More Gallus + Ecl. 10 (mollia prata and Valerius Cato)

[falmouth]

More speculation (and apologies in advance for blunders)

1. Where Vergil mentions "gelidi fontes" and "mollia prata" at Ecl.
10.43-4:

"hic gelidi fontes, hic mollia prata, Lycori;
hic nemus; hic ipso tecum consumerer aeuo."

there is clearly some relationship with [Verg.] Lydia

"gaudebunt siluae, gaudebunt mollia prata
et gelidi fontes, auiumque silentia fient."

2. Below is some more of the surrounding part of [Verg.] Lydia
"uos nunc illa uidet, uobis mea Lydia ludit,
uos nunc alloquitur, uos nunc arridet ocellis, 5
et mea submissa meditatur carmina uoce,
cantat et interea, mihi quae cantabat in aurem.
...
aut inter uarios, Veneris stipendia, flores
membra reclinarit teneramque illiserit herbam
et secreta meos furtim narrabit amores. 15
gaudebunt siluae, gaudebunt mollia prata
et gelidi fontes, auiumque silentia fient,
tardabunt riui labentes currite lymphae,
dum mea iucundas exponat cura querelas.
inuideo uobis, agri: mea gaudia habetis, 20
et uobis nunc est mea quae fuit ante uoluptas.
at male tabescunt morientia membra dolore
et calor infuso decedit frigore mortis,
quod mea non mecum domina est: non ulla puella
doctior in terris fuit aut formosior, ac, si 25
fabula non uana est, tauro Ioue digna uel auro
(Iuppiter, auertas aurem) mea sola puella est.

3. If this piece and its companion piece the [Verg.] Dirae is not
late, the obvious candidate for its authorship would be Valerius Cato,
who is known to have written a poem or poems about Lydia, perhaps
entitled 'Lydia' - Suetonius De Grammaticis 11 refers to Ticidas'
statement in relation to (the?) Lydia: "Lydia doctorum maxima cura
liber". The loss of land referred to in the Dirae (and which informs
this poem) has been connected with the report in Suet. De. Grammaticis
11: "P. Valerius Cato, ut nonnulli tradiderunt, Burseni cuiusdam
libertus ex Gallia; ipse libello, cui est titulus Indignatio, ingenuum
se natum ait et pupillum relictum, eoque facilius licentia Syllani
temporis exutum patrimonio.". That this poem is genuinely Valerius
Cato's is not generally accepted. Nothing serious stands in the way,
however. The feeling that this poem echoes Eclogue 10 (rather than the
other way around[1]) is a point which is taken against that
proposition[2]; another is the perceived quality of this poem[3];
another is the perception that the Dirae and Lydia can hardly be by
the same author[4]. Even if this poem is not genuinely Valerius
Cato's, the identification of the "puella" as Lydia, would suggest
that the author is interested in presenting it as a poem of Valerius
Cato's.

4. The connections between this piece, on the one hand, and with
Eclogue 10 and Gallus, on the other hand are more extensive than
"mollia prata" and "gelidi fontes"
1. Lydia 4-5 has extravagant anaphora "vos nunc... vobis... vos
nunc... vos nunc" similar to that at Ecl. 10.42-3 "hic... hic...
hic... hic" (such has been suggested to be characteristic of Gallus'
style).
2. The word order of Lydia 10.13 is similar to the so-called schema
Cornelianum thought to be characteristic of Gallus (e.g. one line of
Gallus probalbly lies behind Verg. Ecl. 1.57 "raucae, tua cura,
palumbes" and Propertius at Prop. 3.3.31 "volucres, mea turba,
columbae" cf. also Ovid AA. 1.117 "aquilas, timidissima turba,
columbae" presumably playing off the same line).
3. The pathetic fallacy at Lydia 16-9 has its counterpart at Ecl.
10.13-5 (and compare also Ecl. 6.27-30);
4. Lydia 15 has "meos... amores" where "amores" at line-end in
Eclogue 10 seems to be a tag for Gallus' Amores (Ecl. 10.6; 34; and
esp. 53-4).
5. Lydia 24 uses "domina" of the poet's beloved, a usage which is now
first attested in Gallus Fr. 2.7 Courtney. This is notable in that it
connects the Lydia with Gallus independently of imitation of Eclogue
10[5].
6. Lastly, at Lydia 19, the author uses "mea... cura" in the same
sense as Ecl. 10.22 "tua cura", and which the later elegists follow,
presumably following Gallus' example[6].

