Dictynna Revue de poétique latine

6 | 2009 Varia

Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/dictynna/235 DOI : 10.4000/dictynna.235 ISSN : 1765-3142

Référence électronique Dictynna, 6 | 2009 [En ligne], mis en ligne le 01 juin 2009, consulté le 14 septembre 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/dictynna/235 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/dictynna.235

Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 14 septembre 2020.

Les contenus des la revue Dictynna sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modifcation 4.0 International. 1

SOMMAIRE

Un frammento di una declamazione di Cicerone e due controversiae senecane Emanuele Berti

Le désir au féminin : d’une « Lucrèce » à une autre Sur les réceptions élégiaques d’une adaptation tibulléenne de Tite-Live Jacqueline Fabre-Serris

The Poetics of Alliance in Vergil’s Aeneid Bill Gladhill

Ovid’s Sappho and Roman Women Love Poets Judith P. Hallett

Der Held und die Versuchung des weiblichen Anblicks Andrea Harbach

Irony and Aequabilitas : Horace, Satires 1.3 Jerome Kemp

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 2

Un frammento di una declamazione di Cicerone e due controversiae senecane

Emanuele Berti

1 La controversia 1, 4 della raccolta di Seneca il Vecchio Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores propone il caso dell’abdicatio di un figlio, ripudiato dal padre vir fortis ma mutilo delle mani perdute in battaglia, per non aver voluto sostituirsi a lui nell’uccidere la madre sorpresa in adulterio insieme all’amante, secondo quanto la legge permetteva1. Giunto a trattare dei colores2 in difesa del giovane, Seneca introduce la seguente annotazione : Sen. contr. 1, 4, 7 : Color pro adulescente unus ab omnibus qui declamaverunt introductus est : non potui occidere, ex illa Ciceronis sententia tractus quam in simili controversia dixit, cum abdicaretur is qui adulteram matrem occidendam acceperat et dimiserat : ter non ***.3

2 Tale testimonianza, che preserva l’unico frammento a noi noto di una declamazione ciceroniana, presenta molteplici motivi di interesse, ma suscita anche diversi interrogativi. La prima questione che si pone è naturalmente quella dell’attendibilità della notizia, se siamo cioè davvero in presenza di un’autentica sententia tratta da una controversia di Cicerone ; seri dubbi in proposito erano avanzati da Janet Fairweather, che così si esprimeva : “perhaps we should not lay too much weight on this piece of school tradition, originating as it may in the realms of Ciceronian pseudepigrapha, or simply in some rethorician’s fanciful wish to ascribe a time-honoured color to the fount of eloquence himself. But it is not totally implausible that some memory of the nature of Cicero’s declamations, at least his late ones, should have been preserved”4. Prima di tutto dobbiamo dunque chiederci se effettivamente Cicerone poteva aver composto delle controversiae come quella menzionata da Seneca, e in caso affermativo, se è possibile che queste (o comunque parti di esse) avessero avuto qualche forma di circolazione, fino a essere conosciute e diventare oggetto di imitazione da parte dei retori della prima età imperiale.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 3

3 Sulle declamazioni di Cicerone possediamo un buon numero di informazioni, che consentono di farci un quadro assai preciso5. È innanzitutto lo stesso Cicerone che rievocando nel Brutus gli inizi della sua carriera oratoria, ricorda di aver praticato assiduamente questo genere di esercizio, anche insieme ad altri oratori suoi coetanei come Marco Pupio Pisone Frugi e Quinto Pompeo Bitinico, declamando in latino, ma prevalentemente in greco, dato che dalla Grecia provenivano i migliori maestri di retorica, e questa era la lingua tradizionalmente adottata nell’insegnamento (cfr. Cic. Brut. 310-11 huic ego doctori [cioè al filosofo stoico Diodoto, uno dei maestri di Cicerone] et eius artibus variis atque multis ita eram tamen deditus ut ab exercitationibus oratoriis nullus dies vacuus esset. Commentabar declamitans – sic enim nunc loquuntur6 – saepe cum M. Pisone et cum Q. Pompeio aut cum aliquo cottidie, idque faciebam multum etiam Latine sed Graece saepius, vel quod Graeca oratio plura ornamenta suppeditans consuetudinem similiter Latine dicendi adferebat, vel quod a Graecis summis doctoribus, nisi Graece dicerem, neque corrigi possem neque doceri)7. Ulteriori notizie sono riferite nel capitolo iniziale del De rhetoribus di Svetonio, dove l’autore, nel tracciare un breve profilo storico dell’introduzione dell’arte retorica a Roma, ricorda non solo le declamazioni giovanili di Cicerone, fino all’epoca della sua pretura (nel 66 a.C.)8, ma anche quelle svolte in età avanzata, quando egli ebbe come allievi i consoli del 43 a.C., Aulo Irzio e Vibio Pansa (cfr. Suet. rhet. 25, 3 Cicero ad praeturam usque etiam Graece declamitavit, Latine vero senior quoque et quidem cum consulibus Hirtio et Pansa, quos discipulos et grandis praetextatos vocabat)9 ; e a quest’ultima circostanza fa riferimento anche Seneca il Vecchio, che nella praefatio al l. I delle Controversiae vi allude mediante la stessa espressione grandes praetextati, lamentando di non avere potuto assistere a tali sessioni declamatorie, poiché tenuto lontano da Roma dal furor delle guerre civili (cfr. Sen. contr. 1 praef. 11 ne Ciceronem quidem aetas mihi eripuerat, sed bellorum civilium furor, qui tunc orbem totum pervagabatur, intra coloniam meam me continuit ; alioqui in illo atriolo, in quo duos grandes praetextatos ait secum declamare, potui adesse).

4 Dobbiamo dunque distinguere due fasi nell’attività declamatoria di Cicerone, distanti non solo cronologicamente, ma anche, per così dire, concettualmente. Da un lato vi sono le declamazioni che risalgono al periodo dei suoi studi retorici, sotto la guida di maestri soprattutto greci, praticate a scopo di esercizio e in preparazione all’impegno forense (anche se è possibile che Cicerone abbia continuato a seguire questa routine anche in età più matura, quando era un oratore già affermato, come si deduce sia dalla testimonianza di Svetonio, sia da un accenno nel proemio delle Tusculanae disputationes, su cui torneremo più avanti, in cui egli afferma di aver coltivato la declamazione più a lungo di chiunque altro10). In questo Cicerone appare essersi attenuto a quella che già nei primi decenni del I sec. a.C. era una prassi abituale per i giovani studenti di retorica : lo attesta ad esempio un passo del dialogo De oratore (la cui data drammatica si colloca nel 91 a.C.), in cui Crasso, trattando dell’exercitatio, menziona tra gli altri un tipo di esercizio consistente nel dibattere casi fittizi simili a quelli del foro, che corrisponde in tutto e per tutto alla controversia (anche se nel contesto non è usato questo termine, né l’altro di declamatio)11. Si tratta dunque di declamazioni che avevano una finalità esclusivamente didattica e propedeutica, ed è per questo assai improbabile che esse siano fuoriuscite da una dimensione strettamente privata.

5 Dall’altro lato, vi sono le declamazioni degli ultimi anni della sua vita, quando lo stesso Cicerone si adattò a fare da ‘maestro’ ad alcuni importanti personaggi di rango consolare, come Irzio, Pansa e anche altri, declamando insieme a loro e trovando in

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 4

questo, oltre che un modo di impiegare utilmente il proprio otium e di tenere in esercizio la sua facoltà oratoria in un periodo in cui le vicende politiche l’avevano allontanato dalla pratica diretta del foro, anche un momento di svago in mezzo alle tempeste e alle amarezze della vita politica. È quanto emerge da diversi passi dell’epistolario ciceroniano, che integrano le notizie offerte da Svetonio e Seneca il Vecchio e consentono di precisarne le circostanze ; da una serie di lettere ad Attico apprendiamo così che quanto narrato dai due succitati autori deve riferirsi a un soggiorno nella villa di Puteoli (Pozzuoli) nell’aprile-maggio del 44 a.C., poco dopo le Idi di marzo, quando Cicerone ebbe suoi ospiti fra gli altri i consoli designati Irzio e Pansa (cfr. Cic. Att. 14, 11, 2 [lettera del 21 aprile] hic mecum Balbus, Hirtius, Pansa). Alle declamazioni tenute insieme a questi ultimi Cicerone accenna in realtà soltanto fugacemente, senza scendere nei dettagli, in una lettera del 22 aprile (cfr. Cic. Att. 14, 12, 2 haud amo vel hos designatos, qui etiam declamare me coegerunt, ut ne apud aquas quidem acquiescere liceret)12 ; mentre in nessun punto della sua corrispondenza ricorre l’espressione, comune sia a Svetonio che a Seneca, grandes praetextati, che dunque sarà stata tratta da una lettera o da un’altra opera perduta, dove Cicerone forniva forse particolari più precisi sui caratteri e le modalità di questi esercizi declamatòri.

6 Più interessante per noi è un gruppo di tre epistole risalenti all’estate del 46 a.C., nelle settimane successive alla battaglia di Tapso, quando, in seguito al trionfo di Cesare nella guerra civile, Cicerone si trovò praticamente estromesso dalla vita politica, e si ritirò per un periodo nella sua tenuta di Tuscolo, accompagnato dallo stesso Irzio e dal genero Publio Cornelio Dolabella (entrambi fra i più importanti partigiani di Cesare). In due lettere all’amico Lucio Papirio Peto, scritte a pochi giorni di distanza l’una dall’altra, Cicerone racconta dunque di avere preso Irzio e Dolabella come suoi discipulos dicendi, per istruirli nell’arte della declamazione (cfr. Cic. fam. 9, 16, 7 Hirtium ego et Dolabellam dicendi discipulos habeo, cenandi magistros ; puto enim te audisse, si forte ad vos omnia perferuntur, illos apud me declamitare, me apud illos cenitare), e di avere aperto a loro beneficio una specie di scuola di retorica (ludus), che andava in qualche modo a compensare il forzato abbandono delle cause giudiziarie e la perdita del regnum forense (cfr. Cic. fam. 9, 18, 1 cum essem otiosus in Tusculano, propterea quod discipulos obviam miseram ut eadem me quam maxime conciliarent familiari suo, accepi tuas litteras plenissimas suavitatis ; ex quibus intellexi probari tibi meum consilium, quod, ut Dyonisius tyrannus, cum Syracusis pulsus esset Corinthi dicitur ludum aperuisse13, sic ego sublatis iudiciis, amisso regno forensi ludum quasi habere coeperim). Nel seguito di questa seconda lettera Cicerone si dilunga a enumerare i vantaggi di tale risoluzione, consistenti in primo luogo in ragioni di opportunità politica (rendendosi disponibile a fare da maestro a Irzio e Dolabella, Cicerone sperava di ottenere il loro aiuto per conciliarsi la benevolenza di Cesare), e poi nella possibilità di riprendere le esercitazioni retoriche, da lungo tempo abbandonate, traendone giovamento non solo per la sua facultas orationis, ma anche per la sua salute14 ; la lettera si conclude infine con una nota scherzosa, quando Cicerone indica come terzo motivo che lo ha indotto ad aprire la scuola le prelibatezze che egli ha modo di gustare frequentando Irzio, noto buongustaio15. Forse ancora più significativa è una terza lettera, scritta questa volta da Roma a Publio Volumnio Eutrapelo, non datata ma risalente senza dubbio a quegli stessi giorni, dopo il rientro di Cicerone da Tuscolo nella capitale16 ; in risposta al rammarico evidentemente manifestato dall’amico per non aver potuto assistere alle sue declamazioni e ricevere i suoi insegnamenti al pari di Irzio, Cicerone lo rassicura affermando che non si tratta di una perdita grave, dato che è lui per primo a provare disgusto per se stesso, e si serve della citazione di alcuni versi del

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 5

Filottete di Accio per esprimere l’amara consapevolezza che le declamazioni, in quanto indirizzate alla trattazione di casi fittizi e immaginari, sono come armi spuntate, che non producono nessun effetto concreto, né tanto meno possono procurare alcuna gloria : cfr. Cic. fam. 7, 33, 1 quod declamationibus nostris cares, damni nihil facis. Quod Hirtio invideres nisi eum amares, non erat causa invidendi, nisi forte ipsius eloquentiae magis quam quod me audiret invideres. Nos enim plane, mi suavissime Volumni, aut nihil sumus, aut nobis quidem ipsis displicemus gregalibus illis quibus te plaudente vigebamus amissis, ut etiam, si quando aliquid dignum nostro nomine emisimus, ingemescamus quod haec ‘pinnigero, non armigero in corpore tela exerceantur’, ut ait Philoctetes apud Accium, ‘abiecta gloria’17.

7 Al di là del significativo riconoscimento della futilità dell’esercizio declamatorio, che in nessun caso può valere come surrogato della reale pratica oratoria, il passo ci interessa per la frase si quando aliquid dignum nostro nomine emisimus (se con essa Cicerone vuole alludere, come pare probabile, alle declamazioni menzionate all’inizio della lettera, e non in generale all’attività letteraria svolta in questo periodo). Il verbo emitto, quando usato in relazione a scritti o opere letterarie, contiene infatti sempre l’idea della pubblicazione e divulgazione dell’opera stessa18 ; le parole di Cicerone sembrano dunque implicare che, nonostante la natura certamente privata di queste sue declamazioni, esse fossero destinate anche a una circolazione presso un pubblico più ampio. La conferma potrebbe venire da un’interessante testimonianza di Quintiliano, che nel l. VIII dell’Institutio oratoria, trattando del vitium del pleonasmo, cita un’espressione di una declamazione di Irzio, con la relativa critica ad essa mossa da Cicerone : cfr. Quint. inst. 8, 3, 54 emendavit hoc etiam urbane in Hirtio Cicero : cum is apud ipsum declamans filium a matre decem mensibus in utero latum esse dixisset, ‘quid ? aliae’ inquit ‘in perula solent ferre ?’19. L’occasione a cui si fa qui riferimento è quasi certamente la stessa di cui Cicerone parla nelle lettere sopra ricordate20 ; e anche se la provenienza della battuta citata dal retore spagnolo non è determinabile con sicurezza21, questo sembra avvalorare l’ipotesi che le declamazioni composte non solo da Cicerone, ma anche dai suoi allievi in quella specie di scuola aperta a Tuscolo (oppure due anni dopo a Pozzuoli), avessero avuto una almeno parziale registrazione scritta e una diffusione pubblica (non sappiamo in quale forma, forse come raccolta di estratti o magari di ‘appunti’ ricavati dall’insegnamento di Cicerone), tanto che la loro memoria poteva essersi conservata nelle generazioni successive, almeno fino all’epoca di Quintiliano. Se è così, aumentano le probabilità, pur senza poterne avere la certezza assoluta, che anche nel caso della sententia trasmessa da Seneca il Vecchio ci troviamo davanti a un frammento autentico di una declamazione ciceroniana22.

8 Alla questione dell’autenticità del frammento si lega anche l’altra della natura delle declamazioni svolte da Cicerone. In contr. 1, 4, 7 Seneca parla di una controversia, e dà anche un sommario resoconto del thema (…cum abdicaretur is qui adulteram matrem occidendam acceperat et dimiserat) ; questo appare però in contrasto con le notizie offerte dallo stesso Seneca nell’excursus sulla storia della declamazione romana nella praefatio al l. I delle Controversiae, dove si afferma esplicitamente che Cicerone non declamava controversiae, dato che questo tipo di esercizio sarebbe stato introdotto in un’epoca successiva (cfr. Sen. contr. 1 praef. 12 declamabat autem Cicero non quales nunc controversias dicimus, ne tales quidem quales ante Ciceronem dicebantur, quas thesis vocabant. Hoc enim genus materiae quo nos exercemur adeo novum est, ut nomen quoque eius novum sit. Controversias nos dicimus ; Cicero causas vocabat). Come tuttavia hanno riconosciuto gli studiosi che si sono occupati di questo importante brano, qui Seneca ha fatto parecchia confusione, mescolando informazioni terminologiche, che si possono ritenere corrette,

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 6

con notizie di carattere storico, che contengono invece diverse inesattezze23. Così egli ha ragione nel dire che il termine controversia, come designazione tecnica degli esercizi declamatòri del genere giudiziale, entra in uso soltanto in età post-ciceroniana, mentre in precedenza essi erano definiti causae24 ; e che d’altra parte le declamazioni praticate da Cicerone avessero il nome di causae è da lui stesso affermato in un passo del proemio delle Tusculanae, a cui si è già fatto riferimento (cfr. Cic. Tusc. 1, 7 ut enim antea declamitabam causas, quod nemo me diutius fecit, sic haec mihi nunc senilis est declamatio). Ciò in cui Seneca sbaglia è nel ritenere che al mutamento di nome corrispondesse anche l’adozione di un novum genus materiae, che cioè causae e controversiae fossero qualcosa di sostanzialmente diverso tra di loro ; in realtà, tutto ciò che sappiamo delle declamazioni del periodo repubblicano mostra che esiste una notevole continuità, almeno nei soggetti trattati, fra queste e quelle di epoca più tarda25. Nella sua corrispondenza Cicerone non specifica quali fossero la natura e i temi dei suoi esercizi retorici (con l’eccezione di una lettera ad Attico del marzo del 49 a.C., in cui egli elenca i titoli di alcune theseis di argomento politico che si esercitava a dibattere ; ma si tratta di un caso particolare, una scelta determinata dalle circostanze storiche del momento)26 ; in questo ci viene allora in aiuto la testimonianza senecana, che preserva un dettaglio importante dal punto di vista storico-letterario, documentando che, in qualunque modo l’autore le chiamasse, le declamazioni ciceroniane erano senz’altro definibili come controversiae, in tutto e per tutto analoghe a quelle svolte dai retori dell’età imperiale (il thema cui Seneca fa cenno – il figlio che riceve in consegna dal padre la madre adultera con l’ordine di ucciderla, ma la lascia andare – è praticamente lo stesso della contr. 1, 4, ma è anche simile alla contr. 7, 1, come vedremo fra poco). A sostegno di questa conclusione possiamo ancora addurre il già citato passo di Quint. inst. 8, 3, 54, dove si parla della declamazione di Irzio ; anche se Quintiliano non dà indicazioni sul soggetto di quest’ultima, il contenuto della frase di Irzio criticata da Cicerone (filium a matre decem mensibus in utero latum esse) risulta affine a una sententia del retore Albucio Silo che si legge in Sen. contr. 7, 4, 1 (ergo tu, adulescens, matri tuae ne decem mensum quidem alumenta reddes ?), tratta da una controversia che propone il caso di un figlio diviso tra l’obbligo di andare a riscattare il padre rapito dai pirati, e quello di rimanere a casa ad assistere la madre cieca27. Appare pertanto plausibile che la frase di Irzio derivasse da una controversia simile a questa, in cui una madre rivendicava i propri diritti di fronte a un atto di ingratitudine del figlio ; e addirittura si potrebbe arrivare a supporre che si tratti della stessa controversia menzionata da Seneca in contr. 1, 4, 7, dove si ha una non dissimile situazione di contrasto fra il dovere del figlio di obbedire all’ordine del padre, e il suo affetto nei confronti della madre. Si conferma così la genuinità della notizia senecana, che anche sotto questo aspetto si rivela fonte di informazioni preziose, che hanno una rilevanza più generale per la storia dello sviluppo del genere declamatorio a Roma.

9 L’ultimo problema concerne il testo della sententia ciceroniana, che come si può vedere è andata purtroppo perduta, tranne le due prime parole (ter non…), nella tradizione manoscritta dell’opera di Seneca. In una breve nota esplicativa al passo senecano, Michael Winterbottom suggeriva la possibilità che l’avverbio ter introducesse il modulo di ascendenza epica della triplicazione dei tentativi : tre volte il figlio tenta di uccidere la madre, tre volte è costretto a desistere28. Questo è senz’altro possibile (anche se in nessuna delle sententiae della nostra controversia, che a detta di Seneca sarebbero ispirate a quella di Cicerone, ricorre qualche cosa di analogo)29 ; ma quanto resta del frammento è troppo poco per poter formulare qualunque fondata supposizione30.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 7

Tuttavia le parole con cui Seneca introduce la citazione consentono almeno di ricostruire il senso generale della sententia : appare così che essa dovesse essere incentrata intorno al motivo del ‘non potui occidere’, svolgesse cioè l’idea dell’incapacità del figlio di compiere quell’uccisione che gli veniva richiesta dal padre.

10 Ora, proprio questo motivo, declinato in maniera diversa dai vari declamatori, costituisce, a quel che possiamo vedere, il cardine della difesa del figlio non solo nella contr. 1, 4, ma anche in un’altra controversia della raccolta senecana, la 7, 1, che presenta un caso sostanzialmente analogo, nella sua questione di fondo, sia alla 1, 4, sia alla declamazione svolta da Cicerone : anche in questa seconda controversia abbiamo infatti un figlio che viene incaricato dal padre di eseguire la condanna a morte da lui decretata nei confronti di un congiunto (qui il fratello anziché la madre), ma che rinuncia a farlo e subisce per questo l’abdicatio ; anche se in questo caso il thema propone un’evidente accentuazione degli elementi romanzeschi, con la consegna del fratello a un navigium exarmatum e il suo insperato salvataggio, la sua successiva trasformazione in pirata e la cattura e liberazione del padre (che scoprendo in questo modo la disobbedienza dell’altro figlio, gli infligge l’abdicatio)31. Le due controversiae presentano dunque nella parte difensiva (alla quale, al contrario di quanto accade nella contr. 1, 4, dove essa è confinata quasi esclusivamente nei colores, viene dato nella contr. 7, 1 lo spazio più ampio) evidenti punti di contatto, che in ultima analisi si possono ricondurre a quel color – ‘non potui occidere’ – ispirato dalla sententia di Cicerone, e che vale la pena osservare più nel dettaglio.

