Women Scorned: A New Stichometric Allusion in the Aeneid

‫ۺ۠ۦۙۨۦٷ۩ۏ ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے‬ ‫ۏﯠﯙﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ‬ ‫‪̀ặẬẾẾẴẮẬặ ỀẬẽếẰẽặỄ‬‬ ‫‪ ẳẰ‬ۦۣۚ ۧۙۗ۝۪ۦۙۧ ۠ٷۣۢ۝ۨ۝ۘۘﯠ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۧۨۦۙ۠ٷ ۠۝ٷۡﯗ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۣۧۢ۝ۨۤ۝ۦۗۧۖ۩ۑ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤۧۨۢ۝ۦۤۙۦ ۠ٷ۝ۗۦۣۙۡۡﯙ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤ ۙۧ۩ ۣۚ ۧۡۦۙے‬ ‫ﯙﯢېےﯗﯞۍﯜﯙﯢےۑ ﯤﯗﯟ ﯠ ﮤﯚﯗﯟېۍﯙۑ ﯟﯗﯞۍﯤ‬ ‫́‪ ϋϋ‬ﯗﯜے ﯟﯢ ﯟۍﯢۑۓﮐﮐﯠ‬ ‫ۣۙ۫ﮐ ۢٷۨۧۢ۩ﯚ‬ ‫‪Ң‬ۀۀ ­ ھۀۀ ۤۤ ﮞڿڽڼھ ۺٷﯞ ﮡ ڽڼ ۙ۩ۧۧﯢ ﮡ ڿ‪ Џۣ۠۩ۡۙ ң‬ﮡ ۺ۠ۦۙۨۦٷ۩ۏ ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے‬ ‫ڿڽڼھ ۠۝ۦۤﯠ ۀھ ﮤۙۢ۝ۣ۠ۢ ۘۙۜۧ۝۠ۖ۩ێ ﮞھۀ‪Ү‬ڼڼڼھڽ‪үү‬ڿ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑﮡ‪Ү‬ڽڼڽﮠڼڽ ﮤﯢۍﯚ‬ ‫ھۀ‪Ү‬ڼڼڼھڽ‪үү‬ڿ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑﮰۨۗٷۦۨۧۖٷﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ ﮤۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷ ۧ۝ۜۨ ۣۨ ﭞۢ۝ﮐ‬ ‫ﮤۙ۠ۗ۝ۨۦٷ ۧ۝ۜۨ ۙۨ۝ۗ ۣۨ ۣ۫ﯜ‬ ‫ﯟﯢ ﯟۍﯢۑۓﮐﮐﯠ ﯙﯢېےﯗﯞۍﯜﯙﯢےۑ ﯤﯗﯟ ﯠ ﮤﯚﯗﯟېۍﯙۑ ﯟﯗﯞۍﯤ ﮠ‪۶‬ڿڽڼھڿ ۣۙ۫ﮐ ۢٷۨۧۢ۩ﯚ‬ ‫ﮡ‪Ү‬ڽڼڽﮠڼڽﮤ۝ۣۘ ‪Ң‬ۀۀ­ھۀۀ ۤۤ ﮞڿ‪ ң‬ﮞۺ۠ۦۙۨۦٷ۩ۏ ۠ٷۗ۝ۧۧٷ۠ﯙ ۙۜے ﮠ́‪ ϋϋ‬ﯗﯜے‬ ‫ھۀ‪Ү‬ڼڼڼھڽ‪үү‬ڿ‪Ұү‬ڼڼڼۑ‬ ‫ۙۦۙۜ ﭞۗ۝۠ﯙ ﮤ ۣۧۢ۝ۧۧ۝ۡۦۙێ ۨۧۙ۩ۥۙې‬ ‫ڿڽڼھ ۦۤﯠ ‪Ң‬ھ ۣۢ ‪Ң‬ڿھﮠ‪үҮ‬ڽﮠ‪ҢҰ‬ﮠڼ‪ Ү‬ﮤۧۧۙۦۘۘٷ ێﯢ ﮞۏﯠﯙﮡۛۦۣﮠۙۛۘ۝ۦۖۡٷۗﮠۧ۠ٷۢۦ۩ۣ۞ﮡﮡﮤۤۨۨۜ ۣۡۦۚ ۘۙۘٷۣۣ۠ۢ۫ﯚ‬ 442 S H O R T E R N OT E S Confusions between p and u abound in manuscripts,17 so that pete > uete could have been read as uti and (subsequently or simultaneously) corrected into ut for the sake of metre; indeed, classical poetry rules out pyrrhic uti (see for example 1.15.24, 2.22.35, 2.23.9, where the second syllable is scanned long). Once pellis was followed by ut, scribal correction to pelles easily eliminated the metrical anomaly. Ovid has a quite similar repetition of pete … petes preceding sit tibi: et quemcumque cibum digitis libauerit illa, tu pete, dumque petes, sit tibi tacta manus. (Ov. Ars am. 1.577–8) We may surmise that he was struck by the morphophonological and grammatical pattern of his Propertian model, where leonine rhyme, alliteration in pe-, and the distribution of vowels (eight occurrences of short e; five of short i) contribute to isolating qua … forma. In fact, his line exhibits a still more complex network of sound parallelisms: dumque pe- nearly copies tu pete; (sit) tibi tac- and (tac)ta manus are mirror images of tu pete and dumque pe(tes). From a syntactical point of view, the two verses differ radically: in Ars am. 578, pete and petes take cibum as their direct object and the absence of ut before sit tibi in Ovid, far from being a grammatically optional feature as in Propertius, follows from the fact that the coordinate structure of the sentence links the subjunctive form to imperative pete. But such morphophonological echoes frequently involve syntactically heterogeneous materials: for instance, nec tibi crediderim uotis contraria uota (Lygdamus = [Tib.] 3.4.83) imitates both tunc ego crediderim uobis et sidera et amnes | posse … ducere (Prop. 1.1.23–4) and quod si forte tuis non est contraria uotis (Prop. 1.5.9). Notice, to conclude, that examples of pello with an implicit direct object appear at Ter. Eun. 1080, Ov. Met. 10.486, Tac. Ann. 14.31.3 