More Gallus and Pseudo-Vergil
23 views
Skip to first unread message
falmouth
Jan 18, 2009, 6:45:04 AM1/18/09
to Mantovano
Quis deus, Octaui, te nobis abstulit? an quae
dicunt, a, nimio pocula dura mero?
'uobiscum, si est culpa, bibi: sua quemque secuntur
fata: quid inmeriti crimen habent cyathi?'
scripta quidem tua nos multum mirabimur: et te 5
raptum et Romanam flebimus historiam.
sed tu nullus eris. peruersi, dicite, Manes,
hunc superesse patri quae fuit inuidia?
At the risk of being accused of finding Gallus everywhere, I suggest
[1] that this poem is certainly influenced by[2] Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
(Courtney).
Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis. 5
Cairns has carefully traced how many later appearances of “historiae”:
e.g. Prop. 1.15.24; 2.1.16; 3.4.10; 3.20.28; 3.22.20 derive from these
lines of Gallus; Cairns mentions, in particular, the present lines
[Verg.] Cat. 11.5-6, highlighting that “et te” Cat. 11.5 with Gallus’
“quom tu”, both at the end of the preceding hexamter, guarantees the
imitation beyond any reasonable doubt: “But Catalepton 11.5-6 sound a
stern warning for critics of Roman poetry: if the Gallan lines had not
survived, it would be all too tempting to conclude that Cataleption
11.5-6 imitate Propertius. That this is not the case is quite certain:
first ‘et te’ (Catalepton 11.5) recalls Gallus’ ‘quom tu’, similarly
at the end of a hexameter (fr. 2.2 Courtney); second, Catalepton 11.4
begins with ‘fata’: cf. Gallus’ fata (fr. 2.2 Courtney) in the same
sedes. The Gallus-Catalepton link strikingly reveals the high level of
intertextual sensitivity expected of their readers by Roman poets”[3].
A further important point was not mentioned by Cairns: that is that
Catalepton 11.7 “sed tu nullus eris” must clearly be intended as a
reversal of Gallus’ Fr. 2.2-3 “tu… maxima … pars eris…”.
Cairns did not evaluate the point of the imitation nor its full
implications, this being superfluous to his main purposes. It seems to
me, however, that recognising the allusion is key to understanding
Catalepton 11 (and, indeed, key to correcting misunderstandings of
it); secondly, that the simple fact of the allusion has important
implications in relation to the arguments about the date of Gallus Fr.
2 Courtney.
Gallus had said that ‘Caesar’ would be the greatest part of “Romanae …
historiae”. The conceit of Catalepton 11 is that “Octavius” is
(metaphorically) dead, having drunk too much. His death will cause us
to bewail “Romanam … historiam”. “Octavius” will, rather than being
the “maximus pars”, be “nullus [pars]”. Given this, surely the
Octavius of Catalepton 11 is none other than Octavian, himself[4].
Octavian is being compared, unfavourably, but humorously, to his
adoptive father Julius Caesar. Thus, one finds confirmation that,
Gallus’ Caesar was, indeed, Julius Caesar[5]. Further, one can explain
the not entirely obvious point of the last couplet of Catalepton 11
[6]: the bibulous Octavian, metaphorically dead, has not outlived his
(adoptive) father Julius Caesar, with the missing link being that
although Catalepton will have been after Julius Caesar’s
assassination, the conceit is allowed by Julius Caesar’s deification.
“perversi … Manes”, indeed!
Three more points which I make as no more than suggestive:
(i) Propertius 3.4 is a propemptikon to [Augustus] Caesar for a
Parthian expedition which, it seems certain, is heavily indebted to
the poem from which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 comes[7]. Propertius 3.4.1 begins
“deus Caesar”. It has been noted that this is an uncharacteristically
explicit acceptance of Augustus’ status as a “deus”. This would be
mitigated if, as I think likely, “deus Caesar” is intended to be
ambiguous as between Augustus Caesar and Julius Caesar[8]. More
specifically, I suspect that Prop. 3.4.1 owes something to the first
line of Gallus’ putative poem: cf. the close relationship between
Prop. 3.4.1 and the first line of Ovid’s embedded propemptikon at AA.
1.177 “Ecce, parat Caesar domito quod defuit orbi”. The very
speculative point, then, is that Catalepton 11.1 “Quis deus, Octaui,
te nobis abstulit?” might owe something to the first line of Gallus’
propemptikon for Caesar[9].
(ii) It is a curious coincidence that “nimio… mero” at Catalepton
11.2 is parallelled by Ovid’s couplet on Gallus’ downfall: “Non fuit
opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, / sed linguam nimio non tenuisse
mero.” (Ov. Tr. 2.445-6) with “nimio” and “mero” ending the first and
second hemistichs of the pentameter. It would not be surprising if
Ovid was quoting Gallus’ own words at him, which would raise the
possibility that Catalepton 11.2 also derives from Gallus’ own poetry.
(iii) In a remarkable anticipation of the publication of Gallus Fr.
2 Courtney, Du Quesnay had argued that behind Eclogue Ecl. 5.29-31,
lay a poem of Gallus dealing with a triumph of Julius Caesar in the
East. More specifically, he had suggested that that poem assimilated
Caesar’s conquest of the East with that of Dionysus. With the benefit
of the publication of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney one can accept Du
Quesnay’s acute insight with a minor modification: namely that the
poem which Du Quesnay postulated was in fact a praedictio triumphi and
that it is, indeed, the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney 2.2-5 is
part. For present purposes, Du Quesnay’s suggestion that a comparison
of Caesar to Dionysus formed part of that poem[10], is extremely
illuminating since it allows us to recognise the full humour of
Catalepton 11: Gallus’ Julius Caesar, qua Dionysus in his role as
triumphant conqueror of the East, has become the author of Catalepton
11’s Bacchus, reducing Octavian, through drink to nothingness.
Those points may be speculative. The important point, however, is that
by recognising that the author of Catalepton 11 is humorously adapting
Gallus’ poem, one demonstrates the correctness of the assumption that
Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 Courtney is correctly referred to Julius Caesar’s
abortive expedition to Parthia. Moreover, it seems likely that
Catalepton 11 should be correctly dated to earlier than 27BC, since
(i) it is addressed to Octavian rather than Augustus or Caesar[11];
(ii) while one could imagine circumstances where such a poem could be
addressed to Octavian in his youth (which was, in all probability, as
ribald and bibulous as Antony’s), it is difficult to imagine any such
circumstances after Octavian’s triumph in the civil wars; and (iii)
the poem depends for its correct understanding on Gallus’ poem
remaining fresh in the reader’s memory (and, indeed, Julius Caesar’s
deification being a topical phenomenon).
Lastly, one can but speculate as to who might have written such a
poem, quoting Gallus’ poem at Octavian with considerable cheek. One
possibility which cannot be dismissed is that it could be Gallus,
himself.
[1] I am not the first - see further below.
[2] Not the other way around. See further below.
[3] Cairns (2006) 84-6 and Index II s.v. “historia”.
[4] Not, for example, “Octavius Musa” as Goold takes “Octavius” in the
notes to his Loeb translation.
[5] Cf. the preferred interpretation of the first editors: Parsons,
Nisbet and Anderson (1979) which receives further confirmation in
Cairns (2006) 404ff.
[6] The explanation which I suggest is, I think, very much easier than
e.g. Goold’s explanation that “patri” refers to Bacchus: i.e. Octavius
“a son of Bacchus” died before Bacchus (the wine supply) did.
[7] Cf. Parsons, Nisbet and Anderson (1979) and Cairns (2006) 404ff. I
refer only to Gallus Fr 2.2-5 Courtney with the intention of being
neutral as to whether all of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney comes from the same
poem.
[8] Cf. especially what I see as an exactly parallel ambiguity at Aen.
1.286-290 as to which Caesar is to come back from the East loaded with
“spoliis” (here, again, I suggest the poem from which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
Courtney is relevant - “spolieis deivitiora tuis”; cf. even more
elaborately, Ovid AA 1.177ff, where the Parthian campaign intertwines
three generations of “Caesar[s]”, with play on which “Caesar” can be
safely called divine. I suggest that the unifying point is that the
successive Parthian campaigns were each assimilated to the abortive
Parthian campaign of Julius Caesar and, in the poets in particular,
this was done by reference to Gallus’ propemptikon for Julius Caesar’s
campaign: i.e. the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 Courtney forms part
(a suggestion which I made in the context of Anth. Lat. 914 Riese).
[9] Might there be some relationship between this line and Geo. 4.315
“Quis deus hanc, Musae, quis nobis extudit artem?” introducing what,
on the discredited Servian report, replaced the Laudes Galli.
[10] Further support is given by Ov. AA.1.189-190 “Nunc quoque qui
puer es, quantus tum, Bacche, fuisti, / Cum timuit thyrsos India victa
tuos?”: here, as mentioned above, Ovid is adapting Gallus’
propemptikon and the same theme of Dionysus as conqueror of the East
appears.
[11] The Culex seems to be an example of a reference to Octavian
intended to make a late poem seem contemporary with Octavian, so care
is, of course, needed. But with the next points, I think that the
inference is justified.
dicunt, a, nimio pocula dura mero?
'uobiscum, si est culpa, bibi: sua quemque secuntur
fata: quid inmeriti crimen habent cyathi?'
scripta quidem tua nos multum mirabimur: et te 5
raptum et Romanam flebimus historiam.
sed tu nullus eris. peruersi, dicite, Manes,
hunc superesse patri quae fuit inuidia?
At the risk of being accused of finding Gallus everywhere, I suggest
[1] that this poem is certainly influenced by[2] Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
(Courtney).
Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis. 5
Cairns has carefully traced how many later appearances of “historiae”:
e.g. Prop. 1.15.24; 2.1.16; 3.4.10; 3.20.28; 3.22.20 derive from these
lines of Gallus; Cairns mentions, in particular, the present lines
[Verg.] Cat. 11.5-6, highlighting that “et te” Cat. 11.5 with Gallus’
“quom tu”, both at the end of the preceding hexamter, guarantees the
imitation beyond any reasonable doubt: “But Catalepton 11.5-6 sound a
stern warning for critics of Roman poetry: if the Gallan lines had not
survived, it would be all too tempting to conclude that Cataleption
11.5-6 imitate Propertius. That this is not the case is quite certain:
first ‘et te’ (Catalepton 11.5) recalls Gallus’ ‘quom tu’, similarly
at the end of a hexameter (fr. 2.2 Courtney); second, Catalepton 11.4
begins with ‘fata’: cf. Gallus’ fata (fr. 2.2 Courtney) in the same
sedes. The Gallus-Catalepton link strikingly reveals the high level of
intertextual sensitivity expected of their readers by Roman poets”[3].
A further important point was not mentioned by Cairns: that is that
Catalepton 11.7 “sed tu nullus eris” must clearly be intended as a
reversal of Gallus’ Fr. 2.2-3 “tu… maxima … pars eris…”.
Cairns did not evaluate the point of the imitation nor its full
implications, this being superfluous to his main purposes. It seems to
me, however, that recognising the allusion is key to understanding
Catalepton 11 (and, indeed, key to correcting misunderstandings of
it); secondly, that the simple fact of the allusion has important
implications in relation to the arguments about the date of Gallus Fr.
2 Courtney.
Gallus had said that ‘Caesar’ would be the greatest part of “Romanae …
historiae”. The conceit of Catalepton 11 is that “Octavius” is
(metaphorically) dead, having drunk too much. His death will cause us
to bewail “Romanam … historiam”. “Octavius” will, rather than being
the “maximus pars”, be “nullus [pars]”. Given this, surely the
Octavius of Catalepton 11 is none other than Octavian, himself[4].
Octavian is being compared, unfavourably, but humorously, to his
adoptive father Julius Caesar. Thus, one finds confirmation that,
Gallus’ Caesar was, indeed, Julius Caesar[5]. Further, one can explain
the not entirely obvious point of the last couplet of Catalepton 11
[6]: the bibulous Octavian, metaphorically dead, has not outlived his
(adoptive) father Julius Caesar, with the missing link being that
although Catalepton will have been after Julius Caesar’s
assassination, the conceit is allowed by Julius Caesar’s deification.
“perversi … Manes”, indeed!
Three more points which I make as no more than suggestive:
(i) Propertius 3.4 is a propemptikon to [Augustus] Caesar for a
Parthian expedition which, it seems certain, is heavily indebted to
the poem from which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 comes[7]. Propertius 3.4.1 begins
“deus Caesar”. It has been noted that this is an uncharacteristically
explicit acceptance of Augustus’ status as a “deus”. This would be
mitigated if, as I think likely, “deus Caesar” is intended to be
ambiguous as between Augustus Caesar and Julius Caesar[8]. More
specifically, I suspect that Prop. 3.4.1 owes something to the first
line of Gallus’ putative poem: cf. the close relationship between
Prop. 3.4.1 and the first line of Ovid’s embedded propemptikon at AA.