11 Nella contr. 1, 4, alla citazione della sententia ciceroniana Seneca associa immediatamente lo sviluppo del declamatore Porcio Latrone32, in cui il motivo del ‘non potui occidere’ si lega alla descrizione dello stupor che coglie il figlio alla vista dell’inopinato spectaculum della madre adultera : cfr. contr. 1, 4, 7 Latro descripsit stuporem totius corporis in tam inopinati flagitii spectaculo et dixit : pater, tibi manus defuerunt, mihi omnia. Et cum oculorum caliginem, animi defectionem, membrorum omnium torporem descripsisset, adiecit : antequam ad me redeo, exierunt. Questo genere di descrizione, con gli elementi topici dell’ottenebramento della vista, il torpore di tutte le membra, il mancamento dei sensi, sembra essere una specialità di Latrone, che la riusa come pezzo forte ed efficace color difensivo in varie controversiae33 ; è pertanto abbastanza ovvio ritrovare una simile descriptio, ancora legata al color del ‘non potui occidere’, nella contr. 7, 1, come Seneca rileva nell’esposizione della divisio di Latrone (cfr. contr. 7, 1, 17 fatebor, inquit, quod fortasse offensurum est aures : patri parere volui ; fratrem occidere non potui. Obortae sunt subito tenebrae, deriguit animus, sublapsum est intercepto spiritu corpus), poi di nuovo, più esplicitamente, all’inizio della sezione dei colores : cfr. contr. 7, 1, 20 Latro illum introduxit colorem rectum in narratione, quo per totam actionem usus est : non potui occidere. Et cum descripsisset †ingenti†34 spiritu titubantem et inter cogitationem fratris occidendi concidentem, dixit : noverca, aliud quaere in privignum tuum crimen : hic parricidium non potest facere (degna di nota è anche la definizione di tale color come rectus, un epiteto che, insieme a simplex, Seneca applica a quei colores che si fanno apprezzare per la loro semplicità e immediatezza)35.

12 Un diverso sviluppo del color è dato nella contr. 1, 4 dall’altro retore Albucio Silo36, che spiega l’incapacità di uccidere del figlio con la mitezza della sua indole, facendo riferimento in generale al motivo della diversità degli ingenia, che rende alcune persone inette a determinate attività o imprese : cfr. contr. 1, 4, 8 Albucius non narravit, sed hoc colore egit ab initio usque ad finem : ego me defendere debeo ? Si quid mihi obiectum erit, aut

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 8

negabo aut excusabo. Si quid exegeris maius viribus meis, dicam : ignosce, non possum. Ignoscit filio pater navigationem recusanti, si non fert mare ; ignoscit non sequenti castra, si non potest, quamvis pater ipse militaris sit : non possum occidere. Lo stesso tipo di approccio si ritrova anche nella contr. 7, 1, negli interventi di svariati declamatori ; accennato di nuovo nella divisio di Latrone37, esso è svolto più compiutamente, in connessione con l’altro motivo della pietas fraterna, da Giunio Gallione38, in un pezzo dal tono retoricamente assai sostenuto, ricco di figure di parola (tricolon e parallelismo, anafora, asindeto, omoteleuto, chiasmo), e chiuso da un’efficace sententia, che propone l’immagine paradossale del ‘buon pirata’, incapace di uccidere39 : cfr. contr. 7, 1, 12-13 non potui fratrem occidere : idem timuimus, idem doluimus, idem flevimus, eundem patrem habuimus, eandem matrem, eandem novercam. Mitioris natura pectoris sum, mollioris animi. Non idem omnibus mortalibus natura tribuit ingenium : animus durior est illius, illius clementior. Apud piratas quoque invenitur qui non possit occidere. Al brano di Gallione è probabilmente ispirato il successivo estratto del retore Musa40, che ne riprende non solo il senso generale, ma anche alcune espressioni particolari (cfr. contr. 7, 1, 14 obicis mihi molliorem animum : alius mitior est, plus quam debet, alius saevior quam necesse est, mediis alius adfectibus inter utrumque positus totus in sua potestate est. Quidam et accusare et damnare possunt et occidere ; quidam tam mites sunt, ut non possint in caput ne testimonium quidem dicere. Non possum hominem occidere : hoc vitium et apud piratas invenitur) ; ma Musa sviluppa ulteriormente la sua trattazione in direzione del topos filosofico della diversità delle scelte di vita, un ben noto luogo comune di matrice diatribica (per il quale basti pensare all’Ode 1, 1 di Orazio), che però qui si inserisce in maniera alquanto forzata, svolto come un pezzo retorico indipendente41 ; e la conclusione della sequenza è affidata a un exemplum storico, che si distingue per la sua rarità e ricercatezza, ma che appare anch’esso assai poco pertinente al contesto42. Nelle mani di un declamatore come Musa, che spesso Seneca prende di mira per il suo dubbio gusto e la sua incontinenza espressiva43, il semplice color ‘non potui occidere’ si dilata in una lunga tirata retorica, in buona parte avulsa dal tema della controversia, contrassegnata dalla trattazione del locus communis e coronata dall’immancabile exemplum.

13 Una linea ancora diversa è scelta infine da Cestio Pio44, che nella contr. 1, 4 imposta il suo color sul contrasto fra pater e mater, ovvero sullo scontro (reso retoricamente mediante una triplice antitesi) fra la richiesta del padre di uccidere e quella della madre, ugualmente urgente, di essere risparmiata, con il prevalere infine nel figlio delle istanze dell’affetto materno : cfr. contr. 1, 4, 9 Cestius hoc colore egit : prosiluit, inquit, protinus mater et amplexu suo manus meas alligavit. Ago confusioni meae gratias, quod nihil in illo cubiculo vidi praeter matrem et patrem. Pater rogabat ut occiderem, mater ut viveret ; pater ne nocens impunita esset, mater ut ego innocens essem ; pater recitabat legem de adulteris, mater de parricidis. Et ultimam sententiam dixit : occidere matrem si turpe est noluisse, non potui45. Nella contr. 7, 1 la madre ovviamente non c’è, visto che, secondo il thema, essa è morta e il suo posto è stato preso dalla noverca (indicata da molti declamatori come la vera artefice della condanna del figlio)46 ; ma Cestio trova il modo di recuperare ugualmente il motivo del contrasto pater / mater, immaginando che il figlio, mentre si reca a dare esecuzione alla condanna del fratello, si trovi a passare davanti al sepolcro della madre : cfr. contr. 7, 1, 21 Cestius colore alio usus est : transiebamus, inquit, secundum matris sepulchrum : invocare coepit manes eius ; motus sum. Et puerili sensu colorem transcucurrit : quid facerem ?, inquit ; occidere pater iubebat, mater vetabat. Come si vede, Seneca è tutt’altro che tenero nei confronti di questo color, connotandolo come puerilis : ciò che l’autore rimprovera a Cestio è probabilmente proprio l’introduzione artificiosa

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 9

di un’antitesi che, del tutto pertinente nella contr. 1, 4, non ha invece qui ragion d’essere ; ma è come se il retore avesse voluto trasferire di proposito in quest’altra controversia un tratto già svolto brillantemente nella prima declamazione.

14 Non sappiamo come Cicerone sviluppasse il motivo del ‘non potui occidere’ nella sententia che Seneca il Vecchio riportava in contr. 1, 4, 7 ; ma sembra che questa abbia fornito ai nostri declamatori un’importante traccia, seguendo la quale essi hanno provveduto ad adattare lo stesso color, in tutte le varianti che abbiamo osservato, a due controversiae distinte, e diverse anche da quella in cui esso originariamente si trovava. L’influenza dell’illustre modello ciceroniano, risalente cioè a colui che era considerato l’auctor per eccellenza nel campo dell’eloquenza, agisce in maniera così pressante, che una sola sententia diviene il nucleo generativo su cui si fondano le due controversiae, determinando in esse la scelta del color principale, adottato dalla maggior parte dei retori, fino a improntare di fatto in entrambi i casi lo svolgimento dell’intera declamazione (da questo punto di vista non ha nemmeno molta importanza se il frammento citato da Seneca fosse autentico : ciò che conta è che i declamatori fossero convinti di avere a che fare con un’originale sententia tratta da una controversia di Cicerone).

15 Quello testimoniato da Seneca costituisce dunque un piccolo ma significativo esempio dell’aemulatio Ciceronis e del ‘culto’ riservato all’Arpinate all’interno delle scuole di retorica, da parte di quei declamatori che, pur dediti a un genere che era poco più di una parodia della grande oratoria politica e giudiziaria praticata da Cicerone, pur prediligendo una maniera stilistica lontana anni luce dall’equilibrato classicismo ciceroniano, continuavano a vedere in lui un insuperabile maestro e un modello da imitare e a cui ispirarsi47.

NOTE

1. Il thema della controversia (preceduto come di consueto dalla citazione delle leggi su cui il caso è basato) è il seguente : Adulterum cum adultera qui deprenderit, dum utrumque corpus interficiat, sine fraude sit. Liceat adulterium in matre et filio vindicare. Vir fortis in bello manus perdidit. Deprendit adulterum cum uxore ex qua filium adulescentem habebat, imperavit filio ut occideret : non occidit, adulter effugit. Abdicat filium. Sulle due leggi poste in capo alla controversia (nella seconda notiamo che filio è da intendere come dativo) cfr. S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation in the Late Republic and Early Empire, Liverpool 1949, pp. 119 ss. ; sul procedimento giuridico dell’abdicatio, uno dei più ricorrenti nella declamazione latina, cfr. da ultimo M. Lentano, ‘Un nome più grande di qualsiasi legge’. Declamazione latina e patria potestas, « Boll. Stud. Lat. » 35, 2005, pp. 558-89, pp. 572 ss. (con bibliografia). 2. I colores, che sono una delle tre sezioni in cui Seneca il Vecchio ripartisce il materiale all’interno della sua raccolta antologica, sono le ‘coloriture’ e interpretazioni date dal retore ai fatti della controversia, a sostegno della propria strategia accusatoria o difensiva. Sul significato del termine e sulla funzione dei colores nella declamazione cfr. il recente contributo di L. Calboli Montefusco, La funzione strategica dei colores nella pratica declamatoria, in Ead. (ed.), Papers on Rhetoric VIII. Declamation, Roma 2007, pp. 157-77.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 10

3. Il testo di Seneca il Vecchio è citato secondo l’edizione di L. Håkanson (L. Annaeus Seneca maior, Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores, recensuit L.H., Leipzig 1989). 4. Cfr. J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder, Cambridge 1981, p. 122. 5. Le testimonianze in tal senso sono raccolte e vagliate da S. F. Bonner, op. cit., pp. 27 ss. ; J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., pp. 118 ss. ; Ead., The Elder Seneca and Declamation, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, II 32, 1, Berlin-New York 1984, pp. 514-56, p. 548 e nn. 146-151. 6. L’inciso allude al fatto che all’epoca della giovinezza di Cicerone il verbo declamo (o declamito) e il corrispondente sostantivo declamatio non erano ancora entrati in uso come designazione tecnica dell’esercizio retorico consistente nell’esecuzione di discorsi fittizi specialmente del genere deliberativo (le suasoriae) o giudiziale (le controversiae), un significato che essi assumeranno solo a partire dalle ultime opere di Cicerone, poi più stabilmente nell’età imperiale. Per la storia del termine declamatio cfr. adesso W. Stroh, Declamatio, in B.-J. und J.-P. Schröder (hrsg.), Studium declamatorium. Untersuchungen zu Schulübungen und Prunkreden von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit, München-Leipzig 2003, pp. 5-34. 7. All’addestramento bilingue da lui seguito negli anni della sua formazione Cicerone allude ancora in off. 1, 1 ; si veda inoltre il frammento di una lettera a M. Titinio citato da Suet. rhet. 26, 1. Alla stessa pratica si atterrà anni dopo il figlio di Cicerone, come si ricava da una sua lettera dell’estate del 44 a.C. conservata nella raccolta delle familiares, in cui da Atene, dove si trovava per un viaggio di istruzione, egli informa il liberto Tirone sui suoi studi (cfr. Cic. fam. 16, 21, 5 praeterea declamitare Graece apud Cassium institui, Latine autem apud Bruttium exerceri volo). Cfr. F. Lechi, Latino e greco nelle scuole di retorica, in F. Bellandi-R. Ferri (a cura di), Aspetti della scuola nel mondo romano. Atti del convegno (Pisa, 5-6 dicembre 2006), Amsterdam 2008, pp. 9-27, pp. 10 ss. ; in generale sull’educazione retorica di Cicerone cfr. A. Corbeill, Rhetorical Education in Cicero’s Youth, in J. M. May (ed.), Brill’s Companion to Cicero. Oratory and Rhetoric, Leiden-Boston-Köln 2002, pp. 23-48, pp. 25 ss. 8. Questo dettaglio è probabilmente da porre in relazione con l’altra notizia riportata da Svetonio nel cap. 7 del De grammaticis, secondo cui nell’anno della sua pretura Cicerone frequentava la scuola del grammatico e retore M. Antonio Gnifone (cfr. Suet. gramm. 7, 3-4 [M. Antonius Gnipho] docuit autem et rhetoricam, ita ut cotidie praecepta eloquentiae traderet, declamaret vero nonnisi nundinis. Scholam eius claros quoque viros frequentasse aiunt, in his M. Ciceronem, etiam cum praetura fungeretur; cfr. anche Macrob. Sat. 3, 12, 8). 9. Si vedano le note di commento a tutto il passo in R. A. Kaster, Suetonius, De grammaticis et rhetoribus, ed. with a Translation, Introduction and Commentary by R.A.K., Oxford 1995, pp. 275 s. 10. Cfr. Cic. Tusc. 1, 7 (citato infra, p. 9). 11. Cfr. Cic. de orat. 1, 149 equidem probo ista – Crassus inquit – quae vos facere soletis, ut causa aliqua posita consimili causarum earum quae in forum deferuntur, dicatis quam maxime ad veritatem accommodate, con il commento ad l. di A. D. Leeman-H. Pinkster, M. Tullius Cicero, De oratore libri III, I Band : Buch I, 1-165, Kommentar von A.D.L. und H.P., Heidelberg 1981, pp. 245 ss. 12. Alla pratica di declamazioni non sembrano riferirsi due ulteriori accenni in due lettere scritte sempre da Puteoli nel maggio successivo (cfr. Cic. Att. 14, 20, 4 e 22, 1, dove Irzio è definito meus discipulus, ma da intendere probabilmente in senso politico : cfr. R. A. Kaster, op. cit., p. 276). 13. Cicerone allude alla vicenda del tiranno di Siracusa Dionisio il Giovane, il quale, cacciato dalla sua patria ad opera di Timoleone, si rifugiò a Corinto, dove per vivere aprì una scuola ; il fatto era divenuto proverbiale, a significare i rovesci di fortuna a cui sono soggetti anche gli uomini più potenti (cfr. ad es. Cic. Tusc. 3, 27 ; Att. 9, 9, 1). 14. Era infatti convinzione degli antichi che un’appropriata esercitazione oratoria avesse effetti benefici anche sulla salute, alla pari dell’allenamento fisico. Si veda ad es. quanto Cicerone narra di se stesso nei capp. 313-316 del Brutus : da giovane egli era affetto da una summa gracilitas et infirmitas corporis, aggravata dallo sforzo fisico a cui si sottoponeva per pronunciare i suoi discorsi nel foro, al punto che alcuni medici lo avevano consigliato di abbandonare la pratica oratoria ;

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 11

egli decise allora di mutare genus dicendi, adottando un tono di voce più disteso e moderato, e a questo scopo partì per un viaggio di istruzione in Grecia e in Asia, nel corso del quale ebbe modo di frequentare alcuni dei più celebri maestri di retorica greci, e da cui tornò in capo a due anni non modo exercitatior, sed prope mutatus, non solo con un nuovo stile oratorio, ma anche rinvigorito nel fisico (Brut. 316 nam et contentio nimia vocis resederat et quasi deferverat oratio, lateribusque vires et corpori mediocris habitus accesserat). 15. Cfr. Cic. fam. 9, 18, 2-3 quid quaeris ? me quoque delectat consilium ; multa enim consequor : primum, id quod maxime nunc opus est, munio me ad haec tempora. Id cuius modi sit nescio ; tantum video, nullius adhuc consilium me huic anteponere, nisi forte melius mori fuit. […] Sequitur illud : ipse melior fio, primum valetudine, quam intermissis exercitationibus amiseram ; deinde ipsa illa, si qua fuit in me, facultas orationis, nisi me ad has exercitationes rettulissem, exaruisset. Extremum illud est, quod tu nescio an primum putes : pluris iam pavones confeci quam tu pullos columbinos, eqs. Per un’approfondita analisi di queste due lettere a Peto (fam. 9, 16 e 18), assai importanti per comprendere lo stato d’animo di Cicerone nei giorni della vittoria di Cesare, cfr. M. Demmel, Cicero und Paetus, Köln 1962, pp. 30 ss. 16. Sulla datazione e la provenienza di questa lettera cfr. le note di commento di D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares, ed. by D.R.S.B., II, Cambridge 1977, p. 342. 17. Il frammento citato corrisponde ad Acc. trag. 547 s. Ribb.3 L’idea espressa da Cicerone tramite questa citazione tragica anticipa quello che diverrà un luogo comune nei critici della declamazione della prima età imperiale, quando gli esercizi declamatòri vengono paragonati ai combattimenti finti affrontati dai soldati o dai gladiatori nel loro addestramento, che sono però tutt’altra cosa rispetto alle battaglie vere : si possono citare a titolo di esempio le parole dell’oratore e retore Cassio Severo riportate da Sen. contr. 3 praef. 13 deinde res ipsa diversa est : totum aliud est pugnare, aliud ventilare. Hoc ita semper habitum est, scholam quasi ludum esse, forum arenam, eqs. 18. Cfr. ThlL V.2, 508, 43 ss. ; tra gli esempi più chiari, cfr. Sen. frg. 98 Haase (dal De vita patris) si quaecumque composuit pater meus et edi voluit, iam in manus populi emisissem ; Quint. inst. praef. 1 efflagitasti … ut libros, quos ad Marcellum meum de institutione oratoria scripseram, iam emittere inciperem ; 6 prooem. 3 eum … librum, quem de causis corruptae eloquentiae emisi ; Plin. ep. 1, 2, 6 libelli, quos emisimus, dicuntur in manibus esse, ecc. 19. Il vitium riscontrato da Cicerone nella frase di Irzio, e castigato tramite un arguto motto di spirito, sta naturalmente nelle parole in utero, che in effetti possono apparire come un’aggiunta superflua. 20. In luogo delle parole cum is apud ipsum i manoscritti quintilianei recano lezioni prive di senso (cui sapasim cum, cusapastium, e simili) ; questa sistemazione del testo si deve a R. Volkmann, e ha buone probabilità di essere quella giusta ; L. Radermacher poneva a testo la sua congettura cum is apud Asinium, che però alla luce di quanto sappiamo delle declamazioni di Irzio e Cicerone, sembra difficilmente accettabile. Al ruolo di maestro assunto da Cicerone nei confronti di Irzio, Pansa e Dolabella, Quintiliano allude ancora in inst. 12, 11, 6 sic Pansam, Hirtium, Dolabellam more praeceptoris exercuit cotidie dicens audiensque. 21. È possibile che la battuta in questione fosse stata tratta da una raccolta di facezie ciceroniane, compilata a quanto pare dal liberto Tirone, che Quintiliano cita e utilizza nel cap. 6, 3 dell’ Institutio oratoria, dedicato ai motti di spirito, e da cui attingono anche altri autori successivi (testimonianze e frammenti di questi Tulliana facete dicta sono raccolti adesso in M. Tulli Ciceronis, Fragmenta ex libris philosophicis, ex aliis libris deperditis, ex scriptis incertis, I. Garbarino recognovit, Milano 1984, pp. 128 ss., dove il nostro frammento figura con il n. 16 ; esso sarebbe comunque l’unico citato da Quintiliano al di fuori del suddetto cap. 6, 3). In ogni caso la citazione quintilianea, con la precisa menzione della circostanza a cui la battuta risale, lascia intendere che qualcosa delle declamazioni ciceroniane e dell’insegnamento retorico impartito a Irzio e agli altri discipuli si era comunque tramandato.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 12

22. Il frammento meriterebbe di essere incluso a sua volta nelle raccolte dei frammenti ciceroniani ; esso non compare infatti né nell’edizione delle opere complete a cura di C. F. W. Müller (M. Tulli Ciceronis scripta quae manserunt omnia, recognovit C. F. W. Müller, IV.3, Lipsiae 1879, volume che contiene fra l’altro i fragmenta), né in quella dei soli frammenti curata più di recente da G. Garbarino (vedi la nota precedente). 23. Cfr. soprattutto J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., pp. 115 ss. ; su questo problema rimando inoltre alla discussione nel mio libro Scholasticorum studia. Seneca il Vecchio e la cultura retorica e letteraria della prima età imperiale, Pisa 2007, pp. 110 ss. (con ulteriore bibliografia). 24. Causa è la parola latina con cui si traduceva il termine greco ὑπόθεσιϛ, quel genere di esercizio che, al contrario delle θέσειϛ (questioni filosofiche di carattere generale, dibattute in astratto e senza riferimento a persone e circostanze specifiche), prevedeva la trattazione di casi ben definiti e circostanziati (cfr. ad es. Quint. inst. 3, 5, 7 finitae autem [sc. quaestiones] sunt ex complexu rerum personarum temporum ceterorumque ; hae ὑποθέσειϛ a Graecis dicuntur, causae a nostris). L’equivalenza fra causa e controversia come resa del greco ὑπόθεσιϛ è attestata da Cic. de orat. 3, 109 omnem civilem orationem in horum alterutro genere versari, aut de finita controversia certis temporibus ac reis … aut infinite de universo genere quaerentis … ; atque horum superius illud genus causam aut controversiam appellant eamque tribus, lite aut deliberatione aut laudatione, definiunt (anche se Cicerone applica tale definizione a tutti i tria genera causarum, il giudiziario, il deliberativo e l’encomiastico, e non solo alle controversiae propriamente dette) ; cfr. J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., pp. 125 s. 25. Così molti dei temi declamatòri menzionati da Cicerone nei suoi trattati retorici corrispondono a quelli noti dalle raccolte di Seneca il Vecchio e dello pseudo-Quintiliano, o comunque da autori dell’età imperiale ; per fare solo un esempio, il thema di controversia citato da Cic. de orat. 2, 100 (Lex peregrinum vetat in murum ascendere ; ascendit ; hostis reppulit : accusatur) ricorre praticamente identico in Quintiliano (cfr. inst. 4, 4, 4 e 7, 6, 6); cfr. J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., pp. 120 s. 26. Nella lettera in questione (Cic. Att. 9, 4), scritta a poche settimane dallo scoppio della guerra civile tra Cesare e Pompeo, Cicerone confida ad Attico tutta la sua amarezza e inquietudine per l’attuale situazione politica, e gli comunica che, per non abbandonarsi completamente alla tristezza, ha preso a discutere quasdam tamquam θέσειϛ, quae et πολιτικαί sunt et temporum horum (Att. 9, 4, 1). Segue un lungo e dettagliato elenco dei temi, in greco, di queste θέσειϛ, che riguardano soprattutto l’atteggiamento da tenere sotto un regime tirannico (per fare solo qualche esempio : Εἰ μενετέον ἐν τῇ πατρίδι τυραννουμένηϛ αὐτῆϛ ; Εἰ παντὶ τρόπῳ τυραννίδοϛ κατάλυσιν πραγματευτέον, κἂν μέλλῃ διὰ τοῦτο περὶ τῶν ὅλων ἡ πόλιϛ κινδυνεύσειν, e così via) ; Cicerone conclude quindi precisando di dibattere tali questioni pro e contro, e sia in greco che in latino (Att. 9, 4, 3 in his ego me consultationibus exercens et disserens in utramque partem tum Graece tum Latine et abduco parumper animum a molestiis et τῶν προὔργου τι delibero ; cfr. anche Att. 9, 9, 1). Sebbene anche altrove Cicerone lasci intendere di prediligere le theseis (questa è la senilis declamatio a cui allude in Tusc. 1, 7 ; cfr. anche ad Q. fr. 3, 3, 4, e J. Fairweather, op. cit., pp. 118 s.), ciò non esclude che egli abbia continuato a praticare altri tipi di esercizi retorici, come le causae o controversiae. 27. Così recita il thema della contr. 7, 4 : Liberi parentes alant aut vinciantur. Quidam, cum haberet uxorem et ex ea filium, peregre profectus est. A piratis captus scripsit de redemptione epistulas uxori et filio. Uxor flendo oculos perdidit. Filium euntem ad redemptionem patris alumenta poscit ; non remanentem alligari vult. Su questa controversia cfr. L. Beltrami, I doveri alimentari erga parentes, in R. Raffaelli, R. M. Danese, S. Lanciotti (a cura di), Pietas e allattamento filiale. La vicenda, l’exemplum, l’iconografia. Colloquio di Urbino, 2-3 maggio 1996, Urbino 1997, pp. 72-101, pp. 88 s. 28. Cfr. M. Winterbottom, The Elder Seneca, Declamations, translated by M.W., I, London 1974, p. 112, ad l.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 13