and perhaps Verg. Aen. 11.901 (where the variant reading poscunt may be preferred on the basis of 4.614).18 Université libre de Bruxelles MARC DOMINICY mdomini@ulb.ac.be doi:10.1017/S0009838812000614 17 Examples: ripis > riuis (Hor. Epod. 2.25), uetet > petet (Hor. Carm. 3.27.15), uel > per (Hor. Carm. 4.4.43). See G. Friedrich, Catulli Veronensis liber (Leipzig–Berlin, 1908), 120 n. 1; J. Diggle and F.R.D. Goodyear (edd.), The Classical Papers of A.E. Housman (Cambridge, 1972), 1.102; M. Dominicy, ‘Propertius 3.1.27’, Mnemosyne 62 (2009), 417–31, at 428; id., ‘Propertius, 4.5.19–21’, RhM 153 (2010), 144–87, at 173. 18 I am grateful to an anonymous referee for numerous suggestions. WOMEN SCORNED: A NEW STICHOMETRIC ALLUSION IN THE AENEID* μνήσαιο δὲ καί ποτ’ ἐμεῖο στρευγόμενος καμάτοισι, δέρος δέ τοι ἶσον ὀνείρῳ οἴχοιτ’ εἰς ἔρεβος μεταμώνιον· ἐκ δέ σε πάτρης * Kate Allen and Donncha O’Rourke improved this paper with helpful comments, as did CQ’s learned reader. 443 S H O R T E R N OT E S αὐτίκ’ ἐμαὶ ἐλάσειαν Ἐρινύες, οἷα καὶ αὐτή σῇ πάθον ἀτροπίῃ (Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.383–7) sequar atris ignibus absens et, cum frigida mors anima seduxerit artus, omnibus umbra locis adero. dabis, improbe, poenas. (Verg. Aen. 4.384–6) Intense scrutiny can raise chimaeras, and Virgil is the most scrutinized of Roman poets, but he may have engineered coincidences in line number (‘stichometric allusions’) between certain of his verses and their Greek models. A handful of potential examples have now accumulated. Scholars have detected Virgilian citations of Homer, Callimachus and Aratus in this manner,1 as well as intratextual allusions by both Virgil and Ovid,2 and references to Virgil’s works by later Roman poets using the same technique.3 (For present purposes I disregard the separate, though related, phenomenon of corresponding numbers of lines in parallel passages: G. Knauer, Die Aeneis und Homer (Göttingen, 1964) suggests several examples of such correspondences between Homer and Virgil, especially in speeches. Another purely formal mode of allusion faintly present in Roman poetry is homophonic translation (the technique which Louis Zukofsky’s 1969 translations of Catullus pursue in extenso); thus Virgil’s fagus, beech, corresponds with Theocritus’ phagos, oak.)4 If genuine, the phenomenon lacks any consistent method or regular pattern (and the degree of plausibility varies); if genuine, it is very rare, even if accidents in textual transmission could have obscured some examples;5 1 R.S. Scodel and R.F. Thomas, ‘Virgil and the Euphrates’, AJPh 105 (1984), 339 note that the Euphrates is mentioned six lines before the ends of books at G. 1.509, 4.561 and Aen. 8.726, as at Callim. Hymn 2.108. See J. Conington and H. Nettleship, Commentary on Vergil’s Aeneid, vol. 2 (London, 1884) on Aen. 9.1 resembling Il. 9.1 (in that it contains a particle referring to the previous book), L. Morgan, Patterns of Redemption in Virgil’s Georgics (Cambridge, 1999), 23–7 on Geo. 4.400 translating Od. 4.400, and J.T. Katz, ‘Vergil translates Aratus: Phaenomena 1–2 and Georgics 1.1–2’, MD 60 (2008), 105–23 on G. 1.1–2 ‘translating’ Aratus, Phaen. 1–2. D. O’Rourke, ‘Intertextuality in Roman elegy’, in B.K. Gold (ed.), A Companion to Roman Love Elegy (Malden, MA, 2012), 390–409, at 393–4 notes a comparable example in Propertius (4.1.57 alluding to Callim. Hymn 2.57). 2 R.F. Thomas (ed. and comm.), Georgics Vol. 1: Books I–II (Cambridge, 1988), on G. 2.41, notes that Maecenas is named symmetrically at G. 1.2, 2.41, 3.41 and 4.2. See Morgan (n. 1), at 226 n. 17 (citing J. Farrell) on Aen. 1.105 echoing G. 1.105; E. Gowers, ‘Virgil’s Sibyl and the “many mouths” cliché (Aen. 6.625–7)’, CQ 55 (2005), 170–82, at 179 n. 45 on Aen. 4.43 echoing G. 2.43; and D.P. Nelis, ‘“Et maintenant, Erato – ”: À propos d’Énéide vii, 37’, REA 109 (2007), 269–71 on Aen. 7.37 revisiting Aen. 1.37 (noticed independently by Hardie [n. 2], 577). Examples in Ovid are proposed by J. Wills, Repetition in Latin Poetry: Figures of Allusion (Oxford, 1996), 159 n. 82 (allusions to Gallus at Tr. 4.10.53 and Pont. 4.10.53) and A. Hardie, ‘Juno, Hercules, and the Muses at Rome’, AJPh 128 (2007), 551–92 (the foundations of the temple of Concordia, by Camillus and Livia respectively, are introduced at Fast. 1.637 and 6.637). 3 To my knowledge, stichometric allusions to Virgil’s works have been detected in Ovid (R.A. Smith, ‘Ov. Met. 10.475: an instance of “meta-allusion”’, Gymnasium 97 [1990], 458–60), Propertius (D. O’Rourke, ‘“Letum non omnia finit”: reading Virgilian allusion in Propertius 4’ [Diss. Trinity College, Dublin, 2008]; ‘The representation and misrepresentation of Virgilian poetry in Propertius 2.34’, AJPh 132 [2011], 457–97; see also R.F. Thomas, ‘Genre through intertextuality: Theocritus to Virgil and Propertius’, Hellenistica Groningana 2 [1996], 227–44, at 241–4), Grattius (R. Verdière [ed., tr. and comm.], Grattius: Cynegeticon Libri I quae supersunt, 2 vols [Wetteren, 1964], 1.61 n. 2) and Statius (S. Hinds, Allusion and Intertext [Cambridge, 1998], 92). 4 On fagus/phagos, see E.J. Kenney, ‘Virgil and the elegiac sensibility’, ICS 8 (1983), 44–59, at 49–50; M. Lipka, ‘Notes on fagus in Vergil’s Eclogues’, Philologus 146 (2002), 133–8. On this and other cases of Virgilian ‘translation with paronomasia’, see J.J. O’Hara, True Names: Vergil and the Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay (Ann Arbor, 1996), 63. 5 It takes a scholar as thorough as Knauer to detect near misses in stichometric parallelism, which 444 S H O R T E R N OT E S if genuine, it probably originated in the Hellenistic period,6 although such a case has yet to be made. Virgil presently seems the earliest and most copious practitioner of stichometric allusion. A previously undetected example in the Aeneid is proposed below.7 When Dido vows to return after death to avenge herself on Aeneas (Aen. 4.384–6), she echoes Apollonius’ Medea, who threatens Jason that she will return from Hades as an Erinys (Argon. 