 61. Wyke (1989): Maria Wyke, “Reading female flesh: Ovid Amores 3.1”, in: Averil Cameron (ed.), History as Text: The Writing of Ancient History, London, 111 – 143. Wyke (1994): Maria Wyke, “Taking the woman’s part: engendering Roman love elegy”, in: Ramus 23, 110 – 128. Wyke (2002): Maria Wyke, The Roman Mistress. Ancient and Modern Representations, Oxford. Yardley (1978): John C. Yardley, “The Elegiac Paraclausithyron”, in: Eranos 76, 19 – 34. Yardley (1979): John C. Yardley, “The door and the lover: Propertius 1,16”, in: Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 2, 155 – 162. Yardley (1980): John C. Yardley, “Paulus Silentiarius, Ovid, and Propertius”, in: The Classical Quarterly 30.1, 239 – 43.

220

Bibliography

Yardley (1987): John C. Yardley, “Propertius’ s 4.5, Ovid Amores 1.6 and Roman Comedy”, in: Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 213, 179 – 189. Zimmermann Damer (2010): Erika Zimmermann Damer, The Female Body in Latin Love Poetry, PhD Dissertation, Chapel Hill. Ziogas (2017): Ioannis Ziogas, “Ovid and Catullus: The Silence of Time”, in: Andreas N. Michalopoulos, Sophia Papaioannou and Andrew Zissos (eds), Dicite Pierides: Classical Studies in Honour of Stratis Kyriakidis, Newcastle upon Tyne, 202 – 219. Zocca (1995): Elena Zocca, “La ‘senectus mundi’: significato, fonti e fortuna di un tema ciprianeo”, in: Augustinianum 35, 641 – 677. Zurli (1991): Loriano Zurli, “L’Aegritudo Perdicae e Maxim. 3”, in: Bolletino di Studi Latini 21, 313 – 318.

Electronic Sources

221

Electronic Sources Brill’s New Pauly, s.v. poetae novelli, accessible at: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/en tries/brill-s-new-pauly/poetae-novelli-e929350 (seen 18. 9. 2020). Britannica, s.v. Claudian, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Claudian (seen 13. 8. 2020). Britannica, s.v. elegy, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/art/elegy (seen 16.9.2020). Britannica, s.v. Rutilius Claudius Namatianus, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biog raphy/Rutilius-Claudius-Namatianus (seen 27. 8. 2020). Britannica, s.v. Theodoric, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodoricking-of-Italy (seen 28. 7. 2020). Britannica, s.v. Yannis Ritsos, accessible at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Yannis-Rit sos (seen 7. 8. 2020). Perseus Digital Library, translation of Sophocles’ Antigone: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hop per/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0186%3Acard%3D781 (seen 18. 8. 2020). Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, s.v. alternus, -a, -um, 1: 1756: http://publikationen.badw.de/en/ thesaurus/lemmata#6162 (seen 17. 11. 2020). Treccani Institute, s.v. Vitali, Bernandino dei: https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bernardi no-dei-vitali_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/ (seen 19. 1. 2022).

Index locorum Accessus ad auctores 27 Accessus Maximiani 3 – 7 27 Aeschylus, PV 349 – 374 157 Agathias, Cycle 10, 137, 138, 190, 197 – Anth. Pal. 5.728 10 Aimeric, Ars lectoria 26 Alfonsi, Disciplina clericalis 28 Ambrosius, De institutione virginis 91 – De viduis 91 – De virginibus 91 – De virginitate 91 – Exhortatio virginitatis 91 Anecdoton Holderi 91 Anthologia Latina 2 Anth. Lat. 914 – 917 19 Anthologia Palatina (or Greek Anthology) Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.6 157 – Bibl. 1.39 – 44 157 – Bibl. 1.53 157 Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 4.15 103 – Galat. 3.24 – 25 103 Appendix Maximiani v, vii, 24, 25, 63, 197, 201, 203, 215 Apuleius, Metamorphoses 122, 127, 205, 206 – Met. 4.26 – 27 122 – Met. 9.31 122, 127 – Met. 11.20 122, 127 Ariosto, De diversis amoribus 1 66 Aristotle, Poetics 1448a 1 Arnobius, Adv. nat. 4.37.1 105 Auctores Otto 26 Augustine, De Civ. D. 2.2 105 – De ord. 1.8.24 92 – Serm. 4.352.2 105 Aulus Gellius, NA 18.7.3 145 Ausonius, Bissula 4 – Cupido cruciatus (or Cupido cruciatur) 4, 211 – Epigrams 4 Avianus, Fables 26, 104 Avitus of Vienne, De virginitate 91

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-013

Boethius, Consolatio Philosophiae 37, 88, 92, 93, 111, 119, 135, 166, 168, 201, 213. – Cons. 1.P1.1 78 – Cons. 1.P1.2 166 – Cons. 1.P1.8 78 – Cons. 1.P1.9 177 – Cons. 1.P2.5 177 – Cons. 3.P2.12 150 – Cons. 1.M1.9 – 16 37 – Cons. 1.M1.12 37 – Cons. 2.M8.1 – 2 166 – Cons. 2.M8.3 – 4 166 – Cons. 2.M8.15 166 – Cons. 3M9 166 Callimachus, Aet. Prol. 26 – 28 (Pfeiffer) 79 – 80 – Aet. fr. 1.27 – 28 (Pfeiffer) 184 – Aet. fr. 2.3 (Pfeiffer) 158 Calpurnius Siculus, Ecl. 3 102, 107, 206 Carmen bucolicum 91 Cassiodorus, Var. 1.10 89 – Var. 1.21 6, 73 – Var. 1.21.3 73 – Var. 1.45 89 – Var. 2.40 89 – Var. 5.40.5 145 – Var. 10.7 9 Catullus 1.4 5 – 2a 140 – 2a.1 160 – 2b 140 – 2.7 160 – 3 160 – 3.4 160 – 16.5 – 6 105 – 68b.70 121 – 72.3 – 4 69 – 72 69 – 72.4 69 – 76.2 – 3 71 Celsus, Med. proem. 23 108

Index locorum

Chaucer, Merchant’s Tale 25, 204 – Pardoner’s Tale 25, 211 – Troilus and Criseyde 25 Christine de Pizan, Epistre de la prison de vie humaine 26 Cicero, Arch. 3.50.193 47 – Att. 7.18.3 145 – Brut. 170 96 – Brut. 285 96 – De or. 1.17 96 – De or. 1.221 145 – De Senectute 17, 34, 35, 54 – Fam. 16.4.2 145 – Flac. 9 – 12 145 – Flac. 15 – 17 145 – Flac. 19 145 – Flac. 21 – 22 145 – Flac. 24 145 – Flac. 26 145 – Flac. 34 145 – Flac. 35 145 – Flac. 37 145 – Flac. 42 145 – Flac. 60 – 61 145 – Flac. 66 145 – Inv. rhet. 1.109 185 – Mil. 55 145 – Rab. Post. 35 – 36 145 – Rep. 3.9 145 – Scaur. 3.4 145 Claudian, carm. min. 29 158 – VI Cons. Hon. prol. 7 126 – De raptu Proserpinae 26 – De raptu Proserpinae books 1 and 2 3 – DRP 2.18 120 – DRP 2.300 – 301 39 – DRP 2.300 – 302 183 – Gigantomachy 157 – Gild. 1.21 – 25 10 Codex Iustinianus 10.40.3 167 Cod. Theodosianus 12.1.140 167 Cotta, Giovanni – Poems Ad Lycorim (5, 6, 7, and 8) 66 – Ad Lycorim 6.6 66 Columbanus of Bobbio, Ad Sethum 25 De Senectute (Maximiani) 5 Diodorus Siculus, 4.21 157

223

Diogenes Laertius, Aristotle 5.21 165 Disticha Catonis 26, 104 Dracontius, De laudibus Dei 151 – De laudibus Dei 1.366 – 368 164 – De laudibus Dei 1.387 – 390 151 – Rom. 2 158 – Satisfactio 3 Ennodius – Carm. 2.132 (De Boethio spatha cincto) 89 – Carm. 2.132.3 89 – Epist. 8.1.26 90 – Dictio 8.1.18 105 – 290.17 9 Eugenius of Toledo, Carmen 14 25 Florilegium Macrobianum 5 Fragmentum Grenfellianum 139 Gauricus, Ammonius in quinque voce Porphyrii 19 – Cornelii Galli fragmenta 19, 202 – Cornelii Galli vita 20, 21 – De arte poetica ad Franciscum Puccium Florentium 19 – De sculptura 19 – Elegiacon 22 – Elegiacon 3 – 6 22 – Elegiacon 17 – 28 22 – Elegiacon 29 – 34 22 – Elegiacon 35 – 36 22 – Elegiacon 37 – 38 22 Geoffrey of Vinsauf, Poetria Nova 28 Gower, Confessio amantis 26 Hesiod, Opera et dies (Works and Days) 158 – Theog. 116 158 – Theog. 185 157 – Theog. 188 – 206 157 – Theog. 820 – 870 157 Horace, Ars poetica 68 – Ars P. 73 – 74 1 – Ars P. 73 – 98 1, 68 – Ars P. 77 – 78 1 – Ars P. 169 – 174 39 – Carm. 1.4.13 – 14 183 – Carm. 1.6.10 89 – Carm. 1.14 148 – Carm. 1.15.15 89

