Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:34:11.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gallus and the Fourth Georgic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

W. B. Anderson
W. B. Anderson
Affiliation:
The University, Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Everyone knows the statement of Servius that Virgil was compelled by Augustus to alter the second half of the Fourth Georgic after the fall of Gallus, and that he substituted the story of Aristaeus for the laudes Galli. This statement, often doubted by older generations, has had such a remarkable success in recent years that anyone who ventures to impugn it must feel that he is pleading with a halter round his neck before a one-sided jury. It is notable, however, that these jurors, though one-sided, are by no means united, save in their determination to uphold the credit of Servius. One group will assure us that the episode of Aristaeus shows obvious signs not only of haste but of immaturity, and they draw a pathetic picture of the grief-stricken Virgil, ordered to bring out a second edition minus the praises of his friend Gallus, and half-heartedly throwing together some bits of juvenile stuff which he happened to have handy. Others assure us that the tale of Aristaeus shows us a more mature Virgil, nearer to the Virgil of the Aeneid. But the Servians really cannot have it both ways. They must make up their minds in the one direction or in the other if they are to be taken seriously. They make it doubly difficult for us to take them seriously when they try to tell us what Servius meant—but of that more anon. The present paper is an attempt by a converted Servian to examine frankly the arguments which have been advanced in support of Servius. Most of these may be found in Skutsch, Aus Vergils Frühzeit, pp. 140–147. One is very reluctant to use disparaging words about an eminent scholar who has served the cause of learning in so many ways; but it can scarcely be denied that the work just mentioned, in spite of its ingenuity and enthusiasm, shows a lamentable lack of three great essentials—a judicial temper, accurate statement of facts, and cogent reasoning. There is also at times a regrettable vagueness of expression, suggesting that the author is concealing inward doubts or shrinking from thought. All these deficiencies are to some extent present in the section with which this paper is concerned.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1933 , pp. 36 - 45
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1933

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 37 note 1 This is a convenient place in which to mention the industrious arguments of DrSchmidt, Magdalena (Die Komposition von Vergils Georgica, Paderborn, 1930, pp. 161–180)Google Scholar. It is refreshing to find this author declaring that the story of Aristaeus is obviously an integral part of the poem as originally planned and written. Un-fortunately this promising start leads her into paths of extravagant wildness. Conveniently suppressing the words ut supra diximus, she conjectures that the note of Servius on Ecl. X. is a garbled reproduction of that on Georg. IV.; ultima pars in the latter note led either Servius or some other muddled person to write the inaccurate paraphrase a medio usque ad finem in the note; Aristaei is a false reading introduced by someone for Orphei. This foundation of sand is completed by the supposition that even the note on Georg. IV. must not be taken literally: Servius spoke loosely when he said nam laudes Galli habuit locus ille, etc.; the truth is that the laudes Galli began at or about v. 286, and when they had to be cut out Virgil consoled or contented himself with inserting the story of Orpheus in a later part of the book; in order to make room for this the original speech of Proteus was wiped out, save perhaps for the opening line, and some consequent alterations were made in the succeeding part. Dr. Schmidt makes a valiant attempt to calculate the original length of Proteus' speech and of the laudes and of the book as a whole, and she tells us some marvellous things about the form and content of the first edition, Her elaborate juggling with facts and figures is a pathetic example of zealous futility; she also shares some of the current misconceptions which this paper attempts to remove.

page 37 note 2 C.I.L. III. (Supp.) 141475. Dessa u 8995; Cagnat, , Inscr. Gr. ad. res Rom. pert. I. 1293Google Scholar; Sitzungsber. Berl. Ak. 1896, p. 469, etc. The stone, discovered at Philae, is dated April 17 (Dessau says 15), 29 B.C. The inscription as a whole and the sculpture of a Roman knight (evidently representing Gallus) which surmounts it show that Gallus's fatal arrogance was already apparent when he had been praefectus for little more than half a year. It is difficult to see why scholars have spoken of the inscription as confirming the story of Servius. It does nothing of the sort; indeed it can be used against Servius, as we shall see. Cass. Dio, LIII. 25. 5, says that Gallus set up his portrait in practically every part of Egypt; this implied a claim to more than human greatness.

page 38 note 1 Cass. Dio LI. 21.

page 38 note 2 Donat.-Suet. 27 (42).

page 38 note 3 Gardthausen's careful investigation confirms the opinion previously held, that this interview took place just before Octavian went to Rome for his triple triumph. I. van Wageningen would put it shortly after the triumph. His reasons are unconvincing, but even if they were accepted the above arguments would still hold good.

page 39 note 1 Donat.-Suet. 20 (31). Diehl and Brummer read in honore.

page 40 note 1 Od. IV. 435–446.

page 40 note 2 Vv. 415–418.

page 41 note 1 See Krebs-Schmalz, Antib., and Nettleship, Contrib. to Lat. Lexicography, s. v. experientia. Nettleship gives a useful collection of examples, but his acquaintance with the meaning of experientia does not prevent him from endorsing the usual stupid strictures on this part of the book: see Conington5, n. on v. 295.

page 41 note 2 A similar thought is implicit in Georg. I. 125–146.

page 41 note 3 The only other place where Virgil uses experientia is in Georg. I. 4, apibus quanta experientia parcis. Here ‘enterprise’ is probably the nearest English translation. Although commentators are generally agreed that habendis must be supplied from the previous line, and that the reference is to the bee-keeper, I feel sure that they are wrong; Virgil says he will tell how enterprising the bees are. This interpretation takes the Latin in the most natural way, and it saves Virgil from the crime of introducing an otiose ‘gradus-epithet’ at the end of the line.

The context, of course, leads one to expect anallusion to the bee-keeper, but only a prosaic person and one who does not know Virgil could object to this sudden change in the poet's attitude. The Fourth Georgic shows that Virgil was really much more interested in the bees themselves than in the actual work of the bee-keeper, and this predilection betrays itself here most charmingly in a half-unconscious glide from the practical to the sentimental. The combination of thrift (parcis) and enterprise is one very much after Virgil's heart, and describes admirably the chief characteristics of the bees. In his note on this line Nettleship, though adopting the view which I have here opposed, quotes a good example of experientia from Stat. Theb. VI. 775: is uigor ingenio, tanta experientia dextrae est. Stat. is writing of a youth, and the context shows the meaning of experientia to be ‘enterprise,’ ‘enterprising boldness.’

page 42 note 1 It should also be noticed that Virgil has skilfully avoided the necessity of placing the account of the Egyptian practice at the end of the book, immediately after the story of Aristaeus. This prosaic anticlimax would have been inevitable if he had started the Aristaeus-story immediately after v. 286, as his critics say he ought to have done.

page 42 note 2 See Pauly-Wissowa, R.E., s.v. Aristaios.

page 42 note 3 V. 315 has been sadly mishandled by commentators. Perhaps one may point out, for the benefit of their successors, that Aristaeus is not yet a god (see v. 325). that deus is not to understood with the second quis, and that the poet is appealing to the Muses in the usual fashion, as an ignorant mortal craving for enlightenment. It is to be hoped that this information will produce some improvement in the comments on the line as a whole, and particularly on extudit.

page 43 note 1 There is nothing like this in Homer.

page 43 note 2 No one seems to have noticed this reason for the unusual lengthening, which even caused Wagner to suspect the line.

page 43 note 3 The real, though concealed, meaning of tibi … suscitat (vv. 454–456) is: ‘This punishment the hapless Orpheus is seeking to stir up against you (and he would stir it up), did not the fates oppose him’ (i.e. if he could burst the barriers of death). Aristaeus naturally takes the words to mean ‘… is stirring up (and will continue to do so), unless fate should somehow intervene.’ He imagines Orpheus to be alive and constantly invoking non nullum numen for vengeance. Proteus wishes him to imagine this for the moment, in order that the coming revelation may break in upon him with greater force. The oracular ambages serve his purpose well. Aristaeus is misled also by rapta pro coniuge, as is indicated above.

page 43 note 4 Everyone with any sensitiveness to metre and rhythm must feel the effect of that te: one can almost hear the voice and see the finger pointed in accusation.

page 44 note 1 Cyrene is concerned for nothing but her son; after listening to the heart-rending narrative of Proteus she addresses Aristaeus with airy cheer-fulness:

Nate, licet tristes animo deponere curas.

She is a'prototype of the Venus of the Aeneid, who cheerfully prepares to wreck a woman's life in order to further the interests of her son Aeneas.

page 44 note 2 Placatam Eurydicen uitula uenerabere caesa. This recognition is due to Eurydice, but the sacrifice to Orpheus will have already appeased her—a fine touch, misunderstood by most commentators (rightly explained by P. Jahn in the ninth ed. of the Ladewig-Schaper-Deuticke commentary); the brusque, casual way in which cy r e ne mentions it is quite in character.

page 44 note 3 The unfortunate attempt of Schaper to find a significant discrepancy between the metre of the Aristaeus-story and that of the Georgics as a whole has been shown UP by Pulvermacher, , De Georgicis a Vergilio retractatis, pp. 67ndash;74Google Scholar.

page 45 note 1 See also Pulvermacher, , op. cit., p. 115 sqGoogle Scholar.

page 45 note 2 Ardent Vlrgilians generally regard the story of Servius as casting a halo round Virgil. They must have been grieved to read the following words, written presumably by one of their own company: ‘Der weiche Vergil entsprach diesem Ansinnen (of Augustus), das Horaz vielleicht zurückgewiesen hätte’ (Teuffel - Kroll - Skutsch, R.L. II., p. 31).