Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History 0195067061, 9780195067064

Citation preview

Erratum

The top of p. viii should read as follows: "the single most important factor in determining the nature of Augustan poetry. In comparison to this influence, all others are judged as almost" [and then continue with "negligible" as it now appears]. At the bottom of p. viii, eliminate the last two lines [which are repeated at the top of p. ix].

Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic

Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic The Art of Allusion in Literary History

Joseph Farrell

New York Oxford Oxford University Press 1991

Oxford University Press Oxford New York Toronto Dchli Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tolqo Nairobi Dares Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

Copyright© 1991 by Joseph .Farrell Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 200 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a regi.stered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Farrell, Joseph, 1955Vergil' s Georgics and the traditions of ancient epic : the art of allusion in literary history/ Joseph Farrell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-19-506706-1 1. Virgil. Georgica. 2. Virgil-Knowledge-Literature. 3. Epic poetry, Classical-History and criticism. 4. Allusions. I. Title. PA6804.G4F37 1991 871'.Ol-dc20 90-36166

I 3 5 79 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

Tomy mother andfather

The text of Cervantes and that of Menard are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer. (More ambiguous, his detractors will say; but ambiguity is a richness.) It is a revelation to compare the Don Quixote of Menard with that of Cervantes. The latter, for instance, wrote (Don Quixote, Part One, Chapter Nine): ... truth, whose mother is history, who is the rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, example and lesson to the present, and warning to the future.

Written in the seventeenth century, written by the "ingenious layman" Cervantes, this enumeration is a mere rhetorical eulogy of history. Menard, on the other hand, writes: ... truth, whose mother is history, who is the rival of time, depository of deeds, witness of the past, example and lesson to the present, and warning to the future.

History, mother of truth; the idea is astounding. Menard, a contemporary of William James, does not define history as an investigation of reality, but as its origin. Historical truth, for him, is not what took place; it is what we think took place. The final clauses-example and lesson to the present, and warning to the future-are shamelessly pragmatic. Equally vivid is the contrast in styles. The archaic style of Menard-in the last analysis, a foreigner-suffers from a certain affectation. Not so that of his precursor, who handles easily the ordinary Spanish of his time. Jorge Luis Borges, "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote"

***

di meliora piis, erroremque hostibus ilium! Georgics3.513

PREFACE

OMNIA JAM VULGATA. When I first became interested in the Georgics, it was perfectly possible to justify a new volume on the poem by remarking on the paucity of such studies, especially in English. That was barely over a decade ago; and now I find myself adding to what has become in that short time a bibliographical avalanche. Today a new book requires a more compelling justification than in that prisca aetas. Examining the Georgics scholarship of recent years, one notices certain pronounced trends. Although we have had a few valuable shorter contributions-articles and monographs-on specific problems, the chief critical dialogue on this formerly neglected poem has taken place in book-length studies offering global interpretations. While it is perhaps natural that such works should have the most impact, it is curious that the dialogue should have been carried on at this level in the conspicuous absence of basic aids to scholarship-a decent commentary, for instance, or a sufficient number of studies devoted to more limited aspects of the poem. Indeed, it is remarkable how much the best students of the Georgics-1 think particularly of Putnam and Ross, whose interpretations complement and reinforce one another in so many ways-managed to achieve under these circumstances, and it will be clear in what follows how much I owe to each of them. But now we have at last one incisive scholarly commentary, by Richard Thomas, and another, by the late Sir Roger Mynors, shortly on the way. It seems unlikely that such tools as these will fail to stimulate and facilitate further research; and a good deal, which as a practical matter cannot be handled in works of general interpretation, remains to be done. In such a context, a book on the intertextuality of the Georgics makes sense. It is clear from the more general studies and especially from Thomas' recent commentary how much allusion, imitation, and reference contribute to the poem's texture and meaning; but a full-scale interpretive study of this subject has been lacking, while useful shorter studies of its particular aspects remain surprisingly few. I hope that this book will help to meet both these needs. There is a further, much broader justification for a book such as this, a sense in which it is not "just another book on the Georgics." The history of Latin literature as the best scholars conceive of it-again I think especially of Ross-emphasizes the Neoteric rediscovery of Callimachus as