1.177 “Ecce, parat Caesar domito quod defuit orbi”. The very
speculative point, then, is that Catalepton 11.1 “Quis deus, Octaui,
te nobis abstulit?” might owe something to the first line of Gallus’
propemptikon for Caesar[9].
(ii) It is a curious coincidence that “nimio… mero” at Catalepton
11.2 is parallelled by Ovid’s couplet on Gallus’ downfall: “Non fuit
opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, / sed linguam nimio non tenuisse
mero.” (Ov. Tr. 2.445-6) with “nimio” and “mero” ending the first and
second hemistichs of the pentameter. It would not be surprising if
Ovid was quoting Gallus’ own words at him, which would raise the
possibility that Catalepton 11.2 also derives from Gallus’ own poetry.
(iii) In a remarkable anticipation of the publication of Gallus Fr.
2 Courtney, Du Quesnay had argued that behind Eclogue Ecl. 5.29-31,
lay a poem of Gallus dealing with a triumph of Julius Caesar in the
East. More specifically, he had suggested that that poem assimilated
Caesar’s conquest of the East with that of Dionysus. With the benefit
of the publication of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney one can accept Du
Quesnay’s acute insight with a minor modification: namely that the
poem which Du Quesnay postulated was in fact a praedictio triumphi and
that it is, indeed, the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney 2.2-5 is
part. For present purposes, Du Quesnay’s suggestion that a comparison
of Caesar to Dionysus formed part of that poem[10], is extremely
illuminating since it allows us to recognise the full humour of
Catalepton 11: Gallus’ Julius Caesar, qua Dionysus in his role as
triumphant conqueror of the East, has become the author of Catalepton
11’s Bacchus, reducing Octavian, through drink to nothingness.
Those points may be speculative. The important point, however, is that
by recognising that the author of Catalepton 11 is humorously adapting
Gallus’ poem, one demonstrates the correctness of the assumption that
Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 Courtney is correctly referred to Julius Caesar’s
abortive expedition to Parthia. Moreover, it seems likely that
Catalepton 11 should be correctly dated to earlier than 27BC, since
(i) it is addressed to Octavian rather than Augustus or Caesar[11];
(ii) while one could imagine circumstances where such a poem could be
addressed to Octavian in his youth (which was, in all probability, as
ribald and bibulous as Antony’s), it is difficult to imagine any such
circumstances after Octavian’s triumph in the civil wars; and (iii)
the poem depends for its correct understanding on Gallus’ poem
remaining fresh in the reader’s memory (and, indeed, Julius Caesar’s
deification being a topical phenomenon).
Lastly, one can but speculate as to who might have written such a
poem, quoting Gallus’ poem at Octavian with considerable cheek. One
possibility which cannot be dismissed is that it could be Gallus,
himself.
[1] I am not the first - see further below.
[2] Not the other way around. See further below.
[3] Cairns (2006) 84-6 and Index II s.v. “historia”.
[4] Not, for example, “Octavius Musa” as Goold takes “Octavius” in the
notes to his Loeb translation.
[5] Cf. the preferred interpretation of the first editors: Parsons,
Nisbet and Anderson (1979) which receives further confirmation in
Cairns (2006) 404ff.
[6] The explanation which I suggest is, I think, very much easier than
e.g. Goold’s explanation that “patri” refers to Bacchus: i.e. Octavius
“a son of Bacchus” died before Bacchus (the wine supply) did.
[7] Cf. Parsons, Nisbet and Anderson (1979) and Cairns (2006) 404ff. I
refer only to Gallus Fr 2.2-5 Courtney with the intention of being
neutral as to whether all of Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney comes from the same
poem.
[8] Cf. especially what I see as an exactly parallel ambiguity at Aen.
1.286-290 as to which Caesar is to come back from the East loaded with
“spoliis” (here, again, I suggest the poem from which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
Courtney is relevant - “spolieis deivitiora tuis”; cf. even more
elaborately, Ovid AA 1.177ff, where the Parthian campaign intertwines
three generations of “Caesar[s]”, with play on which “Caesar” can be
safely called divine. I suggest that the unifying point is that the
successive Parthian campaigns were each assimilated to the abortive
Parthian campaign of Julius Caesar and, in the poets in particular,
this was done by reference to Gallus’ propemptikon for Julius Caesar’s
campaign: i.e. the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2.2-5 Courtney forms part
(a suggestion which I made in the context of Anth. Lat. 914 Riese).
[9] Might there be some relationship between this line and Geo. 4.315
“Quis deus hanc, Musae, quis nobis extudit artem?” introducing what,
on the discredited Servian report, replaced the Laudes Galli.
[10] Further support is given by Ov. AA.1.189-190 “Nunc quoque qui
puer es, quantus tum, Bacche, fuisti, / Cum timuit thyrsos India victa
tuos?”: here, as mentioned above, Ovid is adapting Gallus’
propemptikon and the same theme of Dionysus as conqueror of the East
appears.
[11] The Culex seems to be an example of a reference to Octavian
intended to make a late poem seem contemporary with Octavian, so care
is, of course, needed. But with the next points, I think that the
inference is justified.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jan 19, 2009, 4:44:14 PM1/19/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Certainly there is no difficulty in believing that Catal. 11 echoes Gallus
(I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Appendix);
there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for nulla!),
rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however, while I
should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc. 1. 6'
(deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going back to Iliad 1.
8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no way to
address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally accepted
his inheritance with the condicio nominis ferendi; indeed, his friends were
already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, written on 23
March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pretends to
speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' cannot
well refer to his biological father, who died when he was four (Suet. Aug.
8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that even on
the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had already
outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought of as
Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
therefore unoutlivable. Yes, of course there is a joke, but it is a joke
more easily made at a distance, when the precise facts are no longer in the
mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and patron are
alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coherent.
But who else says that Octavius/Octavian/Caesar was a great boozer? Antony
yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth who took
such great care of himself?
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
(I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Appendix);
there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for nulla!),
rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however, while I
should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc. 1. 6'
(deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going back to Iliad 1.
8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no way to
address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally accepted
his inheritance with the condicio nominis ferendi; indeed, his friends were
already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, written on 23
March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pretends to
speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' cannot
well refer to his biological father, who died when he was four (Suet. Aug.
8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that even on
the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had already
outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought of as
Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
therefore unoutlivable. Yes, of course there is a joke, but it is a joke
more easily made at a distance, when the precise facts are no longer in the
mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and patron are
alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coherent.
But who else says that Octavius/Octavian/Caesar was a great boozer? Antony
yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth who took
such great care of himself?
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
Jan 20, 2009, 4:26:44 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
First off, apologies for the 'nullus pars': the point I was intending
to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the exact
reversal of "tu / maxima ... pars eris" (JC) (confirming incidentally,
if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit"),
this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
difficult to take these points seriously when they're expressed in
such slipshod manner...!
Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this is
late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
Octavian; Gallus' poem referred to JC; and you see the same joke as I
do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that this
is already widely recognised?).
I very much agree that Il. 1.8 is the ultimate model for all the "quis
deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
speculative point (i). The suggestion would be that Gallus' poem began
"Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will avenge
Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
movement of the poem might be quite similar to Hor. Odes 1.2. Note how
this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (is
"Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo.
4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment but I
now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
immediately preceding line Geo. 4.314. Gallus' poem would, of course,
be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated with
the Iliad.
Re "Octavi", while CJDF's friends and supporters might call invariably
call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
detractors, especially those who take the deification of JC with more
than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agrippa's
'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggestion
that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it should be
dated to say 44BC-35BC).
Assuming that the poem is late, does one not need for the point to
assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, which
raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why do
we have in the Vergilian commentary tradition lines from Cinna, Calvus
and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
infamous banquet of the 12 gods, although I suppose that is more about
'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagine one
without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later PR
of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the exact
reversal of "tu / maxima ... pars eris" (JC) (confirming incidentally,
if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit"),
this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
difficult to take these points seriously when they're expressed in
such slipshod manner...!
Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this is
late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
Octavian; Gallus' poem referred to JC; and you see the same joke as I
do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that this
is already widely recognised?).
I very much agree that Il. 1.8 is the ultimate model for all the "quis
deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
speculative point (i). The suggestion would be that Gallus' poem began
"Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will avenge
Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
movement of the poem might be quite similar to Hor. Odes 1.2. Note how
this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (is
"Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo.
4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment but I
now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
immediately preceding line Geo. 4.314. Gallus' poem would, of course,
be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated with
the Iliad.
Re "Octavi", while CJDF's friends and supporters might call invariably
call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
detractors, especially those who take the deification of JC with more
than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agrippa's
'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggestion
that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it should be
dated to say 44BC-35BC).
Assuming that the poem is late, does one not need for the point to
assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, which
raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why do
we have in the Vergilian commentary tradition lines from Cinna, Calvus
and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
infamous banquet of the 12 gods, although I suppose that is more about
'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagine one
without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later PR
of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jan 20, 2009, 5:31:56 AM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Either Octavius is (however improperly) the Dictator's heir, or this is a poem about a nobody that was swept up into the collection on the misunderstanding that he was; I doubt whether anyone has ever thought the latter. By 'of course' I meant that (assuming Octavius is who we think) 'hunc superesse patri quae fuit inuidia?', if taken seriously, invites the answer 'nulla, nam utrique patri superfuit.'
I agree that Gallius was addressing the Dictator, because the technique of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustus' sabre-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not survive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovid and Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was surely someone still alive who had read it.
Gallus' poem cannot have literally begun 'Quis deus Caesar' unless he was so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but quis deus, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line, probably in the fifth foot or at the end.
I'm not sure I've caught your point about Agrippa, who suppressed his unheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, by praenomen and cognomen alone just like a nobilis,
No, we don't think of Imp. Caesar eschewing wine at Maecenas receptions (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think of him getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we know about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly calculating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if only because they might say something.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > Certainly there is no difficulty in believing that Catal. 11 echoes Gallu=
> s
> > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Appendix=
> );
> > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for nulla=
> !),
> > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however, while=
> re
> > already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, written on 2=
> 3
> > March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pretends t=
> ..
> > 8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that even =
> on
> > the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had alrea=
> he
> > mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and patron =
> y
> > yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth who t=
> > 11.2 is parallelled by Ovid’s couplet on Gallus’ downfall: “Non fui=
> > [4] Not, for example, “Octavius Musa” as Goold takes “Octavius” i=
I agree that Gallius was addressing the Dictator, because the technique of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustus' sabre-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not survive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovid and Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was surely someone still alive who had read it.
Gallus' poem cannot have literally begun 'Quis deus Caesar' unless he was so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but quis deus, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line, probably in the fifth foot or at the end.
I'm not sure I've caught your point about Agrippa, who suppressed his unheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, by praenomen and cognomen alone just like a nobilis,
No, we don't think of Imp. Caesar eschewing wine at Maecenas receptions (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think of him getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we know about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly calculating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if only because they might say something.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> s
> > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Appendix=
> );
> > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for nulla=
> !),
> > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however, while=
> I
> > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc. 1. 6'
> > (deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going back to Ilia=
> > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc. 1. 6'
> d 1.
> > 8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no way to
> > address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally accepted
> > his inheritance with the condicio nominis ferendi; indeed, his friends we=
> > 8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no way to
> > address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally accepted
> re
> > already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, written on 2=
> 3
> > March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pretends t=
> o
> > speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' cannot
> > well refer to his biological father, who died when he was four (Suet. Aug=
> > speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' cannot
> ..
> > 8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that even =
> on
> > the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had alrea=
> dy
> > outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought of as
> > Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
> > therefore unoutlivable. Yes, of course there is a joke, but it is a joke
> > more easily made at a distance, when the precise facts are no longer in t=
> > outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought of as
> > Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
> > therefore unoutlivable. Yes, of course there is a joke, but it is a joke
> he
> > mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and patron =
> are
> > alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coherent.
> >
> > But who else says that Octavius/Octavian/Caesar was a great boozer? Anton=
> > alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coherent.
> >
> y
> > yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth who t=
> ook
> > such great care of himself?
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > such great care of himself?
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > Oxford
> > usque adeone
> nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > alter?
> >
> > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:45 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: More Gallus and Pseudo-Vergil
> >
> > Quis deus, Octaui, te nobis abstulit? an quae
> > dicunt, a, nimio pocula dura mero?
> > 'uobiscum, si est culpa, bibi: sua quemque secuntur
> > fata: quid inmeriti crimen habent cyathi?'
> > scripta quidem tua nos multum mirabimur: et te 5
> > raptum et Romanam flebimus historiam.
> > sed tu nullus eris. peruersi, dicite, Manes,
> > hunc superesse patri quae fuit inuidia?
> >
> > At the risk of being accused of finding Gallus everywhere, I suggest
> > [1] that this poem is certainly influenced by[2] Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
> > (Courtney).
> >
> > Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
> > maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
> > postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
> > fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis. 5
> >
> > Cairns has carefully traced how many later appearances of “historiae”=
> > alter?
> >
> > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 512237
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "falmouth" <adrianj...@googlemail.com>
> > To: "Mantovano" <mant...@googlegroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 11:45 AM
> > Subject: VIRGIL: More Gallus and Pseudo-Vergil
> >
> > Quis deus, Octaui, te nobis abstulit? an quae
> > dicunt, a, nimio pocula dura mero?
> > 'uobiscum, si est culpa, bibi: sua quemque secuntur
> > fata: quid inmeriti crimen habent cyathi?'
> > scripta quidem tua nos multum mirabimur: et te 5
> > raptum et Romanam flebimus historiam.
> > sed tu nullus eris. peruersi, dicite, Manes,
> > hunc superesse patri quae fuit inuidia?
> >
> > At the risk of being accused of finding Gallus everywhere, I suggest
> > [1] that this poem is certainly influenced by[2] Gallus Fr. 2.2-5
> > (Courtney).
> >
> > Fata mihi, Caesar, tum erunt mea dulcia, quom tu
> > maxima Romanae pars eris historiae,
> > postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum
> > fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis. 5
> >
> :
> > e.g. Prop. 1.15.24; 2.1.16; 3.4.10; 3.20.28; 3.22.20 derive from these
> > lines of Gallus; Cairns mentions, in particular, the present lines
> > [Verg.] Cat. 11.5-6, highlighting that “et te” Cat. 11.5 with Gallus=
> > e.g. Prop. 1.15.24; 2.1.16; 3.4.10; 3.20.28; 3.22.20 derive from these
> > lines of Gallus; Cairns mentions, in particular, the present lines
> ’
> > “quom tu”, both at the end of the preceding hexamter, guarantees the
> > imitation beyond any reasonable doubt: “But Catalepton 11.5-6 sound a
> > stern warning for critics of Roman poetry: if the Gallan lines had not
> > survived, it would be all too tempting to conclude that Cataleption
> > 11.5-6 imitate Propertius. That this is not the case is quite certain:
> > first ‘et te’ (Catalepton 11.5) recalls Gallus’ ‘quom tu’, simi=
> > “quom tu”, both at the end of the preceding hexamter, guarantees the
> > imitation beyond any reasonable doubt: “But Catalepton 11.5-6 sound a
> > stern warning for critics of Roman poetry: if the Gallan lines had not
> > survived, it would be all too tempting to conclude that Cataleption
> > 11.5-6 imitate Propertius. That this is not the case is quite certain:
> larly
> > at the end of a hexameter (fr. 2.2 Courtney); second, Catalepton 11.4
> > begins with ‘fata’: cf. Gallus’ fata (fr. 2.2 Courtney) in the same
> > sedes. The Gallus-Catalepton link strikingly reveals the high level of
> > intertextual sensitivity expected of their readers by Roman poets”[3].
> >
> > A further important point was not mentioned by Cairns: that is that
> > Catalepton 11.7 “sed tu nullus eris” must clearly be intended as a
> > reversal of Gallus’ Fr. 2.2-3 “tu… maxima … pars eris…”.
> >
> > Cairns did not evaluate the point of the imitation nor its full
> > implications, this being superfluous to his main purposes. It seems to
> > me, however, that recognising the allusion is key to understanding
> > Catalepton 11 (and, indeed, key to correcting misunderstandings of
> > it); secondly, that the simple fact of the allusion has important
> > implications in relation to the arguments about the date of Gallus Fr.
> > 2 Courtney.
> >
> > Gallus had said that ‘Caesar’ would be the greatest part of “Romana=
> > at the end of a hexameter (fr. 2.2 Courtney); second, Catalepton 11.4
> > begins with ‘fata’: cf. Gallus’ fata (fr. 2.2 Courtney) in the same
> > sedes. The Gallus-Catalepton link strikingly reveals the high level of
> > intertextual sensitivity expected of their readers by Roman poets”[3].
> >
> > A further important point was not mentioned by Cairns: that is that
> > Catalepton 11.7 “sed tu nullus eris” must clearly be intended as a
> > reversal of Gallus’ Fr. 2.2-3 “tu… maxima … pars eris…”.
> >
> > Cairns did not evaluate the point of the imitation nor its full
> > implications, this being superfluous to his main purposes. It seems to
> > me, however, that recognising the allusion is key to understanding
> > Catalepton 11 (and, indeed, key to correcting misunderstandings of
> > it); secondly, that the simple fact of the allusion has important
> > implications in relation to the arguments about the date of Gallus Fr.
> > 2 Courtney.
> >
> e …
> > historiae”. The conceit of Catalepton 11 is that “Octavius” is
> > (metaphorically) dead, having drunk too much. His death will cause us
> > to bewail “Romanam … historiam”. “Octavius” will, rather than b=
> > historiae”. The conceit of Catalepton 11 is that “Octavius” is
> > (metaphorically) dead, having drunk too much. His death will cause us
> t
> > opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, / sed linguam nimio non tenuisse
> > mero.” (Ov. Tr. 2.445-6) with “nimio” and “mero” ending the fir=
> > opprobrio celebrasse Lycorida Gallo, / sed linguam nimio non tenuisse
> n the
> > notes to his Loeb translation.
> > [5] Cf. the preferred interpretation of the first editors: Parsons,
> > Nisbet and Anderson (1979) which receives further confirmation in
> > Cairns (2006) 404ff.
> > [6] The explanation which I suggest is, I think, very much easier than
> > e.g. Goold’s explanation that “patri” refers to Bacchus: i.e. Octav=
> > notes to his Loeb translation.
> > [5] Cf. the preferred interpretation of the first editors: Parsons,
> > Nisbet and Anderson (1979) which receives further confirmation in
> > Cairns (2006) 404ff.
> > [6] The explanation which I suggest is, I think, very much easier than
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 7:40:11 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
I'd belatedly realised that "quis deus Caesar" was unmetrical. I'd
like to keep "Caesar" here: cf. Prop. 3.4.1 "arma deus Caesar" and Ov.
AA. 1.177 "ecce parat Caesar". "quis deus, O Caesar" does perfectly
(cf. [Verg] Cat. 11.1 "quis deus, O-ctavi".
I'd also have "proelia dura v -" finishing the next pentameter (cf.
[Verg]. Cat. 11.1-2; Prop. 3.5.1-2 (the companion piece to Prop. 3.4);
and Geo. 4.314), and probably "parat" somewhere - compare Mart. Spect.
28.7 "dumque parat ... fera proelia" with Ov. AA. 1.177. I see Ov. Am.
1.8.96 "proelia durat Amor" as probably combining (at least) two
Gallan lines - our one with our "proelia dura" and CIL 1645.2 "illum
in desertis montibus *urat Amor*" (if this is Gallus). The present
putative couplet as a whole would approximate to Il. 1.2 and Il. 1.8.
The point re Agrippa was that while he dropped the Vipsanius, his
detractors did not: Sen. Contr. 2.4.13.
The point re whether actual verses of Gallus were in the Vergilian
commentary tradition is one which interests me. Comparing Servius'
note on l.46: "hi omnes versus Galli sunt" with other similar Servian
comments on Apollonius (Aen. 4.1) and Theocritus (I don't remember
which Ecl), suggests that this is shorthand for having seen a number
of actual parallels quoted? I also cannot escape the feeling that
certain notes in Ecl. 10 convey more than can be deduced from the
text: i.e. contain vestiges of actual knowledge of Gallus' verses:
e.g. this handful: Ecl. 10.16 "stupentes amorem"; Ecl. 10.26 - why
Daphne out of all the many loves of Apollo; Syrinx out of those of
Pan; Ecl. 10.36 "Quid mihi cum urbibus, ubi sunt meretrices tam
pulchrae quam perfidae?'" - how does Serv. get this from Vergil's
text; Ecl. 10.42 "quid te iuvat inter frigora Gallicana
demorari?" (both "quid mihi cum" and "quid te iuvat" have the flavour
of poetry?); Ecl. 10.46 "procul a civitate, quae solebas solis urbibus
frui." - note the "*sol*ebas *sol*is"; Ecl. 10.47.
like to keep "Caesar" here: cf. Prop. 3.4.1 "arma deus Caesar" and Ov.
AA. 1.177 "ecce parat Caesar". "quis deus, O Caesar" does perfectly
(cf. [Verg] Cat. 11.1 "quis deus, O-ctavi".
I'd also have "proelia dura v -" finishing the next pentameter (cf.
[Verg]. Cat. 11.1-2; Prop. 3.5.1-2 (the companion piece to Prop. 3.4);
and Geo. 4.314), and probably "parat" somewhere - compare Mart. Spect.
28.7 "dumque parat ... fera proelia" with Ov. AA. 1.177. I see Ov. Am.
1.8.96 "proelia durat Amor" as probably combining (at least) two
Gallan lines - our one with our "proelia dura" and CIL 1645.2 "illum
in desertis montibus *urat Amor*" (if this is Gallus). The present
putative couplet as a whole would approximate to Il. 1.2 and Il. 1.8.
The point re Agrippa was that while he dropped the Vipsanius, his
detractors did not: Sen. Contr. 2.4.13.
The point re whether actual verses of Gallus were in the Vergilian
commentary tradition is one which interests me. Comparing Servius'
note on l.46: "hi omnes versus Galli sunt" with other similar Servian
comments on Apollonius (Aen. 4.1) and Theocritus (I don't remember
which Ecl), suggests that this is shorthand for having seen a number
of actual parallels quoted? I also cannot escape the feeling that
certain notes in Ecl. 10 convey more than can be deduced from the
text: i.e. contain vestiges of actual knowledge of Gallus' verses:
e.g. this handful: Ecl. 10.16 "stupentes amorem"; Ecl. 10.26 - why
Daphne out of all the many loves of Apollo; Syrinx out of those of
Pan; Ecl. 10.36 "Quid mihi cum urbibus, ubi sunt meretrices tam
pulchrae quam perfidae?'" - how does Serv. get this from Vergil's
text; Ecl. 10.42 "quid te iuvat inter frigora Gallicana
demorari?" (both "quid mihi cum" and "quid te iuvat" have the flavour
of poetry?); Ecl. 10.46 "procul a civitate, quae solebas solis urbibus
frui." - note the "*sol*ebas *sol*is"; Ecl. 10.47.
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 8:32:47 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
For the "parat" I should also have noted Prop. 3.4.3-4 "magna, Quiris,
merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; / Tigris et Euphrates sub tua
iura fluent".
merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; / Tigris et Euphrates sub tua
iura fluent".
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jan 20, 2009, 9:10:29 AM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co
In reply to yourprevious message:
Ah yes, ;Agrippae, Marce et quod in medio est concurrite Agrippae', one of those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the point; and from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the second trochee, a fault unless a conscious parody of something.
Not just Theocritus and Apollonius; we also have statements that a verse is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone before Donatus might have eliminated the quotations as overloading the schoolboys with clumsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh equally whoever first noticed the parallels might, if he wrote soon after Vergil's death, have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a time when readers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far better read in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up there was so little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right that removal from the libraries meant that casual readers never clapped eyes on him but that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why I don't believe the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that copies in private hands would have survived, ready to surface say under Caligula, yet no-one ever claims to quote a word of it; Augustan Rome was not like Henry VIII's England, when at a word from the king Becket's name was deleted even from private calendars.)
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > Either Octavius is (however improperly) the Dictator's heir, or this is=
> a poem about a nobody that was swept up into the collection on the misunde=
> rstanding that he was; I doubt whether anyone has ever thought the latter. =
> By 'of course' I meant that (assuming Octavius is who we think) 'hunc super=
> esse patri quae fuit inuidia?', if taken seriously, invites the answer 'nul=
> of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustus' sab=
> re-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not sur=
> vive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovid an=
> d Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was surely=
> as so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but quis de=
> us, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line, pro=
> nheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, by pr=
> (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think of hi=
> m getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we kno=
> w about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly calcu=
> lating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if only b=
> t
> > > > 'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagine on=
> Gallu=
> > > > s
> > > > > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Ap=
> pendix=
> > > > );
> > > > > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for=
> nulla=
> > > > !),
> > > > > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however,=
> while=
> > > > I
> > > > > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc.=
> 1. 6'
> > > > > (deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going back t=
> o Ilia=
> > > > d 1.
> > > > > 8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no w=
> ay to
> > > > > address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally ac=
> cepted
> > > > > his inheritance with the condicio nominis ferendi; indeed, his frie=
> nds we=
> > > > re
> > > > > already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, writte=
> n on 2=
> > > > 3
> > > > > March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pret=
> ends t=
> > > > o
> > > > > speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' =
> cannot
> > > > > well refer to his biological father, who died when he was four (Sue=
> t. Aug=
> > > > ..
> > > > > 8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that=
> even =
> > > > on
> > > > > the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had=
> alrea=
> > > > dy
> > > > > outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought o=
> joke
> > > > > more easily made at a distance, when the precise facts are no longe=
> r in t=
> > > > he
> > > > > mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and p=
> atron =
> > > > are
> > > > > alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coh=
> erent.
> >
> > > > > But who else says that Octavius/Octavian/Caesar was a great boozer?=
> Anton=
> > > > y
> > > > > yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth=
Ah yes, ;Agrippae, Marce et quod in medio est concurrite Agrippae', one of those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the point; and from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the second trochee, a fault unless a conscious parody of something.
Not just Theocritus and Apollonius; we also have statements that a verse is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone before Donatus might have eliminated the quotations as overloading the schoolboys with clumsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh equally whoever first noticed the parallels might, if he wrote soon after Vergil's death, have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a time when readers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far better read in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up there was so little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right that removal from the libraries meant that casual readers never clapped eyes on him but that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why I don't believe the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that copies in private hands would have survived, ready to surface say under Caligula, yet no-one ever claims to quote a word of it; Augustan Rome was not like Henry VIII's England, when at a word from the king Becket's name was deleted even from private calendars.)
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> a poem about a nobody that was swept up into the collection on the misunde=
> rstanding that he was; I doubt whether anyone has ever thought the latter. =
> By 'of course' I meant that (assuming Octavius is who we think) 'hunc super=
> esse patri quae fuit inuidia?', if taken seriously, invites the answer 'nul=
> la, nam utrique patri superfuit.'
> >
> > > I agree that Gallius was addressing the Dictator, because the technique=
> >
> of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustus' sab=
> re-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not sur=
> vive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovid an=
> d Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was surely=
> someone still alive who had read it.
> >
> > > Gallus' poem cannot have literally begun 'Quis deus Caesar' unless he w=
> >
> as so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but quis de=
> us, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line, pro=
> bably in the fifth foot or at the end.
> >
> > > I'm not sure I've caught your point about Agrippa, who suppressed his u=
> >
> nheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, by pr=
> aenomen and cognomen alone just like a nobilis,
> >
> > > No, we don't think of Imp. Caesar eschewing wine at Maecenas receptions=
> >
> (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think of hi=
> m getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we kno=
> w about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly calcu=
> lating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if only b=
> ecause they might say something.
> >
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > First off, apologies for the 'nullus pars': the point I was intending
> > > > to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the exact
> > > > reversal of "tu / maxima ... pars eris" (JC) (confirming incidentally=
> >
> > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > First off, apologies for the 'nullus pars': the point I was intending
> > > > to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the exact
> ,
> > > > if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit"),
> > > > this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
> > > > difficult to take these points seriously when they're expressed in
> > > > such slipshod manner...!
> >
> > > > Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this is
> > > > late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
> > > > Octavian; Gallus' poem referred to JC; and you see the same joke as I
> > > > do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that this
> > > > is already widely recognised?).
> >
> > > > I very much agree that Il. 1.8 is the ultimate model for all the "qui=
> > > > if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit"),
> > > > this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
> > > > difficult to take these points seriously when they're expressed in
> > > > such slipshod manner...!
> >
> > > > Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this is
> > > > late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
> > > > Octavian; Gallus' poem referred to JC; and you see the same joke as I
> > > > do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that this
> > > > is already widely recognised?).
> >
> s
> > > > deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
> > > > speculative point (i). The suggestion would be that Gallus' poem bega=
> > > > deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
> n
> > > > "Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will avenge
> > > > Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
> > > > Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
> > > > movement of the poem might be quite similar to Hor. Odes 1.2. Note ho=
> > > > "Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will avenge
> > > > Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
> > > > Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
> w
> > > > this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (is
> > > > "Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo.
> > > > 4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment but I
> > > > now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
> > > > immediately preceding line Geo. 4.314. Gallus' poem would, of course,
> > > > be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated with
> > > > the Iliad.
> >
> > > > Re "Octavi", while CJDF's friends and supporters might call invariabl=
> > > > this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (is
> > > > "Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo.
> > > > 4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment but I
> > > > now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
> > > > immediately preceding line Geo. 4.314. Gallus' poem would, of course,
> > > > be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated with
> > > > the Iliad.
> >
> y
> > > > call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
> > > > detractors, especially those who take the deification of JC with more
> > > > than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agrippa's
> > > > 'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggestion
> > > > that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it should be
> > > > dated to say 44BC-35BC).
> >
> > > > Assuming that the poem is late, does one not need for the point to
> > > > assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, which
> > > > raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why do
> > > > we have in the Vergilian commentary tradition lines from Cinna, Calvu=
> > > > call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
> > > > detractors, especially those who take the deification of JC with more
> > > > than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agrippa's
> > > > 'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggestion
> > > > that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it should be
> > > > dated to say 44BC-35BC).
> >
> > > > Assuming that the poem is late, does one not need for the point to
> > > > assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, which
> > > > raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why do
> s
> > > > and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
> >
> > > > On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
> > > > infamous banquet of the 12 gods, although I suppose that is more abou=
> > > > and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
> >
> > > > On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
> t
> > > > 'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagine on=
> e
> > > > without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later PR
> > > > of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
> > > > Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
> >
> > > > On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > Certainly there is no difficulty in believing that Catal. 11 echoes=
> > > > without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later PR
> > > > of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
> > > > Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
> >
> > > > On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Gallu=
> > > > s
> > > > > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of the Ap=
> pendix=
> > > > );
> > > > > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' (for=
> nulla=
> > > > !),
> > > > > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, however,=
> while=
> > > > I
> > > > > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of Buc.=
> 1. 6'
> > > > > (deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going back t=
> o Ilia=
> > > > d 1.
> > > > > 8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was no w=
> ay to
> > > > > address C. Iulius Diui f. after June 44 BC, once he had formally ac=
> cepted
> > > > > his inheritance with the condicio nominis ferendi; indeed, his frie=
> nds we=
> > > > re
> > > > > already calling him Caesar before then (Cic. Att. 14. 12. 2, writte=
> n on 2=
> > > > 3
> > > > > March; Culex 1 is of course no counter-example, since the poem pret=
> ends t=
> > > > o
> > > > > speak from Octavius' boyhood, v. 26). Granted further that 'patri' =
> cannot
> > > > > well refer to his biological father, who died when he was four (Sue=
> t. Aug=
> > > > ..
> > > > > 8), the Dictator was in no sense his father while he lived, so that=
> even =
> > > > on
> > > > > the Ides of March, the date from which the will spoke, Octavius had=
> alrea=
> > > > dy
> > > > > outlived him; on the other hand, if the Dictator is to be thought o=
> f as
> > > > > Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
> > > > > therefore unoutlivable. Yes, of course there is a joke, but it is a=
> > > > > Dionysos, or indeed as Diuus Iulius, then he is immortal anyway and
> joke
> > > > > more easily made at a distance, when the precise facts are no longe=
> r in t=
> > > > he
> > > > > mind; perhaps even after the Culex, where the sense that poet and p=
> atron =
> > > > are
> > > > > alike destined for greatness, though anachronistic, is at least coh=
> erent.
> >
> > > > > But who else says that Octavius/Octavian/Caesar was a great boozer?=
> Anton=
> > > > y
> > > > > yes, and his successor Biberius Caldius Mero; but that sickly youth=
> who t=
> > > > ook
> > > > > such great care of himself?
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> > > > > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihi=
> > > > ook
> > > > > such great care of himself?
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > > > > 67 St Bernard's Road
> > > > > Oxford
> > > > > usque adeone
> l est,=
> > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> >
> > > > > tel. +44 (0) 1865 552808 (home)/353865 (work) fax +44 (0) 1865 5=
> > > > nisi ME scire hoc sciat
> > > > > alter?
> >
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 10:04:27 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Something went a bit awry with my posting - I think the first version
of two posts above went just to you by e-mail and I re-typed a second
version.
On CIL 1645
si quis forte meam cupiet violare puellam
illum in desertis montibus urat Amor
I am convinced that this must be Gallus, not just because of Tibullus
probable imitation at 1.3.81-2 and that "desertis montibus" is Gallan
geography and vocabulary, but also because it seems to me that there
is a Greek wordplay "montibus = ouresi" "*ur*at". The elision "illum
in" puts me in mind of Ecl. 10.13-14 "illum etiam"; "illum etiam" but
my ear / knowledge lacks the necessary sensitivity to detect whether
there is anything particularly unusual going on; cf. also Prop. 1.1.13
"ille etiam" (Milanion/Atalanta derived from Gallus).
Is it known or guessable when the first commentaries on the Eclogues
came out - i.e. is there any probability or possibility that they came
out during Vergil's (and Gallus' lifetime)? Am I right in thinking
that the commentary/commentaries on Cinna's Smyrna came out during
Cinna's lifetime?
Re the Laudes Galli, it is difficult to gauge the assiduity with which
Gallus' memory was erased, but the signs are that it may have been
pretty comprehensive - the reuse of the Philae stela and the removal
of the inscription on the vatican obelisk; where are all the other
statues which he is said to have set up literally everywhere in Egypt;
and, indeed, the near removal of Gallus' pivotal role in the
Alexandrian campaign from most of the historians; and, consistently,
with this the complete absence of any information about his doings
(which must have been fairly stellar) in between say 38BC and 29BC;
Dio implies that he, albeit an eques, had been the 'favourite' of the
senate, but no record of any of this either. The total loss of his
poetry fits well into this context.
Even taking allowing for this, though, your point is still a near
insuperable obstacle to taking Servius at full face value. However,
all that is really required for the substantial truth of the story is
that (i) Octavian/Augustus was aware of Vergil's intentions having
heard a 'pre-publication' version of the Georgics (as he would of
course have been - cf. the readings of Aen. 6 and the correspondence
from Augustus to Vergil re the early stages of the Aeneid (and the
statements in the Vita re V.'s practice of trying out draft sections
on small audiences) (in Atella in 29BC? - would this really have been
the final version of the Georgics, as the chronological argument -
i.e. Griffin (1979) seems to assume); (ii) that the ending was changed
'pre-publication'; and (iii) this fact was known to a commentator
(vel. sim.) on Vergil (Varius fits the bill admirably, given that not
only does he edit the Aen. but it seems clear that he gave some
account of Verg.'s poetic practice - Quintilian - I can't remember the
full reference).
of two posts above went just to you by e-mail and I re-typed a second
version.
On CIL 1645
si quis forte meam cupiet violare puellam
illum in desertis montibus urat Amor
I am convinced that this must be Gallus, not just because of Tibullus
probable imitation at 1.3.81-2 and that "desertis montibus" is Gallan
geography and vocabulary, but also because it seems to me that there
is a Greek wordplay "montibus = ouresi" "*ur*at". The elision "illum
in" puts me in mind of Ecl. 10.13-14 "illum etiam"; "illum etiam" but
my ear / knowledge lacks the necessary sensitivity to detect whether
there is anything particularly unusual going on; cf. also Prop. 1.1.13
"ille etiam" (Milanion/Atalanta derived from Gallus).
Is it known or guessable when the first commentaries on the Eclogues
came out - i.e. is there any probability or possibility that they came
out during Vergil's (and Gallus' lifetime)? Am I right in thinking
that the commentary/commentaries on Cinna's Smyrna came out during
Cinna's lifetime?
Re the Laudes Galli, it is difficult to gauge the assiduity with which
Gallus' memory was erased, but the signs are that it may have been
pretty comprehensive - the reuse of the Philae stela and the removal
of the inscription on the vatican obelisk; where are all the other
statues which he is said to have set up literally everywhere in Egypt;
and, indeed, the near removal of Gallus' pivotal role in the
Alexandrian campaign from most of the historians; and, consistently,
with this the complete absence of any information about his doings
(which must have been fairly stellar) in between say 38BC and 29BC;
Dio implies that he, albeit an eques, had been the 'favourite' of the
senate, but no record of any of this either. The total loss of his
poetry fits well into this context.
Even taking allowing for this, though, your point is still a near
insuperable obstacle to taking Servius at full face value. However,
all that is really required for the substantial truth of the story is
that (i) Octavian/Augustus was aware of Vergil's intentions having
heard a 'pre-publication' version of the Georgics (as he would of
course have been - cf. the readings of Aen. 6 and the correspondence
from Augustus to Vergil re the early stages of the Aeneid (and the
statements in the Vita re V.'s practice of trying out draft sections
on small audiences) (in Atella in 29BC? - would this really have been
the final version of the Georgics, as the chronological argument -
i.e. Griffin (1979) seems to assume); (ii) that the ending was changed
'pre-publication'; and (iii) this fact was known to a commentator
(vel. sim.) on Vergil (Varius fits the bill admirably, given that not
only does he edit the Aen. but it seems clear that he gave some
account of Verg.'s poetic practice - Quintilian - I can't remember the
full reference).
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Jan 20, 2009, 10:36:32 AM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
CIL: which volume?
The eilsion illum is is not remarkable in itself, especially in a pre-Augustan poet; Augustans tend to be charier of elision in elegiacs than in stichic hexameters and more so in even the first half of the pentameter, but I shouldn't care to so there is no parallel. Obviously one wouldn't turn a hair at elided illum in the Great Elider, Vergil, with or without Gallus as a precedent, nor is the short-vowel elision ille etiam in the hexameter of an elegiac couplet; but taken together with their contexts they do suggest that Gallus may have begun a line with ille etiam or illum etiam. But there is no etiam in the inscribed couplet; Gallus could perfectly well have begun a pentameter with elided illum, but he is hardly unique in that.
Cinna's Zmyrna needed a commentary because it was so learnedly obscure; I don't know offhand about any commentarues on Vergil in his lifetime, but I'll look.
If Vergil had any political sense at all, he would have known it was no longer a good idea to praise Gallus without any need of a hint from the top; nor need he have intended more than a few lines, let alone written them. That is credible, but not that he circulated two or three hundred lines on Gallus that needed to be recalled. Such praise would have been excessive even if Gallus had remained on good terms with the boss.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > Ah yes, ;Agrippae, Marce et quod in medio est concurrite Agrippae', one o=
> f those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the point; and =
> from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the second trochee=
> is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone before Donatus=
> might have eliminated the quotations as overloading the schoolboys with cl=
> umsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh equally whoever=
> first noticed the parallels might, if he wrote soon after Vergil's death, =
> have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a time when read=
> ers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far better read =
> in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up there was s=
> o little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right that removal=
> from the libraries meant that casual readers never clapped eyes on him but=
> that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why I don't be=
> lieve the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that copies in pri=
> vate hands would have survived, ready to surface say under Caligula, yet no=
> -one ever claims to quote a word of it; Augustan Rome was not like Henry VI=
> II's England, when at a word from the king Becket's name was deleted even f=
> ..
> ;
> > > > and Geo. 4.314), and probably "parat" somewhere - compare Mart. Spect=
> ..
> > > > 28.7 "dumque parat ... fera proelia" with Ov. AA. 1.177. I see Ov. Am=
> ..
> s is=
> > > a poem about a nobody that was swept up into the collection on the m=
> isunde=
> > > rstanding that he was; I doubt whether anyone has ever thought the latt=
> er. =
> > > By 'of course' I meant that (assuming Octavius is who we think) 'hunc s=
> uper=
> > > esse patri quae fuit inuidia?', if taken seriously, invites the answer =
> ique=
> > > of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustu=
> s' sab=
> > > re-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not=
> sur=
> > > vive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovi=
> d an=
> > > d Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was su=
> he w=
> > > as so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but qui=
> s de=
> > > us, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line,=
> is u=
> > > nheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, b=
> ions=
> > > (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think=
> of hi=
> > > m getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we=
> kno=
> > > w about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly c=
> alcu=
> > > lating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if on=
> ding
> > > > > > to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the ex=
> act
> > > > > > reversal of "tu / maxima ... pars eris" (JC) (confirming incident=
> ally=
> > > ,
> > > > > > if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit")=
> n
> > > > > > such slipshod manner...!
> >
> > > > > > Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this=
> as I
> > > > > > do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that t=
> bega=
> > > n
> > > > > > "Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will av=
> e ho=
> > > w
> > > > > > this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (=
> is
> > > > > > "Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo=
> ..
> > > > > > 4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment b=
> rse,
> > > > > > be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated =
> with
> > > > > > the Iliad.
> >
> > > > > > Re "Octavi", while CJDF's friends and supporters might call invar=
> more
> > > > > > than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agripp=
> a's
> > > > > > 'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggesti=
> on
> > > > > > that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it shoul=
> o
> > > > > > assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, whic=
> h
> > > > > > raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why=
> do
> > > > > > we have in the Vergilian commentary tradition lines from Cinna, C=
> abou=
> > > t
> > > > > > 'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagin=
> e on=
> > > e
> > > > > > without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later=
> hoes=
> > > Gallu=
> > > > > > s
> > > > > > > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of th=
> e Ap=
> > > pendix=
> > > > > > );
> > > > > > > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' =
> (for=
> > > nulla=
> > > > > > !),
> > > > > > > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, howe=
> ver,=
> > > while=
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of =
> Buc.=
> > > 1. 6'
> > > > > > > (deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going ba=
The eilsion illum is is not remarkable in itself, especially in a pre-Augustan poet; Augustans tend to be charier of elision in elegiacs than in stichic hexameters and more so in even the first half of the pentameter, but I shouldn't care to so there is no parallel. Obviously one wouldn't turn a hair at elided illum in the Great Elider, Vergil, with or without Gallus as a precedent, nor is the short-vowel elision ille etiam in the hexameter of an elegiac couplet; but taken together with their contexts they do suggest that Gallus may have begun a line with ille etiam or illum etiam. But there is no etiam in the inscribed couplet; Gallus could perfectly well have begun a pentameter with elided illum, but he is hardly unique in that.
Cinna's Zmyrna needed a commentary because it was so learnedly obscure; I don't know offhand about any commentarues on Vergil in his lifetime, but I'll look.
If Vergil had any political sense at all, he would have known it was no longer a good idea to praise Gallus without any need of a hint from the top; nor need he have intended more than a few lines, let alone written them. That is credible, but not that he circulated two or three hundred lines on Gallus that needed to be recalled. Such praise would have been excessive even if Gallus had remained on good terms with the boss.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> f those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the point; and =
> from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the second trochee=
> , a fault unless a conscious parody of something.
> >
> > Not just Theocritus and Apollonius; we also have statements that a verse =
> >
> is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone before Donatus=
> might have eliminated the quotations as overloading the schoolboys with cl=
> umsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh equally whoever=
> first noticed the parallels might, if he wrote soon after Vergil's death, =
> have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a time when read=
> ers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far better read =
> in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up there was s=
> o little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right that removal=
> from the libraries meant that casual readers never clapped eyes on him but=
> that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why I don't be=
> lieve the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that copies in pri=
> vate hands would have survived, ready to surface say under Caligula, yet no=
> -one ever claims to quote a word of it; Augustan Rome was not like Henry VI=
> II's England, when at a word from the king Becket's name was deleted even f=
> rom private calendars.)
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > For the "parat" I should also have noted Prop. 3.4.3-4 "magna, Quiris,
> > > merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; / Tigris et Euphrates sub tua
> > > iura fluent".
> >
> > > On 20 Jan, 12:40, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'd belatedly realised that "quis deus Caesar" was unmetrical. I'd
> > > > like to keep "Caesar" here: cf. Prop. 3.4.1 "arma deus Caesar" and Ov=
> >
> > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> >
> >
> > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > For the "parat" I should also have noted Prop. 3.4.3-4 "magna, Quiris,
> > > merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; / Tigris et Euphrates sub tua
> > > iura fluent".
> >
> > > On 20 Jan, 12:40, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > I'd belatedly realised that "quis deus Caesar" was unmetrical. I'd
> ..
> > > > AA. 1.177 "ecce parat Caesar". "quis deus, O Caesar" does perfectly
> > > > (cf. [Verg] Cat. 11.1 "quis deus, O-ctavi".
> >
> > > > I'd also have "proelia dura v -" finishing the next pentameter (cf.
> > > > [Verg]. Cat. 11.1-2; Prop. 3.5.1-2 (the companion piece to Prop. 3.4)=
> > > > (cf. [Verg] Cat. 11.1 "quis deus, O-ctavi".
> >
> > > > I'd also have "proelia dura v -" finishing the next pentameter (cf.
> ;
> > > > and Geo. 4.314), and probably "parat" somewhere - compare Mart. Spect=
> ..
> > > > 28.7 "dumque parat ... fera proelia" with Ov. AA. 1.177. I see Ov. Am=
> ..
> > > > 1.8.96 "proelia durat Amor" as probably combining (at least) two
> > > > Gallan lines - our one with our "proelia dura" and CIL 1645.2 "illum
> > > > in desertis montibus *urat Amor*" (if this is Gallus). The present
> > > > putative couplet as a whole would approximate to Il. 1.2 and Il. 1.8.
> >
> > > > The point re Agrippa was that while he dropped the Vipsanius, his
> > > > detractors did not: Sen. Contr. 2.4.13.
> >
> > > > The point re whether actual verses of Gallus were in the Vergilian
> > > > commentary tradition is one which interests me. Comparing Servius'
> > > > note on l.46: "hi omnes versus Galli sunt" with other similar Servian
> > > > comments on Apollonius (Aen. 4.1) and Theocritus (I don't remember
> > > > which Ecl), suggests that this is shorthand for having seen a number
> > > > of actual parallels quoted? I also cannot escape the feeling that
> > > > certain notes in Ecl. 10 convey more than can be deduced from the
> > > > text: i.e. contain vestiges of actual knowledge of Gallus' verses:
> > > > e.g. this handful: Ecl. 10.16 "stupentes amorem"; Ecl. 10.26 - why
> > > > Daphne out of all the many loves of Apollo; Syrinx out of those of
> > > > Pan; Ecl. 10.36 "Quid mihi cum urbibus, ubi sunt meretrices tam
> > > > pulchrae quam perfidae?'" - how does Serv. get this from Vergil's
> > > > text; Ecl. 10.42 "quid te iuvat inter frigora Gallicana
> > > > demorari?" (both "quid mihi cum" and "quid te iuvat" have the flavour
> > > > of poetry?); Ecl. 10.46 "procul a civitate, quae solebas solis urbibu=
> > > > Gallan lines - our one with our "proelia dura" and CIL 1645.2 "illum
> > > > in desertis montibus *urat Amor*" (if this is Gallus). The present
> > > > putative couplet as a whole would approximate to Il. 1.2 and Il. 1.8.
> >
> > > > The point re Agrippa was that while he dropped the Vipsanius, his
> > > > detractors did not: Sen. Contr. 2.4.13.
> >
> > > > The point re whether actual verses of Gallus were in the Vergilian
> > > > commentary tradition is one which interests me. Comparing Servius'
> > > > note on l.46: "hi omnes versus Galli sunt" with other similar Servian
> > > > comments on Apollonius (Aen. 4.1) and Theocritus (I don't remember
> > > > which Ecl), suggests that this is shorthand for having seen a number
> > > > of actual parallels quoted? I also cannot escape the feeling that
> > > > certain notes in Ecl. 10 convey more than can be deduced from the
> > > > text: i.e. contain vestiges of actual knowledge of Gallus' verses:
> > > > e.g. this handful: Ecl. 10.16 "stupentes amorem"; Ecl. 10.26 - why
> > > > Daphne out of all the many loves of Apollo; Syrinx out of those of
> > > > Pan; Ecl. 10.36 "Quid mihi cum urbibus, ubi sunt meretrices tam
> > > > pulchrae quam perfidae?'" - how does Serv. get this from Vergil's
> > > > text; Ecl. 10.42 "quid te iuvat inter frigora Gallicana
> > > > demorari?" (both "quid mihi cum" and "quid te iuvat" have the flavour
> s
> > > > frui." - note the "*sol*ebas *sol*is"; Ecl. 10.47.
> >
> > > > On 20 Jan, 10:31, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > > > Either Octavius is (however improperly) the Dictator's heir, or thi=
> > > > frui." - note the "*sol*ebas *sol*is"; Ecl. 10.47.
> >
> > > > On 20 Jan, 10:31, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> s is=
> > > a poem about a nobody that was swept up into the collection on the m=
> isunde=
> > > rstanding that he was; I doubt whether anyone has ever thought the latt=
> er. =
> > > By 'of course' I meant that (assuming Octavius is who we think) 'hunc s=
> uper=
> > > esse patri quae fuit inuidia?', if taken seriously, invites the answer =
> 'nul=
> > > la, nam utrique patri superfuit.'
> >
> > > > > I agree that Gallius was addressing the Dictator, because the techn=
> > > la, nam utrique patri superfuit.'
> >
> ique=
> > > of the verses would be decidely old-fashioned by the time of Augustu=
> s' sab=
> > > re-rattling against Parthia. Indeed, that may be why his poetry did not=
> sur=
> > > vive: it was all very well in its own day, but after Propertius and Ovi=
> d an=
> > > d Tibullus it just clunked. Still, in the first century AD there was su=
> rely=
> > > someone still alive who had read it.
> >
> > > > > Gallus' poem cannot have literally begun 'Quis deus Caesar' unless =
> > > someone still alive who had read it.
> >
> he w=
> > > as so monstrously old-fashioned as to drop the final s of deus; but qui=
> s de=
> > > us, o Caesar, would scan, or Caesar might have stood later in the line,=
> pro=
> > > bably in the fifth foot or at the end.
> >
> > > > > I'm not sure I've caught your point about Agrippa, who suppressed h=
> > > bably in the fifth foot or at the end.
> >
> is u=
> > > nheard-of nomen Vipsanius and styled himself, this newest of new men, b=
> y pr=
> > > aenomen and cognomen alone just like a nobilis,
> >
> > > > > No, we don't think of Imp. Caesar eschewing wine at Maecenas recept=
> > > aenomen and cognomen alone just like a nobilis,
> >
> ions=
> > > (that woudl certainly have aroused comment), but neither do we think=
> of hi=
> > > m getting hog-whimperlingly drunk like Antony. If there is one thing we=
> kno=
> > > w about him irrespective of friend and enemy was that he was a coolly c=
> alcu=
> > > lating young man; such types don't over-indulge even when robust, if on=
> ly b=
> > > ecause they might say something.
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > First off, apologies for the 'nullus pars': the point I was inten=
> > > ecause they might say something.
> >
> > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> ding
> > > > > > to make is that clearly "sed tu nullus eris" (Octavian) is the ex=
> act
> > > > > > reversal of "tu / maxima ... pars eris" (JC) (confirming incident=
> ally=
> > > ,
> > > > > > if confirmation were needed, that Gallus wrote "eris" not "erit")=
> ,
> > > > > > this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
> > > > > > difficult to take these points seriously when they're expressed i=
> > > > > > this being part of the humorous play off Gallus' poem. But it's
> n
> > > > > > such slipshod manner...!
> >
> > > > > > Am I right in thinking that, subject to your impression that this=
> is
> > > > > > late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
> > > > > > Octavian; Gallus' poem referred to JC; and you see the same joke =
> > > > > > late, you agree on the essential point: i.e. that Octavius is
> as I
> > > > > > do in the last couplet (query, does your "of course" imply that t=
> his
> > > > > > is already widely recognised?).
> >
> > > > > > I very much agree that Il. 1.8 is the ultimate model for all the =
> > > > > > is already widely recognised?).
> >
> "qui=
> > > s
> > > > > > deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
> > > > > > speculative point (i). The suggestion would be that Gallus' poem =
> > > s
> > > > > > deus"' and, in fact, this accords with the thinking behind my
> bega=
> > > n
> > > > > > "Quis deus, Caesar, [prepares war against the Parthians / will av=
> enge
> > > > > > Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
> > > > > > Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
> > > > > > movement of the poem might be quite similar to Hor. Odes 1.2. Not=
> > > > > > Crassus etc.]", the answer being either explicitly or implicitly
> > > > > > Dionysus, but the collocation "deus Caesar" being deliberate. The
> e ho=
> > > w
> > > > > > this would gives a much wider range of responses to Prop. 3.4.1 (=
> is
> > > > > > "Caesar" vocative or nominative; which Caesar?). My note that Geo=
> ..
> > > > > > 4.315 resembles Cat. 11.1 was more or less a throw-away comment b=
> ut I
> > > > > > now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
> > > > > > immediately preceding line Geo. 4.314. Gallus' poem would, of cou=
> > > > > > now note with interest the reference to Parthian battles in the
> rse,
> > > > > > be making the suggestion that Caesar's campaign is to be equated =
> with
> > > > > > the Iliad.
> >
> > > > > > Re "Octavi", while CJDF's friends and supporters might call invar=
> iabl=
> > > y
> > > > > > call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
> > > > > > detractors, especially those who take the deification of JC with =
> > > y
> > > > > > call him Caesar after 44BC (even in a sympotic context?), his
> more
> > > > > > than a pinch of salt as this poet seems to, would not (cf. Agripp=
> a's
> > > > > > 'Vipsanius')? (I'm not particularly beholden to my vague suggesti=
> on
> > > > > > that the author of this poem is indeed Gallus, just that it shoul=
> d be
> > > > > > dated to say 44BC-35BC).
> >
> > > > > > Assuming that the poem is late, does one not need for the point t=
> > > > > > dated to say 44BC-35BC).
> >
> o
> > > > > > assume that Gallus' poems are still widely available / read, whic=
> h
> > > > > > raises another question - how long does that remain true for? Why=
> do
> > > > > > we have in the Vergilian commentary tradition lines from Cinna, C=
> alvu=
> > > s
> > > > > > and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
> >
> > > > > > On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
> > > > > > infamous banquet of the 12 gods, although I suppose that is more =
> > > s
> > > > > > and even Valgius but not a single one of Gallus'?
> >
> > > > > > On Octavian's youthful excesses I had in mind in particular the
> abou=
> > > t
> > > > > > 'blasphemy' than alcoholic excesses, although it's hard to imagin=
> e on=
> > > e
> > > > > > without the other. Similarly, Antony's letters puncture the later=
> PR
> > > > > > of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
> > > > > > Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
> >
> > > > > > On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > > Certainly there is no difficulty in believing that Catal. 11 ec=
> > > > > > of Augustus as a paragon of sexual morality.Do we really think of
> > > > > > Octavian sipping milk and eating oatmeal at Maecenas' receptions?
> >
> > > > > > On 19 Jan, 21:44, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
> > > > > > <au...@gellius.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> hoes=
> > > Gallu=
> > > > > > s
> > > > > > > (I see I had written 'cf. Gallus' against l. 6 in my copy of th=
> e Ap=
> > > pendix=
> > > > > > );
> > > > > > > there is every difficulty in reading 'nullus' as 'nullus pars' =
> (for=
> > > nulla=
> > > > > > !),
> > > > > > > rather than the colloquial nullus = non. As to the date, howe=
> ver,=
> > > while=
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > should not, like Horsfall, describe v. 1 as a 'witty parody of =
> Buc.=
> > > 1. 6'
> > > > > > > (deus nobis haec otia fecit)--rather, it is a cliché going ba=
> ck t=
> > > o Ilia=
> > > > > > d 1.
> > > > > > > 8, for which I could cite over a dozen parallels--'Octaui' was =
> > > o Ilia=
> > > > > > d 1.
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 11:12:44 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Sorry CIL 4.1645 (it's a Pompeian graffito). It's been suggested
before that this is Gallus - e.g. Kennedy (1987) but I don't think
anyone has advanced the "ouresi" / "urat" wordplay (in further support
of which I'd advance Serv. ad Geo. 2.374 - "urus" (some sort of ox)
derived from απο των ορεων).
before that this is Gallus - e.g. Kennedy (1987) but I don't think
anyone has advanced the "ouresi" / "urat" wordplay (in further support
of which I'd advance Serv. ad Geo. 2.374 - "urus" (some sort of ox)
derived from απο των ορεων).
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 11:34:30 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Still on CIL 4.1645,
The couplet of Ovid's which I mentioned above, would seem also to be
playing off CIL 4.1645 - i.e. it's a humorous reversal ("make sure
there *is* a rival" then "[d]urat amor")
Ne securus amet nullo rivale, caveto; 95
non bene, si tollas proelia, durat amor.
(in passing, NB also Anth. Lat. 914.39-40 - "... durat amor" - pseudo-
Gallus has, perhaps, read Gallus).
The couplet of Ovid's which I mentioned above, would seem also to be
playing off CIL 4.1645 - i.e. it's a humorous reversal ("make sure
there *is* a rival" then "[d]urat amor")
Ne securus amet nullo rivale, caveto; 95
non bene, si tollas proelia, durat amor.
(in passing, NB also Anth. Lat. 914.39-40 - "... durat amor" - pseudo-
Gallus has, perhaps, read Gallus).
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 11:42:59 AM1/20/09
to Mantovano
(further in passing on Anth. Lat. 914:
Prop. 3.4.3-4 "magna, Quiris, merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; /
Tigris et Euphrates sub tua iura fluent" (which I mentioned above as
likely deriving from the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2 is part) supports
my earlier suggestion that Gallus got to something like . "Pingit et
Euphratis currentes mollius undas" (Anth. Lat. 914.53) before Vergil
got to "finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis" Aen. 8.726.)
Prop. 3.4.3-4 "magna, Quiris, merces: parat ultima terra triumphos; /
likely deriving from the poem of which Gallus Fr. 2 is part) supports
my earlier suggestion that Gallus got to something like . "Pingit et
Euphratis currentes mollius undas" (Anth. Lat. 914.53) before Vergil
got to "finxerat; Euphrates ibat iam mollior undis" Aen. 8.726.)
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 12:05:58 PM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Finally, a query: what would the likely fate of Gallus' actual body
have been, assuming that there was something akin to a formal damnatio
memoriae? Would it have simply been tossed in the Tiber? Or might his
suicide before conviction have been expected to lead to better
treatment?
have been, assuming that there was something akin to a formal damnatio
memoriae? Would it have simply been tossed in the Tiber? Or might his
suicide before conviction have been expected to lead to better
treatment?
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jan 20, 2009, 1:23:56 PM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
At least pseudo-Gallus has read Ovid.
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
Jan 20, 2009, 1:33:51 PM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Presumably his household had laready buried him; we shouldn't assume any
special measures we aren't told of or can't see for ourselves. It was his
name, not his body, that needed wiping out.
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>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: More Gallus and Pseudo-Vergil
special measures we aren't told of or can't see for ourselves. It was his
name, not his body, that needed wiping out.
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>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 5:05 PM
Subject: VIRGIL: Re: More Gallus and Pseudo-Vergil
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 2:41:48 PM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Re 'at least ps-Gallus has read Ovid', you mean because ps.-Gallus has
"durat amor" rather than "urat amor". Perhaps. But I harbour the vague
suspicion that both "durat amor" and "urat amor" are Gallan - the
other Ovidian instance of "durat amor" is Am. 2.19.23-4, where in the
immediately preceding line one has Gallan(?) "frigora... pati" (cf.
Ecl. 10). So Am. 1.8.95-6 would have Ovid changing Gallan "urat amor"
from the CIL couplet to Gallan "durat amor" (and if "proelia dura" is
also Gallan, the line would be a combination of three Gallan lines).
On 20 Jan, 18:33, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
"durat amor" rather than "urat amor". Perhaps. But I harbour the vague
suspicion that both "durat amor" and "urat amor" are Gallan - the
other Ovidian instance of "durat amor" is Am. 2.19.23-4, where in the
immediately preceding line one has Gallan(?) "frigora... pati" (cf.
Ecl. 10). So Am. 1.8.95-6 would have Ovid changing Gallan "urat amor"
from the CIL couplet to Gallan "durat amor" (and if "proelia dura" is
also Gallan, the line would be a combination of three Gallan lines).
On 20 Jan, 18:33, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
falmouth
Jan 20, 2009, 3:12:42 PM1/20/09
to Mantovano
Btw, while we're on these complete unproveables / undisproveables (or
rather while I am...!), I wonder whether if asked to guess what the
first two words of Gallus Am. 1.1 were, you'd reach the same guess as
me? The exercise is perhaps not as quixotic as it seems, given that it
is inconceivable that the later elegists would not respond to Gallus'
first line.
rather while I am...!), I wonder whether if asked to guess what the
first two words of Gallus Am. 1.1 were, you'd reach the same guess as
me? The exercise is perhaps not as quixotic as it seems, given that it
is inconceivable that the later elegists would not respond to Gallus'
first line.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jan 20, 2009, 6:05:46 PM1/20/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Sorry, am I being obtuse? How does the rest of the line go? Preumably not
fr. 2. 6 Courtney, where I should epxect tp supply talia iam. Or if I am to
poetize in the void, why only the first two words? Prima Lycoris?
Leofranc
fr. 2. 6 Courtney, where I should epxect tp supply talia iam. Or if I am to
poetize in the void, why only the first two words? Prima Lycoris?
Leofranc
falmouth
Jan 21, 2009, 4:21:51 AM1/21/09
to Mantovano
It was, if anything, an obtuse question...!
My guess is "me miserum!"
(1) Propertius' improvement would be to put Cynthia first. I think
this is a play (i.e. Cynthia is even more central than Lycoris; Prop.
is even more subordinated) he makes vis-a-vis Gallus a number of times
(esp. Prop. 2.1.3-4 - not Calliope, not Apollo (as for Gallus) but
Cynthia; Prop. 1.10.29 to Gallus "is poterit felix *una* remanere
puella").
(2) Ovid's joke would be that his work does not get started until he's
been given the shove by Apollo (a pastiche of Callimachus and Gallus,
presumably rather than any of the other elegists) "accipe...
opus" (Am. 1.1.24) - "me miserum!" (Am. 1.1.25).
(3) If correct, I wonder whether Gallus' intention was, in part,
generic - i.e. making the link between funereal elegy and this other
sort of 'flebilis' elegy.
On 20 Jan, 23:05, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
My guess is "me miserum!"
(1) Propertius' improvement would be to put Cynthia first. I think
this is a play (i.e. Cynthia is even more central than Lycoris; Prop.
is even more subordinated) he makes vis-a-vis Gallus a number of times
(esp. Prop. 2.1.3-4 - not Calliope, not Apollo (as for Gallus) but
Cynthia; Prop. 1.10.29 to Gallus "is poterit felix *una* remanere
puella").
(2) Ovid's joke would be that his work does not get started until he's
been given the shove by Apollo (a pastiche of Callimachus and Gallus,
presumably rather than any of the other elegists) "accipe...
opus" (Am. 1.1.24) - "me miserum!" (Am. 1.1.25).
(3) If correct, I wonder whether Gallus' intention was, in part,
generic - i.e. making the link between funereal elegy and this other
sort of 'flebilis' elegy.
On 20 Jan, 23:05, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jan 21, 2009, 4:37:44 AM1/21/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
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 -----
falmouth
Jan 21, 2009, 6:33:02 AM1/21/09
to Mantovano
Leofranc, your last post came out as blank.
On 21 Jan, 09:37, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
On 21 Jan, 09:37, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
Jan 21, 2009, 8:14:52 AM1/21/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com
Oops, I went to forward it to my other email address but hit the wrong
button.
button.
falmouth
Jan 27, 2009, 8:04:18 AM1/27/09
to Mantovano
Re
Even more strikingly: with
sic *mihi* durat *amor* longosque adol*escit in annos*;
hoc iuvat; haec animi sunt alimenta mei.
(Am. 2.19.23-4)
compare
Gallo, cuius *amor* tantum *mihi* cr*escit in horas*,
Ecl. 10.73
On 21 Jan, 13:14, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
"the other Ovidian instance of "durat amor" is Am. 2.19.23-4, where in
the
immediately preceding line one has Gallan(?) "frigora... pati" (cf.
Ecl. 10"
above:
the
immediately preceding line one has Gallan(?) "frigora... pati" (cf.
Ecl. 10"
Even more strikingly: with
sic *mihi* durat *amor* longosque adol*escit in annos*;
hoc iuvat; haec animi sunt alimenta mei.
(Am. 2.19.23-4)
compare
Gallo, cuius *amor* tantum *mihi* cr*escit in horas*,
Ecl. 10.73
On 21 Jan, 13:14, "Leofranc Holford-Strevens"
Martin50
Feb 3, 2009, 9:23:30 AM2/3/09
to Mantovano
Perhaps the story that became official about the disposal of the body
of Pompey the Great, where the Egyptians make arrangements that the
elder Caesar tacitly approves, sets a pattern and provides an
indication of what you could expect to happen to your remains if you
became an enemy of the dynasty. The Caesars are no Creons, bodies are
not violated. Faithful retainers, the sort of people who can show
pietas but not have political ambitions, deal with the remains
decently but discreetly, and somehow manage to make the grave ultra-
impermanent or somehow very obscure.
In the case of Gallus ('vain, eloquent and ambitious' according to the
ever anti-V Syme) the Senate voted to make a sacrifice, a bouthusia,
in the context of his death and disgrace, which suggests that the
official account of G's misdeeds made it seem as if some impiety had
been committed and needed to be expiated. Perhaps the boasts of G,
who was not even of senatorial rank, that in his military expeditions
he had outdone Roman senators and Egyptian kings, would be enough to
make consular blood boil. Still, I have a feeling - I know feelings
aren't evidence - that some religious matter was involved and that
there is some link between the Senate's bouthusia and V's bougonia,
making Geo.IV allude to Gallus even if not praise him.
of Pompey the Great, where the Egyptians make arrangements that the
elder Caesar tacitly approves, sets a pattern and provides an
indication of what you could expect to happen to your remains if you
became an enemy of the dynasty. The Caesars are no Creons, bodies are
not violated. Faithful retainers, the sort of people who can show
pietas but not have political ambitions, deal with the remains
decently but discreetly, and somehow manage to make the grave ultra-
impermanent or somehow very obscure.
In the case of Gallus ('vain, eloquent and ambitious' according to the
ever anti-V Syme) the Senate voted to make a sacrifice, a bouthusia,
in the context of his death and disgrace, which suggests that the
official account of G's misdeeds made it seem as if some impiety had
been committed and needed to be expiated. Perhaps the boasts of G,
who was not even of senatorial rank, that in his military expeditions
he had outdone Roman senators and Egyptian kings, would be enough to
make consular blood boil. Still, I have a feeling - I know feelings
aren't evidence - that some religious matter was involved and that
there is some link between the Senate's bouthusia and V's bougonia,
making Geo.IV allude to Gallus even if not praise him.
au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
Feb 3, 2009, 9:30:35 AM2/3/09
to mant...@googlegroups.com, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk
After all, it was the brutal mob that yelled Tiberium in Tiberim; the senate saw to it that the decent thing was done.
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> > OX2 6EJ scire MEVM nihil est,=
> > > > (in passing, NB also Anth. Lat. 914.39-40 - "... durat amor" - pseudo=
> he
> > > > > > Great Elider, Vergil, with or without Gallus as a precedent, nor =
> t
> > > > > > alone written them. That is credible, but not that he circulated =
> ey
> > > > > > > came
> > > > > > > out during Vergil's (and Gallus' lifetime)? Am I right in think=
> ing
> > > > > > > that the commentary/commentaries on Cinna's Smyrna came out dur=
> ing
> > > > > > > Cinna's lifetime?
> >
> > > > > > > Re the Laudes Galli, it is difficult to gauge the assiduity wit=
> h
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > Gallus' memory was erased, but the signs are that it may have b=
> of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > senate, but no record of any of this either. The total loss of =
> ory
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that (i) Octavian/Augustus was aware of Vergil's intentions hav=
> ing
> > > > > > > heard a 'pre-publication' version of the Georgics (as he would =
> e
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > the final version of the Georgics, as the chronological argumen=
> or
> > > > > > > (vel. sim.) on Vergil (Varius fits the bill admirably, given th=
> l's
> > > > > > > death, =
> > > > > > > have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a ti=
> on
> > > > > > > him but=
> > > > > > > that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why=
Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> -
> > > > Gallus has, perhaps, read Gallus).
> >
> > > > On 20 Jan, 16:12, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Sorry CIL 4.1645 (it's a Pompeian graffito). It's been suggested
> > > > > before that this is Gallus - e.g. Kennedy (1987) but I don't think
> > > > > anyone has advanced the "ouresi" / "urat" wordplay (in further supp=
> > > > Gallus has, perhaps, read Gallus).
> >
> > > > On 20 Jan, 16:12, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Sorry CIL 4.1645 (it's a Pompeian graffito). It's been suggested
> > > > > before that this is Gallus - e.g. Kennedy (1987) but I don't think
> ort
> > > > > of which I'd advance Serv. ad Geo. 2.374 - "urus" (some sort of ox)
> > > > > derived from áðï ôùí ïñåùí).
> > > > > of which I'd advance Serv. ad Geo. 2.374 - "urus" (some sort of ox)
> >
> > > > > On 20 Jan, 15:36, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > > > > CIL: which volume?
> >
> > > > > > The eilsion illum is is not remarkable in itself, especially in a
> > > > > > pre-Augustan poet; Augustans tend to be charier of elision in
> > > > > > elegiacs than in stichic hexameters and more so in even the first
> > > > > > half of the pentameter, but I shouldn't care to so there is no
> > > > > > parallel. Obviously one wouldn't turn a hair at elided illum in t=
> > > > > On 20 Jan, 15:36, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > > > > > CIL: which volume?
> >
> > > > > > The eilsion illum is is not remarkable in itself, especially in a
> > > > > > pre-Augustan poet; Augustans tend to be charier of elision in
> > > > > > elegiacs than in stichic hexameters and more so in even the first
> > > > > > half of the pentameter, but I shouldn't care to so there is no
> he
> > > > > > Great Elider, Vergil, with or without Gallus as a precedent, nor =
> is
> > > > > > the short-vowel elision ille etiam in the hexameter of an elegiac
> > > > > > couplet; but taken together with their contexts they do suggest t=
> > > > > > the short-vowel elision ille etiam in the hexameter of an elegiac
> hat
> > > > > > Gallus may have begun a line with ille etiam or illum etiam. But
> > > > > > there is no etiam in the inscribed couplet; Gallus could perfectl=
> > > > > > Gallus may have begun a line with ille etiam or illum etiam. But
> y
> > > > > > well have begun a pentameter with elided illum, but he is hardly
> > > > > > unique in that.
> >
> > > > > > Cinna's Zmyrna needed a commentary because it was so learnedly
> > > > > > obscure; I don't know offhand about any commentarues on Vergil in
> > > > > > his lifetime, but I'll look.
> >
> > > > > > If Vergil had any political sense at all, he would have known it =
> > > > > > well have begun a pentameter with elided illum, but he is hardly
> > > > > > unique in that.
> >
> > > > > > Cinna's Zmyrna needed a commentary because it was so learnedly
> > > > > > obscure; I don't know offhand about any commentarues on Vergil in
> > > > > > his lifetime, but I'll look.
> >
> was
> > > > > > no longer a good idea to praise Gallus without any need of a hint
> > > > > > from the top; nor need he have intended more than a few lines, le=
> > > > > > no longer a good idea to praise Gallus without any need of a hint
> t
> > > > > > alone written them. That is credible, but not that he circulated =
> two
> > > > > > or three hundred lines on Gallus that needed to be recalled. Such
> > > > > > praise would have been excessive even if Gallus had remained on g=
> > > > > > or three hundred lines on Gallus that needed to be recalled. Such
> ood
> > > > > > terms with the boss.
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Something went a bit awry with my posting - I think the first
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > of two posts above went just to you by e-mail and I re-typed a
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > version.
> >
> > > > > > > On CIL 1645
> > > > > > > si quis forte meam cupiet violare puellam
> > > > > > > illum in desertis montibus urat Amor
> > > > > > > I am convinced that this must be Gallus, not just because of
> > > > > > > Tibullus
> > > > > > > probable imitation at 1.3.81-2 and that "desertis montibus" is
> > > > > > > Gallan
> > > > > > > geography and vocabulary, but also because it seems to me that
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is a Greek wordplay "montibus = ouresi" "*ur*at". The elision
> > > > > > > "illum
> > > > > > > in" puts me in mind of Ecl. 10.13-14 "illum etiam"; "illum etia=
> > > > > > terms with the boss.
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > > Leofranc Holford-Strevens
> >
> > > > > > adrianj...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Something went a bit awry with my posting - I think the first
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > of two posts above went just to you by e-mail and I re-typed a
> > > > > > > second
> > > > > > > version.
> >
> > > > > > > On CIL 1645
> > > > > > > si quis forte meam cupiet violare puellam
> > > > > > > illum in desertis montibus urat Amor
> > > > > > > I am convinced that this must be Gallus, not just because of
> > > > > > > Tibullus
> > > > > > > probable imitation at 1.3.81-2 and that "desertis montibus" is
> > > > > > > Gallan
> > > > > > > geography and vocabulary, but also because it seems to me that
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is a Greek wordplay "montibus = ouresi" "*ur*at". The elision
> > > > > > > "illum
> m"
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > my ear / knowledge lacks the necessary sensitivity to detect
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > there is anything particularly unusual going on; cf. also Prop.
> > > > > > > 1.1.13
> > > > > > > "ille etiam" (Milanion/Atalanta derived from Gallus).
> >
> > > > > > > Is it known or guessable when the first commentaries on the
> > > > > > > Eclogues
> > > > > > > came out - i.e. is there any probability or possibility that th=
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > my ear / knowledge lacks the necessary sensitivity to detect
> > > > > > > whether
> > > > > > > there is anything particularly unusual going on; cf. also Prop.
> > > > > > > 1.1.13
> > > > > > > "ille etiam" (Milanion/Atalanta derived from Gallus).
> >
> > > > > > > Is it known or guessable when the first commentaries on the
> > > > > > > Eclogues
> ey
> > > > > > > came
> > > > > > > out during Vergil's (and Gallus' lifetime)? Am I right in think=
> ing
> > > > > > > that the commentary/commentaries on Cinna's Smyrna came out dur=
> ing
> > > > > > > Cinna's lifetime?
> >
> > > > > > > Re the Laudes Galli, it is difficult to gauge the assiduity wit=
> h
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > Gallus' memory was erased, but the signs are that it may have b=
> een
> > > > > > > pretty comprehensive - the reuse of the Philae stela and the
> > > > > > > removal
> > > > > > > of the inscription on the vatican obelisk; where are all the ot=
> > > > > > > pretty comprehensive - the reuse of the Philae stela and the
> > > > > > > removal
> her
> > > > > > > statues which he is said to have set up literally everywhere in
> > > > > > > Egypt;
> > > > > > > and, indeed, the near removal of Gallus' pivotal role in the
> > > > > > > Alexandrian campaign from most of the historians; and,
> > > > > > > consistently,
> > > > > > > with this the complete absence of any information about his doi=
> > > > > > > statues which he is said to have set up literally everywhere in
> > > > > > > Egypt;
> > > > > > > and, indeed, the near removal of Gallus' pivotal role in the
> > > > > > > Alexandrian campaign from most of the historians; and,
> > > > > > > consistently,
> ngs
> > > > > > > (which must have been fairly stellar) in between say 38BC and
> > > > > > > 29BC;
> > > > > > > Dio implies that he, albeit an eques, had been the 'favourite' =
> > > > > > > (which must have been fairly stellar) in between say 38BC and
> > > > > > > 29BC;
> of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > senate, but no record of any of this either. The total loss of =
> his
> > > > > > > poetry fits well into this context.
> >
> > > > > > > Even taking allowing for this, though, your point is still a ne=
> > > > > > > poetry fits well into this context.
> >
> ar
> > > > > > > insuperable obstacle to taking Servius at full face value.
> > > > > > > However,
> > > > > > > all that is really required for the substantial truth of the st=
> > > > > > > insuperable obstacle to taking Servius at full face value.
> > > > > > > However,
> ory
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > that (i) Octavian/Augustus was aware of Vergil's intentions hav=
> ing
> > > > > > > heard a 'pre-publication' version of the Georgics (as he would =
> of
> > > > > > > course have been - cf. the readings of Aen. 6 and the
> > > > > > > correspondence
> > > > > > > from Augustus to Vergil re the early stages of the Aeneid (and =
> > > > > > > course have been - cf. the readings of Aen. 6 and the
> > > > > > > correspondence
> the
> > > > > > > statements in the Vita re V.'s practice of trying out draft
> > > > > > > sections
> > > > > > > on small audiences) (in Atella in 29BC? - would this really hav=
> > > > > > > statements in the Vita re V.'s practice of trying out draft
> > > > > > > sections
> e
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > > > the final version of the Georgics, as the chronological argumen=
> t -
> > > > > > > i.e. Griffin (1979) seems to assume); (ii) that the ending was
> > > > > > > changed
> > > > > > > 'pre-publication'; and (iii) this fact was known to a commentat=
> > > > > > > i.e. Griffin (1979) seems to assume); (ii) that the ending was
> > > > > > > changed
> or
> > > > > > > (vel. sim.) on Vergil (Varius fits the bill admirably, given th=
> at
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > only does he edit the Aen. but it seems clear that he gave some
> > > > > > > account of Verg.'s poetic practice - Quintilian - I can't remem=
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > only does he edit the Aen. but it seems clear that he gave some
> ber
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > full reference).
> >
> > > > > > > On 20 Jan, 14:10, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > > > > In reply to yourprevious message:
> >
> > > > > > > > Ah yes, ;Agrippae, Marce et quod in medio est concurrite
> > > > > > > > Agrippae', one o=
> > > > > > > f those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the
> > > > > > > point; and =
> > > > > > > from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the
> > > > > > > second trochee=
> > > > > > > , a fault unless a conscious parody of something.
> >
> > > > > > > > Not just Theocritus and Apollonius; we also have statements t=
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > full reference).
> >
> > > > > > > On 20 Jan, 14:10, au...@gellius.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > > > > > > > In reply to yourprevious message:
> >
> > > > > > > > Ah yes, ;Agrippae, Marce et quod in medio est concurrite
> > > > > > > > Agrippae', one o=
> > > > > > > f those awful Roman jokes in which the labour far outweighs the
> > > > > > > point; and =
> > > > > > > from 'quod' to 'Agrippae' matching a hexameter broken in the
> > > > > > > second trochee=
> > > > > > > , a fault unless a conscious parody of something.
> >
> hat
> > > > > > > > a verse =
> > > > > > > is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone
> > > > > > > before Donatus=
> > > > > > > might have eliminated the quotations as overloading the schoolb=
> > > > > > > > a verse =
> > > > > > > is taken from Ennius. Indeed Servius, or Donatus, or someone
> > > > > > > before Donatus=
> oys
> > > > > > > with cl=
> > > > > > > umsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh
> > > > > > > equally whoever=
> > > > > > > first noticed the parallels might, if he wrote soon after Vergi=
> > > > > > > with cl=
> > > > > > > umsy Latin and Greek thy were beginning to find hard; thogh
> > > > > > > equally whoever=
> l's
> > > > > > > death, =
> > > > > > > have forborne to write them out as being too well known at a ti=
> me
> > > > > > > when read=
> > > > > > > ers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far
> > > > > > > better read =
> > > > > > > in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up
> > > > > > > there was s=
> > > > > > > o little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right
> > > > > > > that removal=
> > > > > > > from the libraries meant that casual readers never clapped eyes=
> > > > > > > when read=
> > > > > > > ers had done Ennius at school, remembered Gallus, and were far
> > > > > > > better read =
> > > > > > > in Greek poetry than their successors because when they grew up
> > > > > > > there was s=
> > > > > > > o little Latin poetry worth reading. But I'm sure you're right
> > > > > > > that removal=
> on
> > > > > > > him but=
> > > > > > > that serious literary types could. (Incidentaly, one reason why=
> I
> > > > > > > don't be=
> > > > > > > lieve the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that
> > > > > > > copies in pri=
> > > > > > > vate hands would have survived, ready to surface say under
> > > > > > > Caligula, yet no=
> > > > > > > -one ever claims to quote a word of it; Augustan Rome was not l=
> > > > > > > don't be=
> > > > > > > lieve the story of the suppressed ending in Georgic 4 is that
> > > > > > > copies in pri=
> > > > > > > vate hands would have survived, ready to surface say under
> > > > > > > Caligula, yet no=
falmouth
Feb 3, 2009, 12:38:49 PM2/3/09
to Mantovano
@Martin50
Re your post, we did have an earlier discussion which touched on these
very points. I too think that the bouthusia implies some sort of
religious element to Gallus' transgressions - I tentatively suggested
temple-stripping in Egypt as a possibility. It's also tempting to see
some connection between the bougonia and the bouthusia (as Martin
Hughes suggested in that discussion), but if Geo. 4 as we have it does
allude to Gallus' demise, one has to face up to the chronological
difficulties - see the exchange above. Leofranc suggested the
possibility that whoever came up with the (assumedly false) report of
the Laudes Galli may have themselves made the connection between
bougonia and bouthusia.
A link to the earlier discussion:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/730de0ef5e81095a
Re your post, we did have an earlier discussion which touched on these
very points. I too think that the bouthusia implies some sort of
religious element to Gallus' transgressions - I tentatively suggested
temple-stripping in Egypt as a possibility. It's also tempting to see
some connection between the bougonia and the bouthusia (as Martin
Hughes suggested in that discussion), but if Geo. 4 as we have it does
allude to Gallus' demise, one has to face up to the chronological
difficulties - see the exchange above. Leofranc suggested the
possibility that whoever came up with the (assumedly false) report of
the Laudes Galli may have themselves made the connection between
bougonia and bouthusia.
A link to the earlier discussion:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/730de0ef5e81095a
Martin50
Feb 8, 2009, 10:43:48 AM2/8/09
to Mantovano
'Martin50' turns out to be my new cognomen for this purposes - we're
having some problems with our email arrangements and may have to
change again fairly soon. But I'm still the same old, indeed ageing,
Martin Hughes. I'm sorry that I rather repeated myself.
There clearly are chronological problems with Gallus' death and Geo.
and with the bougonia/bouthusia allusion. I suppose that it's
possible that Gallus set things in motion by means of religious
experiments, suggesting that he was going to crack the problem of the
origin of life by means of Egyptian sacred traditions, which might not
have been a good idea for a Roman with no chance of becoming Pontifex
Maximus. V's bougonia might then have been a comment on these, the
Senate's bouthusia a means of bringing the sacred oxen back into the
confines of Western religious propriety. Whether Divus Augustus
himself was capable of being shocked by such things I don't suppose we
can be sure.
He might well have repented of having given Gallus the military
resources that enabled him to boast of expeditions and victories and
suspected that what the Raj would call a White Mutiny was in the
making. Something of the same pattern as we see with Salvidienus, the
consul-designate who never became consul, another man lacking the
instincts of a senator and (as the young Caesar might have decided one
day, with a sickening feeling) entrusted with too much and promoted
too far?
On 3 Feb, 17:38, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> @Martin50
>
> Re your post, we did have an earlier discussion which touched on these
> very points. I too think that the bouthusia implies some sort of
> religious element to Gallus' transgressions - I tentatively suggested
> temple-stripping in Egypt as a possibility. It's also tempting to see
> some connection between the bougonia and the bouthusia (as Martin
> Hughes suggested in that discussion), but if Geo. 4 as we have it does
> allude to Gallus' demise, one has to face up to the chronological
> difficulties - see the exchange above. Leofranc suggested the
> possibility that whoever came up with the (assumedly false) report of
> the Laudes Galli may have themselves made the connection between
> bougonia and bouthusia.
>
> A link to the earlier discussion:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/mantovano/browse_thread/thread/730de...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
having some problems with our email arrangements and may have to
change again fairly soon. But I'm still the same old, indeed ageing,
Martin Hughes. I'm sorry that I rather repeated myself.
There clearly are chronological problems with Gallus' death and Geo.
and with the bougonia/bouthusia allusion. I suppose that it's
possible that Gallus set things in motion by means of religious
experiments, suggesting that he was going to crack the problem of the
origin of life by means of Egyptian sacred traditions, which might not
have been a good idea for a Roman with no chance of becoming Pontifex
Maximus. V's bougonia might then have been a comment on these, the
Senate's bouthusia a means of bringing the sacred oxen back into the
confines of Western religious propriety. Whether Divus Augustus
himself was capable of being shocked by such things I don't suppose we
can be sure.
He might well have repented of having given Gallus the military
resources that enabled him to boast of expeditions and victories and
suspected that what the Raj would call a White Mutiny was in the
making. Something of the same pattern as we see with Salvidienus, the
consul-designate who never became consul, another man lacking the
instincts of a senator and (as the young Caesar might have decided one
day, with a sickening feeling) entrusted with too much and promoted
too far?
On 3 Feb, 17:38, falmouth <adrianj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> @Martin50
>
> Re your post, we did have an earlier discussion which touched on these
> very points. I too think that the bouthusia implies some sort of
> religious element to Gallus' transgressions - I tentatively suggested
> temple-stripping in Egypt as a possibility. It's also tempting to see
> some connection between the bougonia and the bouthusia (as Martin
> Hughes suggested in that discussion), but if Geo. 4 as we have it does
> allude to Gallus' demise, one has to face up to the chronological
> difficulties - see the exchange above. Leofranc suggested the
> possibility that whoever came up with the (assumedly false) report of
> the Laudes Galli may have themselves made the connection between
> bougonia and bouthusia.
>
> A link to the earlier discussion:
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages