"Femina natura varium et mutabile semper ... et tantum constans in levitate sua est."
falmouth
quam vereor ne sit nostra puella fide. 20
Femina natura varium et mutabile semper:
Diligat, ambiguum est, oderit anne magis.
Nil adeo, medium
et tantum constans in levitate sua est.
...
Quid loquar, a, demens? Roseae nec flore iuventae
Nec capitur missis lux mea muneribus.
Non patris imperium, matris non aspera iussa
sollicitant: firmo pectore durat amor. 40
Non secus Aegaeo moles obiecta fragori:
illa manet, frustra ventus et aura furit.
([Gallus] 19-24; 37-42)
(query, should one read 'ut' rather than 'et' at [Gallus] 24?)
1. Between [Gallus] 19-24 and 37-42, two mythological exempla
intervene, those of Scylla and Tarpeia. I have put the surrounding
passages together to highlight the continuation of the argument: in
[Gallus] 19-24, the poet emphasises the fickleness and susceptibility
of women; in [Gallus] 37-42 the poet emphasises the steadfastness of
Lycoris’ love. By highlighting the frame, one can see that the exempla
of Scylla and Tarpeia are ambiguous in intent: are they negative
exempla of the fickleness of women; or are they positive exempla of
love’s superiority over external influences?
2. One is immediately confronted with two very clearcut points, ones
which prima facie seem to be strong evidence of the derivative nature
of [Gallus]:
*Femina* natura *uarium et mutabile semper*
([Gallus] 21)
Inevitably calls to mind
heia age, rumpe moras. *uarium et mutabile semper*
*femina*.'
(Aen. 4.469-70)
Similarly:
*et tantum constans in levitate sua est.*
([Gallus] 24)
Has an exact parallel at
*et tantum constans in levitate sua est.*
(Ov. Tr. 5.8.18).
3. Dealing with the relationship between Aen. 4.469-70 and [Gallus] 21
first:
It should first be noted that the sentiment appears in love elegy:
sed vobis facile est verba et componere fraudes:
hoc unum didicit *femina semper* opus.
non sic incerto *mutantur* flamine Syrtes,
nec folia hiberno tam tremefacta Noto,
quam cito *feminea* non *constat* foedus in ira, 35
sive ea causa gravis sive ea causa *levis*.
(Prop. 2.9.31-6)
A crudele genus nec fidum *femina* nomen!
A pereat, didicit fallere si qua uirum!
Sed flecti poterit: mens est *mutabilis* illis;
tu modo cum multa bracchia tende fide.
([Tib.] 3.4.61-4)
Ovid in the Heroides plays against Aen. 4.469-70 in putting the
opposite sentiment into Dido’s mouth:
tu quoque cum ventis utinam *mutabilis esses*
et, nisi duritia robora vincis, eris.
(Ov. Her. 7.51-2)
One should also note that Mercury’s utterance of these words at Aen.
4.469-70 is deeply ironic: Dido has been nothing but constant in her
affections for Aeneas.
The natural conclusion, I suggest, from the above two points is that
Mercury’s statement is meant by Vergil to be appreciated as a
tendentious restatement of a well-known sententia: (cf. “rather silly
and sententious remark about the nature of women in general” Haywood
(1977) 130; “However, the observation is not ‘rather sententious’: it
is a sententia” Schnur (1978) 103). Further, it seems that the
sententia already had currency in elegiac verse.
What can one say about priority as between Prop. 2.9.31-6 and Aen.
4.469-70? There is certainly a similarity of diction between ‘femina
semper...mutantur’ (Prop. 2.9.32-3) and ‘mutabile semper /
femina’ (Aen. 4.469-70). Propertius 2.34.61-66 is usually taken as
suggesting that Propertius had advanced knowledge of drafts of the
Aeneid as a text by, say, 26BC or shortly thereafter and it seems that
the fourth book of the Aeneid will have been among the first composed
by Vergil. It is, therefore, not impossible that Propertius is
influenced by Vergil’s diction, although I think the more natural
chronology would be that Prop. 2.9 was composed before Vergil
4.469-70, in which case one might believe that Vergil has been
influenced by Propertius.
4. The alternative hypothesis is that Prop. 2.9.31-6 and Vergil
4.469-70 have been influenced by a common model, namely Gallus – to be
identified with [Gallus].
5. Reading Prop. 2.9.31-6
sed vobis facile est verba et componere fraudes:
hoc unum didicit *femina semper* opus.
non sic incerto *mutantur* flamine Syrtes,
nec folia hiberno tam tremefacta Noto,
quam cito *feminea* non *constat* foedus in ira, 35
sive ea causa gravis sive ea causa *levis*.
with [Gallus]
Femina natura *varium et mutabile semper*:
Diligat, ambiguum est, oderit anne magis.
Nil adeo, medium
et tantum *constans* in *levitate* sua est.
It is clear that although [Gallus] 21 is very closely related to Aen.
4.569-70, the passage in Gallus shares distinctive elements with Prop.
2.29.31-6 not present in Vergil: in particular (i) compare
“constat” (Prop. 2.29.35) with “constans” ([Gallus] 24)[3]; (ii)
“levis” (Prop. 2.9.36) with “levitate” ([Gallus] 24); (iii) Prop.
2.9.36 and [Gallus] 24 are not dissimilar in the artful structuring of
the pentameter, with the respective hemistichs denoting different
states of the fickle woman’s mind[4]; (iv) the lacunose [Gallus] 23
would seem to have contained a simile of some sort, parallel to that
at Prop. 2.9.33-4 (with ‘non sic’ at Prop. 2.9.33 compare ‘nil adeo’
at [Gallus] 23; here it is worth speculating that the subject matter
of [Gallus]’ simile may have been, like Propertius 2.9.33, winds, in
particular sea winds: (a) this would be picked up by [Gallus] 41-2;
and (b) if one were to finish the line ‘in aequor’[5], one would
adduce the parallels ‘medium ... in aequor’ Aen. 10.451; ‘medium... in
aequor’ Ov. Her. 19.167; ‘medium... aequor’ Ov. Met. 11.478;
‘medium... in aequor’ Luc. BC 9.1011 as well as ‘vastum... in aequor’
Prop. 3.9.3; Aen. 10.693 ‘vastum ... in aequor’[6]; Ov. Rem. 595
‘longum... in aequor’; Ov. Fast. 4.419 ‘vastum ... in aequor’; (c) Ov.
Her. 7.51-2 while apparently picking up Aen. 4.469-70 has a reference
to winds, where Vergil has none.
6. There is a further important text which I think can cast light on
the question of priority as between [Gallus] and Vergil; this is the
description of the fickle woman whose nature is of the sea in
Simonides Amorgos Fr. 7. 27-42 Bergk:
τὴν δ' ἐκ θαλάσσης, ἣ δύ' ἐν φρεσὶν νοεῖ·
τὴν μὲν γελᾶι τε καὶ γέγηθεν ἡμέρην·
ἐπαινέσει μιν ξεῖνος ἐν δόμοισ' ἰδών·
«οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλη τῆσδε λωίων γυνή 30
ἐν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισιν οὐδὲ καλλίων.»
τὴν δ' οὐκ ἀνεκτὸς οὐδ' ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσ'ἰδεῖν
οὔτ' ἆσσον ἐλθεῖν, ἀλλὰ μαίνεται τότε
ἄπλητον ὥσπερ ἀμφὶ τέκνοισιν κύων,
ἀμείλιχος δὲ πᾶσι κἀποθυμίη 35
ἐχθροῖσιν ἴσα καὶ φίλοισι γίγνεται·
ὥσπερ θάλασσα πολλάκις μὲν ἀτρεμής
ἕστηκ'ἀπήμων χάρμα ναύτηισιν μέγα
θέρεος ἐν ὥρηι, πολλάκις δὲ μαίνεται
βαρυκτύποισι κύμασιν φορευμένη· 40
ταύτηι μάλιστ' ἔοικε τοιαύτη γυνή
ὀργήν· φυὴν γὰρ ἄλλοτ'ἀλλοίην ἔχει.
Here, I think, is the main inspiration for [Gallus] 21-2:
Femina natura varium et mutabile semper:
Diligat, ambiguum est, oderit anne magis.
[Gallus] 22 encapsulates the twofold nature of woman expressed in
Simonides 28-31 and 32-36: one day she is pleasant ‘γελᾶι τε καὶ
γέγηθεν’ cf. ‘diligat’; the next she is unapproachable cf. ‘oderit’.
[Gallus]’ ‘ambiguum’ expresses ‘ἣ δύ' ἐν φρεσὶν νοεῖ’. ‘femina natura
varium et mutabile semper’ translates ‘[sc. γυνή ~ θάλασσα] ... φυὴν
γὰρ ἄλλοτ' ἀλλοίην ἔχει’, with ‘semper’ doing the work of ‘ἄλλοτ'’ and
‘varium et mutabile’ translating ‘ἀλλοίην’. The correspondence would
be confirmed beyond doubt, if my suggestion were correct that [Gallus]
23 should be completed with a reference to the sea.
The crucial points for present purposes, is (i) while Vergil’s ‘uarium
et mutabile semper / femina.’ is in Mercury’s speech is an isolated
sententia without a context, [Gallus] appears influenced by the
entirety of Simonides’ passage (the thrust of which is highly relevant
for [Gallus]' purposes, anxious about the fidelity of his mistress);
and (ii) the singular difference between [Gallus]’ expression and
Vergil’s ‘natura’ is prompted by Simonides’ ‘φυὴν’. These points
suggest very strongly that it was [Gallus] not Vergil who went to
Simonides for ‘uarium et mutabile semper’ rather than that [Gallus]
obtained the phrase from Vergil. If that were so, then one would also
conclude that Vergil went to [Gallus] - that is Cornelius Gallus - for
‘uarium et mutabile semper’, as one would suspect that he may have
done for other elegiac themes in Aeneid 4.
7. The above discussion helps with the second ‘suspicious’
correspondence: that is ‘et tantum constans in levitate sua est’ at
both [Gallus] 24 and Ov. Tr. 5.8.18. Below is Ov. Tr. 5.8.18 in its
immediate context:
Passibus ambiguis Fortuna uolubilis errat 15
et manet in nullo certa tenaxque loco,
sed modo laeta uenit, uultus modo sumit acerbos,
et tantum constans in leuitate sua est.
(Ov. Tr. 5.8.15-8)
Benefitting from the above discussion, one can see what, on the
hypothesis, Ovid is doing: he has taken [Gallus]’ description of woman
(‘femina’) and applied it to fortune (‘fortuna’): ‘fortuna’ is
‘volubilis’ just as ‘femina’ was ‘mutabile’ (in the same sedes). This
explains the extended personification of ‘fortuna’. That the imitation
is must be this way around is confirmed by the fact that Ov. Tr.
5.8.17 renders again Simonides’ description of the **woman** who is
one day all smiles and on the next unapproachable.
[1] Cf. Aen. 11.435-6; Prop. 1.19.5-6; Ov. Tr. 5.6.23-4; Ov. Tr.
5.12.41;
[2] Cf. Hor. Odes 3.9.22; Ov. Tr. 3.4.11-2
[3] Note that [Gallus]’ ‘constans in levitate’ has an effective
oxymoronic bite, absent from Propertius, but parallel to his ‘mutabile
semper’.
[4] One is put in mind, particularly by [Gallus], of Catullus 85 “Odi
et amo. quare id faciam, fortasse requiris. / nescio, sed fieri sentio
et excrucior.”.
[5] Introducing the apposite verbal play ‘aequor’ ~ ‘aequus’.
[6] NB the connection of the content with [Gallus] 41-2.
[7] Compare too ‘mutabile’ with the many adjectives terminating in –
bilis in this passage of Lucretius.