4.383–7). This is one of many parallels observed between Apollonius’ Medea and Virgil’s Dido.8 Although the concept of the dead seeking personal revenge is very old,9 as is that of Erinyes/Furies avenging crimes by pursuing divine justice, Hellenistic heroines were apparently the first to link heartbreak with punishment by the Furies. The inspiration may have been the threat of Medea’s sister Chalciope, in which familial bloodshed has an indirect role. She warns that, if betrayed by Medea, she will be murdered by Aeetes and return as an Erinys to haunt her.10 Later heroines present personal betrayal itself as the pollution of a family bond, tantamount to indirect murder, and punishable by the vengeful spirits of the tragic stage. Thus Catullus’ Ariadne invokes the Eumenides to punish Theseus (64.192– 7), who, according to pre-Hellenistic sources, would not fall under their jurisdiction.11 Medea and Dido each repeat Chalciope’s extraordinary claim that they will turn into an Erinys figure after death to hound and punish their faithless lovers. This blending of two roles – the Erinys and the vengeful revenant – tightly links Dido to Medea, because both are necromancers who deal with Hecate, besides being abandoned heroines.12 The formal parallel occurs in Dido’s curse-promise, ‘I shall be present as a shade wherever you go: you shall pay the penalty’, which is expressed similarly to Medea’s may be of help in textual criticism. His discoveries that the storm scene beginning at Aen. 1.81 corresponds to the Laestrygonian episode beginning at Od. 10.80 (Die Aeneis und Homer [Göttingen, 1964], 175 n. 3), and that the memory of the Cyclops at Aen. 1.201 (Cyclopia saxa) corresponds to the memory of the Cyclops at Od. 10.200 (ibid. 176 n. 2), together indicate that our text of Odyssey 10 has one line fewer than Virgil’s, or that our text of Aeneid 1 has one more than his. The latter is more likely, given that stichometric marks would appear every hundred lines (Α, Β, Γ etc: see Morgan [n. 2], 223–9; N. van der Ben, ‘The Strasbourg Papyrus of Empedocles: some preliminary remarks’, Mnemosyne 52 [1999], 525–44, at 526–7; R.O.A.M. Lyne, ‘Horace Odes Book 1 and the Alexandrian edition of Alcaeus’, CQ 55 [2005], 542–58, at 557–8). Likewise, Knauer’s observations that Il. 16.1–305 correspond to Aen. 10.1–307 (this note, 298), and that the end of another passage (Aen. 10.509) corresponds to the end of its corresponding passage at Il. 16.507 (this note, 301), together indicate that our text of Iliad 16 has two lines fewer than Virgil’s, or alternatively that our text of Aeneid 10 has two more than his. However, other parallels vitiate this notion (Aen. 10.476–8 with Il. 16.477–9, Aen. 10.490 with Il. 16.490). 6 Like most other formal experiments: see C. Luz, Technopaignia: Formspiele in der griechischen Dichtung (Leiden and Boston, 2010). 7 It receives no comment from D.P. Nelis, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius (Leeds, 2001) or A.S. Pease (ed. and comm.), Vergili Maronis Aeneidos Liber Quartus (Cambridge, MA, 1935). 8 C. Collard, ‘Medea and Dido’, Prometheus 1 (1975), 131–51, at 146–57; Nelis (n. 7), 141–4. 9 Homer’s Ajax holds a grudge after death (Od. 11.548–67) but seems incapable of acting upon it. On concepts of the vengeful dead in ancient Greece, see S.I. Johnston, Restless Dead: Encounters between the Living and the Dead in Ancient Greece (Berkeley and London, 1999). See also the promises of Fury-like vengeance in Hor. Epod. 5.91–6, Ov. Ib. 153–60. 10 ἢ σοίγε φίλοις σὺν παισὶ θανοῦσα | εἴην ἐξ Ἀίδεω στυγερὴ μετόπισθεν Ἐρινύς (Argon. 3.703– 4, cf. 711–12). Singular and plural Erinyes represent divine punishment in both epics (Ap. Rhod. Argon. 4.475–6, 713–14, 1042–3; Aen. 2.336–8, 571–4). 11 On the nature and functions of the Erinyes in Archaic and Classical Greek culture, see R. Padel, In and Out of the Mind: Greek Images of the Tragic Self (Princeton, 1992), 162–92 and Whom Gods Destroy: Elements of Greek and Tragic Madness (Princeton, 1995). 12 Argon. 3.477–8, 528–33, 860–3; Aen. 4.509–21; see A.-M. Tupet, ‘Didon magicienne’, REL 49 (1970), 229–58. Dido imagines herself as a sole avenger with no mention of plural Erinyes, perhaps reflecting the Roman concept of the lone, birdlike strix (see Aen. 12.861–9, Hor. Epod. 5.91–6). S H O R T E R N OT E S 445 curse ‘may my Erinyes persecute you’. The book and line numbers correspond: 4.386 and 4.386.13 I am grateful to Donncha O’Rourke for observing that shadows (umbrae) potentially signify ‘ghosts’ of prior texts, or alternatively the poet’s lasting fame.14 The number connecting Virgil with Apollonius, 386, does not seem visually or mathematically significant; all the more reason to believe that Virgil observed line numbering minutely, either as a compositional technique, or with some expectation that his readers might notice them too.15 University of Kent DUNSTAN LOWE d.m.lowe@kent.ac.uk doi:10.1017/S0009838812000742 13 αὐτίκ’ ἐμαὶ ἐλάσειαν Ἐρινύες (Argon. 4.386), omnibus umbra locis adero. dabis, improbe, poenas (Aen. 4.386). 14 On umbrae in Virgil, see recently P. Gagliardi, ‘Le umbrae nei finali virgiliani’, Maia 59 (2007), 461–74 and M.A. Nickbakht, ‘Aemulatio in cold blood: a reading of the end of the Aeneid’, Helios 37 (2010), 49–80. 15 Valerius Flaccus may have detected this correspondence between his two chief models and glossed it in a stichometric allusion of his own; however, the line numbering is only approximate. He seemingly ‘doubles’ the heroine-as-Fury trope of Apollonius’ fourth book and Virgil’s fourth book in his own eighth book. At loosely corresponding line numbers (385–96), the Argonauts call Jason’s infatuation with Medea Furiae (390) and Medea herself an Erinys (396). MACROBIUS, SATURNALIA 5.11.1–3 AND A VIRGILIAN READING Macrobius devotes almost the whole morning of the third day in his Saturnalia to Virgil. Eustathius, in response to a question from Euangelus, examines what Virgil drew from the Greeks and from Homer in particular. In chapter 11 of Book 5, the expositor quotes and comments on some loci similes, judging in favour of the Roman poet. At the start of the chapter, he compares the bee simile in Aeneid 1.430–6 with a passage from Homer, Iliad 2.87–93: Et haec quidem iudicio legentium relinquenda sunt, ut ipsi aestiment quid debeant de utriusque collatione sentire. Si tamen me consulas, non negabo nonnumquam Vergilium in transferendo densius excoluisse, ut in hoc loco: Qualis apes aestate noua per florea rura exercet sub sole labor, cum gentis adultos educunt fetos, aut cum liquentia mella stipant et dulces distendunt nectare cellas, aut onera accipiunt uenientum aut agmine facto ignauum, fucos, pecus a praesepibus arcent. feruet opus, redolentque thymo fraglantia mella. Ἠΰτε ἔθνεα εἶσι μελισσάων ἁδινάων,1 πέτρης ἐκ γλαφυρῆς αἰεὶ νέον ἐρχομενάων· 1 I. Willis in his edition of Macrobius (Leipzig, 1970²) erroneously prints ἀδινάων, not ἁ-, a point made to me per litteras by Ms. Orla Mulholland (Berlin).