Ecl. 10 / Adonis / Gallus

[falmouth]

One last try...



formosum vulnus Cocytus lavit Adonis
- - | - - | - - | - - | - v v | - v |

Do I have the scansion right? Would / could the -us of Cocytus be
long?

I've set out the various relevant lines below. NB especially how Ecl.
2.1 would fit in - "Corydon ~ Cocytus" (although not metrically
equivalent).

et formosus ouis ad flumina pauit Adonis
Ecl. 10.18

Κοκυτος <...> μουνος αφ' ελκεα νιψεν Αδωνιν
Euph. Fr. 43 Powell

Formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin,
Ecl. 2.1

his, o Galle, tuos monitus servabis amores
formosum ni vis perdere rursus Hylan.
Prop. 1.20.51-2

et modo formosa quam multa Lycoride Gallus
mortuus inferna vulnera lavit aqua!
Prop. 2.34.91-2





A link to the earlier discussion
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/372af35013d5f693?hl=en%2Cca08e4ebb5d62e

[falmouth]

Sorry, that should of course have been "Adonin" at the end

> formosum vulnus Cocytus lavit Adonin

> - - | - - | - - | - - | - v v | - v |

> A link to the earlier discussionhttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/372af...

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

The syllable tus would certainly be long because, despite the short u, it is
followed by a consonant; had the line run (no less metrically) lavit Cocytus
Adonis, it would be short. (A poet of the post-Gallan generation would have
preferred this as avoiding homodyne rhythm and consecutuve words in -us.)
But sutrely it is Adonis, not the wound, that is handsome, so formosi.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens


Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237

[falmouth]

Thanks very much, Leofranc,

I had a typo in my original post - the suggested line is

formosum vulnus Cocytus lavit Adonin

I find this pretty compelling (although that's probably just me...)

1. It is a pretty close rendition of Euphorion - (i) "lavit
Adonin"="nipsen Adonin"; (ii) "vulnus" ~ in sound "mounos" = "elkea";
(iii) "Cocytus" = "Kokytos".
2. One has the strinking "formosum... <greek name>" enclosing the line
("formosum... Alexin"; "formosum... Hylan")
3. There is the Corydon ~ Cocytus in Ecl. 2.1; even more
adventurously, one wonders whether the "or/co" in "past*OR CO*rydon"
possibly be intentional; and perhaps also some connection between the
"pastor" Corydon and Adonis qua pastor in Ecl. 10.



On 7 Feb, 19:30, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

> A link to the earlier discussionhttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/372af...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[falmouth]

I had in mind "vulnus" as an accusative of respect but your

formosi vulnus Cocytus lavit Adonis

would also do for me.

> > A link to the earlier discussionhttp://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/372af...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Provided of course that Adonis could be Latinized on the model of civis, to
make Adonis in the genitive, which was probably still just possible for
Gallus, though hardly so in the next generation.

[falmouth]

I feel reasonably confident that Gallus would, other things being
equal, use a Greek form. So, for example, "Lycorida" at Ov. 3.547 and
Ov. Tr. 2.445 [1] and cf. in particular, "Iasidos" Prop. 1.1.10 and
the Greek forms "Adryasin"; "Hamadryasin"; "Thyniasin"; "Hylan" in
Prop. 1.20. Indeed, my vague feeling is that Gallus' Graecizing would
have been so pronounced that it was a target for imitation.

Does my original (intended...) suggestion actually work i.e. with
"formosum ... Adonin" accusative, and "vulnus" as an accusative of
respect.

formosum vulnus Cocytus lavit Adonin

I can imagine one objection being that "formosum vulnus" would be
positively misleading, but perhaps this could have been intentional.
Adonis' wound becomes the beautiful anemone - for example, (probably)
Parthenius wrote of it "αιματι δ αμβροσιωι *καλον* εθαλλε
*φυτον*" (φυτον is a conjectural supplement, but if right, it would
seem to be intended to refer to both the plant and also the 'shoot'ing
out of the blood.

On 7 Feb, 22:01, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"

[falmouth]

I meant to include the following as a footnote to "Lycorida"

[1] Schol. Bern. has a comment on Ecl. 10 as follows Incipit ecloga
decima de desiderio Galli circa Voluminiam Cytheridem, meretricem,
quam Lycoridem dicit.
Conquestio cum Gallo de agris. Hic titulus allegorice loquitur. From
"de desiderio" to "dicit" or to "agris" seems to be the title which a
commentator saw. One notes the "Lycoridem" not "Lycorida".

While on Schol. Bern., is it still the accepted view that the author
of the Schol. Bern. does not use Servius himself and that the
Junilius, Titius Gallus and Flagrius (Philargyrius?) whom he names as
sources are older than Servius? Has the relationship between the
Schol. Bern. and Servius been illuminated any more since Hagen?

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

As a Homeric 'whole and part' construction, yes, i.e. ultra-Hellenizing, if
in a very Latin cast of verse (all those spondees, and a word-break after a
spondaic fourth foot; and -us -us. Bjt then Gallus was durior.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>

[Leofranc Holford-Strevens]

Lycoridem is the scholiast's form, not Gallus, since it would not fit a
hexameter unless elided; indeed, we do not know that the poet ever put her
in the accusative at all, but the scholiast had to.

Leofranc Holford-Strevens
67 St Bernard's Road
Oxford
usque adeone
OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est, nisi ME scire hoc sciat
alter?

tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
----- Original Message -----

From: "falmouth" <adria...@googlemail.com>
To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>