224

Index locorum

– Carm. 1.19.1 153 – Carm. 1.25 71 – Carm. 3.15 71 – Carm. 3.2.1 39 – Carm. 3.16.22 – 23 39 – Carm. 3.21.9 – 12 49 – Carm. 3.30.6 – 7 36 – Carm. 3.53 – 58 157 – Carm. 4.1.3 36 – Carm. 4.1.5 153 – Carm. 4.13 71 – Epist. 1.2.14 – 16 133 – Epist. 1.18.47 46 – Epist. 1.18.49 39, 46 – Epist. 1.18.52 – 54 46 – Epod. 12.14 – 17 140 – Sat. 1.2.31 – 35 49, 91 – Sat. 1.3.43 – 44 69 – Sat. 1.5.83 – 85 140 – Sat. 2.2.110 39 Homer, Iliad 156, 159, 217 – Il. 22.435 – 436 160 – Odyssey 156, 158 – Od. 8.266 – 366 158 – Od. 11.582 – 592 55 Hyginus, Fab. 28 157 Imitatio Maximiani 5, 25, 197, 198, 215 Juvenal, Tenth Satire 35 – Sat. 10.187 – 288 17, 34, 39 – Sat. 12.72 119 – Sat. 14.175 153 Lactantian (?), De ave phoenice 2, 84, 150, 211 – De ave phoenice 161 – 170 84 – De ave phoenice 163 – 166 150 Lactantius, mort. 10.1 88 Le regret de Maximian 25 Liber Catonianus (Sex Auctores) 26 Livy, Ab urbe condita 22 – 22.10.9 158 Lucretius, De rerum natura 149, 161 – DRN 1.29 – 40 158 – DRN 4.1030 – 1036 121 – DRN 4.1068 – 1072 99 – DRN 5.119 – 122 157 – DRN 5.1158 – 1160 122 Lydia bella puella candida 12

Maccius, Anth. Pal. 5.130 89 Macrobius, In Somn. 1.3.4 122 – Saturnalia 5 – Sat. 1.20.9 157 Martial, 4.62 86 – 8.73.6 20, 64, 68 – 10.2.8 36 – 14.7 122 Maximianus, Elegies v, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 40, 41, 48, 49, 50, 54, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 104, 106, 111, 117, 118, 119, 123, 129, 132, 133, 145, 151, 154, 160, 163, 164, 166, 167, 174, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 196, 200, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 214, 216, 219 – Nugae 5 – El. 1 37, 65 – El. 1.1 31, 181 – El. 1.1 – 2 181 – El. 1.1 – 6 35, 37 – El. 1.1 – 8 31 – El. 1.2 37, 42 – El. 1.3 33, 42 – El. 1.5 – 6 26 – El. 1.6 37, 177 – El. 1.9 – 14 7, 22, 42, 62 – El. 1.9 – 100 31 – El. 1.10 – 12 51 – El. 1 – 11 48 – El. 1.11 33, 44, 48, 49, 75, 81, 121 – El. 1.11 – 12 46 – El. 1.13 – 14 44 – El. 1.16 17 – El. 1.21 – 22 44 – El. 1.21 – 50 155 – El. 1.23 – 24 44 – El. 1.25 – 26 45 – El. 1.27 45 – El. 1.27 – 32 29, 46 – El. 1.28 49 – El. 1.29 48 – El. 1.29 – 30 47 – El. 1.30 48, 80, 129 – El. 1.31 47, 113, 129 – El. 1.31 – 32 47, 113

Index locorum

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

1.32 47 1.33 – 34 62 1.35 – 36 45, 58 1.35 – 40 62 1.37 – 38 45 1.39 – 40 45 1.41 – 44 22, 45 1.43 54 1.45 – 46 48 1.47 – 49 49 1.49 18, 76 1.51 – 52 48 1.53 17, 72 1.53 – 54 39 1.55 17, 40 1.55 – 58 62 1.59 – 60 7, 39 1.59 – 70 49 1.59 – 100 16, 35, 37, 41, 49, 65 1.62 33 1.63 6, 7, 33, 51 1.63 – 64 51 1.71 – 72 51, 115 1.71 – 78 49, 118, 151 1.72 52, 167 1.73 52 1.73 – 74 115 1.74 50 1.76 17, 50 1.77 53 1.77 – 80 52 1.78 33, 50 1.79 – 80 53 1.79 – 100 49, 52 1.80 53 1.81 54 1.84 17 1.85 53 1.89 50 1.89 – 90 118 1.89 – 100 54 1.91 – 92 54 1.101 17 1.101 – 102 38 1.101 – 116 31 1.102 18, 32, 182 1.105 17, 54

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

1.111 33 1.117 – 164 31 1.124 18, 55 1.125 33, 55 1.127 55, 56 1.127 – 130 22, 55, 56, 62 1.128 56 1.129 46, 172 – 173 1.134 41 1.143 17 1.149 – 150 62 1.153 108 1.159 – 162 41 1.163 54 1.165 – 174 31 1.168 33 1.171 6 1.171 – 174 62 1.175 – 220 31 1.177 17 1.177 – 178 38 1.178 17 1.179 17, 56, 57 1.179 – 180 18, 32, 40. 1.185 54 1.189 – 190 54 1.195 17, 38 1.195 – 200 39 1.204 17 1.209 57 1.209 – 210 57 1.209 – 214 57 1.210 57 1.211 – 212 57 1.213 58 1.213 – 214 58 1.213 – 216 41 1.214 58 1.217 17 1.221 – 234 31 1.223 17, 63 1.223 – 230 55 1.235 – 292 31 1.237 32 1.241 – 244 58 1.246 17 1.249 41

225

226

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

Index locorum

1.249 – 252 41 1.249 – 254 41 1.258 32 1.259 – 262 59 1.260 59 1.261 17 1.261 – 262 59 1.265 – 266 62 1.269 34 1.271 34 1.272 34 1.273 60 1.273 – 274 60 1.273 – 278 62 1.274 60 1.279 118 1.280 17, 18, 76 1.283 – 286 65 1.283 – 288 65 1.291 18, 60, 61 1.291 – 292 60, 62, 65, 82 1.292 60, 61, 65, 76 2 65, 66, 117 2.1 50, 64, 66, 67, 69, 135 2.3 33, 65, 75 2.1 – 5 64 2.3 – 5 75 2.6 66, 70, 136 2.7 18, 66, 76, 160 2.6 – 16 64 2.8 16, 17, 67, 76 2.9 67, 76, 77 2.10 76 2.11 – 18 69 2.13 17, 69 2.14 67, 77 2.14 – 15 77 2.15 17, 77, 78 2.17 – 24 64 2.18 69, 70 2.22 18, 32 2.25 – 32 71, 77, 78 2.27 78 2.28 78 2.29 – 30 78 2.31 – 32 78 2.33 17, 79

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

2.33 – 36 79 2.33 – 40 64 2.35 79 2.36 79 2.38 18, 76 2.41 – 42 64 2.43 – 62 64 2.44 18, 76 2.45 – 50 6, 73 2.45 – 62 73 2.47 – 48 34 2.51 72 2.51 – 52 72 2.51 – 54 79 2.53 – 54 80 2.54 80, 129, 188 2.55 72 2.57 76 2.57 – 58 80 2.58 81 2.60 17 2.63 – 64 81 2.64 22, 81 2.65 17, 72, 133, 156 2.65 – 72 64 2.66 72 2.67 18, 32 2.69 – 70 69 2.71 17, 69 2.71 – 72 71 2.73 67, 82 2.73 – 74 65, 82 2.74 18, 65, 76, 82 3 117, 135, 187 3.1 65 3.1 – 2 7 – 8 3.1 – 4 11, 84, 94, 180 3.3 11, 94 3.3 – 4 11, 149 3.5 95 3.5 – 6 84, 95 3.5 – 8 83 3.6 95 3.7 95, 96 3.8 53, 96 3.9 – 16 83 3.11 87, 94, 113, 129, 131, 136

Index locorum

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

3.11 – 14 112, 189 3.12 17, 113 3.13 113 3.14 113 3.17 9, 87, 98, 103 3.17 – 18 135 3.17 – 20 83 3.17 – 29 97 3.18 101 3.19 97 3.21 – 28 83 3.25 – 32 92, 106 3.27 97 3.28 97 3.26 – 28 97 3.29 17, 97 3.29 – 30 135 3.29 – 31 83 3.30 98 3.30 – 31 86, 102 3.31 – 34 83 3.34 17 3.35 105 3.35 – 36 105, 107 3.35 – 42 83, 105 3.37 18 3.37 – 40 110 3.39 – 40 109 3.39 – 42 99 3.43 – 46 83 3.44 41, 177 3.47 9 3.47 – 48 88 3.47 – 70 88 3.47 – 94 91 3.48 6, 22 3.53 89 3.53 – 54 104 3.53 – 55 88 3.55 108 3.59 – 60 107 3.61 92 3.63 90, 99, 110 3.63 – 70 105 3.65 – 70 99 3.66 17, 101 3.69 17

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

3.69 – 70 89 3.71 87, 110 3.71 – 72 87 3.71 – 74 34 3.73 17 3.74 17, 18, 32 3.75 – 78 83 3.77 – 78 99 3.78 99, 108 3.79 – 80 113 3.79 – 84 83 3.80 114 3.83 – 84 84, 91, 97, 151 3.85 – 90 83 3.87 17, 188 3.87 – 90 88, 91 3.88 106, 111 3.91 – 92 99 3.91 – 94 83 3.93 84, 151 3.93 – 94 93, 114 3.94 115 4.1 118 4.1 – 4 180 4.1 – 6 85, 116 4.1 – 50 116 4.4 123, 124 4.5 124 4.5 – 6 118 4.7 120 4.7 – 8 118, 120 4.7 – 14 116, 128 4.8 120 4.9 – 12 128 – 136 4.10 123 4.12 123, 136 4.14 120, 124 4.15 17, 119, 121, 123 4.15 – 24 116 4.16 125 4.17 18, 76, 125, 130 4.17 – 22 130 4.19 121, 124, 130 4.20 124 4.22 123, 124, 131 4.23 – 24 84 4.24 126

227

228

Index locorum

– El. 4.25 – 26 22, 116, 117 – El. 4.26 5, 13, 17, 22, 117, 119, 123, 136, 189 – El. 4.27 126 – El. 4.27 – 34 116 – El. 4.29 – 30 131 – El. 4.30 131 – El. 4.31 – 32 126 – El. 4.31 – 47 124 – El. 4.35 126, 131 – El. 4.35 – 36 121 – El. 4.35 – 48 116 – El. 4.36 126 – El. 4.37 17, 123 – El. 4.37 – 38 126 – El. 4.42 18 – El. 4.43 – 44 122, 125 – El. 4.43 – 46 124, 125 – El. 4.45 125 – El. 4.46 125 – El. 4.49 5, 84, 117, 151, 189 – El. 4.49 – 50 122 – El. 4.49 – 54 116 – El. 4.51 18, 32, 84, 116, 151 – El. 4.51 – 52 122 – El. 4.51 – 60 116 – El. 4.52 17 – El. 4.53 122 – El. 4.53 – 54 84, 151 – El. 4.55 18 – 19 – El. 4.55 – 60 116, 118 – El. 4.58 5, 117, 189 – El. 5 22, 66 – El. 5.1 140 – El. 5.1 – 3 8, 9, 134 – El. 5.1 – 4 133 – El. 5.4 153 – El. 5.5 7, 20 – El. 5.5 – 6 144 – El. 5.5 – 8 133 – El. 5.7 17, 136 – El. 5.7 – 8 153 – El. 5.7 – 14 154 – El. 5.8 17 – El. 5.9 59, 138, 153 – El. 5.9 – 14 133 – El. 5.10 10, 119, 136

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

5.11 153 5.12 136 5.13 17 5.13 – 14 153 5.15 135 5.15 – 18 153 5.15 – 30 133 5.16 50, 114 – 115 5.17 56, 129 5.17 – 18 56, 119, 136, 169 5.19 166 5.19 – 20 142, 156 5.19 – 22 55 5.21 – 22 148 5.23 – 26 169 5.23 – 30 153 5.24 129 5.25 – 26 128, 170 5.27 – 28 135 5.27 – 30 137 5.29 171 5.29 – 34 170 – 171 5.30 53, 154, 171 5.31 171 5.31 – 32 171 5.31 – 38 133 5.33 171 5.34 171 5.37 – 38 164 5.39 – 40 144 5.39 – 42 55 5.39 – 46 133 5.40 17, 135 5.41 – 42 146, 154, 156 5.42 17 5.43 – 44 146 5.43 154 5.44 51 5.45 19, 76 5.45 – 46 55, 142 5.47 – 48 133 5.47 – 50 82, 140, 141, 144 5.48 154 5.49 – 70 134 5.51 – 52 160 – 161 5.51 – 70 141 5.51 – 82 140

Index locorum

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

5.52 161 5.55 – 58 172 5.56 172 5.57 – 58 172 5.61 – 62 141, 166 5.63 – 64 146 5.64 153 5.65 17 5.66 17 5.67 – 68 173 5.67 – 70 173 5.68 80, 153, 179, 188, 192 5.68 – 70 147 5.71 – 80 134 5.73 17, 18, 32 5.74 17 5.75 153 5.76 32 5.77 – 78 147, 192 5.77 – 80 174 5.80 17, 192 5.81 – 86 134 5.83 32 5.83 – 84 175 5.83 – 86 140 5.86 51 5.87 – 88 159 5.87 – 104 134, 138, 159, 177, 190 5.88 160 5.89 153, 160 5.89 – 90 159 5.91 160 5.91 – 98 159 5.91 – 102 159 5.93 160 5.94 – 95 160 5.95 – 96 175 5.97 160 5.97 – 100 160 5.98 160 5.99 – 102 159 5.101 56 5.101 – 102 56, 176 5.103 160 5.103 – 104 159 5.104 150, 175 5.105 177

– El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El. – El.

229

5.105 – 106 153 5.105 – 108 134, 176 5.107 41, 177 5.107 – 108 139 5.108 108, 150, 177, 179, 199 5.109 154 5.109 – 152 122, 144, 156, 159, 160, 178, 190, 191 – El. 5.110 11, 52, 61, 135, 148 – El. 5.111 – 112 150 – El. 5.111 – 118 162 – El. 5.113 – 114 150 – El. 5.115 – 116 164, 165 – El. 5.117 – 118 150 – El. 5.121 160 – El. 5.124 160 – El. 5.125 160 – El. 5.126 160 – El. 5.127 160 – El. 5.128 160 – El. 5.129 – 130 165 – El. 5.131 160 – El. 5.131 – 134 162, 165 – El. 5.135 154, 160 – El. 5.136 160 – El. 5.138 157 – El. 5.139 – 140 153 – El. 5.141 160, 163 – El. 5.141 – 144 157, 162 – El. 5.142 157, 160 – El. 5.143 160 – El. 5.145 34, 160 – El. 5.145 – 146 162 – El. 5.146 160 – El. 5.147 160 – El. 5.148 160 – El. 5.150 17 – El. 5.153 178 – El. 5.153 – 154 134, 178 – El. 5.154 152 – El. 6.1 31, 180, 181, 182 – El. 6.1 – 2 180, 181 – El. 6.2 181 – El. 6.3 – 4 180, 182 – El. 6.4 18, 32, 182 – El. 6.5 – 6 180, 183 – El. 6.5 – 8 182, 183

230

Index locorum

– El. 6.6 183 – El. 6.7 17 – El. 6.7 – 8 180 – El. 6.8 183 – El. 6.9 – 10 180, 184 – El. 6.10 184 – El. 6.11 32 – El. 6.11 – 12 180, 184 – El. 6.12 32 Meleager, Anth. Pal. 7.417.9 – 10 181 Menander, Aspis 103 – Dis Exapaton 103 – Perikeiromene 102 Mimnermus, frg. 1 (West) 2 – 3 35 – frg. 1 (West), 5 – 7 146 – frg. 1 (West), 9 35 – frg. 2 (West), 9 – 10 35 – frg. 4 (West), 2 35 – frg. 5 (West), 5 – 8 35 Molza, Francesco Maria, El. 1.7 – 8 66 – El. 2.9 66 – El. 3.4 66 Namatianus, Rutilius, De reditu suo 3, 156, 216 Nemesianus, Ecl. 2 102 – Ecl. 2.10 102, 107 – Ecl. 4 107 Nonnus, Dion. 20.35 157 Dion. 29.328 – 361 158 Ovid, Amores 4, 5, 15, 16, 21, 22, 41, 43, 51, 56, 68, 77, 79, 92, 96, 120, 130, 171, 186, 203, 206, 207, 211, 212, 215, 218, 219, 220 – Am. 1.1 – 2 174 – Am. 1.1.17 175 – Am. 1.1.20 120 – Am. 1.1.25 60 – Am. 1.1.27 185 – Am. 1.2.1 – 4 41 – Am. 1.3.16 – 18 69 – Am. 1.4.13 – 20 97 – Am. 1.5 137, 168 – Am. 1.5.10 120 – Am. 1.5.20 – 22 137 – Am. 1.5.22 171 – Am. 1.6.5 – 6 51, 171 – 172 – Am. 1.6 98, 100, 207, 218, 220

– Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am. – Am.

1.6.15 110 1.6.16 100 – 101 1.6.38 44 1.6.44 55 1.6.45 100 1.6.63 50 1.7 102, 109 1.8 70, 98 1.8.23 110 1.8.67 99 1.9.4 15, 38, 68, 75, 94, 187 1.9.28 60 1.9.43 50 1.10.20 89 1.10.33 50 1.11.14 77, 173 1.14 128, 170 1.14.1 170 1.15.7 43 1.15.29 – 30 20, 68 1.15.30 64 1.15.42 36, 37, 185 2.2.16 98 2.2.44 55 2.4.4 95 2.4.10 53 2.4.36 53 2.5.3 184 2.5.13 – 20 97 2.6.14 96 2.7 16 2.8 16 2.9 99, 112 2.10.7 17 2.13 10 2.13.24 99 2.14 10 2.19 98, 99, 112, 189, 204 2.19.22 45 2.19.57 99 3.1 43, 74, 92, 112, 128, 168, 170 3.1.7 170 3.1.12 58 3.1.17 57 3.1.35 – 36 43 3.1.43 53 3.3 124

Index locorum

– Am. 3.3.10 154 – Am. 3.4 98 – Am. 3.4.45 – 46 98 – Am. 3.4.47 57 – Am. 3.5 121, 124 – Am. 3.5.10 – 11 121 – Am. 3.5.42 17 – Am. 3.6.17 43, 121 – Am. 3.6.25 – 26 95 – Am. 3.6.101 95 – Am. 3.7 137, 138, 141, 142, 155, 160, 165, 168, 172, 190, 196, 215 – Am. 3.7.11 176 – Am. 3.7.26 95 – Am. 3.7.69 32 – Am. 3.7.73 – 74 137 – Am. 3.7.77 – 80 138, 141 – Am. 3.9.3 182 – Am. 3.11a.21 43, 121 – Am. 3.11a.31 176 – Am. 3.11b 99,112 – Am. 3.12 99, 112, 113 – Am. 3.12.30 55 – Am. 3.15.19 89 – Am. 3.15.20 43 – Ars Amatoria 4, 16, 79, 100, 215 – Ars am. 1.31 – 32 71 – Ars am.1.42 40 – Ars am.1.54 137 – Ars am. 1.275 51 – Ars am. 1.582 44 – Ars am. 1.644 96 – Ars am. 1.671 – 684 96 – Ars am. 1.673 89, 99 – Ars am. 1.729 95 – Ars am. 1.731 – 732 95 – Ars am. 2.165 39 – Ars am. 2.166 99 – Ars am. 2.444 96 – Ars am. 2.467 – 492 160 – Ars am. 2.477 173 – Ars am. 2.561 – 590 158 – Ars am. 2.591 95 – Ars am. 2.606 55 – Ars am. 2.658 – 662 53 – Ars am. 2.740 43 – Ars am. 3.263 – 288 52

231

– Ars am. 3.531 110 – Ars am. 3.537 20, 68 – Ars am. 3.758 96 – Epistulae ex Ponto 4, 37, 210 – Pont. 1.4.1 – 6 71 – Pont. 1.10.4 177 – Pont. 2.11.19 96 – Fasti 4, 22, 156, 158, 204, 205, 212 – Fast. 1.101 158 – Fast. 1.103 158 – Fast. 2.121 47, 129 – Fast. 2.779 96 – Fast. 3.177 158 – Fast. 3.439 – 440 157 – Fast. 5.194 54 – Fast. 6.253 121 – Heroides 100, 154, 209, 210 – Her. 1.76 95 – Her. 2.78 154 – Her. 2.102 96 – Her. 2.103 184 – Her. 2.110 99 – Her. 6.15 55 – Her. 7.79 154 – Her. 7.118 154 – Her. 10.58 154 – Her. 10.78 96 – Her. 11.51 184 – Her. 12.35 – 36 51 – Her. 12.37 154 – Her. 12.60 55 – Her. 13.105 50 – 51 – Her. 14.124 99 – Her. 15.63 95 – Her. 17.188 96 – Medea 22, 46, 187 – Metamorphoses 72, 92, 106, 120, 157, 158, 187, 195, 196, 202, 214 – Met. 1.4 177 – Met. 1.6 – 7 158 – Met. 1.151 – 162 157 – Met. 1.453 153 – Met. 3.416 121 – Met. 3.416 – 417 121 – Met. 4.55 – 126 92 – 106 – Met. 4.171 – 189 158 – Met. 7.149 55

232

Index locorum

– Met. 8.616 – 724 72 – Met. 8.631 72 – Met. 8.663 72 – Met. 15.875 – 876 36, 185 – Met. 15.875 – 879 43 – Met. 15.879 185 – Remedia amoris 4, 16, 26, 52, 149, 198, 204 – Rem. am. 12 79 – Rem. am. 32 44 – Rem. am. 363 43 – Rem. am. 379 46, 56, 77 – Rem. am. 387 56, 173 – Rem. am. 464 40 – Tristia 4, 37, 41, 95, 173, 210 – Tr. 1.1.12 170 – Tr. 1.1.67 37 – Tr. 2.2 122 – Tr. 2.354 56, 173 – Tr. 2.355 – 356 43, 121 – Tr. 2.445 20, 64, 68 – Tr. 2.446 22 – Tr. 3.7.9 – 10 47 – Tr. 3.8.24 177 – Tr. 3.10 156 – Tr. 3.11.25 36 – Tr. 4.3.51 70 – Tr. 4.4.72 165 – Tr. 4.7.17 157 – Tr. 4.10.53 64 – Tr. 4.10.59 – 60 43, 51 – Tr. 4.10.128 43 – Tr. 5.10 156 Palatine Anthology (or Greek Anthology) 137, 181, 201 Paul the Silentiary, Anth. Pal. 5.234 (= 49 Viansino) 138 Paulinus of Nola, Poem 25 2 – Poem 31 2 Pausanias, 8.29.2 157 Pervigilium Veneris 4, 196, 211 76 Pervigilium Veneris 76 162 Petronius, Satyrica 138 – Sat. 126.12 – 128.4 141 – Sat. 126.18 142 – Sat. 127.5 142 – Sat. 127.9 155

– Sat. 129 141 – Sat. 130 190 – Sat. 130.6 141 – Sat. 131.8 – 132.5 141 Philodemus, Anth. Pal. 5.132 = 12 – Sider 137 – Anth. Pal. 11.30 = 19 Sider 141 – Anth. Pal. 12.173.5 – 6 = 11 Sider Philostratus, Epist. 16 102 Plato, Lys. 214b 73 – Phaedo 138 – Resp. 488a-489d 148 – Symposium 73 – Symp. 189c-193d 98 – Symp. 189c-193e 165 – Symp. 195b 73 Plautus, Asin. 863 70 – Aul. 7 – 8 163 – Aul. 270 126 – Aul. 386 163 – Bacch. 100 126 – Bacch. 138 103 – Bacch. 523 163 – Bacch. 642 163 – Captivi 91 – Cas. 491 126 – Cas. 558 163 – Cas. 559 70 – Cas. 592 163 – Cistellaria 216 – Cist. 92 – 93 103 – Cist. 149 – 202 101 – Cist. 214 – 215 163 – Curc. 160 38 – Epid. 239 126 – Epid. 666 70 – Epid. 671 163 – Menaechmi 127, 203 – Men. 854 35 – Men. 902 156 – Merc. 91 103 – Merc. 291 70 – Merc. 314 70 – Merc. 498 104 – Merc. 920 163 – Mil. 147 100 – Mil. 927 163

98

Index locorum

– Mil. 105 – 107 103 – Most. 832 163 – Most. 1040 163 – Most. 1124 163 – Poen. 548 163 – Poen. 1097 163 – Poen. 1281 163 – Pseud. 447 103 Pliny, HN 1.1.3 108 – HN 7.112 145 – HN 29.14 145 Plutarch, Cato 12.5 145 – Cato 20.3 – 5 145 – Cato 22.1 – 5 145 – Cato 22.4 145 – Cato 23.2 145 – Cato 23.3 – 4 145 Priapeum 26 120 Priapeum 27 120 Propertius 1.1.1 60 – 1.1.16 96 – 1.2.14 44 – 1.2.27 – 28 137 – 1.3 209 – 1.7.19 123 – 1.8.40 77, 173 – 1.10.12 99 – 1.10.9 – 10 47 – 1.11.16 154 – 1.11.23 40 – 1.12.11 36 – 1.13.20 95 – 1.15.8 50 – 1.16 98, 147, 199, 210, 212 – 1.16.1 34 – 1.16.5 34 – 1.16.7 123 – 1.16.11 – 12 123 – 1.16.14 95 – 1.16.16 123, 176 – 1.16.20 97, 125 – 1.16.25 40, 110 – 1.16.25 – 26 45 – 1.16.26 98 – 1.16.35 40 – 1.16.36 99 – 1.16.43 154

– 1.16.43 – 44 161 – 1.16.45 60 – 1.18.18 96 – 1.19.13 50 – 1.21.7 20 – 1.21.10 20 – 1.22.4 143 – 2.3.9 – 16 136 – 2.3.20 137 – 2.7.19 40 – 2.5.3 154 – 2.5.30 95 – 2.8.11 99 – 2.9 98 – 2.10.22 44 – 2.15.7 – 8 141 – 2.16 98 – 2.17 98 – 2.18b.19 154 – 2.20.18 96 – 2.25.35 114 – 2.26a 124 – 2.26b 96 – 2.30b 57 – 2.30b.28 44 – 2.33 124 – 2.34.91 64 – 2.34.91 – 92 20, 68 – 3.3.10 105 – 3.8.25 95 – 3.10.25 57 – 3.18.31 105 – 3.19.10 96 – 3.24 99, 112 – 3.24.31 – 36 71 – 3.25 99, 112 – 4 156 – 4.1.135 43, 124, 210 – 4.3.72 115 – 4.5 110, 220 – 4.8 98 – 4.9 55 Procopius, Goth. 6.29.1 135 – Goth. 6.29.1 – 2 6 – Goth. 6.29.7 135 Prosper of Aquitaine Ad coniugem – suam 2

233

234

Index locorum

– De providentia Dei 3 Proverbia Maximiani 5 Prudentius, Cathemerinon 3.66.70 164 – Peristephanon 3 104 – Peristephanon 11 2 – Peristephanon 14 (Passio Agnetis) 104, 105 pseudo-Boethius, De disciplina – scolarium 25, 28, 90, 205 pseudo-Seneca, Oct. 88 163 pseudo-Virgilian Ciris 106, 217 pseudo-Virgilian Copa 120 Quintilian, Inst. 10.1.93 64 Quintus Smyrnaeus, 14.47 – 54 158 Reposianus, De concubitu Martis et Veneris 4, 158, 212 – De concubitu Martis et Veneris 52 153 – De concubitu Martis et Veneris 176 153 Rhamnusius, Johannes Baptista: – epigram in Cornelii Galli fragmenta 22 – 23 Rhet. Her. 2.50 185 Sappho, fr. 31 Lobel-Page 41, 213 Seneca, Epist. 12 17 – Epist. 26 17 – Phaedra 101 – Phaedr. 211 101 – Phaedr. 274 – 357 162 – Phaedr. 290 – 295 162 – Phaedr. 337 – 351 162 – Phaedr. 344 – 345 162 – Phaedr. 348 – 349 162 – 163 – QNat. 2.59.4.4 – 5 183 Servasius, De vetustate 17 Servius, ad Ecl. 6.11 68 – ad Ecl. 10.1 21 Silius Italicus, Pun. 13.528 183 – Pun. 15.123 – 124 122 Sophocles, Antigone 221 – Ant. 781 – 790 161 – Ant. 781 – 800 161 – Philoctetes 156 Statius, Achilleid 26 – Thebaid 218 Terence, Eun. 336 35 – Hec. 443 104 Tertullian, De anim. 10 108

Theodulus, Ecloques 26 Tibullus, 1.1.55 50 – 1.1.71 – 72 15, 38, 187 – 1.1.72 176 – 1.2 70, 98, 212 – 1.2.7 110 – 1.2.8 110 – 1.2.11 110 – 1.2.13 110 – 1.2.19 97, 123 – 1.2.21 – 22 97 – 1.2.31 98 – 1.2.31 – 32 45 – 1.2.36 97 – 1.2.88 60 – 1.2.91 – 93 38 – 1.2.91 – 98 69 – 1.2.97 – 98 65 – 1.2.93 176 – 1.3 156 – 1.3.52 105 – 1.3.70 105 – 1.4.71 176 – 1.4.72 60 – 1.5 70, 98, 124, 141, 210, 212 – 1.5.7 125 – 1.5.9 217, 218 – 1.5.9 – 16 110 – 1.5.20 95 – 1.5.31 – 32 44 – 1.5.39 – 42 141 – 1.5.47 – 48 110 – 1.5.61 111 – 1.5.63 111 – 1.5.61 – 66 39 – 1.5.65 97, 111 – 1.5.75 97, 125 – 1.6 98 – 1.6.53 – 54 110 – 1.7.47 44 – 1.8 16 – 1.8.29 99, 110 – 1.8.41 – 46 71 – 1.8.57 125 – 1.8.61 60 – 1.8.63 154 – 1.9 16

Index locorum

– 1.9.11 99 – 1.9.26 – 27 122 – 1.9.53 110 – 1.9.61 56 – 1.9.78 95 – 1.9.84 50, 114 – 1.13.19 95 – 2.2.3 105 – 2.3 98 – 2.3.33 95 – 2.3.47 56 – 57 – 2.3.59 – 60 110 – 2.4.3 95 – 2.4.39 – 40 98 – 2.5.119 105 – 2.6 98 [Tib.] 3.1.23 – 24 69 – 3.19.3 40 Ulpian – Dig. 50.16.23 107 Venantius Fortunatus, Vita – S. Martini 3 – Poems for Agnes and Radegund 4 Villadieux, Doctrinale puerorum 27 Virgil, Aen. 2.44 133, 156 – Aen. 2.65 133, 156

235

– Aen. 4 106, 154 – Aen. 4.90 106 – Aen. 4.305 154 – Aen. 4.366 154 – Aen. 4.421 154 – Aen. 4.522 – 523 37 – Aen. 6.580 – 586 157 – Aen. 12.392 95 – Ecl. 2.1 51 – Ecl. 5.44 51 – Ecl. 5.86 51 – Ecl. 5.89 – 90 51 – Ecl. 6.10 95 – Ecl. 10 20, 68 – Ecl. 10.2 – 3 64 – G. 4.345 – 347 158 Vulgate, Gen. 2:24 164 – Mark 10:8 164 – Matthew 19:5 164 Yannis Ritsos Moonlight Sonata 148, 149 – Moonlight Sonata, 217 – 218 148 – Moonlight Sonata, 219 – 220 148 – Moonlight Sonata, in the prose – epilogue 149

Index of names Accius 22 Adam 151 Aeneas 154 Aeschylus 157 Afranius 22 Aganippe 137 Agathias 9, 10, 78, 137, 138, 190, 195, 197, 209, 216 Agnes (Saint) 104, 105, 217 Agnes of Poitiers (Saint) 4 Aimeric 26 Alcesimarchus 103 Alexis 51 Alfonsi, Petrus 28 Aloadai 157 Amalasuintha 8, 9, 134 Ambrosius 91 Ammonius Hermiae 19 Andreas 6, 73 Antigenes 51 Antony, Marc 20, 68 Apollinaris, Sidonius 2 Apollo (and Λυκωρεύς/Λύκειος Apollo) 74, 79, 184 Apollodorus 157 Apollonius of Tyre 211 Appendix Maximiani v, 4 – 5, 24, 25, 63, 64, 197, 201, 202, 203, 215 Apuleius 122, 127, 189, 205, 206 Aquilina 7, 13, 14, 16, 29, 31, 33, 34, 50, 70, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 133, 135, 136, 165, 186, 188, 189, 192, 217 Aquilina (Saint) 86 Arator 8, 25, 208 Ariadne 154 Ariosto, Ludovico 66 Aristophanes 98, 165, 176 Aristotle 1, 17, 90, 144, 165, 166 Arnobius 105 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-014

Athalaric 8, 9 Augustine 92, 105, 147, 215 Augustus 142, 186 Ausonius 2, 4, 7, 17, 203 Auxilium 101 Avianus 26, 104 Avitus of Vienne 2, 17, 62, 91 Bacchus 45, 54 Baucis 72, 74 Belisarius 135 Beroaldo, Filippo 20 Bobetus 22 Boētheia 101 Boethius 6, 7, 8, 9 22, 25, 29, 33, 37, 50, 61, 67, 78, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 108, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 122, 135, 149, 150, 165, 166, 168, 177, 181, 186, 188, 189, 191, 195, 196, 198, 201, 202, 208, 209, 210, 211, 213, 215, 216, 219 Caecilius 22 Callimachus 43, 53, 79, 158, 184, 211, 212 Calliope 137 Calpurnius Siculus 94, 102, 107, 206, 207 Candida 13, 14, 16, 33, 50, 84, 86, 87, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 186, 189 Candidus 127 Cassiodorus 6, 9, 61, 73, 89, 104, 145, 196 Castellanus, Lilius 13 Cato (the Elder) 18, 26, 49, 54, 76, 91, 104, 145, 197 Catullus 1, 4, 10, 23, 51, 67, 69, 71, 96, 121, 137, 138, 140, 142, 159, 190, 196, 204, 207, 211, 217, 220 Charles VI (King of France) 26 Chaucer, Geoffrey 18, 25, 26, 198, 206 Christ, Jesus 103 Christine de Pizan 26, 206

Index of names

Cicero 17, 34, 35, 54, 96, 145, 198, 207, 212, 213, 217 Circe 137, 138, 142, 155, 190 Claudian 2, 3, 26, 39, 81, 84, 94, 120, 157, 183, 203, 212, 217, 221 Columbanus of Bobbio 25 Corinna 16, 43, 51, 97, 119, 128, 129, 137, 138, 141, 168, 170, 171, 190 Corippus 8, 25 Corydon 51 Cotta, Giovanni 66 Crinito, Pietro 23 Cupid (or Cupido) 43, 89, 95, 146, 153 Cynthia 16, 44, 95, 137, 201 Cypris 54 Cytheris 20, 68, 206 Daos 103 Daphnis 95 Delia 16, 44, 140, 141 Demodocus 158 Diana 120 Dido 106, 154 Diocletian 88 Diodorus Siculus 157 Diogenes Laertius 165 Dominicus 135 Donace 102 Dracontius 3, 151, 164 Earth 31, 157 Encolpius 141, 155, 203, 206 Ennius 2, 22 Ennodius 9, 10, 61, 62, 89, 90, 91, 92, 105, 111, 150, 215 Epicurus 197 Eugenius of Toledo 18, 25 Eulalia (Saint) 104 Eve 151 Flora 54 Fontanini, Giusto 27 Fortunatus, Venantius 3, 4, 17, 192, 198, 214, 218 Foscolo, Ugo 26, 199 Gallus, Cornelius 1, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 48, 56, 64, 66, 68, 72, 74, 76, 77, 79, 86, 90, 95, 117, 134, 186, 187, 192, 195, 211, 214, 215, 218, 219

237

Gauricus, Pomponius 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 48, 54, 68, 76, 117, 134, 186, 199, 202, 215 Gellius, Aulus 145 Geoffrey of Vinsauf 28 Gerardus de Leempt 12 Giles, John Allen 23, 202 Giraldi, Lilio 23 Glycere 66 Glykera 102 God (the Lord) 19, 105 Goldast, Melchior 23 Gower, John 26, 198 Graia puella 10, 12, 14, 16, 30, 30, 33, 50, 52, 59, 61, 82, 87, 115, 118, 119, 122, 128, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 186, 188, 190, 191, 192 Greek girl 21, 56, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 164, 166, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 190, 191, 192, 199, 201, 215 Hector 133, 146, 156, 160 Hecuba 160 Hegio 91 Helen of Troy 137, 156 Hercules 55, 86 Herophilus 108 Hesiod 157, 158 Homer 1, 3, 17, 26, 34, 54, 156, 158, 157, 217 Horace 1, 8, 17, 26, 27, 34, 38, 39, 40, 45, 47, 49, 67, 68, 91, 94, 140, 142, 186, 190, 198, 200, 204 Hyginus 157 Iasides 95 Iasus 95 Imitatio Maximiani 5, 25, 197, 198, 215 Inachus 95 Innocent III (Pope) 18 Janus 158, 204 Jason 51

238

Index of names

Jehannot, Etienne 5, 12, 205 John Chrysostom 119 Jupiter 35, 44, 72, 100, 126, 141, 142, 157 Justin II 10 Justinian 6, 9, 10, 11, 61, 62, 134, 135, 143, 144, 145, 149, 152, 186, 190, 197, 216 Juvenal 8, 17, 26, 27, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 119, 186 Ketelaer, Nicolaus 12 Lactantius 88, 150, 204, 214 Ladon 54, 55 Late Republic 96, 103, 146 Layamon (or La3amon) 25, 204 Le Dru, Pierre 12, 205 Leda 155 Lesbia 140, 160 Licentius 92, 215 Livy 22, 158 Lollius 38, 45, 47 Lucilius 22 Lucius 127 Lucretius 33, 67, 99, 120, 121, 122, 149, 149, 150, 158, 159, 161, 163, 165, 166, 181, 186, 191, 199, 204 Lycoris 13, 14, 16, 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 33, 50, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 87, 118, 133, 135, 136, 186, 187, 188, 206, 212, 217 Lydia 13, 54 Lydos 103 Maccius 89 Macrobius 5, 122, 125, 157 Mars 157, 158 Martial 2, 20, 36, 64, 68, 86, 122 Maximianus (prefect of Italy in 542) 6 Maximianus (the poet) passim Maximianus, Marcus Valerius 5 – 6 Maximinus 6, 135 Medea 51, 154, 209 Melaenis 103 Meleager 181 Melie 95 Menander 102, 103 Mercury 72 Messalla 44, 105

Mimnermus 17, 34, 35, 146 Molza, Francesco Maria 66 Muse(s) 46, 47, 56, 78, 79, 92, 93, 119, 165, 166, 173, 177, 196, 213 Naiad 95 Namatianus, Rutilius 3, 156, 191, 216, 217, 221 Narcissus 121 Neaera 69 Nemesianus 102, 107, 218 Nemesis 16 Nero 142 Nonnus of Panopolis 3, 157, 158, 204 Old Testament 165 Orestes 165 Orion 95 Ovid 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 15, 16, 17, 22, 26, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 106, 115, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 129, 129, 130, 132, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 149, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 179, 181, 182, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220 Pacuvius 22 Palaestrio 103 Parthenius 8 Paul (the Apostle) 103 Paul the Silentiary 9, 10, 78, 138, 190, 216, 219 Paulinus of Nola 2 Pausanias 157 Persephone (Libitina) 36 Persius 53, 217 Petronius 137, 138, 141, 142, 155, 157, 179, 190, 195, 204, 209 Phaedra 101 Philemon 72 Philocomasium 103 Philodemus 98, 137, 138, 141, 150, 166, 190, 216 Philostratus 102 Phoebus 137

Index of names

Phyllis 154 Plato 1, 98, 138, 148, 165, 166 Plautus 8, 15, 17, 34, 38, 67, 70, 91, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 126, 156, 163, 181, 186, 198, 203, 206, 211, 214, 216 Pleusicles 103 Pliny (the Elder) 17, 34 – 35, 199 Plutarch 145 Polemon 102 Procopius 6, 135 Propertius 2, 5, 15, 16, 20, 23, 30, 43, 92, 94, 96, 124, 125, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 147, 156, 160, 161, 190, 199, 201, 201, 205, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 218, 219, 220 Prosper of Aquitaine 2 – 3, 3 Prudentius 2, 17, 91, 104, 105, 164, 217 pseudo-Gallus 19 Puccius, Franciscus Florentius 19 Pylades 165 Pyramus 92, 106, 202 Quintia 120 Quintilian 96, 213, 215 Quintus Smyrnaeus 158 Radegund (Saint) 4, 218 Reposianus 4, 81, 153, 158 Rexroth, Kenneth 26 Rhamnusius, Johannes Baptista 22, 23 Ritsos, Yannis 148, 221 Sappho 41, 213 Scylla 106 Selenium 103 Seneca (the Younger) 8, 17, 34, 35, 101, 111, 162, 163, 199, 204 Servasius 17 Servius 21, 68 Shakespeare, William 26, 213 Silius Italicus 122, 183 Siren(s) 133, 141, 142, 156, 157, 158, 166

239

Socrates 49, 54 Sophocles 156, 161, 162, 163, 221 Statius 26, 218 Tantalus 54, 55 Terence 38, 104, 126, 206, 212, 216 Theocritus 41, 47, 202 Theodahad 8, 9, 24, 63, 134, 196, 218 Theodoric (the Great) 6, 7, 8, 9, 61, 62, 73, 86, 87, 92, 133, 143, 181, 205, 221 Theodulus 26 Theophrastus 17 Thisbe 92, 106, 202 Tibullus 1, 2, 5, 16, 23, 38, 39, 53, 96, 97, 120, 122, 124, 140, 141, 142, 156, 158, 160, 173, 190, 197, 207, 210, 212, 213, 217 Tithonus 35 Totila 8 Typhon 157 Ulysses (Latin Ulisses or Ulixes) 133, 142, 156, 157, 216 Varro 22 Varus 22 Venus 4, 38, 50, 51, 53, 54, 80, 89, 95, 96, 97, 101, 125, 126, 140, 141, 149, 150, 153, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 166, 176, 196, 199, 211, 212 Vigilius (Pope) 8 Villadieux, Alexander 27 Virgil 8, 47, 51, 67, 90, 94, 106, 154, 158, 197, 210, 216 Vitali, Bernardino 19, 20, 221 Volumnia 20, 68, 206 Volumnius, Publius Eutrapelus 20 Wernsdord, Johann Christian 23 Zeno of Verona 164 Zerbi, Gabriele 18, 208 Zeus 133, 142, 155, 157

Index of places Africa 151 Aquitaine 3 Asia Minor 146 Athens 22 Bobbio 25 Britain 25, 26 Byzantine Empire 9 Byzantium 9, 134, 144, 148, 186, 190, 191 Campus 46 Carthage 163, 202 Constantinople 6, 8, 9, 10, 21, 45, 86, 133, 134, 136, 137, 143, 145, 146, 186, 190, 195 Delphi 74 East 20, 21, 68, 133, 134, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 174 Eastern Roman Empire 6, 8, 30, 87, 144, 145, 146, 186, 190 Egypt 19, 20, 21, 76, 134, 186 Etruria 20, 21 Forum Iulium 20 France 26 Hell 20, 68, 167 Italy 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 61, 62, 63, 133, 134, 135, 143, 144, 145, 149, 156, 190, 196, 197, 213, 218, 219, 221 London 23 Milan 90

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-015

Myrina 9, 137, 195 Naples 12, 22 Panopolis 3, 158, 204 Paris 5, 12 Poitiers 4 Ravenna 133, 204, 215 Roman Empire 11, 186, 197, 207 Rome 6, 7, 9, 10, 20, 22, 34, 43, 49, 51, 58, 61, 62, 73, 74, 86, 103, 119, 170, 190 Side 95 Sulmo 4, 32, 36, 120, 160 Thebes 22 Thessaly 127 Thuringia 218 Tiber 45 Tivoli (Tibur) 86 Toledo 18, 25 Tomis 156 Troy 22, 133, 137, 146, 156 Tyre 211 Utrecht 12 Venice 19 Verona 164 Vienne 2, 62, 91 West 20, 68, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 174, 191, 213, 218 Western Roman Empire 7, 62, 145

Index rerum accessus 27 acumen 42, 82 adulescens 188 adulescens inamoratus / adulescentes in amore 70, 100, 102 aemulatio 36, 181, 213 aetas Ovidiana 26 aetiological elegy 155, 156, 167, 191 aetion 156 Alexandrian footnote(s) 18, 49, 55, 60, 65, 76, 94, 130 amo passim amor passim anti-Callimachean 53, 80, 171, 183 anti-elegy (or elegy without love) 15, 31, 37, 85, 93, 115, 120, 131, 173 Antiquity 1, 6, 17, 18, 19, 122, 142, 186 anus 38, 70, 71, 74 Aonian (lyre) 137 Apples of the Hesperides 54 arma 46, 141, 147, 166, 174, 192, 205 ascetism 7, 30, 57, 151, 151, 164, 174, 191 auctor(es) 1, 19, 26, 27, 34, 68, 74, 151, 187, 205, 219 auctoritas 90 Augustan age (or era) 4, 68, 187 Augustan elegist(s) 5, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 60, 70, 75, 136, 138, 143, 144, 147, 165, 186, 190 Augustan elegy 15, 16, 37, 41, 60, 67, 71, 104, 110, 130, 152, 154, 155, 175, 183, 186, 188, 192, 209 blanda 46, 55, 56, 67, 75, 77, 81, 97, 173 blanditia 15, 38, 38, 56, 123, 173, 176, 187 blandus 34, 46, 77, 153, 162, 172, 173 Byzantine epigrammatists 10, 78 Callimachean 39, 48, 80, 81, 111, 138, 170, 171, 182, 183, 192, 212 Callimacheanism 39, 183 captatio benevolentiae 182, 187 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110770476-016

carmen (or opus) continuum 13, 14, 28, 41, 85, 114, 115, 178, 180, 181, 185, 186 Carolingian period 8 castitas 87 cento 24 chaos (or Chaos) 11, 19, 52, 61, 85, 94, 133, 135, 148, 149, 150, 152, 158, 167 Chorus 50, 161, 162 Christian hagiography 106, 108, 115 Christian literature 7, 8, 29, 96, 104, 106, 164, 186, 186 – 187, 191 Christian poetry 53, 123, 203, 213, 217 Christianism 151 Christianity 7, 104, 144, 174, 189, 191, 195, 197, 203, 204, 208 connubium 68 corona 42, 44, 46 crimen 18, 32, 38, 40, 56, 108, 182 crotalistria 120 crypto-Christian 84, 151 cursus honorum 45 custos 50, 51, 55, 98 dactylic hexameter (or metre) 24, 129, 169, 170, 213 decorum 1, 152 desertae puellae 100 discidium 30, 108, 109 dives amator 71, 98, 110, 111, 155 docta puella 94, 112, 113, 136, 137, 153 doctus poeta 8 domina 188 dominator 105, 111, 188 dominus 39, 111 double allusion 138 Du Stil 40, 72, 110, 160 dura domina 35, 41, 50, 70, 94, 109, 11, 112 durus dominus 50 ego (alter ego, lyrical ego, talking ego) 131, 180, 189 elegiac code 15, 44, 124, 125

242

Index rerum

elegiac distich (or couplet(s) or elegiac metre or elegiac metrics) 1, 2, 3, 4, 41, 43, 51, 53, 66, 67, 94, 113, 114, 124, 129, 131, 152, 184, 188, 191, 198 elegiac fiction (or elegiac fallacy) 30, 43, 44, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 132, 136, 154, 169, 189 elegiac illusion 121 elegy/Elegy (or Elegia) passim Empire 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 30, 61, 62, 87, 103, 144, 145, 148, 186, 187, 190, 191, 197, 200, 207 emptio 107 emptor 107 encomium 156, 159, 160, 162 epic 1, 2, 3, 8, 15, 16, 17, 24, 28, 29, 39, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 71, 72, 106, 108, 113, 115, 120, 121, 122, 143, 152, 156, 157, 158, 159, 163, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 178, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 197, 200, 206, 211, 217, 218, 219 epigram 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 19, 22, 23, 36, 39, 47, 89, 122, 123, 137, 138, 139, 166, 181, 186, 188, 190, 198, 203, 216, 218 epitaph 39, 40 epyllion 1, 3, 158, 188 equites 143 erotica pathemata 41, 45, 95, 116, 131, 133, 138, 153, 154 espionage 148, 197, 207 Etruscan(s) 7, 20, 144, 196 European literature 140, 199 ex voto 161 exclusa amatrix 154, 191 exclusus amator 44, 45, 51, 55, 58, 65, 67, 82, 98, 161, 176, 199 exilic elegy (or exilic poetry) 37, 155, 167 fides 69, 96, 105, 176, 198, 199, 204, 213 flebilis Elegia 37, 182 florilegium (‐a) 5, 27 foedus amoris 66, 71 formal repertoire 41 formosa 50, 51, 64, 66, 67, 68, 135, 211 formosus 51, 115 frigiditas 17

Furies 157 furor 95, 121, 122 furtivus amor 50, 97, 123, 124, 125, 131, 132, 158, 176, 189, 210 Gebetsparodie 40, 72, 110, 160, 206 gender reversal 29, 30, 139, 154, 155, 191 generic enrichment 108, 156, 163, 204 generic evolution 1, 4, 186 generic interaction 1, 29, 40, 52, 54, 123, 189, 191 generic interplay 29, 49, 67, 73, 83, 93, 94, 104, 108, 115, 123, 152, 167, 168, 175, 183, 188, 212 generic marker(s) or indicator(s) 29, 60, 67, 74, 82, 94, 97, 114, 153, 185, 191. 192 generic mixture 3, 24, 29, 48, 54, 73, 80, 93, 94, 105, 110, 152, 170, 172, 187, 189 genus tenue 171 Giants 157 Gigantomachy 157, 158, 191 Golden Age of Latin literature 94 gόos (γόος) 159, 175, 191 Gothic War (reconquest of Italy) 9, 61 Graeco-Roman genre theory 1 grata 33, 41, 42, 44, 50, 51, 52, 54, 75, 77, 85, 89, 99, 114, 115, 118, 125, 153, 168 gravitas 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 54, 56, 59, 63, 72, 73, 187 Greek Communistic Party 148 Greeks 98, 133, 144, 145, 146, 156, 191, 212, 217 guest genre(s) 28, 29, 70, 94, 100, 106, 115, 123, 152, 156, 183, 186, 191 gynaikes kitharōdoi 137 gynaikes orchēstrides 137 hagiography 104, 105, 106, 108, 115 Hellenistic 1, 3, 36, 81, 137, 139, 186, 190, 197, 203, 205, 207 hendecasyllable(s) 12, 66, 208 hetaerae 74 hexameter 1, 3, 4, 24, 25, 47, 53, 58, 113, 129, 170, 175, 185 historiography 15, 49, 54 honor 45, 68, 69

Index rerum

host genre 28, 29, 67, 94, 99, 115, 123, 126, 152, 183, 186, 188, 191 humour 28, 90 hymn(s) 28, 40, 72, 110, 123, 149, 150, 159, 160, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 186, 187, 191, 218 hymnography 3 hysterike apnoia (or hysterike pnix) 139 ianitor 50, 98, 100 imitatio (μίμησις) 36, 213 impedimentum amoris (or impedimenta amoris) 50, 84, 98, 125, 131, 189 imperium 186, 190 impotence (or impotency) 11, 26, 30, 32, 54, 59, 66, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 149, 150, 155, 157, 160, 166, 168, 172, 173, 174, 179, 190, 191, 192, 195, 203, 207, 209 infamia 103 infamis (or infames) 103, 119, 139 ingrata 75, 77, 189 innamoramento 40 intertext(s) 25, 76, 86, 120, 121, 122, 132, 166 intertextuality (and intertextual) 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 55, 65, 67, 69, 88, 92, 93, 106, 120, 141, 142, 163, 165, 203, 216 intratextuality (and intratextual) 14, 28, 29, 30, 33, 37, 56, 66, 118, 119, 132, 136, 172, 186, 189, 216 iocus 56, 173 kommόs 159 Kreuzung der Gattungen

3

lacrima 65, 67, 82, 138, 153, 176, 177 lament 123, 134, 137, 152, 159, 160, 163, 167, 175, 176, 180, 184, 190, 191, 195, 200, 205, 206, 210, 211, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218 languor 35, 41, 42, 89, 139, 176, 177, 178 Late Antiquity 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 18, 28, 36, 40, 47, 48, 53, 61, 62, 63, 67, 73, 79, 81, 89, 91, 102, 103, 105, 109, 115, 119, 120, 122, 125, 129, 130, 136, 139,

243

140, 149, 150, 153, 155, 157, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168, 172, 176, 178, 179, 181, 187, 189, 190, 192, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 209, 210, 212, 214, 215, 217, 219 late love elegy 2 Late Latin literature 11, 94, 183, 200 late Latin elegy 2 late Latin love elegy 2, 201 late Latin poetry 39, 120, 158, 198 late love poetry 2 Late Republic 96, 103, 146 Latin literature 2, 10, 11, 34, 40, 74, 94, 121, 138, 146, 183, 190, 198, 199, 200, 201, 212, 214, 216, 217 Latin love elegy 2, 69, 196, 203, 208, 209, 210, 217 Latin lyric poetry 140, 200 Latin poetry 4, 39, 40, 81, 96, 120, 158, 198, 204, 209, 210, 212 laudator temporis acti 34 lena 70, 78, 98, 103, 110, 163, 210 leno 50, 87, 98, 99, 102, 110, 119, 212 leno maritus 98, 99, 217 leptotes (λεπτόν) 11 levitas 43, 44, 47, 48, 54, 56, 63, 187 lex Iulia 142 lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis 99 locus communis or loci communes 39, 71 longue durée 16 love elegy (or Roman love elegy or Roman elegy) v, 1, 2, 4, 15, 18, 22, 28, 29, 30, 37, 48, 50, 52, 57, 60, 61, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 115, 123, 125, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 146, 154, 155, 167, 168, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 196, 198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 205, 206, 208, 209, 210, 211, 214, 215, 217, 219 lupa 74 lusus 54, 173 lyric poetry 74, 121, 129, 140, 200, 201

