me tamen urit amor; quis enim modus adsit amori? (Ecl. 2.68) si quis forte meam cupiet violare puellam illum in desertis montibus urat amor CIL 4.1645 = CLE 953
1. For the suggestion that Ecl. 2 is substantially influenced by Gallus: see Du Quesnay (1979) 35-69, 206-21; Monteleone (1979) esp. 29; Lipka (2001) 91-3. At a general level, it seems to transplant elegiac motifs to the bucolic setting (rejected love, the rival etc.) . At a specific level: (i) Monteleone shows that Ecl. 2.1 'formosum pastor Corydon ardebat Alexin' (first line) is connected with Prop. 1.20.52 (last line) 'formosum Nymphis credere visus Hylan'; cf. also Ecl. 10.18 'et formosus ovis ad flumina pavit Adonis'. (ii) 'vestigia lustro' Ecl 2.12 from Gallus' adaptation of Callimachus' Acontius and Cydippe (cf. Aristaenetus Ep. 1.10.13-15)? (iii) Ecl. 2.23 cf. Prop. 3.15.41f, a common source in Gallus; a line ultimately looking to Euphorion? (iv) Ecl. 2.26 'non ego Daphnin / iudice te metuam' - Gallus Fr. 2 Courtney 'non ego, Visce / ... Kato, iudice te vereor' (v) Shared features with Hor. Epod. 11 (as to that poem and Gallus, cf. Luck (1971)) (vi) Ecl. 2.1 connected with Phanocles' Orpheus, Orpheus being an important figure for Gallus (cf. Ecl. 10 'Hebrus' and Geo. 4; and cf. Ecl. 6.66ff, re the Orphic power of Hesiod/Linus' pipes) (vii) Ecl. 2.3 a 'schema Corneliana' (viii) Ecl. 2.34 cf. Tib. 1.4.47f; Ecl. 10.17 It is reassuring as to Monteleone and Du Quesnay's instincts that they saw Gallus here, before the publication of Gallus Fr. 2, which provided a clear link (point (iv) above) (and also Du Quesnay saw in 'domini' (Ecl. 2.2) a hint of the elegiac 'domina', without knowing that Gallus had used that word - cf. again Gallus Fr. 2) 2. For the suggestion that CIL 4.1645 is a near or exact quotation of Gallus - see Lee (1982) 124; (1990) 132 on Tib. 1.6.51-2; Kennedy (1987) 52; Cairns (2006) 137; Fabre-Serris (2008) 91. (i) 'in desertis montibus' is the sort of surroundings we find Gallus in Ecl. 10; cf. e.g. Prop. 1.18 and, generally, Cairns (2006) on 'wild surroundings' in Gallus). (ii) there seems to be some close relationship with Tib. 1.6.51-2 3. Bringing the two threads together, I suggest that Ecl. 2.68 is influenced by Gallus, here to be identified with CIL 4.1645. That is to say, the resemblance between Ecl. 2.68 and CIL 4.1645 should be seen as (i) further evidence of the influence of Gallus on Ecl. 2; and (ii) further evidence that CIL 4.1645 is a quotation from Gallus [1]. 4. The point of resemblance is between 'montibus urat amor' and 'me tamen urit amor'. The resemblance between 'urat amor' and 'urit amor' is obvious; less obvious, but still distinct, is the sound echo of 'm' and 't' in '*m*on *t*ibus' as compared with '*m*e *t*amen'. 5. That Ecl. 2.68 in its entirety is adapting Gallus is suggested by: (i) the resemblance between 'quis enim modus adsit *amori*' (Ecl. 2.68) and '"Ecquis erit modus?" inquit "Amor non talia curat" (Ecl. 10.28) which appears to play off the elegiac assertion 'amor' has no 'modus'. (ii) the striking resemblance in structure between 'me tamen urit *amor*; quis enim modus adsit *amori*?' (Ecl. 2.68) and 'omnia vincit *amor*, et nos cedamus *amori*' (Ecl. 10.69) (with the repetition 'amor... amori' appearing in identical positions - cf. Clausen ad 2.68 'for the shape and balance of this line cf. Ecl. 10.69').[2] 6. Returning to the respective phrases 'montibus urat amor' and 'me tamen urit amor', there is reason to believe that 'uro' is Gallan vocabulary. Cf., in particular, sive illam Hesperiis, sive illam ostendet Eois uret et Eoos, uret et Hesperios. Prop. 2.3.43-4 (where Gallan influence is established by comparison with Ov. Am. 1.15.29-30; Ov. AA 3.537) cf. Courtney (1993) 261. and amore, qui me praeter omnis expetit mollibus in pueris aut in puellis urere Hor. Ep. 11.3-4 (where Gallan influence was convincingly asserted by Luck (1971) and where one might even suggest that Horace has CIL 4.1645 itself in mind 'amore ... mollibus... urere' cf. 'montibus amor urat'). [3] 7. The most persuasive point, however, I think, is that the suggestion allows one to see an aspect of Vergil's literary joke in action: 'me tamen urat amor' is half a pentameter at the beginning of a hexameter. Then 'modus' is playing off the double meaning 'limit' / 'metre'. So Vergil virtually quotes a half-pentameter of Gallus and continues by implying 'since this is the *metre* of love [poetry]'. The effect is perhaps heightened by the heavily spondaic feel of the preceding line ' Ecl. 2.67 'et sol crescentis decedens duplicat umbras.' [4] facilitating the temporary illusion of elegiac couplets. [1] My own view is that CIL 4.1645 is a more or less exact quotation of Gallus (just as other Pompeian graffiti have exact quotations of e.g. Vergil, Propertius and Ovid), which will in part be supported by what follows). But the arguments could support a lesser conclusion that CIL 4.1645 adapts Gallus. [2] The points here support the case that Ecl. 2.68 is constructed from more than one reminiscence of Gallus' poetry, one of which is CIL 4.1645 - that would, of course, be consistent with Vergil's usual practice in allusion. Calp. Ecl. 2.92 'carmina poscit *amor*, nec fistula cedit *amori*.' is similarly shaped, but probably derives directly from Vergil rather than Gallus. [3] 'Me miserum! certas habuit puer ille sagittas / *uror*, et in vacuo pectore regnat *Amor*' Ov. Am. 1.1.25-6 might also be related to CIL 4.1645 - NB this is, in effect, the first couplet of Ovid's actual Amores - he's not in love until Amor strikes him. NB2 'vacuo' would play off 'desertis' in CIL 4.1645. [4] Cf. Ecl. 10.73-6. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mantovano" group. To post, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit http://groups.google.com/group/mantovano?hl=en