This last point is particularly interesting in the context, since
Ticidas' approbation seems to play off the same conceit: "Lydia
doctorum maxima cura liber" where there is a double meaning, the poem
"Lydia" which gives scholars the most 'trouble' (in the sense of e.g.
Aratean 'agrupnia'), but also the girl "Lydia", the best "mistress" of
the learned. The poem = girl conceit is also, I suggest, present at
[Verg.] Lydia: "non ulla puella / doctior in terris fuit aut
formosior... / tauro Ioue digna uel auro / ... mea sola puella est.
(24-7)" where the poet is not just referring to his "puella" but to
his poem - note especially "doctior" cf. Ticidas' "doctorum". This
would be a further point in favour of Valerius Cato's authorship, or
at least evidence that the author of [Verg.] Lydia knew and used
Valerius Cato's own poem(s).

5. Valerius Cato is independently connected with Gallus, albeit not
securely: first, there is Furius Bibaculus' poem to Gallus about Cato,
where it would be natural to identify Gallus as the poet[7]; second,
there is Gallus Fr. 2.8-9 where Valerius Cato is one of two critics to
whom Gallus seems to refer[8].

Also to be factored into consideration is Propertius 3.3.17-20, where
"mollia... prata" re-appears, as in Eclogue 10 and [Verg.] Lydia.
Propertius 3.3 presents Propertius dreaming of a Heliconian initiation
(in a way which is likely to be heavily derivative of a similar scene
in Gallus). The phrase "mollia... prata" reappears - prima facie, one
might suppose, a direct (unconscious or otherwise) reminiscence of
Eclogue 10. However, compare Prop. 3.3.17-20 with [Verg.] Lydia 24-7

non hinc ulla tibi sperandast fama, Properti:
mollia sunt parvis prata terenda rotis;
ut tuus in scamno iactetur saepe libellus,
quem legat exspectans sola puella virum. 20

quod mea non mecum domina est: non ulla puella
doctior in terris fuit aut formosior, ac, si 25
fabula non uana est, tauro Ioue digna uel auro
(Iuppiter, auertas aurem) mea sola puella est.

The parallels between Propertius and [Verg]. Lydia suggests at least
the possibility that Prop. is not imitating Verg. (consciously or
otherwise) but is consciously imitating [Verg]. Lydia. This is not
only indicated by the phrases "non... ulla"[9] and "sola puella"[10],
but also the sound effect of the repeated "ll" - in Propertius
"ulla... mollia... libellus[11]... sola puella"; [Verg]. "ulla
puella... sola puella". Moreover, Propertius' lines seem to be playing
off the meta-poetic aspect of [Verg]. Lydia: that poet had said "my
'girl=poem' which delights "mollia...prata" is the most beautiful,
learned and worth of Jupiter"; Propertius says I am to stick to
"mollia ... prata"; "my poem will delight a (lonely) girl". More
tentatively, one might suggest that Propertius has combined more than
one reminiscence of Valerius Cato - a different fragment of Furius
Bibaculus reads

"Cato grammaticus, Latina Siren
Qui solus legit et facit poetas.".

Where one could imagine Furius' "solus legit" and Propertius'
"legat... sola puella" as both playing off a single line of Cato's.

6. Finally, Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney:
" [ ]. . . i . tandem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae
quae possem domina deicere digna mea.
[ ]. atur idem tibi, non ego, Visce,
[ ]. . . . . . . . l . Kato, iudice te,
vereor.
The tentative suggestion that I make is that Gallus' lines allude to
Valerius Cato in a way which can be detected through, in particular,
[Verg.]'s Lydia and the other passages under discussion.

1. "fecerunt c[ar]mina" adopts the same conceit as Furius Bibaculus
used, more obviously[12], of Cato - i.e. Gallus' phrase conveys Greek
ποιειν ποιηματα; Furius Bibaculus' ποιειν ποιητας[13].
2. Where Gallus refers to Lycoris as "domina", so [Verg]. too refers
to his mistress as "domina".
3. In the immediate context of [Verg.]'s use of "domina", [Verg.]
asserted that his Lydia (mistress and poem) was alone worthy ("digna")
of Jupiter (containing, of course, an implied boast by the author).
Gallus asserts that his poems are ("digna") worthy of his Lycoris
(mistress). One can imagine Gallus playing off [Verg.]'s conceit,
taking the notion of "domina" even further - his poems are good enough
for his mistress; and that is good enough for Gallus. The play is
facilitated by the fact that "digna" can be both feminine singular
(the mistress) and neuter plural (the poems).
4. Finally, I suggest that the beginning of Gallus Fr. 2.9 contained
either "non ulla" or "non... ulla"[14] - ("I fear nothing, with you as
the judge, Cato"), but the intention being to play off Cato's
designation of his Lydia[15] as "non ulla puella doctior ... aut
formosior". Again, the play being facilitated by the fact that "ulla"
can be both feminine singular and neuter plural. The first editors
thought that the traces suggested -pla or -ple, with the only possible
supplements being "[quadru]pla"/"[quadru]ple" or "[du]pla" /
"[du]ple"; or Hutchinson's "plakato"[16], none of which yielded
anything really satisfactory, but they allowed for the possibility of
"ulla"[17], suggesting "[non vetera u]lla" as a possibility[18]. I
think that something along these lines must be right: and adduce the
further evidence that Prop. 1.15.23-4

quae mihi dum placata aderit, non ulla verebor
regna vel Alcinoi munera despicere.

Would be another adaptation of Gallus' lines, with "quae mihi dum
placata" rendering closely what is missing in Gallus Fr. 2.8[19] (i.e.
'if Lycoris likes my poems'), "verebor" exactly echoing Gallus'
"vereor" and "non ulla" rendering the suggested supplement to Gallus
Fr. 2.9.

7. To return to Eclogue 10, one asks why, if any of this is along the
right lines, should Vergil be imitating Valerius Cato at Ecl. 10.43-4.
A perfectly natural answer would be that Vergil is flagging up Gallus'
debt to Valerius Cato. One might suspect that, if [Verg]. Lydia and
Dirae are in any way reminiscent of the content of Valerius Cato's
poetry, that whatever may have been 'bucolic' or 'pastoral' in Gallus'
poetry had been prefigured by Cato. I suspect that there is something
similar going on at Ecl. 10.59 "ire; libet Partho torquere Cydonia
cornu": Rosen and Farrell (1987) detected here, in particular, and
elsewhere in Ecl. 10, considerable debt to Callimachus' Hymn to
Artemis, postulating that here one has Vergil imitating Gallus'
imitation of Callimachus. However, given that Cato authored a
"Dictynna" which dealt with Diana and, in particular, Britomartis, as
has been convincingly argued; and Britomartis appeared prominently in
Callimachus Hymn to Artemis, the much more natural inference is that
the sequence of imitation is Callimachus - Valerius Cato - Gallus -
Vergil. Thus where the author of the Ciris has "Cnosia nec Partho
contendens spicula cornu" (299), the author is adapting (or
plagiarising) neither Gallus nor Vergil, but Valerius Cato, an
assumption which is much more natural given the surrounding lines
dealing with Britomartis[20]. Finally, one wonders whether acorn-
eating poet Menalcas (Ecl. 10.20) could be a mask for the
characteristically indigent Cato.


[1] On this, that Vergil seems to be imitating Theoc. 5.33-4 points
towards Vergil's priority. But one cannot exclude the possibility that
Vergil has 'wrapped' a reminiscence of Cato in a Theocritean echo, nor
the simpler possibility that Cato himself was imitating Theocritus. It
should be borne in mind that, in such a densely allusive poem, while
one might expects Vergil to be imitating Theocritus here, one would
suspect him not to be imitating Theocritus alone.
[2] See e.g. Courtney (1993) 190-1.
[3] Again Courtney (1993) 190-1 "not to mention the triviality of the
production, which could hardly have raised such a sensation as Ticidas
describes.".
[4] An important point, made on stylistic grounds alone, but with
which is difficult to argue. One should note, however, that Valerius
Cato lived to a ripe old age and seems to have remained part of the
literary milieu throughout. Two poems both by Valerius Cato could have
been written as many as 50 years apart. The Dirae and the Lydia are in
a real sense companion pieces: i.e. if one of them is genuinely
Valerius Cato's, the other is effectively an attempt to pass itself
off as Valerius Cato's.
[5] Cf. Courtney (1993) "in the style of Catullus... and Gallus".
[6] See Cairns (2006) Index II s.v. "cura" - there seems to be a word
play between "cura" and Greek "kore", one which is suggested by "[tua/
mea] cura, Lycoris".
[7] Natural - pace Courtney (1993) 193 - although hardly inevitable.
[8] If one does not allow Hutchinson's suggestion "pla]kato" rather
than "Kato" of which more below.
[9] Of course, not uncommon, but note Ecl. 10.56 "non me ulla..."; and
Prop. 1.1.17; "non ullas... artes"; 1.1.30 "non ulla ... femina".
"Non" with "ullus" immediately following seems to be later avoided
(e.g. none in Prop. 3 or 4), but given that it appears in Ecl. 10 and
Prop. 1 (twice), it may have formed part of Gallus' diction, if not
Valerius Cato's. It is a strange coincidence that Catullus 51 to
(presumably Valerius) Cato, is centred on a play on the difference
between Cato's name and Catullus' name - i.e. the "-ullus". Could Cato
have distinguished himself from Catullus by the reverse play - "Cato
non ullus" - i.e. "Cato not Catullus"? NB too Suetonius' "ut nonnulli
tradiderunt" - could Suetonius have allowed himself a little joke (or
be unconsciously reproducing someone else's)?
[10] Not - contrary to one's first expectations - a common
collocation: other than here in Propertius and [Verg.] Lydia, I can
find only Tib. 2.1; Ov. Am. 3.10.1-2; Mart. 4.25. Of all these
instances, the phrase is most comfortable at [Verg.] Lydia, where
"sola" is being used in both sense of "alone" - by herself, in the
absence of the poet; and "unique" in her worthiness of Jupiter.
[11] Note that "libellus" is how Suetonius refers to Cato's works,
suggesting possibly that Cato referred to them as such (as did,
however, Propertius 2.13.25-6 and (prominently) Catullus 1).
[12] It is trumpeted by the juxtaposition "Latina Siren".
[13] Note similarly Ecl. 9.32: "et me fecere poetam / Pierides".
[14] "non docta ulla"?
[15] Whether the lines in [Verg.] Lydia are Cato's own or are those of
another poet imitating a famous metapoetic statement of Cato's.
[16] To other points as to why this seems to me to be a false trail
(in particular, the construction of Ecl. 2.26-7), I would add that
Martial 10.21 seems to be another poem inspired by Gallus, "iudice
te", "mea carmina"; and "laudentur"/"placeant" probably render what is
missing in Gallus Fr. 2.8. Martial's poem has most point if Gallus was
also talking about "grammatici" (plural).
[17] There is a trace inconsistent with the first "l" being an "l" but
this could be stray ink, as they indicated. The trace immediately
before the "u" of "ulla" may well be an interpunct.
[18] Or "non veterum ulla" (Tandoi). Cf. Manzoni (1995) "cedam
nu]lla".
[19] Nicastri's supplement "quae mihi si test]atur idem", is
exceptionally close. Or even closer, "quae mihi si prob]atur idem".

[20] Cf. Lyne ad loc.

[falmouth]

As a footnote on Gallus Fr. 2.8 Courtney, and somewhat contrary to
what I've suggested above I wonder whether, instead of "Visce" at the
end of the line (giving the difficult double vocative), one could read
simply "vice" - "instead" (or even "veice" given the orthography
elsewhere) (followed by a genitive on the next line?) together somehow
with the 'dupla' or 'quadrupla' read/suggested by Parsons et al. The
photograph in the first editors' article seems to show a (mess of a)
"v" followed by a hole in the papyrus a (narrow) letter wide (if that)
and then "sce", followed by an interpunct, but the scribe's 's' is
very upright and could, it looks to me, possibly be an "i". One would
then have the sound pattern "deicere", "veice", "iudice" in succesive
lines.

"V.SCE: V has a superfluous short upright in its middle
(correction ?); after it a very short horizontal, level with the tops
of letters, above a hole wide enough onIy for the narrowest letters
(E, I)." (Parsons et al.).

[au...@gellius.demon.co.uk]

Vice yields a short syllable where a long is needed.

