I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
premature comments.
1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
that retain vitality after 150 years.
2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
3. When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
in slaves for sexual purposes, but that the Eclogues, which are in
some degree a portrait of slave life, make the slaves look more like a
free working class than we might have thought, and shows them at risk
from political rapacity rather than from personal exploitation.
Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
- Martin Hughes
By coincidence, I today bought Heinze's 'Vergil's Epic Technique'
another venerable work of Vergilian scholarship now made available by
Bristol Press.
Heinze's preface, in translation, starts "This book does not attempt
to pass value-judgements but to establish historical facts. It does
not ask what Virgil should or could have done, but what he wished to
do; it tries to understand how the Aeneid came into being, in so far
as it was the result of the poet's conscious and purposeful artistic
actions.". It struck me what a sensible description of what a literary
critic tries to do but how heretical that would seem now to many
modern critics obsessed with the so-called intentional fallacy.
On Alexis in Eclogue 2, it's worth remembering that the story that
Maecenas gave Vergil his beautiful slave boy Alexis was already known
to Martial (Mart. 6.56 and elsewhere).
On Aug 7, 12:19 pm, Martin50 <rosemarti...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
> Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
> Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
> premature comments.
> 1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
> Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
> that retain vitality after 150 years.
> 2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
> 'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
> 'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
> from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
> citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
> 3. When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
> says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
> to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
> perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
> slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
> idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
> in slaves for sexual purposes, but that the Eclogues, which are in
> some degree a portrait of slave life, make the slaves look more like a
> free working class than we might have thought, and shows them at risk
> from political rapacity rather than from personal exploitation.
> Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
> - Martin Hughes
On Aug 7, 7:19 am, Martin50 <rosemarti...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Well, we've got Conington. How aboutCerda?
Reading old commentaries is liberating isn't it? There's at least one
Cerda available through the BN's Gallica project.
On Aug 7, 12:31 pm, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Alexis in Eclogue 2, it's worth remembering that the story that
> Maecenas gave Vergil his beautiful slave boy Alexis was already known
> to Martial (Mart. 6.56 and elsewhere).
>When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
>says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
>to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
>perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
>slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
>idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
>in slaves for sexual purposes
Can't say I'm bothered by any of that when reading an ancient author; that would be to infect my response with anachronistic modern notions, be they capitalist hostility to slavery or, in Conington's case, Christian disapproval of homesexuality?
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: "Martin50" <rosemarti...@talktalk.net>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Conington bounces back
I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
premature comments.
1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
that retain vitality after 150 years.
2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
3. Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
- Martin Hughes
Anoyne with remotely Coningtonian sensibilities should probably avoid
the following...
I was looking at the Cephalus and Procris story in Ov. Met. 7.661ff
and wondered whether anyone had ever suggested that Cephalus' magic
spear may have been the very instrument whereby Procris had exacted
her payment for it (for the back story which Cephalus is
unsurprisingly too ashamed to tell - "cur sit et unde datum, quis
tanti muneris auctor / quae petit, ille refert, sed enim narrare
pudori est / qua tulerit mercede; silet tactusque dolore" (Met.
7.686ff) (one of a number of manuscript readings but all to similar
effect) but which he hints at "haec mihi confesso, laesum prius ulta
pudorem / redditur et dulces concorditer exigit annos" (Met. 7.761f) -
see Hyginus Fab. 189, Procris to Cephalus 'da mihi id quod pueri
solent dare' as the price for the spear. Peter Green (CJ 75 (1979) 22)
candidly insists that obviously there must have been some such
instrument. The spear is described as being of a material never seen
before (smooth and of pale colour, seems to be the implication from
what it is said to partially resemble - and bizarrely for a hunting
spear having a gold 'cuspis') and above all an extremely shapely
object ('sed non *formosius* isto / viderunt oculi telum iaculabile
nostri.' Met. 7.679f). Do Cephalus' young attendants snigger to
themselves when one says " 'usum maiorem specie mirabere... in
isto.' (681)? Might Cephalus set the tone when he says ''hoc me, nate
dea, (quis possit credere?) telum flere facit" (690)? And cf. a number
of later opportunities for schoolboy humour.
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
> >says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
> >to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
> >perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
> >slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
> >idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
> >in slaves for sexual purposes
> Can't say I'm bothered by any of that when reading an ancient author; that
> would be to infect my response with anachronistic modern notions, be they
> capitalist hostility to slavery or, in Conington's case, Christian
> disapproval of homesexuality?
> 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: "Martin50" <rosemarti...@talktalk.net>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:19 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Conington bounces back
> I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
> Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
> Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
> premature comments.
> 1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
> Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
> that retain vitality after 150 years.
> 2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
> 'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
> 'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
> from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
> citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
> 3. Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
> - Martin Hughes- Hide quoted text -
----- Original Message ----- From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:29 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Conington bounces back
Anoyne with remotely Coningtonian sensibilities should probably avoid
the following...
I was looking at the Cephalus and Procris story in Ov. Met. 7.661ff
and wondered whether anyone had ever suggested that Cephalus' magic
spear may have been the very instrument whereby Procris had exacted
her payment for it (for the back story which Cephalus is
unsurprisingly too ashamed to tell - "cur sit et unde datum, quis
tanti muneris auctor / quae petit, ille refert, sed enim narrare
pudori est / qua tulerit mercede; silet tactusque dolore" (Met.
7.686ff) (one of a number of manuscript readings but all to similar
effect) but which he hints at "haec mihi confesso, laesum prius ulta
pudorem / redditur et dulces concorditer exigit annos" (Met. 7.761f) -
see Hyginus Fab. 189, Procris to Cephalus 'da mihi id quod pueri
solent dare' as the price for the spear. Peter Green (CJ 75 (1979) 22)
candidly insists that obviously there must have been some such
instrument. The spear is described as being of a material never seen
before (smooth and of pale colour, seems to be the implication from
what it is said to partially resemble - and bizarrely for a hunting
spear having a gold 'cuspis') and above all an extremely shapely
object ('sed non *formosius* isto / viderunt oculi telum iaculabile
nostri.' Met. 7.679f). Do Cephalus' young attendants snigger to
themselves when one says " 'usum maiorem specie mirabere... in
isto.' (681)? Might Cephalus set the tone when he says ''hoc me, nate
dea, (quis possit credere?) telum flere facit" (690)? And cf. a number
of later opportunities for schoolboy humour.
On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
> >says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
> >to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
> >perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
> >slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
> >idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
> >in slaves for sexual purposes
> Can't say I'm bothered by any of that when reading an ancient author; that
> would be to infect my response with anachronistic modern notions, be they
> capitalist hostility to slavery or, in Conington's case, Christian
> disapproval of homesexuality?
> 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: "Martin50" <rosemarti...@talktalk.net>
> To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:19 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Conington bounces back
> I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
> Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
> Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
> premature comments.
> 1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
> Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
> that retain vitality after 150 years.
> 2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
> 'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
> 'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
> from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
> citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
> 3. Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
> - Martin Hughes- Hide quoted text -
This would be generic irreverence of a quite extraordinary order: a
200+ line aetiology of the object the speaker is holding of which the
most egregious feature is that it has been up the speaker's
backside...! I too can well believe it of Ovid though.
<au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think we need hesitate for a moment to credit Ovid with such a
> _doppio senso_. Everyone knows Met. 3. 385-6: [Narcissus]
> but why had Echo been reduced to echoing anyway? Because (362-5)
> fecerat hoc Iuno quia cum deprendere posset
> sub Ioue saepe suo nymphas in monte iacentes
> illa deam longo prudens sermone tenebat
> dum fugerent nymphae.
> nymphs lying on her own mountain [Ida] under the open sky/lying under her
> own Jupiter on the mountainside. Etc. etc.
> 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, August 11, 2009 12:29 PM
> Subject: VIRGIL: Re: Conington bounces back
> Anoyne with remotely Coningtonian sensibilities should probably avoid
> the following...
> I was looking at the Cephalus and Procris story in Ov. Met. 7.661ff
> and wondered whether anyone had ever suggested that Cephalus' magic
> spear may have been the very instrument whereby Procris had exacted
> her payment for it (for the back story which Cephalus is
> unsurprisingly too ashamed to tell - "cur sit et unde datum, quis
> tanti muneris auctor / quae petit, ille refert, sed enim narrare
> pudori est / qua tulerit mercede; silet tactusque dolore" (Met.
> 7.686ff) (one of a number of manuscript readings but all to similar
> effect) but which he hints at "haec mihi confesso, laesum prius ulta
> pudorem / redditur et dulces concorditer exigit annos" (Met. 7.761f) -
> see Hyginus Fab. 189, Procris to Cephalus 'da mihi id quod pueri
> solent dare' as the price for the spear. Peter Green (CJ 75 (1979) 22)
> candidly insists that obviously there must have been some such
> instrument. The spear is described as being of a material never seen
> before (smooth and of pale colour, seems to be the implication from
> what it is said to partially resemble - and bizarrely for a hunting
> spear having a gold 'cuspis') and above all an extremely shapely
> object ('sed non *formosius* isto / viderunt oculi telum iaculabile
> nostri.' Met. 7.679f). Do Cephalus' young attendants snigger to
> themselves when one says " 'usum maiorem specie mirabere... in
> isto.' (681)? Might Cephalus set the tone when he says ''hoc me, nate
> dea, (quis possit credere?) telum flere facit" (690)? And cf. a number
> of later opportunities for schoolboy humour.
> On Aug 10, 12:10 pm, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >When it comes to the moral side of interpreting poetry, Conington
> > >says a) that E2 is pretty disgraceful in its homoeroticism b) refers
> > >to the ancient commentaries in which E2 is related, unconvincingly
> > >perhaps, to V's own supposed attempts to get his hands on a young
> > >slave. It struck me that our moral horror would be aroused by the
> > >idea, which I think adds no extra chill to Conington, of trafficking
> > >in slaves for sexual purposes
> > Can't say I'm bothered by any of that when reading an ancient author; that
> > would be to infect my response with anachronistic modern notions, be they
> > capitalist hostility to slavery or, in Conington's case, Christian
> > disapproval of homesexuality?
> > 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: "Martin50" <rosemarti...@talktalk.net>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mantovano@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 12:19 PM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: Conington bounces back
> > I've just become a proud owner of 'Conington's Virgil' a reissue of
> > Conington's edition, with some new introductions, by Bristol Phoenix
> > Press. I'm still with the Eclogues but I'll risk a few maybe
> > premature comments.
> > 1. It's good stuff and still readable. There can't be many mid-
> > Victorian commentaries on anything, intended for the schools market,
> > that retain vitality after 150 years.
> > 2. There's a major contrast between the Victorian aesthetic of
> > 'originality' and closeness to nature and our aesthetic of
> > 'intertextuality' and all that. I get a shock, perhaps a salutary one,
> > from reading that 'V is the least original of poets' - Conington is
> > citing a colleague, but seemingly with approval.
> > 3. Well, we've got Conington. How about Cerda?
> > - Martin Hughes- Hide quoted text -
|