viii

PREFACE

negligible. There are of course problems with such an extreme position: in particular, the Aeneid can hardly be explained simply as the work of a Callimachean epigone. My hypothesis in this book is that we can read the pattern of allusion in the Georgicsas a Vergilian essay in literary history, an essay that renders much more intelligible the course that he followed in his career-from Theocritus in the Eclogues to Hesiod, Aratus, Lucretius, and Homer in the Georgics,and finally to Apollonius and a somewhat different Homer in the Aeneid. I see this Vergilian essay not as a record of, but as a meditation by the poet on his own intellectual development. In my analysis, I have tried to be as clear as possible about some very difficult issues, and have accepted, argumenti causa,the positions of other scholars as a starting point. By this process I have run the risk of exaggerating the dichotomy between the "Neoteric" and "Roman" traditions in late Republican and Augustan poetry. Some such distinction of styles undoubtedly did exist in Vergil's mind, and it is the great merit of recent literary-historical scholarship to have tried to define it as precisely as possible. Nevertheless, Vergil himself probably did not see the two traditions as being quite so dichotomous as modern scholars have made them out to be. His poetry represents a significant confluence of the supposedly rival traditions, but one that was not altogether unprecedented, as I hope my conclusions show. Thus I am aware that by accepting the terms of this dichotomy as a starting point for my own research, I have chosen a somewhat too schematic view of a subtler more complex (and more interesting) situation. It seemed to me, how-' ever, that more could probably be achieved by continuing an established literary-historical dialogue, accepting its terms, than by ignoring it in an attempt to create a new view of poetry in this period from scratch. The result has convinced me that this was the right course, and I hope that readers will agree. Several friends, colleagues, and former teachers-the categories are not mutually exclusive-have improved this study by their thoughtful criticism, and have buoyed its author by their encouragement. What faults remain can surely be marked down to my own inability fully to appreciate their advice. My interest in Vergil was fostered by Joseph P. Foley, and my choice of a scholarly career confirmed by Nathan Dane II. Both have been dead some years now; but while writing the book, I have thought of them often, and I hope that they would have found something of themselves in it. My interest in this particular topic goes back to graduate school, and its initial result was my dissertation, an

PREFACE

ix

something of themselves in it. My interest in this particular topic goes back to graduate school, and its initial result was my dissertation, an effort to describe the methods and to discern the motives that inform Vergil's frequent references to Lucretius in the Georgics.Alth01~gh the present work is almost entirely new,* it is a natural outgrowth of the earlier one, and it seems right that I should thank those who helped me to get started on what became a rather long journey: Agnes Michels, who directed the dissertation, and Kenneth Reckford, who served as second reader. Each was a tremendous source of wise counsel and has continued to provide welcome encouragement. More recently, Elaine Fantham and James E. G. Zetzel refereed this book for Oxford University Press and suggested numerous material improvements to the draft that I had submitted-doing so, I might add, in record time, despite numerous other scholarly and administrative responsibilities. Thanks as well to Rachel Toor, who accepted and edited the book, and to her staff for their professional and expeditious handling of the project. Parts of the book were read in various drafts to audiences in Bryn Mawr ' New York, Philadelphia, Washington D.C., and at Wesleyan University, and I am grateful to all who offered their comments and criticism: I would especially mention Julia Gaisser, Richard Hamilton, and above all Richard Thomas, who generously read a draft of the whole and offered a wealth of good and timely advice. My work on the book itself began shortly after I joined the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, and the experience of writing it will be forever linked in memory to specific courses, conversations, and running disputationes. My special thanks to students and colleagues, past and present, who provided the professional circumstances and intellectual atmosphere that made this book possible. Primus inter pares would be Nico Knauer, whose own work on Vergilian intertextuality has been so valuable to me as to so many others, and whose personal encouragement during these past few years has been inestimable. For help, counsel, and support of various kinds, my best thanks to Peter Bing, Rosaria Munson, Jim O'Donnell, Martin Ostwald, Bob Palmer, Mark Possanza, Matthew Santirocco, and Wesley Smith. No one has contributed more to the book than Ralph Rosen, who has read every word of every draft, discussed at length individual points ranging from basic methodology to typographic design, consigned many a substandard argument emendatunsignibus,and * I have adapted from the dissertation some argwnents pertaining to Lucretius, and have so noted in the appropriate places.