Leofranc

> > 1. Lydia 4-5 has extravagant anaphora "vos nunc... vobis.=

> ... vos
> > nunc... vos nunc" similar to that at Ecl. 10.42-3 "hic... hic...
> > hic... hic" (such has been suggested to be characteristic of Gallus'
> > style).

> > 2. The word order of Lydia 10.13 is similar to the so-cal=

> led schema
> > Cornelianum thought to be characteristic of Gallus (e.g. one line of
> > Gallus probalbly lies behind Verg. Ecl. 1.57 "raucae, tua cura,
> > palumbes" and Propertius at Prop. 3.3.31 "volucres, mea turba,
> > columbae" cf. also Ovid AA. 1.117 "aquilas, timidissima turba,
> > columbae" presumably playing off the same line).

> > 3. The pathetic fallacy at Lydia 16-9 has its counterpart=

> at Ecl.
> > 10.13-5 (and compare also Ecl. 6.27-30);

> > 4. Lydia 15 has "meos... amores" where "amores" at line-e=

> nd in
> > Eclogue 10 seems to be a tag for Gallus' Amores (Ecl. 10.6; 34; and
> > esp. 53-4).

> > 5. Lydia 24 uses "domina" of the poet's beloved, a usage =

> which is now
> > first attested in Gallus Fr. 2.7 Courtney. This is notable in that it
> > connects the Lydia with Gallus independently of imitation of Eclogue
> > 10[5].

> > 6. Lastly, at Lydia 19, the author uses "mea... cura" in =

> > " [ ]. . . i . tandem fecerunt c[ar]min=
> a Musae
> > quae possem domina deicere digna =
> mea.
> > [ ]. atur idem ti=
> bi, non ego, Visce,
> > [ ]. . . .=

> . . . . l . Kato, iudice te,
> > vereor.
> > The tentative suggestion that I make is that Gallus' lines allude to
> > Valerius Cato in a way which can be detected through, in particular,
> > [Verg.]'s Lydia and the other passages under discussion.
> >

> > 1. "fecerunt c[ar]mina" adopts the same conceit as Furius=

> Bibaculus
> > used, more obviously[12], of Cato - i.e. Gallus' phrase conveys Greek

> > ðïéåéí ðïéçìáôá; Furius Bibaculus' ðïé=
> åéí ðïéçôáò[13].
> > 2. Where Gallus refers to Lycoris as "domina", so [Verg].=

> too refers
> > to his mistress as "domina".

> > 3. In the immediate context of [Verg.]'s use of "domina",=

> [Verg.]
> > asserted that his Lydia (mistress and poem) was alone worthy ("digna")
> > of Jupiter (containing, of course, an implied boast by the author).
> > Gallus asserts that his poems are ("digna") worthy of his Lycoris
> > (mistress). One can imagine Gallus playing off [Verg.]'s conceit,
> > taking the notion of "domina" even further - his poems are good enough
> > for his mistress; and that is good enough for Gallus. The play is
> > facilitated by the fact that "digna" can be both feminine singular
> > (the mistress) and neuter plural (the poems).

> > 4. Finally, I suggest that the beginning of Gallus Fr. 2.=

> 9 contained
> > either "non ulla" or "non... ulla"[14] - ("I fear nothing, with you as
> > the judge, Cato"), but the intention being to play off Cato's
> > designation of his Lydia[15] as "non ulla puella doctior ... aut
> > formosior". Again, the play being facilitated by the fact that "ulla"
> > can be both feminine singular and neuter plural. The first editors
> > thought that the traces suggested -pla or -ple, with the only possible
> > supplements being "[quadru]pla"/"[quadru]ple" or "[du]pla" /
> > "[du]ple"; or Hutchinson's "plakato"[16], none of which yielded
> > anything really satisfactory, but they allowed for the possibility of
> > "ulla"[17], suggesting "[non vetera u]lla" as a possibility[18]. I
> > think that something along these lines must be right: and adduce the
> > further evidence that Prop. 1.15.23-4
> >
> > quae mihi dum placata aderit, non ulla verebor
> > regna vel Alcinoi munera despicere.
> >

> > Would be another adaptation of Gallus' lines, with "quae =

[falmouth]

I do need to work on my scansion... Thanks. Adrian.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -