Three morsels in Georgics 4

[falmouth]

(1) A play on sonitum

Mater, Cyrene mater, quae gurgitis huius

ima tenes, quid me praeclara stirpe deorum,

si modo, quem perhibes, pater est Thymbraeus Apollo,

invisum fatis genuisti? aut quo tibi nostri

pulsus amor? quid me caelum sperare iubebas?               325

En etiam hunc ipsum vitae mortalis honorem,

quem mihi vix frugum et pecudum custodia sollers

omnia temptanti extuderat, te matre relinquo.

Quin age et ipsa manu felices erue silvas,

fer stabulis inimicum ignem atque interfice messes,               330

 ure sata et validam in vites molire bipennem,

tanta meae si te ceperunt taedia laudis.

At mater sonitum thalamo sub fluminis alti

sensit. Eam circum Milesia vellera Nymphae

carpebant hyali saturo fucata colore,               335

The point which struck me is the line-beginnings at 322, 326, 328, 332 (note the patterned distribution - 1-*-3-*-1-*-3-* occupying the whole speech), where each has a combination of the sounds -n -t -m (the similarity can be illustrated by seeing that each of the line-beginnings is almost an anagram of the others (an exact example is 'ima tene...' (322) is an anagram of 'en etiam' (326)). I have also highlighted that at the end of Aristaeus' speech similar sound patterning seems to become intensified in other parts of the line.  

What is the point? Aristaeus is speaking to Cyrene through water. What Aristaeus speaks is heard by Cyrene  ('sensit. eam' - (-n -t -m) (almost 'en etiam')) not as words but as a sonitum (-n -t -m) [1], the distorted outlines of the words heard through the water [2]. Presumably, also 'mater' repeated x3 in Aristaeus' speech (321 x 2, 328) is just about heard by Cyrene ('mater' 333); one might even suggest that all she hears are various recombinations of Cyrene mater) [3].  

[1] Not immediately relevant to my point, but interesting, is Monteleone (1979) 43 note 37, pointing out the 'sonitum' is used of a human voice heard through water only one place elsewhere in Latin poetry, Prop. 1.20.47 postulating a common source in Gallus.

[2] One could compare other more obvious sound plays in Aristaeus/Orpheus episode: Geo. 4.465-6 'te, dulcis coniunx, te solo in litore secum / te ueniente die, te decedente canebat.' - Orpheus sings 'te' repeatedly; Geo. 4.525-7 'uolueret, Eurydicen uox ipsa et frigida lingua / a miseram Eurydicen! anima fugiente uocabat / Eurydicen toto referebant flumine ripae.' - the anaphora represents the echo.    

[3] Cf. too 4.349-357 (noting '-ine mater' at the end of 357) for confirmation that Cyrene can scarcely, if at all, hear what Aristaeus says - Arethusa has to synopsise this for her. 

(2) 'Ingenti... nocte' Geo. 4.497

Iamque vale: feror ingenti circumdata nocte

Geo. 4.497 (Eurydice's parting words to Orpheus)

has long been noticed to echo Eur. Phoen. 1453 - 'καὶ χαίρετ᾽: ἤδη γάρ με περιβάλλει σκότος'. But why 'ingenti... nocte' which has no counterpart in Eur. Phoen. 1453? Answer: to reinforce the allusion since Polyneices died at his brother's hands (i.e. a play on 'in - gens').

(3) 'observans' Geo. 4.513

qualis populea maerens Philomela sub umbra

amissos queritur fetus, quos durus arator

observans nido implumes detraxit; at illa

flet noctem ramoque sedens miserabile carmen

integrat et maestis late loca questibus implet.               515

The detail 'observans' seems to reflect nothing in the two Homeric models for this simile, viz. Hom. Od. 16.213-221 and Hom. Od. 19.515-529. Why 'observans'? If the nightingale/swallow [4] is 'Philomela', the 'arator' is presumably to be thought of as corresponding to Tereus. 'observans' reinforces the allusion to the Philomela/Tereus myth as a translation/etymology of 'εποψς', the bird into which Tereus was transformed, noting especially the corresponding play at  Sophocles Tereus Fr. 581 Jebb-Pearson 'εποπτην εποπα' [5].

[4] 'nightingale / swallow' to duck the issue as to why Philomela (traditionally transformed into a swallow) here seems to be the nightingale.

[5] The fragment comes from Aristotle HA 633a 18-71 where it is attributed to Aeschylus although the balance of the argument favours attribution to Sophocles (see Sommerstein, A., Talboy, T. and Fitzpatrick, D. (2006) 189). Ovid seems to pick up the etymologising - Ov. Met. 6.478-479: “spectat... videndo... cernens”; 6.499 “tuearis”; 6.515ff “nusquam lumen detorquet ab illa... spectat... raptor”; and perhaps already Accius Tereus: 'Conspexit ut eam, amore uecors flammeo.'.