αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
[Oppian] Cyn. 4.112
- v v / - - / - v v / - - / - - / - -
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas,
[Gallus] 53
- v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis,
- v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
Aen. 8.726
Can someone (Leofranc...) confirm that I have my scansion correct?
I refer to [Oppian] for the point that 'mollior undis' in Aen. 8.726
appears to etymologise Euphrates (cf. ευρρειταο). I already mentioned
the point that Prop. 1.14.1 already has "molliter unda" as a hexameter
ending but applied to the Tiber, leading to the possible inference
that someone prior to both Prop. and Vergil had applied 'molliter
undas' (vel. sim) to the Euphrates.
Am I justified in seeing a more direct resemblance between [Oppian] on
the one hand and [Gallus]/Verg. on the other hand: 'mollius undas'
occupying the last two feet where [Oppian] has the Euphrates; and
'Euphrates' (approximately) where Oppian has ευρρειταο?
And if so, would I be right in suggesting that it is [Gallus] which is
possibly the closer (i) he has 'et // Euphrates' where [Oppian] as
"E // urreitao" (i.e. the 'et // Eu' approximates to the disyllable
'eu' - I hope, without real confidence..., I have not blundered on the
scansion here...!); and (ii) 'currentes' more close approximates Greek
'reo' as well as bearing a certain resemblance in form to
ε*υρρ*ειταο?
(the observation would assume that [Oppian] himself closely renders a
Hellenistic predecessor, which I would find highly plausible in itself
- NB that ευρρειταο is a choice Homeric epithet, once in the Iliad,
once in the Odyssey: ναιε δε Σατνιόεντος ἐϋρρείταο παρ' οχθας Il.6.34;
Αἴγυπτον ἐϋρρείτην Od.14.257 - I find it hard to believe that no
Hellenistic poet would have noticed the opportunity to apply it to the
Euphrates).
The scansions are correct; but how are 'well-flowing' and 'gently flowing' relared? Unfortunately the only ancient hints at the meaning of eurroos/eurreiths I have found are the scholia on Ps-Oppian, which helpfully gloss the word by the like-derived eurutos also found of a spring in the interpolatied , who npassage Euripides IA 420-1 and Eustathius, who notes that Scamander is not well-flowing when choked with blood. Greek poets from Homer on do indeed apply these epithets to all manner of rivers, without I suspect having an particular knowledge of those rivers' speed or freedom from obstruction; but the most obvious sense is fast- or vigirously flowing; then the point of iam mollior undis (note especially _iam_) is that Euphrates knows he has been beaten and therefore accommodates his flow to his new status of subject. So already Servius ad loc. comparing Horace, Odes 2. 9. 22; see Nisbet and Hubbard in their intruduction to that ode, pp. 137-9, suggesting that Horace was also influenced by the depctures of eastern rivers and mountains in Imp. Caesar's triumph. But if we have a reaction to Augustus' real or supposed exploits in the East, then it is far easier to suppose that Pseudo-Gallus (who of course could perfectly well have read Pseudo-Oppian, already published by Aldus in 1517, and echoed and varied him as you suggest) reused the motif for his laus Ventidii than, not only that Pseudo-Oppian toolk over an earlier poet's eurreitao . . . Euphratao bodily, but that Vergil cribbed from Gallus for the victor at Actium a conceit used in readers' memory for a subordinate to the loser.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:00 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
[Oppian] Cyn. 4.112
- v v / - - / - v v / - - / - - / - -
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas,
[Gallus] 53
- v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis,
- v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
Aen. 8.726
Can someone (Leofranc...) confirm that I have my scansion correct?
I refer to [Oppian] for the point that 'mollior undis' in Aen. 8.726
appears to etymologise Euphrates (cf. ευρρειταο). I already mentioned
the point that Prop. 1.14.1 already has "molliter unda" as a hexameter
ending but applied to the Tiber, leading to the possible inference
that someone prior to both Prop. and Vergil had applied 'molliter
undas' (vel. sim) to the Euphrates.
Am I justified in seeing a more direct resemblance between [Oppian] on
the one hand and [Gallus]/Verg. on the other hand: 'mollius undas'
occupying the last two feet where [Oppian] has the Euphrates; and
'Euphrates' (approximately) where Oppian has ευρρειταο?
And if so, would I be right in suggesting that it is [Gallus] which is
possibly the closer (i) he has 'et // Euphrates' where [Oppian] as
"E // urreitao" (i.e. the 'et // Eu' approximates to the disyllable
'eu' - I hope, without real confidence..., I have not blundered on the
scansion here...!); and (ii) 'currentes' more close approximates Greek
'reo' as well as bearing a certain resemblance in form to
ε*υρρ*ειταο?
(the observation would assume that [Oppian] himself closely renders a
Hellenistic predecessor, which I would find highly plausible in itself
- NB that ευρρειταο is a choice Homeric epithet, once in the Iliad,
once in the Odyssey: ναιε δε Σατνιόεντος ἐϋρρείταο παρ' οχθας Il.6.34;
Αἴγυπτον ἐϋρρείτην Od.14.257 - I find it hard to believe that no
Hellenistic poet would have noticed the opportunity to apply it to the
Euphrates).
It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
last, vengeance for the Crassi.
Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
(Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
[Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
(now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
"adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
[Gallus]), the possibility that [Gallus] went direct to [Oppian] after
Vergil is surely very difficult: because he already had "Euphrates"
and "mollius undas" in these positions from Vergil. I think one would
rather have to abandon any influence whatsoever, which I am
increasingly reluctant to do - not least since if I was translating a
line containing "ευρρειταο" I would give myself a pat on the back for
coming upon 'currentes'. Of course, postulating a further intermediate
Hellenistic model [2] adds to the speculation, but one would be just
as comfortable finding Hellenistic material in [Oppian] as e.g. Nonnus
(cf. Hollis (1994) ZPE 102).
[1] NB my intuition is that Horace is imitating someone whether it is
Vergil (pre-publication of the Aeneid) or [Gallus]: his periphrasis
'Medum flumen' is surely a variation of 'Euphrates' rather than the
other way around. I have wondered whether 'minores vertices' is a pun
- the calmer waters but also *the lowered heads of the defeated led in
triumph*.
[2] Could it even by a line which Callimachus 2.108 was *responding
to* in his literary polemic - i.e. megas roos ~ eurreitao; Assyriou
potamou ~ Euphrates (it is what one does in literary polemic to
misappropriate lines from the target)?
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The scansions are correct; but how are 'well-flowing' and 'gently flowing'
> relared? Unfortunately the only ancient hints at the meaning of
> eurroos/eurreiths I have found are the scholia on Ps-Oppian, which
> helpfully gloss the word by the like-derived eurutos also found of a spring
> in the interpolatied , who npassage Euripides IA 420-1 and Eustathius, who
> notes that Scamander is not well-flowing when choked with blood. Greek poets
> from Homer on do indeed apply these epithets to all manner of rivers,
> without I suspect having an particular knowledge of those rivers' speed or
> freedom from obstruction; but the most obvious sense is fast- or vigirously
> flowing; then the point of iam mollior undis (note especially _iam_) is
> that Euphrates knows he has been beaten and therefore accommodates his flow
> to his new status of subject. So already Servius ad loc. comparing Horace,
> Odes 2. 9. 22; see Nisbet and Hubbard in their intruduction to that ode, pp.
> 137-9, suggesting that Horace was also influenced by the depctures of
> eastern rivers and mountains in Imp. Caesar's triumph. But if we have a
> reaction to Augustus' real or supposed exploits in the East, then it is far
> easier to suppose that Pseudo-Gallus (who of course could perfectly well
> have read Pseudo-Oppian, already published by Aldus in 1517, and echoed and
> varied him as you suggest) reused the motif for his laus Ventidii than, not
> only that Pseudo-Oppian toolk over an earlier poet's eurreitao . . .
> Euphratao bodily, but that Vergil cribbed from Gallus for the victor at
> Actium a conceit used in readers' memory for a subordinate to the loser.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:00 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
> [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112
> - v v / - - / - v v / - - / - - / - -
> Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas,
> [Gallus] 53
> - v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
> finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis,
> - v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
> Aen. 8.726
> Can someone (Leofranc...) confirm that I have my scansion correct?
> I refer to [Oppian] for the point that 'mollior undis' in Aen. 8.726
> appears to etymologise Euphrates (cf. ευρρειταο). I already mentioned
> the point that Prop. 1.14.1 already has "molliter unda" as a hexameter
> ending but applied to the Tiber, leading to the possible inference
> that someone prior to both Prop. and Vergil had applied 'molliter
> undas' (vel. sim) to the Euphrates.
> Am I justified in seeing a more direct resemblance between [Oppian] on
> the one hand and [Gallus]/Verg. on the other hand: 'mollius undas'
> occupying the last two feet where [Oppian] has the Euphrates; and
> 'Euphrates' (approximately) where Oppian has ευρρειταο?
> And if so, would I be right in suggesting that it is [Gallus] which is
> possibly the closer (i) he has 'et // Euphrates' where [Oppian] as
> "E // urreitao" (i.e. the 'et // Eu' approximates to the disyllable
> 'eu' - I hope, without real confidence..., I have not blundered on the
> scansion here...!); and (ii) 'currentes' more close approximates Greek
> 'reo' as well as bearing a certain resemblance in form to
> ε*υρρ*ειταο?
> (the observation would assume that [Oppian] himself closely renders a
> Hellenistic predecessor, which I would find highly plausible in itself
> - NB that ευρρειταο is a choice Homeric epithet, once in the Iliad,
> once in the Odyssey: ναιε δε Σατνιόεντος ἐϋρρείταο παρ' οχθας Il.6.34;
> Αἴγυπτον ἐϋρρείτην Od.14.257 - I find it hard to believe that no
> Hellenistic poet would have noticed the opportunity to apply it to the
> Euphrates).- Hide quoted text -
In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him), but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is careful to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievement of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but while I could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the double rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would even pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And I am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the phrase.)
I agree about minores vertices
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
last, vengeance for the Crassi.
Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
(Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
[Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
(now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
"adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
[Gallus]), the possibility that [Gallus] went direct to [Oppian] after
Vergil is surely very difficult: because he already had "Euphrates"
and "mollius undas" in these positions from Vergil. I think one would
rather have to abandon any influence whatsoever, which I am
increasingly reluctant to do - not least since if I was translating a
line containing "ευρρειταο" I would give myself a pat on the back for
coming upon 'currentes'. Of course, postulating a further intermediate
Hellenistic model [2] adds to the speculation, but one would be just
as comfortable finding Hellenistic material in [Oppian] as e.g. Nonnus
(cf. Hollis (1994) ZPE 102).
[1] NB my intuition is that Horace is imitating someone whether it is
Vergil (pre-publication of the Aeneid) or [Gallus]: his periphrasis
'Medum flumen' is surely a variation of 'Euphrates' rather than the
other way around. I have wondered whether 'minores vertices' is a pun
- the calmer waters but also *the lowered heads of the defeated led in
triumph*.
[2] Could it even by a line which Callimachus 2.108 was *responding
to* in his literary polemic - i.e. megas roos ~ eurreitao; Assyriou
potamou ~ Euphrates (it is what one does in literary polemic to
misappropriate lines from the target)?
On Sep 28, 8:37 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> The scansions are correct; but how are 'well-flowing' and 'gently flowing'
> relared? Unfortunately the only ancient hints at the meaning of
> eurroos/eurreiths I have found are the scholia on Ps-Oppian, which
> helpfully gloss the word by the like-derived eurutos also found of a > spring
> in the interpolatied , who npassage Euripides IA 420-1 and Eustathius, who
> notes that Scamander is not well-flowing when choked with blood. Greek > poets
> from Homer on do indeed apply these epithets to all manner of rivers,
> without I suspect having an particular knowledge of those rivers' speed or
> freedom from obstruction; but the most obvious sense is fast- or > vigirously
> flowing; then the point of iam mollior undis (note especially _iam_) is
> that Euphrates knows he has been beaten and therefore accommodates his > flow
> to his new status of subject. So already Servius ad loc. comparing Horace,
> Odes 2. 9. 22; see Nisbet and Hubbard in their intruduction to that ode, > pp.
> 137-9, suggesting that Horace was also influenced by the depctures of
> eastern rivers and mountains in Imp. Caesar's triumph. But if we have a
> reaction to Augustus' real or supposed exploits in the East, then it is > far
> easier to suppose that Pseudo-Gallus (who of course could perfectly well
> have read Pseudo-Oppian, already published by Aldus in 1517, and echoed > and
> varied him as you suggest) reused the motif for his laus Ventidii than, > not
> only that Pseudo-Oppian toolk over an earlier poet's eurreitao . . .
> Euphratao bodily, but that Vergil cribbed from Gallus for the victor at
> Actium a conceit used in readers' memory for a subordinate to the loser.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:00 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
> [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112
> - v v / - - / - v v / - - / - - / - -
> Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas,
> [Gallus] 53
> - v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
> finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis,
> - v v / - - / - - /- - /- v v / - v
> Aen. 8.726
> Can someone (Leofranc...) confirm that I have my scansion correct?
> I refer to [Oppian] for the point that 'mollior undis' in Aen. 8.726
> appears to etymologise Euphrates (cf. ευρρειταο). I already mentioned
> the point that Prop. 1.14.1 already has "molliter unda" as a hexameter
> ending but applied to the Tiber, leading to the possible inference
> that someone prior to both Prop. and Vergil had applied 'molliter
> undas' (vel. sim) to the Euphrates.
> Am I justified in seeing a more direct resemblance between [Oppian] on
> the one hand and
(1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
to be crossed.
(Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
[=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
like:
"... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
"...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
has not yet done that.
(2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
(3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
*reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
sensitive too).
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him),
> but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is careful
> to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievement
> of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace
> (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
> I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but while I
> could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the double
> rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would even
> pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And I
> am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> phrase.)
> I agree about minores vertices
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
> can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
> temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
> the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
> (now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
> triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
> to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
> undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
> standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
> crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
> and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
> What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
> than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
> "adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
> attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
> given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
> than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
> and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
> threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
> that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
> chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
> Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
> describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
> explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
> mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
> As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
> resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
> [Gallus]), the possibility that [Gallus] went direct to [Oppian] after
> Vergil is surely very difficult: because he already had "Euphrates"
> and "mollius undas" in these positions from Vergil. I think one would
> rather have to abandon any influence whatsoever, which I am
> increasingly reluctant to do - not least since if I was translating a
> line containing "ευρρειταο" I would give myself a pat on the back for
> coming upon 'currentes'. Of course, postulating a further intermediate
> Hellenistic model [2] adds to the speculation, but one would be just
> as comfortable finding Hellenistic material in [Oppian] as e.g. Nonnus
> (cf. Hollis (1994) ZPE 102).
> [1] NB my intuition is that Horace is imitating someone whether it is
> Vergil (pre-publication of the Aeneid) or [Gallus]: his periphrasis
> 'Medum flumen' is surely a variation of 'Euphrates' rather than the
> other way around. I have wondered whether 'minores vertices' is a pun
> - the calmer waters but also *the lowered heads of the defeated led in
> triumph*.
> [2] Could it even by a line which Callimachus 2.108 was *responding
> to* in his literary polemic - i.e. megas roos ~ eurreitao; Assyriou
> potamou ~ Euphrates (it is what one does in literary polemic to
> misappropriate lines from the target)?
> On Sep 28, 8:37 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The scansions are correct; but how are 'well-flowing' and 'gently flowing'
> > relared? Unfortunately the only ancient hints at the meaning of
> > eurroos/eurreiths I have found are the scholia on Ps-Oppian, which
"We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
like:
"... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
"...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
4.560ff))."
Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> to be crossed.
> (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> like:
> "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> has not yet done that.
> (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> sensitive too).
> On Sep 29, 1:40 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him),
> > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is careful
> > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievement
> > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace
> > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
> > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but while I
> > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the double
> > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would even
> > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And I
> > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > phrase.)
> > I agree about minores vertices
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> > relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
> > can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
> > temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
> > the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
> > (now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
> > triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
> > to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
> > undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
> > standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
> > crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
> > and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
> > What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
> > than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
> > "adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
> > attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
> > given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
> > than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
> > and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
> > threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
> > that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
> > chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
> > Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
> > describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
> > explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
> > mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
> > As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
> > resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
> > [Gallus]), the possibility that [Gallus] went direct to [Oppian] after
> > Vergil is surely very difficult: because he already had "Euphrates"
> > and "mollius undas" in these positions from Vergil. I think one would
> > rather have to abandon any influence whatsoever, which I am
> > increasingly reluctant to do - not least since if I was translating a
> > line containing "ευρρειταο" I would give myself a pat on the back for
> > coming upon 'currentes'. Of course, postulating a further intermediate
> > Hellenistic model [2] adds to the speculation, but one would be just
> > as comfortable finding Hellenistic material in [Oppian] as e.g. Nonnus
> > (cf. Hollis (1994) ZPE 102).
> > [1] NB my intuition is that Horace is imitating someone whether it is
> > Vergil (pre-publication of the Aeneid) or [Gallus]: his periphrasis
> > 'Medum flumen'
Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person; point 2 is wrong, since Ventidius fought under Antony's auspices.
No need to suppose [Gallius] 'went on' to read [Oppian]; why shouldn't he have read him earlier and remembered this line, not least for the sound?
Homwe does write 'eurreitao par' oxqaid, but in a differnt sedes, between the third troche and the end of the line; [Oppian] makes it straddle the third trochee, and withal breaks Naeke's Law and before a spondeiazwn at that. But at least he varies his model, whereas your hypothesis requires him not to do so.
There is in fact a difficulty with positing Choerilus specifically as the common source; while I could believe that Callimachus had read him, he was so proverbially bad that one may doubt whether there were copies available for either Gallus or pseudo-Oppian to peruse. One would have to suppose it was a stick uotation, like Sardanapallus' finger-snapping lines or koilainei petrhn ranis udatos endelexeih; yet later Greek writers, een historians of Alexander;s campaigns, are silent.
> (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> to be crossed.
> (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> like:
> "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> has not yet done that.
> (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> sensitive too).
> On Sep 29, 1:40Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him=
> ),
> > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is caref=
> ul
> > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievem=
> ent
> > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace
> > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
> > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but whil=
> e I
> > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the doubl=
> e
> > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would e=
> ven
> > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And=
> I
> > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > phrase.)
> > I agree about minores vertices
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque  adeone
> > OX2 6EJ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â =
> Â Â scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> > relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
> > can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
> > temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
> > the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
> > (now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
> > triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
> > to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
> > undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
> > standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
> > crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
> > and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
> > What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
> > than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
> > "adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
> > attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
> > given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
> > than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
> > and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
> > threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
> > that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
> > chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
> > Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
> > describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
> > explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
> > mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
> > As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
> > resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
> > [Gallus]), the possibility that
"Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody
except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person"
I don't follow this. We know from Plutarch that Ventidius himself
refrained from crossing the Euphrates, out of deference to Anthony.
The point is not really "mollius necdum molliter" but rather "mollius
necdum victus/transitus". Ventidius reaches the bank of the Euphrates,
the Parthians are weakened but he does not cross. Did Ventidius
display the Euphrates in his triumph? Again surely not. "mollius"
describes the situation both accurately and diplomatically: the
Euphrates is ready to be crossed.
Have [Gallus] read [Oppian] earlier: one still has to grapple with the
remarkable coincidence that Vergil's line has the ingredients ready-
made in the right places.
In [Oppian] I am not beholden to the 'autar' nor indeed the 'par'
octhais' - all I require in my source is 'eurreitao... Euphratao'
where they appear in [Oppian] (it would be difficult to fit them
together in a hexameter elsewhere - one could begin eurreitao at the
end of the third foot but that would leave only one syllable between
the two words?). Within those constraints, [Oppian] can have all the
creativity which he merits! But as I said in my first post, I find it
unlikely that [Oppian] was the first to notice how felicitously the
choice 'eurreitao' goes with the Euphrates.
As to a source, Nicander of Colophon is a possibility (who wrote,
himself, it seems, a Cynegetica) although my preference was for a
source *before* Callimachus (Antimachus, Mimnermus?). Anything that
Parthenius might have read (which presumably covers a huge range)
could make its way to Gallus.
On Sep 29, 4:02 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person; point 2 is wrong, since Ventidius fought under Antony's auspices.
> No need to suppose [Gallius] 'went on' to read [Oppian]; why shouldn't he have read him earlier and remembered this line, not least for the sound?
> Homwe does write 'eurreitao par' oxqaid, but in a differnt sedes, between the third troche and the end of the line; [Oppian] makes it straddle the third trochee, and withal breaks Naeke's Law and before a spondeiazwn at that. But at least he varies his model, whereas your hypothesis requires him not to do so.
> There is in fact a difficulty with positing Choerilus specifically as the common source; while I could believe that Callimachus had read him, he was so proverbially bad that one may doubt whether there were copies available for either Gallus or pseudo-Oppian to peruse. One would have to suppose it was a stick uotation, like Sardanapallus' finger-snapping lines or koilainei petrhn ranis udatos endelexeih; yet later Greek writers, een historians of Alexander;s campaigns, are silent.
> > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > to be crossed.
> > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > like:
> > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > has not yet done that.
> > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > sensitive too).
> > On Sep 29, 1:40Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him=
> > ),
> > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is caref=
> > ul
> > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievem=
> > ent
> > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace
> > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
> > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but whil=
> > e I
> > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the doubl=
> > e
> > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would e=
> > ven
> > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And=
> > I
> > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > > phrase.)
> > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque  adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â =
> > Â Â scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
"one could begin eurreitao at the end of the third foot but that would
leave only one syllable between the two words?)." I mean at the end of
the second foot.
On Sep 29, 5:02 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody
> except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person"
> I don't follow this. We know from Plutarch that Ventidius himself
> refrained from crossing the Euphrates, out of deference to Anthony.
> The point is not really "mollius necdum molliter" but rather "mollius
> necdum victus/transitus". Ventidius reaches the bank of the Euphrates,
> the Parthians are weakened but he does not cross. Did Ventidius
> display the Euphrates in his triumph? Again surely not. "mollius"
> describes the situation both accurately and diplomatically: the
> Euphrates is ready to be crossed.
> Have [Gallus] read [Oppian] earlier: one still has to grapple with the
> remarkable coincidence that Vergil's line has the ingredients ready-
> made in the right places.
> In [Oppian] I am not beholden to the 'autar' nor indeed the 'par'
> octhais' - all I require in my source is 'eurreitao... Euphratao'
> where they appear in [Oppian] (it would be difficult to fit them
> together in a hexameter elsewhere - one could begin eurreitao at the
> end of the third foot but that would leave only one syllable between
> the two words?). Within those constraints, [Oppian] can have all the
> creativity which he merits! But as I said in my first post, I find it
> unlikely that [Oppian] was the first to notice how felicitously the
> choice 'eurreitao' goes with the Euphrates.
> As to a source, Nicander of Colophon is a possibility (who wrote,
> himself, it seems, a Cynegetica) although my preference was for a
> source *before* Callimachus (Antimachus, Mimnermus?). Anything that
> Parthenius might have read (which presumably covers a huge range)
> could make its way to Gallus.
> On Sep 29, 4:02 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person; point 2 is wrong, since Ventidius fought under Antony's auspices.
> > No need to suppose [Gallius] 'went on' to read [Oppian]; why shouldn't he have read him earlier and remembered this line, not least for the sound?
> > Homwe does write 'eurreitao par' oxqaid, but in a differnt sedes, between the third troche and the end of the line; [Oppian] makes it straddle the third trochee, and withal breaks Naeke's Law and before a spondeiazwn at that. But at least he varies his model, whereas your hypothesis requires him not to do so.
> > There is in fact a difficulty with positing Choerilus specifically as the common source; while I could believe that Callimachus had read him, he was so proverbially bad that one may doubt whether there were copies available for either Gallus or pseudo-Oppian to peruse. One would have to suppose it was a stick uotation, like Sardanapallus' finger-snapping lines or koilainei petrhn ranis udatos endelexeih; yet later Greek writers, een historians of Alexander;s campaigns, are silent.
> > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > > to be crossed.
> > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > has not yet done that.
> > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > > sensitive too).
> > > On Sep 29, 1:40Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to him=
> > > ),
> > > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is caref=
> > > ul
> > > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the achievem=
> > > ent
> > > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and Horace
> > > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my suggestion.)
> > > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but whil=
> > > e I
> > > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the doubl=
> > > e
> > > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would e=
> > > ven
> > > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? (And=
> > > I
> > > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > > > phrase.)
> > > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque  adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â =
> > > Â Â scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > > > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > > > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > > > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > > > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > > > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > > > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > > > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > > > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > > > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > > > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > > > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > > > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > > > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > > > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > > > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > > > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > > > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > > > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8
Point 1: I meant that the attempt to make mollius mean less than molliter was just too subtle.
Of course you need only eürreitao . . . Eufratao; my argument was that that itself was rather too much for a decent poet to borrow. I suppose trisyllabic eurreitew at the start of a line (not tetrasyllabic eurreitao, which would violate Meyer's First Law) with Eufratao at the end might be posited, but then your suggestion that et Euphratis eas meant to echo eürrheitao likewise beginning after the first trochee goes out of the window. And please not at the end of the second foot, which would deny us a proper caesura and tear down Hermann's Bridge.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
"one could begin eurreitao at the end of the third foot but that would
leave only one syllable between the two words?)." I mean at the end of
the second foot.
On Sep 29, 5:02 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> "Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody
> except a poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person"
> I don't follow this. We know from Plutarch that Ventidius himself
> refrained from crossing the Euphrates, out of deference to Anthony.
> The point is not really "mollius necdum molliter" but rather "mollius
> necdum victus/transitus". Ventidius reaches the bank of the Euphrates,
> the Parthians are weakened but he does not cross. Did Ventidius
> display the Euphrates in his triumph? Again surely not. "mollius"
> describes the situation both accurately and diplomatically: the
> Euphrates is ready to be crossed.
> Have [Gallus] read [Oppian] earlier: one still has to grapple with the
> remarkable coincidence that Vergil's line has the ingredients ready-
> made in the right places.
> In [Oppian] I am not beholden to the 'autar' nor indeed the 'par'
> octhais' - all I require in my source is 'eurreitao... Euphratao'
> where they appear in [Oppian] (it would be difficult to fit them
> together in a hexameter elsewhere - one could begin eurreitao at the
> end of the third foot but that would leave only one syllable between
> the two words?). Within those constraints, [Oppian] can have all the
> creativity which he merits! But as I said in my first post, I find it
> unlikely that [Oppian] was the first to notice how felicitously the
> choice 'eurreitao' goes with the Euphrates.
> As to a source, Nicander of Colophon is a possibility (who wrote,
> himself, it seems, a Cynegetica) although my preference was for a
> source *before* Callimachus (Antimachus, Mimnermus?). Anything that
> Parthenius might have read (which presumably covers a huge range)
> could make its way to Gallus.
> On Sep 29, 4:02 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Point 1 (mollius necdum molliter) would have occurred to nobody except a > > poet put on the spot for flattering the wrong person; point 2 is wrong, > > since Ventidius fought under Antony's auspices.
> > No need to suppose [Gallius] 'went on' to read [Oppian]; why shouldn't > > he have read him earlier and remembered this line, not least for the > > sound?
> > Homwe does write 'eurreitao par' oxqaid, but in a differnt sedes, > > between the third troche and the end of the line; [Oppian] makes it > > straddle the third trochee, and withal breaks Naeke's Law and before a > > spondeiazwn at that. But at least he varies his model, whereas your > > hypothesis requires him not to do so.
> > There is in fact a difficulty with positing Choerilus specifically as > > the common source; while I could believe that Callimachus had read him, > > he was so proverbially bad that one may doubt whether there were copies > > available for either Gallus or pseudo-Oppian to peruse. One would have > > to suppose it was a stick uotation, like Sardanapallus' finger-snapping > > lines or koilainei petrhn ranis udatos endelexeih; yet later Greek > > writers, een historians of Alexander;s campaigns, are silent.
> > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > > to be crossed.
> > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > has not yet done that.
> > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > > sensitive too).
> > > On Sep 29, 1:40Â pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming > > > > to him=
> > > ),
> > > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed > > > > to
> > > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is > > > > caref=
> > > ul
> > > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the > > > > achievem=
> > > ent
> > > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and > > > > Horace
> > > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before > > > > the
> > > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my > > > > suggestion.)
> > > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but > > > > whil=
> > > e I
> > > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the > > > > doubl=
> > > e
> > > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but > > > > would e=
> > > ven
> > > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? > > > > (And=
> > > I
> > > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use > > > > the
> > > > phrase.)
> > > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque  adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â =
> > > Â Â scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over > > > > the
> > > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see > > > > e.g.
> > > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:59 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
"We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
like:
"... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
"...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
4.560ff))."
Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> to be crossed.
> (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> like:
> "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> has not yet done that.
> (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> sensitive too).
> On Sep 29, 1:40 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to > > him),
> > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is > > careful
> > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the > > achievement
> > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and > > Horace
> > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my > > suggestion.)
> > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but > > while I
> > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the > > double
> > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would > > even
> > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that? > > (And I
> > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > phrase.)
> > I agree about minores vertices
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> > relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
> > can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
> > temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
> > the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
> > (now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
> > triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
> > to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
> > undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
> > standards unrecovered, the Crassi unavenged and no Roman army had
> > crossed the Euphrates? Surely not. Note that both Prop. 3.4 especially
> > and Ovid AA 1 are *still predicting* triumphs over the Euphrates.
> > What does Vergil mean at Geo. 4.561: surely that Octavian is no more
> > than sword-waving "fulminat" (present tense) at the Parthians;
> > "adfectat Olympo" must surely hint that Octavian is presently
> > attempting to follow in JC's footsteps (with a slightly dark subtext
> > given JC's route to Olympus)? And at Aen. 8, Vergil can say no more
> > than what [Gallus] had said: Rome was on the border of the Euphrates
> > and this time (implied) Octavian (rather than Antony) would carry the
> > threat through. It seems also to me - I think I've said this earlier -
> > that Odes 2.9 [1] is only intelligible (where does it fit in
> > chronologically?) by postulating that Horace is suggesting that
> > Augustus will do what JC could not. It is not sufficient, I feel, to
> > describe (and thereby implicitly dismiss as requiring no further
> > explanation) the mentions of the Euphrates in Aen. 8 and Odes 2.9 as
> > mere hyperbole given the manifest importance of the topic.
> > As for [Oppian] - I think if one accepts that there is some
> > resemblance between this line and both [Gallus]/Vergil (or even just
> > [Gallus]), the possibility that [Gallus] went direct to [Oppian] after
> > Vergil is surely very difficult: because he already had "Euphrates"
> > and "mollius undas" in these positions from Vergil. I think one would
> > rather have to abandon any influence whatsoever, which I am
> > increasingly reluctant to do - not least since if
On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
and cowed.
(To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
*against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
[Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
of Alexander.
Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
incompetencies...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:59 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> "We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> like:
> "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> 4.560ff))."
> Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
> attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
> On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > to be crossed.
> > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > like:
> > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > has not yet done that.
> > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > sensitive too).
> > On Sep 29, 1:40 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to
> > > him),
> > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is
> > > careful
> > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the
> > > achievement
> > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and
> > > Horace
> > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my
> > > suggestion.)
> > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but
> > > while I
> > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the
> > > double
> > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would
> > > even
> > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that?
> > > (And I
> > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > > phrase.)
> > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> > > relevant only by the context of the yet to be defeated Parthians. One
> > > can test the point this way: could Octavian really have had the
> > > temerity to display the Euphrates (other Eastern rivers, perhaps, but
> > > the great Euphrates, with all its connotations of the Parthian defeats
> > > (now plural) and the lost standards...?) as defeated in the triple
> > > triumph of 29BC (Actium, Illyrium, Egypt - on the face of it nothing
> > > to do with the Euphrates) at a time when the Parthians remained
> > > undefeated (Antony's campaign repulsed adding to Roman shame), the
> On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
> emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
> 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
> second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
> and cowed.
> (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
> of Alexander.
> Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
> incompetencies...
> On 29 Sep, 18:25, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I could believe that, particularly with an initial eurreitew.
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:59 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > "We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > like:
> > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > 4.560ff))."
> > Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
> > attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
> > On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > > to be crossed.
> > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > has not yet done that.
> > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > > sensitive too).
> > > On Sep 29, 1:40 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming to
> > > > him),
> > > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed to
> > > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is
> > > > careful
> > > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the
> > > > achievement
> > > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and
> > > > Horace
> > > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before the
> > > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my
> > > > suggestion.)
> > > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but
> > > > while I
> > > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the
> > > > double
> > > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but would
> > > > even
> > > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that?
> > > > (And I
> > > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use the
> > > > phrase.)
> > > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over the
> > > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see e.g.
> > > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > > > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > > > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > > > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > > > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) that
> > > > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > > > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > > > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > > > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is highly
> > > > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > > > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > > > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further because
> > > > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > > > See especially Plut. Ant. 34.3 and Pelling ad loc. Note too the
> > > > present-tense "vindicat" - full vengeance is expected but not yet
> > > > achieved; [Gallus] has not yet returned ("meos reditus" [Gallus].45;
> > > > cf. and cp. the "tuum reditum" of Caesar which Gallus had predicted) -
> > > > Lycoris can only await his return with "spe" that is not "inani". The
> > > > point of 'mollius' is the same as that in Aen. 8 albeit more apt
> > > > (Parthian campaign) and more precise (*right now*): the Euphrates is
> > > > now emasculated by the Parthian defeat albeit not yet conquered.
> > > > [Gallus] recalls his own (i.e. real Gallus') prediction now partially
> > > > fulfilled. On the hypothesis, [Gallus] writes, of course, in ignorance
> > > > of the fact that Antony will be defeated.
> > > > When Vergil mentions the Euphrates in the context of Augustus'
> > > > triumphs of 29BC, the mentions are both highly tendentious and
> > > > relevant
Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about the repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could believe that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clunky elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' Ευφρηταο ρεεθρα ...?
if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ρεεθρα ~
undas).
[the usual apologies in advance!).
On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
> emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
> 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
> second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
> and cowed.
> (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
> of Alexander.
> Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
> incompetencies...
> On 29 Sep, 18:25, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > I could believe that, particularly with an initial eurreitew.
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:59 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > "We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > like:
> > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > 4.560ff))."
> > Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
> > attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
> > On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > > to be crossed.
> > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > has not yet done that.
> > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > > sensitive too).
> > > On Sep 29, 1:40 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming > > > > to
> > > > him),
> > > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed > > > > to
> > > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is
> > > > careful
> > > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more he devalues the
> > > > achievement
> > > > of taming the Euphrates.) And the reuse of the motif by Vergil and
> > > > Horace
> > > > (who after all says 'cantemus' not 'cantabimus') might seem less
> > > > well-omened, all the more so if they are singing the paean before > > > > the
> > > > victory.(I do take the point about the triumph of 29, not my
> > > > suggestion.)
> > > > I have no difficulty at all with echoes of [Oppian] in [Gallus]; but
> > > > while I
> > > > could certainly believe that (say) Choerilus of Iasos in recounting
> > > > Alexander's campaign had written eurreitao . . . Euphrhtao; for the
> > > > double
> > > > rhyme cf. Nicander's kai ken Omhreioio kae eiseti Nikandroio; but > > > > would
> > > > even
> > > > pseudo-Oppian have been so supine as to take it over just like that?
> > > > (And I
> > > > am not sure Callimachus would have been so straightforward as to use > > > > the
> > > > phrase.)
> > > > I agree about minores vertices
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 11:42 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > It is a relief to get the scansion right, for once...!
> > > > The key point it seems to me is that it is only by a triumph over > > > > the
> > > > Parthians that one could properly claim to cow the Euphrates (see > > > > e.g.
> > > > Orosius 6.13.2; Florus 3.11.4 for the importance of the Euphrates as
> > > > boundary river between the Romans and the Parthians: the Crassi had
> > > > crossed the Euphrates, avenging them would require crossing again).
> > > > Julius Caesar was going to do this, before he was murdered. Real-
> > > > Gallus predicted this triumph in the poem of which Fr 2.2-5 is part.
> > > > One infers from Prop. 3.4.4 and Ovid AA 1.223-4 (who are imitating
> > > > Gallus - see Parsons, Anderson, Nisbet (1979); and Cairns (2006)) > > > > that
> > > > real Gallus had predicted that JC would lead the Euphrates in a
> > > > triumph - an achievement to eclipse all other Roman triumphs and, at
> > > > last, vengeance for the Crassi.
> > > > Next Ventidius' Parthian campaign. Mention of the Euphrates is > > > > highly
> > > > apt and [Gallus]' is strikingly precise: since Ventidius only got so
> > > > far as the Euphrates and stopped there, albeit after a significant
> > > > defeat of the Parthians (cf. 'Parthe iaces') (going no further > > > > because
> > > > he did not want to anticipate Antony's glory in the final victory).
> > > > See
Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about the
> repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could believe
> that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clunky
> elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:29 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' Ευφρηταο ρεεθρα ...?
> if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ρεεθρα ~
> undas).
> [the usual apologies in advance!).
> On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> > intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> > Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> > mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
> > emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
> > 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
> > second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> > not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
> > and cowed.
> > (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> > ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> > river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> > Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> > Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> > the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> > *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> > On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> > which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> > [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
> > of Alexander.
> > Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
> > incompetencies...
> > On 29 Sep, 18:25, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I could believe that, particularly with an initial eurreitew.
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > "We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff))."
> > > Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
> > > attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
> > > On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for Ventidius
> > > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, *ready*
> > > > to be crossed.
> > > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to whether
> > > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > > like:
> > > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > > has not yet done that.
> > > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I think
> > > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but then
> > > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take lines
> > > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of "eurreitao
> > > > par' ochthas' is lifted wholesale from the Iliad if there is no
> > > > intermediate source. I find your suggestion of Choerilus of Iasos
> > > > recounting Alexander's campaign extremely attractive: (i) he will
> > > > have plundered Homer without much reworking; (ii) he is just the sort
> > > > of poet whom Callimachus might take aim at in Hymn 2.108 by
> > > > *reworking* the suggested line; and (iii) its the sort of material
> > > > which one might expect Gallus to have been alive to when working up
> > > > his poems which have as their background Roman emulation of
> > > > Alexander's conquests (a point which at least Octavian was very
> > > > sensitive too).
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > In principle, Gallus could have written something like 'iam tumidum
> > > > > Euphraten mollius ire decet' (sc. in anticipation of what's coming
> > > > > to
> > > > > him),
> > > > > but then if he really wrote AL 914. 53 what reader could have failed
> > > > > to
> > > > > infer 'Ventidius is the new Caesar'? (The more you argue that he is
> > > > > careful
> > > > > to respect Ventidius' subaltern status, the more
Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed be Ovid (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a long period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but not in the Augustus.
The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literature the better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his general pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when they had no much less to read.
A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - - v v -; indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about the
> repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could > believe
> that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clunky
> elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:29 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' Ευφρηταο ρεεθρα ...?
> if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ρεεθρα ~
> undas).
> [the usual apologies in advance!).
> On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> > intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> > Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> > mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
> > emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
> > 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
> > second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> > not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
> > and cowed.
> > (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> > ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> > river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> > Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> > Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> > the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> > *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> > On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> > which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> > [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
> > of Alexander.
> > Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
> > incompetencies...
> > On 29 Sep, 18:25, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I could believe that, particularly with an initial eurreitew.
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > "We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > like:
> > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > 4.560ff))."
> > > Could one even imagine that "iura tua" could have been Gallus' first
> > > attempt at rendering the sound of "eurreitao"...!!
> > > On Sep 29, 2:25 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > (1) The argument would proceed on the basis that AL 914.53 is
> > > > absolutely precise in its relativity. He is not claiming for > > > > Ventidius
> > > > that the Euphrates is defeated, only that it is now cowed (the
> > > > comparatives 'mollius' and 'mollior') and *ready for* defeat, > > > > *ready*
> > > > to be crossed.
> > > > (Even this is emphatically under the 'divine auspices of [Julius?]
> > > > Caesar' alternatively 'under the auspices of the divine=august
> > > > [=Julius?] Caesar' (I appreciate that we would disagree as to > > > > whether
> > > > this is an at all acceptable interpretation)).
> > > > We would suppose that Gallus had written in 44BC e.g. something very
> > > > like:
> > > > "... Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (Prop 3.4.4) (and compare
> > > > "...Caesar dum magnus ad altum / fulminat Euphraten bello victorque
> > > > volentes / per populos *dat iura* viamque adfectat Olympo." (Geo.
> > > > 4.560ff)). By "mollius" he is not claiming fulfilment of that
> > > > prediction... yet. The qualification is one which Vergil and Horace
> > > > pick up and exploit: i.e. they too are able to say imply that the
> > > > Euphrates is ready to be crossed at a time when Octavian / Augustus
> > > > has not yet done that.
> > > > (2) The problem with saying [Gallus] went to [Oppian] is not the
> > > > unlikelihood (although I think it unlikely, in the same way as I > > > > think
> > > > it that a pseudo-Gallus he went to Alexander Aetolus as per our our
> > > > earlier discussion) but that on the hypothesis that he writes later
> > > > than Vergil, he has all of this line including the reflections of
> > > > Euphrates and eurreitao in their proper sedes ready made in Vergil -
> > > > it would involve postulating that [Gallus] was happy to be seen to
> > > > take the line wholesale from Vergil (he hardly disguises it!) but > > > > then
> > > > went on to consult his [Oppian] and was extraordinarily lucky enough
> > > > to find a line which exactly fitted what Vergil had written.
> > > > (3) I have no problem with [Oppian] being supine enough to take > > > > lines
> > > > wholesale from Hellenistic poetry - indeed at least all of > > > > "eurreitao
> > > > par' ochthas' is lifted
"The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
literature the
better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
general
pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
they
had no much less to read."
I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
He had in front of him, of course,
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726)
He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
effort.
But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
"ευρρειταο ... Ευφρηταο" - glanced at it with 'mollior undis' before
[Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
etymology?
Perhaps, it is also worth noting:
arsit et Euphrates Babylonius, arsit Orontes
(Ov. Met. 2.248)
Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
(Prop 3.4.4)
Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
[Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed be Ovid
> (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a long
> period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but not in
> the Augustus.
> The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literature the
> better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his general
> pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when they
> had no much less to read.
> A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - - v v -;
> indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
> it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
> the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
> through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
> case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
> There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
> Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
> extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
> or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
> with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
> it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
> poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
> On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> > accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about the
> > repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> > As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could
> > believe
> > that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> > theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clunky
> > elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 8:29 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' Ευφρηταο ρεεθρα ...?
> > if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ρεεθρα ~
> > undas).
> > [the usual apologies in advance!).
> > On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> > > intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> > > Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> > > mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point of
> > > emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates running
> > > 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus'
> > > second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> > > not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquered
> > > and cowed.
> > > (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> > > ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> > > river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> > > Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> > > Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> > > the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> > > *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> > > On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> > > which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> > > [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously favourite activity
> > > of Alexander.
> > > Finally, I can only apologise yet again for my metrical
> > > incompetencies...
> > > On 29 Sep, 18:25, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > I could believe that, particularly with an initial eurreitew.
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no line with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For the same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with mollius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed some such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something like 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could have intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that Augustus was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was quite enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as well.)
There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and effectively only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the third trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line intended to sound like a translation from the Greek.
> "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> literature the
> better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> general
> pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
> they
> had no much less to read."
> I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
> He had in front of him, of course,
> finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726)
> He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> effort.
> But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
> imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at it =
> with 'mollior undis' before
> [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> etymology?
> Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> (Prop 3.4.4)
> Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
> [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
> show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed be O=
> vid
> > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a long
> > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but not i=
> n
> > the Augustus.
> > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literature t=
> he
> > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his general
> > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when the=
> y
> > had no much less to read.
> > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - - v v=
> -;
> > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
> > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
> > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> > Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> > could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> > deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> > would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
> > through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> > The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> > leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> > may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> > drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> > plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> > Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
> > case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> > glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> > line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
> > There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
> > Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
> > extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
> > or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
> > with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
> > it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
> > poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
> > On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> > > accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about th=
> e
> > > repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> > > As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could
> > > believe
> > > that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> > > theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clun=
> ky
> > > elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ñååè=
> ñá ~
> > > undas).
> > > [the usual apologies in advance!).
> > > On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> > > > intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> > > > Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> > > > mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point o=
> f
> > > > emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates runnin=
> g
> > > > 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus=
> '
> > > > second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
> > > > not as subtle as between 'molliter'/'mollius': it is between conquere=
> d
> > > > and cowed.
> > > > (To pick up your first post while 'eurreitao' might be said to be
> > > > ambiguous between smoothly flowing / powerfully flowing (what is a
> > > > river which 'flows well'?), I would agree that when applied to the
> > > > Euphrates is must be the latter: cf. Callimachus' 'megas roos'; and
> > > > Alexander's forces only forded the Euphrates with difficulty even in
> > > > the absence of hostile forces: i.e. [Gallus] would be playing
> > > > *against* the relevant etymology of eurreitao).
> > > > On possible sources for [Oppian] and in the light of your suggestion
> > > > which I took up enthusiastically, it may be worth factoring in that
> > > > [Oppian] is talking about lion-hunting, a famously
> Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no line with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For the same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with mollius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed some such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something like 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could have intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that Augustus was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was quite enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as well.)
> There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and effectively only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the third trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line intended to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > literature the
> > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > general
> > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
> > they
> > had no much less to read."
> > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
> > He had in front of him, of course,
> > finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726)
> > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > effort.
> > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
> > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at it =
> > with 'mollior undis' before
> > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > etymology?
> > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
> > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
> > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed be O=
> > vid
> > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a long
> > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but not i=
> > n
> > > the Augustus.
> > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literature t=
> > he
> > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his general
> > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when the=
> > y
> > > had no much less to read.
> > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - - v v=
> > -;
> > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > Oxford
> > > usque adeone
> > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > alter?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
> > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> > > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> > > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> > > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> > > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
> > > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> > > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> > > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> > > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
> > > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> > > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> > > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> > > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> > > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> > > Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> > > could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> > > deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> > > would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
> > > through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> > > The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> > > leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> > > may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> > > drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> > > plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> > > Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
> > > case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> > > glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> > > line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
> > > There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
> > > Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
> > > extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
> > > or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
> > > with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
> > > it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
> > > poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
> > > On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> > > > accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about th=
> > e
> > > > repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> > > > As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could
> > > > believe
> > > > that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> > > > theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clun=
> > ky
> > > > elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > if one wanted the model to be different to [Oppian] 4.112 (ñååè=
> > ñá ~
> > > > undas).
> > > > [the usual apologies in advance!).
> > > > On 29 Sep, 20:17, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On point (1) - we may have been talking at cross purposes: I was not
> > > > > intending to hypothesise that Gallus had used the motif of the
> > > > > Euphrates running softly in the poem of 44BC only that he had
> > > > > mentioned the Euphrates with the possible suggestion that the point o=
> > f
> > > > > emphasis was e.g. "sub tua iura". The conceit of the Euphrates runnin=
> > g
> > > > > 'more softly' would first come in [Gallus] (on the hypothesis, Gallus=
> > '
> > > > > second mention of the Euphrates). The distinction I am suggesting is
The "a" of "iura" is short despite the "fl" of "fluent", is it not? Is
that normal?
It struck me if one were to transfer this line to a hexameter
[ ] et Euphrates [ ] sub tua iura fluent
- v v / - - / - - / - v v / - - / - -
you would again have something which sounded like the line from
[Oppian], complete with spondeiazon and etymologising play ('iura
fluet' approximating in sound to the Euphrates)
The 'tua' in Propertius is difficult - the text as transmitted has the
vocative "viri" (hence the suggested emendation Quiris). But surely
the 'tua' should be Caesar's. Therefore:
Caesar, et Euphrates [ ] sub tua iura fluet
(or 'fluent' with a different river in the previous line)
> Forger-Gallus stumbles upon a bit of real-Gallus, by echoing Vergil,
> in utter ignorance that Vergil echoes real-Gallus...!
> On Oct 1, 11:40 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no line with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For the same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with mollius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed some such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something like 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could have intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that Augustus was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was quite enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as well.)
> > There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and effectively only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the third trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line intended to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > literature the
> > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > general
> > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
> > > they
> > > had no much less to read."
> > > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > > effort.
> > > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
> > > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at it =
> > > with 'mollior undis' before
> > > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > > etymology?
> > > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
> > > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
> > > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed be O=
> > > vid
> > > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a long
> > > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but not i=
> > > n
> > > > the Augustus.
> > > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literature t=
> > > he
> > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his general
> > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when the=
> > > y
> > > > had no much less to read.
> > > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - - v v=
> > > -;
> > > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> > > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> > > > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> > > > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > > > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > > > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> > > > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> > > > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > > > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as if
> > > > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> > > > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> > > > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> > > > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii)
> > > > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> > > > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> > > > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> > > > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> > > > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> > > > Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> > > > could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> > > > deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> > > > would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be sifting
> > > > through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> > > > The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> > > > leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> > > > may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> > > > drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> > > > plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> > > > Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make the
> > > > case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> > > > glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> > > > line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
> > > > There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
> > > > Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors was
> > > > extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
> > > > or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
> > > > with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
> > > > it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
> > > > poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
> > > > On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in the
> > > > > accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about about th=
> > > e
> > > > > repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> > > > > As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could
> > > > > believe
> > > > > that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Ventidius
> > > > > theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the clun=
> > > ky
> > > > > elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
Not so extraordinary; the phrase was easy enough to lift. But, like your sub tua iura, it was merely an attempt to flesh out your suggestion that Gallus had introduced the Euphrates into fr. 2.
> Forger-Gallus stumbles upon a bit of real-Gallus, by echoing Vergil,
> in utter ignorance that Vergil echoes real-Gallus...!
> On Oct 1, 11:40 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no li=
> ne with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For the=
> same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with moll=
> ius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed so=
> me such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something like =
> 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could have=
> intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that Augustu=
> s was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was qui=
> te enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as well.=
> )
> > There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and effectivel=
> y only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the th=
> ird trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line intende=
> d to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com wrote=
> :
> > > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > literature the
> > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > general
> > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
> > > they
> > > had no much less to read."
> > > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > > effort.
> > > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
> > > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at=
> it =
> > > with 'mollior undis' before
> > > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > > etymology?
> > > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
> > > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
> > > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed =
> be O=
> > > vid
> > > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a =
> long
> > > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but n=
> ot i=
> > > n
> > > > the Augustus.
> > > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literatu=
> re t=
> > > he
> > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his gener=
> al
> > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when=
> the=
> > > y
> > > > had no much less to read.
> > > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - -=
> v v=
> > > -;
> > > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> > > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > Oxford
> > > > usque adeone
> > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =
> est,=
> > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > alter?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > > > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 9:17 AM
> > > > Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> > > > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> > > > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> > > > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > > > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > > > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> > > > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> > > > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > > > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as i=
> f
> > > > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> > > > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> > > > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> > > > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii=
> )
> > > > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> > > > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> > > > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> > > > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> > > > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> > > > Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> > > > could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> > > > deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> > > > would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be siftin=
> g
> > > > through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> > > > The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> > > > leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> > > > may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> > > > drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> > > > plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> > > > Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make th=
> e
> > > > case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> > > > glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> > > > line does derive from Val. Cato's Dictynna.
> > > > There are intermediate possibilities: (i) that there is some genuine
> > > > Gallus here but that the 'polishing up' by its renaissance editors wa=
> s
> > > > extremely extensive; (ii) this is a forgery by an e.g. late Augustan
> > > > or Tiberian poet, plundering real-Gallus and, presumably, familiar
> > > > with Gallus' biography (the story of its 'discovery', as I understand
> > > > it, although I have found this difficult to pin down, is that these
> > > > poems were found in a codex containing some Ovid?).
> > > > On Sep 29, 11:19 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Ir would scan. and wgile I don't know why 'streams' should be in th=
> e
> > > > > accuisative the dative would scan too, but I'm not happy about abou=
> t th=
> > > e
> > > > > repetition of the 'rhe' morpheme.
> > > > > As for mollius etc.,I should be happier with your theory if I could
> > > > > believe
> > > > > that (a) readers of Vergil and Horace would not recognize the Venti=
> dius
> > > > > theme; (b) that these smooth sub-Ovidian verses was written as the =
> clun=
> > > ky
> > > > > elegiacs from Qasr Ibrim.
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
(1) αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
[Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 derives from a Hellenistic author, probably
someone dealing with Alexander the Great
(2) Gallus in 44BC wrote
Caesar, et Euphrates subter tua iura fluet
(for the "subter" NB that Propertius only uses "subter" twice in his
whole works - in this very poem 3.4.16 and Prop. 2.34.67 (where his
diction is presumably influenced by Vergil and/or Varius). Gallus is
closely adapting (1), complete with 'eurreitao' spondeiazon and
etymologising).
(3) Gallus in 38BC echoing his own poem, signals his own adaption by
going to the same Greek line, again complete with 'eurreitao' and
etymologising.
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
(4) Vergil in, say 38BC glances at Gallus' 'subter... fluet' with his
exotic 'subterlabere' (Ecl. 10.4 cf. the 'carmina sunt dicenda' in the
previous showing that Vergil has Gallus 44BC poem in mind): cheekily
misreading Gallus as if subter...fluet was as it were in tmesis.
(5) Vergil in Georgics 4 glances at Gallus 44BC poem with his
Euphrates + 'iura'
(6) Vergil in the Aeneid closely adapts (3) with
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726) leaving just
the traces of Gallus' etymologising play.
(7) Propertius in 3.4.4 goes to Gallus 44BC poem and slightly
awkwardly squeezes Gallus' hexameter into a pentameter (whose 'iura')?
"Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent"
(8) Ovid at Met. 2 remembers the start of Gallus' (3) whether aware or
not that "et Euphrates" was to render "eurreitao".
On Oct 1, 12:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Not so extraordinary; the phrase was easy enough to lift. But, like your sub tua iura, it was merely an attempt to flesh out your suggestion that Gallus had introduced the Euphrates into fr. 2.
> > Forger-Gallus stumbles upon a bit of real-Gallus, by echoing Vergil,
> > in utter ignorance that Vergil echoes real-Gallus...!
> > On Oct 1, 11:40 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no li=
> > ne with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For the=
> > same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with moll=
> > ius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed so=
> > me such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something like =
> > 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could have=
> > intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that Augustu=
> > s was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was qui=
> > te enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as well.=
> > )
> > > There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and effectivel=
> > y only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the th=
> > ird trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line intende=
> > d to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com wrote=
> > :
> > > > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > > literature the
> > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > > general
> > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when
> > > > they
> > > > had no much less to read."
> > > > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > > > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > > > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > > > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > > > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > > > effort.
> > > > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > > > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do we
> > > > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > > > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > > > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at=
> > it =
> > > > with 'mollior undis' before
> > > > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > > > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > > > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > > > etymology?
> > > > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > > > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > > > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > > > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent as
> > > > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. may
> > > > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > > > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > > > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > > > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > > > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could indeed =
> > be O=
> > > > vid
> > > > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of a =
> > long
> > > > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, but n=
> > ot i=
> > > > n
> > > > > the Augustus.
> > > > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic literatu=
> > re t=
> > > > he
> > > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his gener=
> > al
> > > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did when=
> > the=
> > > > y
> > > > > had no much less to read.
> > > > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens as - -=
> > v v=
> > > > -;
> > > > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; but
> > > > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =
> > est,=
> > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> > > > > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the fact
> > > > > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date of
> > > > > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > > > > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > > > > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those in
> > > > > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But the
> > > > > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > > > > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks as i=
> > f
> > > > > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might (probably
> > > > > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line seems
> > > > > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a Greek
> > > > > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and (iii=
> > )
> > > > > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more clearly
> > > > > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil still
> > > > > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque sciens":
> > > > > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it turns
> > > > > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, certainly
> > > > > Hellenistic) model. While I can imagine that a renaissance forger
> > > > > could stitch together lines / themes from Augustan elegy with a good
> > > > > deal of success, I still find it highly unlikely that such a person
> > > > > would appreciate that in order to pass for Gallus he should be siftin=
> > g
> > > > > through (Hellenistic) Greek models; or that he would bother doing so.
> > > > > The suggestion that Gallus served under Ventidius is at once quite a
> > > > > leap for a late forger - more ignorant even than us as to what Gallus
> > > > > may or may not have done: on the face of things ignorant enough to
> > > > > drop the clanger "Augusti Caesaris", but on the other hand eminently
> > > > > plausible given Gallus' association with Pollio - it's the guess that
> > > > > Boucher makes starting from a blank sheet of paper. One could make th=
> > e
> > > > > case that Ecl. 10.59f "libet Partho torquere Cydonia cornu / spicula"
> > > > > glances this way, where 'Partho' seems to be the interloper, if the
> > > > > line does derive from Val.
No. 2 is impossible: subter, unlike other words of that form, is used only as an adverb, and in any case the line has a syllable too many for a pentameter and a syllable too few for a hexameter. Stick to 'sub'. For the rest, I just don;t buy the poem of 38 BC at any price.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat alter?
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:58 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
How does this sound:
(1) αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
[Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 derives from a Hellenistic author, probably
someone dealing with Alexander the Great
(2) Gallus in 44BC wrote
Caesar, et Euphrates subter tua iura fluet
(for the "subter" NB that Propertius only uses "subter" twice in his
whole works - in this very poem 3.4.16 and Prop. 2.34.67 (where his
diction is presumably influenced by Vergil and/or Varius). Gallus is
closely adapting (1), complete with 'eurreitao' spondeiazon and
etymologising).
(3) Gallus in 38BC echoing his own poem, signals his own adaption by
going to the same Greek line, again complete with 'eurreitao' and
etymologising.
Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
(4) Vergil in, say 38BC glances at Gallus' 'subter... fluet' with his
exotic 'subterlabere' (Ecl. 10.4 cf. the 'carmina sunt dicenda' in the
previous showing that Vergil has Gallus 44BC poem in mind): cheekily
misreading Gallus as if subter...fluet was as it were in tmesis.
(5) Vergil in Georgics 4 glances at Gallus 44BC poem with his
Euphrates + 'iura'
(6) Vergil in the Aeneid closely adapts (3) with
finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726) leaving just
the traces of Gallus' etymologising play.
(7) Propertius in 3.4.4 goes to Gallus 44BC poem and slightly
awkwardly squeezes Gallus' hexameter into a pentameter (whose 'iura')?
"Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent"
(8) Ovid at Met. 2 remembers the start of Gallus' (3) whether aware or
not that "et Euphrates" was to render "eurreitao".
On Oct 1, 12:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Not so extraordinary; the phrase was easy enough to lift. But, like your > sub tua iura, it was merely an attempt to flesh out your suggestion that > Gallus had introduced the Euphrates into fr. 2.
> > Forger-Gallus stumbles upon a bit of real-Gallus, by echoing Vergil,
> > in utter ignorance that Vergil echoes real-Gallus...!
> > On Oct 1, 11:40 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no > > > li=
> > ne with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For > > the=
> > same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with > > moll=
> > ius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed > > so=
> > me such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something > > like =
> > 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could > > have=
> > intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that > > Augustu=
> > s was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was > > qui=
> > te enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as > > well.=
> > )
> > > There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and > > > effectivel=
> > y only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the > > th=
> > ird trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line > > intende=
> > d to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com > > wrote=
> > :
> > > > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > > literature the
> > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > > general
> > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did > > > > when
> > > > they
> > > > had no much less to read."
> > > > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > > > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > > > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > > > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > > > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > > > effort.
> > > > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > > > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do > > > > we
> > > > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > > > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > > > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at=
> > it =
> > > > with 'mollior undis' before
> > > > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > > > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > > > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > > > etymology?
> > > > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > > > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > > > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > > > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent > > > > as
> > > > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop. > > > > may
> > > > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > > > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > > > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > > > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > > > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could > > > > > indeed =
> > be O=
> > > > vid
> > > > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of > > > > > a =
> > long
> > > > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus, > > > > > but n=
> > ot i=
> > > > n
> > > > > the Augustus.
> > > > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic > > > > > literatu=
> > re t=
> > > > he
> > > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his > > > > > gener=
> > al
> > > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did > > > > > when=
> > the=
> > > > y
> > > > > had no much less to read.
> > > > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens > > > > > as - -=
> > v v=
> > > > -;
> > > > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all; > > > > > but
> > > > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil =
> > est,=
> > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> > > > > Point (b) is one which I fully appreciate. One can point to the > > > > > fact
> > > > > that 6 years have past between Gall. Fr. 2 and the purported date > > > > > of
> > > > > authorship of these verses; one can also point to Gall Fr. 1 which
> > > > > could easily pass for Ovid; further, even within the first book of
> > > > > Propertius one could easily pick out quatrains as durus as those > > > > > in
> > > > > Gall. Fr. 2 but also quatrains as smooth as anything in Ovid. But > > > > > the
> > > > > thrust of your overall point is one which would be hard to deny.
> > > > > On the other hand, there are some real oddities: this line looks > > > > > as i=
> > f
> > > > > it has been lifted wholesale from Vergil - Scaliger might > > > > > (probably
> > > > > did) say 'ineptissime'. But (i) it is in Vergil that the line > > > > > seems
> > > > > more out of context (not a Parthian campaign); (ii) there is a > > > > > Greek
> > > > > model for the [Gallus] line, closer to [Gallus] than Vergil; and > > > > > (iii=
> > )
> > > > > the etymologising of the Euphrates is one which emerges more > > > > > clearly
> > > > > from [Gallus] and its Greek model than Vergil, although Vergil > > > > > still
> > > > > has the necessary ingredients. Similarly with the "cantusque > > > > > sciens":
> > > > > it looks like it has been lifted wholesale from Horace, but it > > > > > turns
> > > > > out that [Gallus] is more faithful to a Greek (this time, > > > > > certainly
"subter"
Prep. with acc. and abl., below, beneath, underneath, under (rare but
class.).
With acc.: cupiditatem subter praecordia locavit, Cic. Tusc. 1, 10,
20; cf. id. ib. 5, 1, 4: subter pineta, Prop. 2, 34 (3, 32), 67:
subter fastigia tecti, Verg. A. 8, 366: agere vias subter mare, id.
ib. 3, 695: subter imas cavernas, Ov. M. 5, 502: manu subter togam
exserta, Liv. 8, 9: super subterque terram pugnare, id. 39, 4: subter
murum hostium ad cohortes advehitur, underneath, i. e. close to the
walls, id. 34, 20: latitudo Italiae subter radices (Alpium), Plin. 3,
19, 23, § 132; Stat. Th. 12, 711; Petr. 98.—
With abl.: Rhoeteo subter litore, Cat. 65, 7: subter densā testudine,
Verg. A. 9, 514.—
In composition, subter, like sub, denotes underneath, beneath:
subteractus, subterfluo, etc.; and also, transf., secretly, privately,
clandestinely: subterduco, subterfugio. It is sometimes doubtful
whether subter forms a compound with a verb, or is an adverb
qualifying it.
and was intending to scan
"Caesar, et Euphrates subter tua iura fluet"
- v v / - - / - - / - v v / - - / - v
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> No. 2 is impossible: subter, unlike other words of that form, is used only
> as an adverb, and in any case the line has a syllable too many for a
> pentameter and a syllable too few for a hexameter. Stick to 'sub'. For the
> rest, I just don;t buy the poem of 38 BC at any price.
> Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> 67 St Bernard's Road
> Oxford
> usque adeone
> OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> alter?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:58 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Aen. 8.726 ~ Anth. Lat. 914.53
> How does this sound:
> (1) αυταρ ευρρειταο παρ' οχθαις Ευφρηταο
> [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 derives from a Hellenistic author, probably
> someone dealing with Alexander the Great
> (2) Gallus in 44BC wrote
> Caesar, et Euphrates subter tua iura fluet
> (for the "subter" NB that Propertius only uses "subter" twice in his
> whole works - in this very poem 3.4.16 and Prop. 2.34.67 (where his
> diction is presumably influenced by Vergil and/or Varius). Gallus is
> closely adapting (1), complete with 'eurreitao' spondeiazon and
> etymologising).
> (3) Gallus in 38BC echoing his own poem, signals his own adaption by
> going to the same Greek line, again complete with 'eurreitao' and
> etymologising.
> Pingit et Euphratis currentes mollius undas (AL 914.53)
> (4) Vergil in, say 38BC glances at Gallus' 'subter... fluet' with his
> exotic 'subterlabere' (Ecl. 10.4 cf. the 'carmina sunt dicenda' in the
> previous showing that Vergil has Gallus 44BC poem in mind): cheekily
> misreading Gallus as if subter...fluet was as it were in tmesis.
> (5) Vergil in Georgics 4 glances at Gallus 44BC poem with his
> Euphrates + 'iura'
> (6) Vergil in the Aeneid closely adapts (3) with
> finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis (Aen. 8.726) leaving just
> the traces of Gallus' etymologising play.
> (7) Propertius in 3.4.4 goes to Gallus 44BC poem and slightly
> awkwardly squeezes Gallus' hexameter into a pentameter (whose 'iura')?
> "Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent"
> (8) Ovid at Met. 2 remembers the start of Gallus' (3) whether aware or
> not that "et Euphrates" was to render "eurreitao".
> On Oct 1, 12:24 pm, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Not so extraordinary; the phrase was easy enough to lift. But, like your
> > sub tua iura, it was merely an attempt to flesh out your suggestion that
> > Gallus had introduced the Euphrates into fr. 2.
> > > Forger-Gallus stumbles upon a bit of real-Gallus, by echoing Vergil,
> > > in utter ignorance that Vergil echoes real-Gallus...!
> > > On Oct 1, 11:40 am, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > Vergil makes no effort to reproduce eürreitao because he knoew of no
> > > > li=
> > > ne with it present in that sedes; Pseudo-Gallus did because he did. For
> > > the=
> > > same reason Vergil did not etymologize the epithet to counter it with
> > > moll=
> > > ius, though he may have had a notion that the river-name itself conveyed
> > > so=
> > > me such meaning. (Of course, if the real Gallus had written something
> > > like =
> > > 'et tumidum Euphraten mollius ire decet', as I suggested, Vergil could
> > > have=
> > > intended the reader to recall the verse--with the implication that
> > > Augustu=
> > > s was carrying out Caesar's unfinished business--but 'mollius ibat' was
> > > qui=
> > > te enough to o the trick without taking over the etymological game as
> > > well.=
> > > )
> > > > There is only one place for 'et Euphrates' in a pentameter and
> > > > effectivel=
> > > y only one in a hexameter, since in an Augustan poet it could follow the
> > > th=
> > > ird trochee only for special effect, which would probably in a line
> > > intende=
> > > d to sound like a translation from the Greek.afrian...@googlemail.com
> > > wrote=
> > > :
> > > > > "The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > > > literature the
> > > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > > > general
> > > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did
> > > > > when
> > > > > they
> > > > > had no much less to read."
> > > > > I hope you don't mind if I press a bit further on this: how do we
> > > > > actually imagine [Gallus(forger)] came up with
> > > > > He remembered, you say, the sound of [Oppian] Cyn. 4.112 and I think
> > > > > we agree that "et Euphratis currentes" seems to be a conscious
> > > > > rendering of "e-urreitao". Conversely, Vergil makes no similar
> > > > > effort.
> > > > > But where does that leave one with the 'mollius undas' / 'mollior
> > > > > undis' which at least in [Gallus] is part of the etymologising? Do
> > > > > we
> > > > > imagine that Vergil was indeed aware of the etymology - i.e. himself
> > > > > had some line in mind like (not necessarily exactly alike)
> > > > > "åõññåéôáï ... Åõöñçôáï" - glanced at=
> > > it =
> > > > > with 'mollior undis' before
> > > > > [Gallus] spelt this out by recalling his [Oppian]? Or do we imagine
> > > > > that it is sheer coincidence that Vergil left important ingredients
> > > > > there ('Euphrates... mollior undis') for [Gallus] to exploit the
> > > > > etymology?
> > > > > Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent;
> > > > > (Prop 3.4.4)
> > > > > Both have the "*et* Euphrates" necessary to render 'e-urreitao'
> > > > > although neither appear to exploit the etymology to the same extent
> > > > > as
> > > > > [Gallus]: Ovid not at all; one could say that with 'fluent' Prop.
> > > > > may
> > > > > show himself aware of it. I would suggest that Ovid's line in
> > > > > particular - with verb followed by a postponed et - could be
> > > > > influenced by [Gallus] where the 'et Euphrates' was particularly
> > > > > important in a way that it is not to Ovid.
> > > > > On Sep 30, 10:47 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > Fr. 1 is just one line; metrically and stylistically it could
> > > > > > indeed =
> > > be O=
> > > > > vid
> > > > > > (or anyboy else), but for all we know it could have formed part of
> > > > > > a =
> > > long
> > > > > > period, of you kind you meet in prose, Lucretius, and Catullus,
> > > > > > but n=
> > > ot i=
> > > > > n
> > > > > > the Augustus.
> > > > > > The suggestion is not that the forger researched Hellenistic
> > > > > > literatu=
> > > re t=
> > > > > he
> > > > > > better to hit off Gallus, but that he had read it anyway in his
> > > > > > gener=
> > > al
> > > > > > pursuit of learning, and had it stored in his head as people did
> > > > > > when=
> > > the=
> > > > > y
> > > > > > had no much less to read.
> > > > > > A post-Augustan forger would not have scanned cantusque sciens
> > > > > > as - -=
> > > v v=
> > > > > -;
> > > > > > indeed, he would not have allowed himself the combination at all;
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > Renaissance poets had no such inihibitions.
|