PREFACE

X

substantially improved most of what remains. To him and to Ellen Rosen as well my best thanks for the support of a rare and wonderful friendship. Finally, to my long-suffering family, who must have looked many times to the sky and wondered, quem dasfinem, rex mag;ne,laborum?Ann de Forest bettered the book in many places as only a good writer can, believed in it through good times and bad, endured countless episodes of authorial mania and depression, and cheerfully provided the sort of soothing sustenance that transcends mere gratitude. Our daughter Flannery has enriched the experience of writing the book and hastened its completion in ways that I would never have dreamed possible, and which I now hope that she too will someday understand. Last, thanks to our extended families, both Ann's and mine, for all their support and encouragement; particularly to my parents, who have looked on for over half my life now with who knows what mixture of emotions as I become more and more inextricably involved with the unfathomable pleasures of Vergil. It is to them that I dedicate this, the most tangible result of that long and continuing fascination, xa11.Krn XfJVrTElWV, in partial return for so much more.

CONTENTS

Abbreviations

Xlll

PART! VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

Chapter 1

Introduction: On Vergilian Intertextuality The Problem Methods

4

SystematicAllusion The Art of Allusion Allusionand Literary History Allusionand PoeticMemory

7 11

13

17 25

Conclusion

Chapter 2

Ascraeum Carmen

27 27

The "Model" of the Georgics

TwoHesiods

PmLADELPHIA AUGUST

1990

Antonomasia and Literary-Historical

Personae

GreekPredecessors The Neoterics Augustan Usage Conclusion

Chapter 3

3 3

Vergil's Allusive Style

28 33 35 46

50 59

Vergil's Models

61 61

Technique

64

"The Farmer's Arma" Imitation and Variation in Contextual Allusion: Five Passages "Weather Signs" "The Plague ofNoricum" "The Praise of Spring" "Aristaeus" "Lucky and Unlucky Days"

70

77 79 84 94 104 114

CONTENTS

Xll

Propertius Ovid

PARTil VERGIL'SPROGRAMOF ALLUSIONIN THE GEORGICS Hesiod and Aratus Preliminaries Vergil's Worksand Days The Technical Discourse The Mythic Discourse Structure and Selectivity Aratus and Vergil's Phaenomena The Allusive Program of Georgics1

131 131 134 135 142 148 157 163

Chapter 5

Lucretius The Critical Legacy: Ways and Means Georgics1 Vergil's De Rerum Natura

169 169 172. 187

Chapter 6

Homer The "Homeric Problem" of the Georgics Georgics1-3 Homer and Hesiod Homer and Aratus Homer and Lucretius Georgics4 The Bees (Georgics4.8-314) "Aristaeus" (Georgics4.315-558)

207 207 210 214 217 225 238 239 253

Chapter4

xiii

CONTENTS

PARTIII THE GEORGICSIN LITERARYHISTORY Chapter 7

Vergil's Early Career Literary History in the Georgics The N eoteric Background The Eclogues The Pollio Eclogues Eclogue6 The Georgics

275 275 276 278 279 291 314

Chapter 8

Conclusion: After the Georgics The Aeneid Reception and Influence Horace

325 325 332 332

Bibliography Index of Passages Cited General Index

335 339 345 367 381

ABBREVIATIONS The following standard abbreviations have been used: L&S LSJ OLD

RE ~

Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1879) Liddell-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon 9 (Oxford 1940) Glare et al., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1968-1982) Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart 1893-) scholia

Titles and abbreviations of ancient works are modeled on those in LSJ, L&S, and OLD, with some modifications. Modern secondary literature, other than the few exceptions noted above, is cited by the author's last name and the date of publication,* followed in the case of specific references by volume nmnber (if necessary), pagination, and, in the case of commentaries and other reference works, line number (e.g. Ross 1986; Putnam 1979.37; Schanz-Hosius 1927-1935.1.314; Conington-Nettleship 1898.336 ad G. 3.553). Complete publication information can be found in the bibliography.

* There are a few exceptions in the case of conference proceedings published in a year different from that in which the papers were delivered, later editions, reprints, and facsimiles (e.g. Scaliger 1561, Sellar 1897, Hardie 1985).

PARTI

Vergil'sAllusive Artistry

CHAPTER!

Introduction: On Vergilian Intertextuality

The Problem N GEORGJCS I, when Vergil gives a lengthy account of the signs by which farmers may predict the weather, he borrows abundantly from an earlier poem, the Phaenomenaof Aratus. When in the second book he reflects upon his own activity in composing the Georgics, he calls the poem an "Ascraean song," alluding to the works of Hesiod. Both of the remaining books conclude with elaborate imitations, Book 3 of a passage from Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, Book 4 of several episodes drawn from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey.At other points Vergil i_qiitates, borrows from, and ~llu_dgs or r;ringsto bear on specific passages -. is something Jahn lacks; in this, Knauer is more the follower of Richard Heinze. But here too there are limitations. Knauer tends to treat Vergil's l imitation of Homer as if it were a \self-e-vj~e!J.timperative: "If, without' 1''' requiring the reasons,we assume that Vergil really wa~ted from the very beginning to incorporate both Greek epics into his poem ...."IO It is not quite fair to say that Knauer's reasoning is circular, but it is obvious that his working hypothesis colors his anal:ysis and then becomes ~ important element of his conclusion. A, .',: •, ,, LThe contrast that Knauer sees between the Georgics,in which he believes Vergil only grng:ii~yJ:iec~me aware of the allusiy~ u;:iethodsthat Homer called for,, and the Aeneid, which exploits these method; to the full, is instructive. The more completely Vergil imbibed the inspiration of the Iliad and the Odyssey,the more "Homeric" his poetry became; 1

1

9. Knauer 1981.890-918. 10. Knauer 1964b.64-65; emphasis mine.

10

VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

consequently, the more capable he himself became of consummate poetic expression. But while we may agree that the meeting of two great poetic minds can be the decisive factor in the genesis of great literature, we must also admit that Knauer does not explain how the magnitude of Vergil's achievement is related to his astonishing Homeric agon, except in a purely technical sense. Indeed, Knauers critics have complained that his approach reduces Vergilian allusiveness to a matter of technique and nothing more, that his Aeneid comes to resemble those centos of later antiquity that were created out ofVergil's own text. For the most part, these criticisms strike me as misplaced: essentially, they attack Knauer for not having done something that he never intended to do. A more serious criticism, in my view, is that Knauer exaggerates the similarities between Vergil and Homer, often explaining differences between the Aeneid and its models by referring to the exigencies of Vergil's allusive program: in order to include this or that element of the Ili~d or the Odyssey,he was forced to represent it in this or that unusual way. jl'he implicit goal of such reasoning is _t()Il!ake_~yenpointed differences seem like similarities\One comes away with the impression that Knauer wants his technical analysis of Vergil's imitative program to determine critical . reaction to the Aeneid as a poem of ideas, and to o:utliile a reading of the · Aeneid that differs little from a fairly straightforward reading of the Homeric poems. This of course is not possible. It is permissible to observe that, on one level, Aeneas must kill Turnus because Achilles slays Hector, and that, on another level, these acts of vengeance are demanded by the deaths of Pallas and Patroclus respectively. It does not follow, however, that the actions of Aeneas and Achilles at this point are in every way morally equivalent, or, more important, that both deaths call for similar reactions on the part of the reader. The interpreter who addresses these questions will want all the information he can get concerning literary antecedents of the death of Turnus. But while this information will inform his reaction to the scene, it must not control it. To have it other~se is simply to close one's eyes to the ironic element made possible by , allusion. This is what many have missed in Knauer's book. Inevitably, therefore, alongside his more positivist approach there has grown up a much suppler critical method. In fact, it is not quite proper to speak of this reaction to the critical techniques of traditional philology as a single roethod; in the more recent work on allusion in classical literature, there has been a notable and healthy diversity of theory and practice, some of it essentially compatible with work like Knauer's, and some deliberately

11

ON VERGILIAN lNTERTEXTUALITY

distinguished from it. Despite this diversity, however, the most important work of the past quarter century-and the tendency has accelerated in the past few years-aligns itself with an approach first promulgated by Giorgio Pasquali.

The Art of Allusion In his brief but seminal article on what he called the "art of allusion" (arte allusiva),Il Pasquali showed that allusion is an essential component of all Latin poetry, that, far from indicating a failure of imagination, allusive artistry is actually an important affective element in the poet's repertoire, and that gi~realie.r who does not allow it to play upon his imagination misses an important part of the poetry's effect. First of all, Pasquali distinguishes,allu~ion'from reminiscenc:es; which may be unconscious, or from imiJations~ which the poet may hope will go unnoticed: all11sions,he argues, do not produce the desired effect except upon a re~der who clearly recalls the texts to which they refer. He illustrates this view of allusion with examples from Horace and Vergil in particular-the Georgicsitself is mentioned a number of times-as well as from Italian literature of the Ottocento.Pasquali focuses on passages in which allusion contributes a very specific effect, passages in which something is left unsaid, something that the reader will not perceive unless he or she recognizes the allusion as such and correctly interprets its relevance in context. As an example, he cites a pair of lines from the Aeneid concerning the punishment of a corrupt and venal politician in the pit of Tartarus: vendidit hie aura patriarn dominumque potentem imposuit, fixit leges pretio atque refixit Aeneid 6.621-622

This passage, as we know from Macrobius (Sat. 6.1.39), alludes to Varius' De Marte: vendidit hie Latium populis agrosque Quiritum eripuit, fixit leges pretio atque refixit Varius De Morte fr. 1

(Morel-Buchner 1982.130) 11. Pasquali 1942.

12

VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

In Vergil, the referent of hie is not clear; the exemplum is evidently offered not specifically, but as a type of damnable behavior. Pasquali agrees with most scholars that Varius, on the other hand, has someone very specific in mind, namely, M. Antonius. 12 He therefore argues that Vergil, too, is referring to Antonius, declining to name openly Augustus' most hated foe 13 but, in the mind of the reader who knows Varius' poem, unmistakably indicting him in particular. Because the passage of Varius has come down to us without context, we cannot be sure that Pasquali is right. Nevertheless, his point is well taken: we have noticed such passages throughout Augustan poetry. Their point, I might add, is not just to convey information, but also, and perhaps even more commonly, to contribute rather subtler poetic effects. H we consider Ovid's lines about Narcissus, for example, multi ilium iuvenes,multae cupiere puellae, sed-fuit in tenera tarn dura superbia formanulli ilium iuvenes,nullae tetigere puellae.

Metamorphoses 3.353-355 it will be a dull reader indeed who fails to see in them an allusion to Catullus' hexameter wedding hymn: ut flos in saeptis secretus nascitur hortis, ignotus pecori, nullo convulsus aratro, quern mulcent aurae, fumat sol, educat imber: multi ilium pueri, multae optavere puellae; idem cum' tenui carptus defloruit ungui, nulli illum piteri,nullae optavere puellae.

Carmen 62.39-44

It will be an equally dull reader who needs this allusion:, or any other means, to inform him of Narcissus' fate. The point of the allusion is not to impart information. Rather, recognizing these lines as an allusion to Catullus' flower simile, and knowing the metamorphosis that awaits Ovid's hero, the reader experiences the pleasure of ironic r_ecognition, pleasantly aware that he may count himself an initiate of the literary mysteries that Ovid celebrates. 12. Servius ad loc. (Thilo 1881-1884,2.87-88) argues that Vergil has C. Scribonius Curio (tribunus plebis 50: see RE s.v. "Scribonius [11]") in mind; on Antonius see Norden 1957 .291-292 and Austin 1977.198. 13, Jn conformity with the sentence of damnatio memoriae?

ON VERGILIAN L"ITERTEXTUALITY

13

Allusion and Literary History ~a~quali's elegant paper is more sugg~s_tiyethan definitiv_e;consequently, m~~ence_~a~ been felt not just widely but in various ways. Crucial to, yergihan cntrc1sm and to recent literary history of the Augustan period ; m general has been the study of allusion in Hellenistic and Neoteric •. p.?etry. The_ most vocal and ~nfluential champion of this approach is'. ~mseppe Giangrande, ':ho cites Pasquali as his guide. Together with his s~dents, however, Giangrande has taken the study of learned poetic allus10n much farther than Pasquali's essay seems to call for, and in a quite different direction as well. The primary, perhaps the only interest of the Giangrandistiis not in affective allusion, but in lexical matters, i.e. in how _the:tJ:eJ_lenistic poets used Homer as a source of poetic language. Followmg Pfeiffer, they envision a world of scholar-poets for whom poetry was simply a direct, practical, and entertaining medium of scholarly debate on points of mythology, geography, history, astronomy, all branches of learning-and, in particular, grammar.14 Thus Giangrande has written on Hellenistic allusions that point to textual variants in the Homeric poems, 15 on the creation of new forms and extended meanings based on Homeric usage, 16 and so forth. By the same token, the commentaries on Hellenistic poetry produced by his students routinely focus on the use of hapax legomena,formulaic language, and other notable features of Homeric style. t 7 Besides concentrating on lexical data, the most characteristic feature of Giangrand_e's ~pp_roachis his emphasis on the allusive technique that he call: opposztzozn tm~tando.18 In Giangrande's view, Hellenistic poetry w~s wntten f~r connmss~urs of an aesthetic that valued close familiarity with the details of classic texts and expected modern poets to imitate these details in unexpected ways. Thus, to cite some of Giangrande's own examples, "If Homer says E~ryEAWV Karnovvrn (formula), Apollonius will say (Arg. 1.725) is ryiAwv a.viovrn; if Homer has the verb EKKVAivow, Callimachus will use Ei':'KvAlvow(Hymn. 4.33)," and so on.19This activity became ~ frequent vehicle for learned debate: scholar-poets, by imitating, say, specific textual variants uncovered in their Homeric research, would ltS

14. :iangrande 1967.85 ~ses_the "Pas~ualian term" arte allusiva, while citing Herter 1929 as the best methodological mtroduct10n to this literary feature." 15. Giangrande 1970. 16. Giangrande 1967. 17. See, for instance, Williams 1978 and Bulloch 1985. 18. E.g. Giangrande 1967.85, citing Kuiper 1896.114. 19. Giangrande 1967.85.

14

!

VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

express their opinions about the original readings, sometimes referring with pointed contrast to the readings favored by others. 20 Giangrande and his school focus rather narrowly on one specific aspect of learned allusion, and, as a rule, do not treat of allusion as would a literary critic. This approach in its pure form can and has been applied directly to Vergil; indeed, we shall learn of one or two examples in the following pages. In general, however, it is not in itself a technique of the first importance for understanding Vergil's allusive style. More important is the work of other scholars who use rigorous philological methods approximating those of Giangrande, but who are willing to take the furilier step of reading allusion as literary-historical evidence, and who have thU§_had ~ major impact on the study of Latin poetry. The original manifesto of this group was Wendell Clausen's paper "Callimachus and Latin Poetry." 21 Clausen's article exemplifies the aesthetic that it celebrates. Brief and suggestive, like Pasquali's paper, it contains no new information or labored argument; rather it succinctly and gracefully states an important idea. Traditional literary history had seen Augustan literature as the product of a politically and aesthetically conservative movement · inspired by the masterpieces of archaic and classical Greek literature in preference to the more modernist aesthetic of the Hellenistic world that was adopted by the Roman Neoteric poets of the mid-first century B.C. Clausen, on the other hand, stresses the element of continuity between Neoteric and Augustan poetry, ancf suggests that the aesthetic similarity between these ·successive generations of Roman poets stems from.their devotion to an -individual teacher, himself a recognized-tJelleni~ticpoet: ft was1>arthenius of Nicaea; Clausen asserts, who, after coming to Rome as prisoner -orwarsometime between 73 and 65 B.C. introduced the Neoteric poets-Cinna, Calvus, and Catullus-and those of the next generation-Gallus and Vergil-to Callimachus; and it was this encounter that both produced the so-called •~atullan revoluJion" a11dgave Augustan poetry its essential character. It is-;_n -id~ithitClausen has long held, and time has produced many opportunities for restatement and development. 22 Where allusion is concerned, S:lausen sees more than Giangrande. :fle accepts the notion that allusive artistry is a vital part of Hellenistic

a

20. See, in general, Giangrande 1973. 21. Clausen 1964. 22. See, for example, Clausen 1982.178-187.

ON VERGILIAN lNTERTEXTUALITY

15

Greek and Latin poetry; but, for Latin poetry at least, he finds in it a significance that goes well beyond the scholarly formation of a highly 1 artificial D_{c&tersprache. For Clausen, allusion in Latin poetry is laden · with _artistic ideology: For Catullus or Vergil to quote Callimachus or · Theocritus, or to allude to Hesiod or Aratus with the learning, wi_t,and, . delicacy that they had learned from these poets, was to declare independence from an archaizing_native tradition that aimed mainly at the glorific:.ationof some patron's military exploits in verse modeled on the most obvious passages_i11Homer. Not that these poets considered allusion to Homer or to of the other archaic poets reactionary per se. What counted was t.he ml!Imer of the -~Hl!sion-learned, subtle, recherche. Thus Ve_rgjl'sanc!_Horace's imitation of archaic models such as Hesiod, Homer, Sappho, and Alcaeus cannot be taken as evidence of a traditionalist reaction t:oNeoteiicism on the part of the leading Augustan poets; rather the manner in which these allusions are fashioned demonstrates in Clausen's view, the essentially Callimachean and Neoteric basis of Augustan poetics. · - --- -·-· · ~The de_;-elopmei1tof certain implications inherent in Clausen's ideas has been carried out largely by his followers. The most ambitious exponent of the literary-historical notions inherent in Clausen's approach is his student D._0. Ross, Jr. In his dissertation, 23 which was later published in revised form, 24 Ross defined the essential characteristics of Neoteric poetry more rigorously than had been done before by using the ~tyl2me~i£ ~ethod of Bertil Axelson25 to identify two distinct poetic styles used by Catullus, that of the polymetrics (Carmina 1-60) and the longer poems (Carmina 61-68), and thatof theepigrams (Carmina 69-116). The former he identifies as a Neoteric innovation based on Alexandrian ideals, the latter as deriving from an older, well established Latin tradition. Ross's findings can be and have been challenged on some points; 26 but by bringing out the contrast between these styles, Ross establishes the essential characteristics of Neoteric poetry on a soun.d_ · philological basis. In a subsequent and closely related investigation, Ross investigated Neoteric language and thematic motifs in the works of the Augustan poets, particularly in Vergil's Ecloguesand Propertius' Monobiblos,to illustrate the impact that the Neoteric tradition had upon 23. Ross 1966. 24. Ross 1969. 25. Axelson 1945. 26. Some cog~nt individual objections are made by Benediktson 1977, but the main lines of Ross's argument remains intact.

16

VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

the next generation of Roman poets.27 This work on the Latin Dichterspracheparallels the activity of Giangrande and his school by revealing the philological basis of poetic artistry in Neoteric and Augustan Rome. But Ross, following Clausen, expands his approach to include _ideological allusion:; and he has done more than any other scholar to show how ;n:usion can become the instrument of literary history. In his most recent book, a study of the Georgics,Ross largely turns his attention to issues other than those that had concerned him in the past.28 But the application of his literary-historical views to the Georgics has been carried out chiefly by his student, Richard Thomas. Thomas' commentary on the poem contains a wealth of sophisticated discussion in which Vergilian allusion discloses a consistent attitude towards the literary past. 29 1J1~ a_!_titudeexpressed is esse_ntially identical to that elaborated by Clausen and Ross, i.e. Callimachean and Neotericiri the extreme.JO As a preliminary to the commentary, Thomas had already ~§ a basis for establishpublished a paper.in which he uses the Geo'Ygics }p.ga wology of all11si911-o!, as he prefers to call it, reference-for Latin poetry in generalI: Th~a~r p!"()c~_eds from relatively s_impletoqcite complex form~ of allusion, and in the process manages to indicate some of the thematic richness that allusion can create. 32 In general, though, Thomas' interest is in allusion as an illustration by the poet 2f his mastery _over the literary past. In discussing what he calls '"conflatioii or "multiple reference," he observes that in one particular passage (G. 1.231-246) ~

-

-

I

Virgil has overlaid a primary "translation" of technical Hellenistic sources with reference to the Homeric original as well as to previous Roman translations of that technical material. Archaic, Hellenistic, and Roman are.. ;~onflatedinto a singleversion, not just as an exercise in cleverness or erudition (and this is perhaps what, apart from its greater complexity, distinguishes Virgilian from Alexandrian reference), but rather as a demonstration of the eclectic and comprehensive-

27. Ross 1975. 28. Ross 1987. 29. Thomas 1988. 30. S~e also Thomas 1985 for his observations on the Callirnacheanism of the Aeneid, and cf. Clausen 1987.14. 31. Thomas 1986. 32. The discussion of "self-reference" (pp. 182-186) is especially suggestive.

ON VERGILIAN lNTERTEXTUALITY

17

nature, and perhaps of the superiority, of the new version: the tradition has become incorporated into a new version.33 Thomas is making a fine distinction, and one that is difficult to illustrate; but, in my experience of Vergil, it is absolutely ~e. Yergil does J!l_gtcha_ndsurpa_ssthe Alexandrians in the complexity of his allusion, ~ut never does learned display seem to be the point, as it so ofte~ does in Callimachus, Apollonius, and the rest. Where they are concerned with using their formidable -learning to control the classic texts of the past, and thereby to carve themselves a niche in literary history, Vergil .uses allusion to create his own vision of that history, to make the past anew, to c~Hinto being the tradition to which he wishes to be heir. In this study, I shall adopt the basic working assumption of these three · §Cholars, that allusion in Vergil (and the other poets of his age) frequently serves ideological purposes, and therefore offers useful literary-historical -~vigence. One closely related assumption that these scholars share, however, I cannot accept without modification. All three of them argue that the Callimachean and Neoteric outlook was the decisive factor in the development of Latin poetry in the first century, and that it remained the dominant source of inspiration until the end of the Augustan period. The allusive style that they find in Latin poetry from Catullus to Ovid, and many other features as well, they consistently trace to the poets' adherence to Callimachean principles. My viewdif(ers _fromtheirs in two respects. First, many features of Augustan poetry, pa~tlcularly_the decisions of Vergil and Ovid to attempt epic poetry on a gran_dsc~le, seem to me fundamentally incompatible with the premise of an exclusively or even predt>minantly Callimachean ideology. Second, I believe that in the .allusive_program-of the Georgicsit is possible to dis-· cov~r a_literary-historical outlook that derives from a rich diversity of so~ces, one that greatly helps to explain the character of subsequent 1,annpoetry. 'What I hope to show, then, is that their approach can be further expanded so as to enrich and advance our understanding of Augustan poetry.

1 •

Allusion and PoeticMemory Despite the fact that they claim methodological descent from Pasquali, both GianITT._a!1Q_~_g:r,ii;lhis_fo_ll9w~i:s and Clausen et al. tend to ignore the 33. Thomas 1986.197-198.

VERGIL'S ALLUSIVE ARTISTRY

18

affective quality of allusion. Jhis is especially true of Giangrande's school, for whom allusion remains more or less exclusively a vehicle for scliolarly debat~lau~eJl, Ross, and_J'_homas do _consider_th~aesJbetics of allusion; but their primary interest is in an aesthetic response, difficult to define, that is closely tied to the excitement of philLpi.c0pa, 'Aa-i"?EV11.ElJJ.WVl, i!v0a KaLi!v0a TrOTWVTUL ayal\11.oµwann.pvyE0-0-l, K/1.ayyTJOOV TrpOKa0i(ovTWV, a-µapayc'iOEn A.ElJJ.WV, w