244

Index rerum

maritus 98, 151 martyrology 105, 164, 165, 166, 188 masturbation 172 mater (or mother)/lena 102, 103, 112, 115, 188 matrona 58, 70, 87, 102, 103, 211 media forma 54 media sententia 23 memory 18, 60, 64, 65, 66, 76, 79, 81, 82, 130, 186, 204 mentula 122, 134, 137, 140, 149, 150, 151, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 175, 190, 191 meretrix (or meretrices or meretriculae) 50, 58, 70, 78, 87, 93, 95, 102, 103, 112, 115, 120, 145, 150, 188 metalanguage 123 metaliterary 4, 18, 32, 67, 76, 79, 124, 127, 128, 130, 151, 171, 175, 176, 177, 191 metapoetic v, 17, 28, 29, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 87, 101, 109, 111, 112, 113, 113, 114, 115, 120, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 139, 140, 147, 149, 151, 163, 167, 168, 169, 170, 173, 175, 178, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192 metre (or meter) 1, 2, 3, 4, 41, 53, 67, 124, 129, 169, 184, 188, 189, 210 metrics 3, 4, 53, 57, 67, 70, 129, 131, 169, 170, 172, 183, 189, 191 Middle Ages 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 54, 89, 90, 149, 192, 198, 199, 206, 207, 210, 211 militia amoris 50, 143, 147, 153, 168, 173, 191, 200, 210, 211 mime 5, 68, 74, 79, 138, 209, 217 modestia 87 mollis 41, 89, 154, 154, 164 mollitia 143 morbus 108, 139, 177, 199 more veneto 20 munus (or munera) 8, 9, 23, 54, 69, 80, 90, 99, 103, 134, 110, 140, 146, 154, 167

Muse (or Musa) 46, 47, 56, 78, 79, 92, 93, 119, 165, 166, 173, 177, 196, 213, 215 narrativity 15, 16, 66, 67, 70, 152, 181 natura 59, 62, 108, 115, 158 negotium 46, 48, 59, 63, 147, 155, 173, 193 neo-Alexandrianism 39 New Comedy 103, 207, 214 Nika Riots 86 Nonae 129 novel 3, 15, 16, 29, 106, 108, 110, 115, 122, 123, 127, 139, 170, 188, 189, 203, 207, 211, 213, 219 nugae 5, 173 nutrix 101 obiurgatio 155 obsequium 175, 176 old age 6, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 72, 73, 75, 81, 85, 94, 108, 116, 117, 118, 135, 146, 180, 181, 183, 185, 186, 192, 198, 200, 208, 210, 212, 214, 217, 218 opus 8, 9, 11, 16, 28, 30, 33, 39, 41, 43, 46, 47, 55, 59, 60, 79, 80, 84, 95, 124, 125, 129, 131, 134, 172, 175, 178, 180, 181, 185, 186, 187, 189, 210, 218 opus fallax 30, 43, 124, 125, 189, 210, 218 Ostrogoth (Ostrogothic) 6, 8, 9, 11, 24, 62, 86, 87, 133, 134, 135, 186, 196, 218 otium 46, 48, 59, 63, 143, 147, 155, 193 paedagogus (or paedagogi) 9, 83, 98, 100, 103, 104, 188 paraclausithyron 30, 55, 59, 98, 138, 139, 153, 154, 168, 207, 219 parody 40, 72, 104, 107, 110, 119, 151, 156, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 175, 206, 212, 218 passer poemata 140, 160 pastoral 3, 24, 29, 47, 53, 96, 106, 107, 108, 115, 126, 206 pentameter 47, 53, 58, 95, 114, 129, 170

Index rerum

peripeteiae 106 pervigilium 55, 176 phalecean hendecasyllable 66 Philosophy (or Philosophia) / philosophy 37, 49, 54, 73, 78, 88, 91, 92, 93, 97, 119, 123, 135, 150, 165, 166, 168, 177, 187, 191, 196, 201, 213 pietas 68, 69, 71, 87, 204 pinguis 53, 171, 172 poemata 46, 55, 56, 75, 77, 81, 140, 160, 173 poeta (or poetae) 8, 20, 22, 27, 42, 43, 48, 49, 75, 81, 105, 121, 170, 195, 196, 208, 212, 213, 221 poeta ethicus 27 poetae novelli 170, 221 poetae novi 170 poetics v, 3, 28, 29, 73, 83, 93, 96, 113, 129, 133, 167, 170, 182, 187, 191, 192, 193, 200, 201, 202, 204, 206, 210, 212, 214, 216 poetological 56, 74, 77, 172, 182 poetology 177, 211 poetry (or Poetry) v, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 91, 92, 96, 113, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 129, 131, 140, 143, 148, 153, 155, 158, 163, 166, 168, 169, 173, 174, 177, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 195, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218, 218, 219, 220 politics 46, 59, 61, 133, 140, 142, 143, 145, 147, 155, 196, 200, 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 219 poverty 39, 72, 111, 183 praecepta 93 praeceptor amoris 7, 16, 37, 83, 88, 89, 91, 97, 98, 99, 100, 110, 160, 188, 189 praeceptor castitatis 91 prefect 5, 6, 19, 20, 186 prooemium (or proem) 3, 37, 84, 108, 118, 149, 158, 159, 161, 166

245

proverbia 27 pseudepigrapha 24, 199, 212 pudicitia 87 puella (or puellae) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 33, 41, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 61, 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 77, 80, 82, 84, 86, 87, 94, 100, 102, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118, 119, 120, 122, 124, 125, 128, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 203, 206, 211, 212, 217, 219 puella clausa 102, 107 receptus amator 154 recitatio 44, 200 Renaissance 17, 18, 19, 23, 48, 192, 196, 198, 202, 207, 211, 212 renuntiatio amoris 88, 99, 112, 189 res publica 190 rhetoric 43, 44, 53, 55, 56, 62, 96, 198, 207, 212, 214 ring composition 14, 30, 60, 181, 185, 192 Roman comedy 15, 29, 35, 38, 70, 71, 73, 91, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 108, 115, 123, 126, 163, 167, 186, 188, 191, 196, 200, 201, 202, 203, 206, 207, 216, 220 Roman law 20, 196 Roman satire 26, 139, 213 Romans 144, 145, 146, 191, 196 rusticitas 53, 96, 97, 213, 217 saga 70 satire 26, 40, 71, 91, 139, 213 scenicae meretriculae 78, 93, 111, 119, 150 scortator 88 scripta(e) puella(e) 17, 21, 22, 28, 29, 51, 74, 86, 87, 109, 114, 125, 128, 130, 131, 135, 219 senectus 10, 11, 12, 17, 31, 35, 42, 54, 59, 61, 62, 63, 72, 82, 144, 151, 173, 174, 181, 186, 190, 192, 210, 213, 215, 220

246

Index rerum

senectus mundi (or senium mundi) 10, 11, 12, 54, 59, 61, 63, 82, 144, 173, 174, 186, 190, 192, 210, 220 senex 7, 15, 17, 20, 21, 35, 38, 55, 59, 70, 71, 135, 144, 163, 186, 193, 198, 214 senex amator (or senex amans) 15, 38, 70, 71, 163, 193, 198, 214 senex comicus 55 senex decrepitus 163 sententiae 27 sermo amatorius 147 sermo militaris 147 servitium amoris 50, 153, 176, 191, 199, 202, 208, 210 servus callidus (or servus fallax) 100, 101, 102, 110, 115, 188, 189 sex 134, 139, 142, 144, 147, 149, 150, 152, 166, 173, 197, 216 sexpionage 148, 219 sexual renunciation 7, 30, 91, 151, 152, 164, 174, 191, 197 Silver Age of Latin literature 94 simulacra 121 sphragis 185 sponsa 120 stola 58 subject matter 1, 2, 17, 24, 27 superatio 36 symbolic metonym(s) 17, 42, 68, 75, 95, 191 tener 39, 89, 106, 154, 164, 171 tenuis (or tenue) 41, 52, 53, 54 171, 172 terminus technicus 53, 88 thematic repertoire 41 threnos 159 tombstone 39, 40 topos 36, 97, 99, 112, 138, 200 tragedy / Tragedy (or Tragoedia) 3, 24, 43, 47, 49, 58, 93, 121, 128, 161, 162, 163, 170, 187, 191

tremulus senex 35, 38 tristis 37, 84, 87, 95, 98, 113, 114, 135, 153, 173 tristis elegia (or Elegia) 37, 114 tristitia 80, 95, 147, 153, 160, 173, 179, 188, 192 trochaic tetrameter 4 Trojan horse 146 Trojan War 155, 156, 158, 191 Trojans 146 urbanitas 53, 96, 213, 217 uxor dotata 127 variatio 34, 80, 129 verecundia 87, 172 vir 45, 69, 150 vir/maritus 98 vir Romanus 45 virginitas 84, 87, 97, 101, 151 virgo 40, 49, 51, 52, 87, 102, 118, 120, 128, 162, 165, 188, 219 virtue (or Virtue or virtus) 38, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 59, 62, 87, 91, 122, 159, 187 vita activa 29, 46, 48, 155, 187, 191 vita contemplativa 29, 46, 48, 63, 155, 187, 191 vita pudica 87, 93, 114, 115, 189 vituperatio senectutis 17, 34, 187 Voluptas (or voluptas) 55, 77, 84, 122, 145, 150, 151, 162, 166, 173, 197 window reference

138, 190

γραῖα 179, 192 δάκτυλος 129, 169 Μοῦσα λεπταλέη 43, 182 λύκος 74, 86 πολυειδία 3 πρεπόν, τò (decorum) 1, 152