29. Più in generale questo modulo espressivo, che ha ben noti precedenti nella poesia epica a partire da Omero, non risulta mai attestato, a quanto ho potuto vedere, nei testi declamatòri latini ; il ‘meccanismo della triplicazione’ è però spesso presente nei temi delle controversiae (per limitarci alle declamazioni della raccolta senecana, tre sono i tentativi di seduzione operati dal mercator nella contr. 2, 7 ; tre le abdicationes e le successive assoluzioni ricevute dal figlio nella contr. 7, 3 ; tre le richieste di matrimonio rivolte dal ricco alla figlia del pauper nella contr. 8, 6 ; cfr. anche M. Lentano, L’eroe va a scuola. La figura del vir fortis nella declamazione latina, Napoli 1998, p. 110 e n. 10). 30. Da questo punto di vista si potrebbe forse avanzare l’ipotesi che la sententia fosse in greco (che Cicerone fosse solito declamare anche in greco lo abbiamo visto nelle pagine precedenti ; anche se le declamazioni dei suoi ultimi anni erano a quanto pare prevalentemente in latino). In gran parte del l. I delle Controversiae le citazioni greche, che Seneca fa abitualmente seguire alla presentazione degli estratti dei declamatori latini, sono state volutamente tralasciate, in una fase della tradizione manoscritta precedente al nostro archetipo, da un copista che evidentemente non intendeva il greco (e anche dove esse sono state riportate, si presentano spesso in uno stato quasi irrimediabilmente corrotto) ; in questa contr. 1, 4 le parti in greco mancano totalmente (si veda questo stesso § 7, in cui è contenuta la citazione di Cicerone, e inoltre i §§ 10-12). Si potrebbe allora supporre che le parole ter non rappresentino la traccia di un tentativo di trascrizione dei caratteri greci, subito abbandonato dal copista (questo anche in considerazione del fatto che la porzione di testo mancante sembra essere limitata alla sola sententia ciceroniana) ; ma si può anche pensare, e resta anzi l’ipotesi più probabile, che la lacuna sia dovuta a un normale guasto o errore meccanico. 31. Questo il thema della contr. 7, 1 : Mortua quidam uxore, ex qua duos filios habebat, duxit aliam. Alterum ex adulescentibus domi parricidi damnavit, tradidit fratri puniendum : ille exarmato navigio imposuit. Delatus est adulescens ad piratas, archipirata factus est. Postea pater peregre profectus captus est ab eo et remissus in patriam. Abdicat filium. La pena prevista per i parricidi era di essere cuciti dentro un sacco di cuoio (il culleus), per poi essere gettati in mare ; nella controversia il figlio rinuncia ad applicare tale pena nei confronti del fratello, e si limita a metterlo in mare su un’imbarcazione priva di tutto l’equipaggiamento (nei colores difensivi alcuni retori argomenteranno che questa era una forma di supplizio anche più spietata del culleus, in quanto costringeva il reo a vedere la sua pena, oppure che si trattava di un modo per affidare il giudizio sulla colpevolezza del frater a un’entità superiore : cfr. contr. 7, 1, 24-25). Tale situazione stimola comunque la fantasia dei declamatori, che ne traggono spunto per alcune efficaci descrizioni del navigium squassato (cfr. ad es. contr. 7, 1, 2 ; 8 ; 10), oppure della tempesta che si immagina abbattersi sull’imbarcazione (cfr. contr. 7, 1, 4 e 26 ; su questo pezzo descrittivo topico cfr. S. F. Bonner, op. cit., p. 59). 32. Su Porcio Latrone, uno dei retori più famosi e di maggiore successo della prima età imperiale, compatriota e amico di Seneca il Vecchio (che oltre a farne il principale protagonista della sua antologia declamatoria, gli dedica un commosso ricordo nella praefatio al l. I delle Controversiae : contr. 1 praef. 13-24), cfr. H. Bornecque, Les déclamations et les déclamateurs d’après Sénèque le Père, Lille 1902, pp. 188 ss. ; anche J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., pp. 251 ss. (in particolare sulla personalità letteraria di Latrone). 33. Cfr. soprattutto contr. 1, 1, 15-16, dove Seneca osserva che Latrone considerava un tale tipo di color, che faceva leva sul prevalere dell’adfectus sulla ratio, più potente di qualsiasi altro argomento. Lo sviluppo che Latrone dà al color nella contr. 1, 1 richiama a sua volta assai da vicino il nostro esempio (cfr. Sen. contr. 1, 1, 16 non potui, inquit, sustinere illud durum spectaculum. Offensam mihi putas tantum excidisse ? Mens excidit : non animus mihi constitit, non in ministerium sustinendi corporis suffecerunt pedes, oculi subita caligine obtorpuerunt ; si osservi, oltre al resto, il ricorrere in entrambi i passi del termine spectaculum).

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 14

34. Il testo è quello di Håkanson, che pone tra cruces il tràdito ingenti, segnalando in apparato le congetture, ugualmente probabili per il senso, languenti, fugiente, oppure deficiente ; come altrove osservato dallo stesso L. Håkanson (Some Critical Notes on Seneca the Elder, « Amer. Journ. Philol. » 97, 1976, pp. 121-129, p. 127), il confronto con il § 17 (sublapsum est intercepto spiritu corpus) rende pressoché sicuro che l’ablativo spiritu debba legarsi a titubantem, e non a descripsisset, come intendevano gli editori precedenti, che mantenevano nel testo ingenti. 35. Cfr. J. Fairweather, Seneca the Elder cit., p. 169. Un color analogo ricorre anche negli estratti di altri declamatori, come Albucio Silo (cfr. contr. 7, 1, 1), e soprattutto Rubellio Blando (cfr. contr. 7, 1, 6 subito mihi non sentienti ferrum cum animo pariter excidit : torpent manus, et nescio qua perturbatione tenebrae stupentibus offunduntur oculis. Intellexi quam difficile esset parricidium facere, etiam quod imperaret pater). 36. Sulla figura e la personalità di Albucio Silo, un altro dei principali retori della prima età imperiale (alla sua presentazione è dedicata la praefatio al l. VII delle Controversiae senecane ; il suo profilo biografico si è inoltre conservato nel frammento superstite del De rhetoribus di Svetonio, cap. 30), cfr. H. Bornecque, op. cit., pp. 145 ss. ; R. A. Kaster, op. cit., pp. 313 ss. 37. Cfr. contr. 7, 1, 17 non possum fratrem occidere : pone hoc loco piratam : non poterit. Quidam occidere hominem tantum non possunt ; quorundam adversus hostes deficit manus. Fratris quoque beneficium non est tam magnum, pater, quam putas : non ille te noluit occidere, sed non potuit (dove il motivo è esteso anche alla mancata uccisione del padre da parte dell’altro figlio divenuto pirata). 38. Su Gallione, giovane declamatore assai stimato da Seneca il Vecchio, a cui fu legato anche da uno speciale rapporto di amicizia (ne adottò il figlio secondogenito, Anneo Novato), cfr. H. Bornecque, op. cit., pp. 173 ss. 39. Cfr. anche R. Chambert, Pirates et voyageurs dans les Controverses de Sénèque le Père, « Rév. Étud. Lat. » 77,1999, pp. 149-69, p. 160. 40. Su Musa, retore di origine greca non particolarmente apprezzato da Seneca (che gli dedica un breve ritratto in contr. 10 praef. 9-10, additandolo come vera e propria incarnazione del vitium del tumor), cfr. H. Bornecque, op. cit., p. 181. 41. Cfr. contr. 7, 1, 14-15 alii vivere sine rei publicae administratione non possunt ; aliis in privato latere et extra omnem invidiam secessisse praecipua tranquillitas est ; aliis non potest persuaderi ut matrimonio obligentur, aliis ut careant. Sunt qui castra timent, sunt qui cicatricibus suis gaudent. In tanta morum varietate videte quantulum sit quod excusem : non ambitioni, non inertiae veniam peto : misericors sum, non possum occidere hominem. Come si può vedere, i tre esempi di scelte di vita antitetiche proposti da Musa (concernenti l’impegno politico, il matrimonio e la vita militare) hanno ben poco a che fare con la questione dell’incapacità di uccidere, su cui il figlio basa la sua difesa ; segno evidente di come il locus communis sia qui inserito in maniera posticcia e quasi a forza. 42. Cfr. contr. 7, 1, 15 centurio Luculli Mithridaten non potuit occidere ; dextra simul ac mens elanguit. Pro bone Iuppiter, Mithridaten quam non dubium parricidam !. L’exemplum in questione si rifà a un episodio poco noto della seconda guerra mitridatica, quando, dopo la sconfitta romana a Zela (67 a.C.), un centurione dell’esercito di Lucullo riuscì ad avvicinarsi a Mitridate con l’intenzione di ucciderlo, ma venuto al dunque riuscì soltanto a ferirlo a una coscia, prima di essere individuato e catturato (cfr. App. Mithr. 89, 404). 43. Oltre al già ricordato ritratto di contr. 10 praef. 9, cfr. contr. 7, 5, 13, dove Musa è criticato proprio per l’inserimento forzato, a suggello della trattazione di un locus communis, di un exemplum completamente fuori luogo (su questi passi mi sono soffermato nel libro Scholasticorum studia cit., pp. 198 ss.). 44. Sulla figura di Cestio Pio, originario di Smirne, in Asia Minore, ma titolare a Roma di una scuola molto frequentata, anch’egli fra i retori più ammirati e più spesso citati da Seneca nella sua raccolta, cfr. H. Bornecque, op. cit., pp. 160 ss.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 15

45. Un’idea simile anche nel color di Rubellio Blando, citato subito prima (cfr. contr. 1, 4, 9 Blandus hoc colore : utrimque fili nomen audio : pater rem petit iustiorem, mater faciliorem. Et illud post descriptionem adiecit : fatebor vobis, parricidium coram patre facere non potui). 46. Cfr. contr. 7, 1, 20, con la discussione sull’opportunità o meno di attaccare apertamente la noverca nei colores in difesa del figlio. 47. Sull’aemulatio Ciceronis e la sua ‘canonizzazione’ nell’ambito delle scuole di retorica cfr. R. A. Kaster, Becoming ‘CICERO’, in P. Knox-C. Foss (ed.), Style and Tradition. Studies in honor of Wendell Clausen, Stuttgart-Leipzig 1998, pp. 248-63 ; sull’atteggiamento ‘schizofrenico’ dei declamatori nei confronti del modello ciceroniano cfr. inoltre quanto ho osservato in Scholasticorum studia cit., pp. 217 s.

RIASSUNTI

Nella quarta controversia del l. I della raccolta Oratorum et rhetorum sententiae divisiones colores Seneca il Vecchio cita una sententia tratta da una controversia di Cicerone, l’unico frammento a noi noto di una declamazione ciceroniana. Sull’autenticità di tale frammento sono stati avanzati dei dubbi, ma l’analisi dei riferimenti all’attività declamatoria di Cicerone contenuti nella sua corrispondenza, suffragati da un passo dell’Institutio oratoria di Quintiliano, porta alla conclusione che le declamazioni ciceroniane, in particolare quelle tenute negli ultimi anni della sua vita insieme ad alcuni importanti personaggi (come Irzio e Pansa), nonostante il loro carattere privato avevano conosciuto qualche forma di circolazione presso un pubblico più vasto, tanto che la loro memoria poteva essersi conservata almeno fino all’epoca di Quintiliano. Ciò accresce la possibilità che anche il frammento trasmesso da Seneca sia autentico ; e la notizia senecana assume una rilevanza più generale per la storia dello sviluppo del genere declamatorio a Roma, documentando la natura e i temi degli esercizi retorici svolti da Cicerone, che risultano essere del tutto simili a quelli praticati dai retori dell’età imperiale. Il testo della sententia è andato perduto per un guasto della tradizione manoscritta senecana ; ma la parafrasi data da Seneca consente di ricostruirne il contenuto e di stabilire che essa sviluppava un particolare color difensivo, che forma il cardine dell’argomentazione anche in due controversiae della raccolta senecana, applicato dai singoli retori in varianti diverse, che sembrano però rifarsi tutte al precedente ciceroniano. La testimonianza di Seneca offre così un piccolo ma significativo esempio dell’aemulatio Ciceronis e della fortuna immediata di questo autore nelle scuole di retorica del primo impero.

INDICE

Mots-clés : Cicerone, colores, controversiae, declamazione, discussione dell’autenticità, epistolario di Cicerone, fortuna di Cicerone, frammenti, imitazione, scuole di retorica, Seneca il Vecchio

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 16

AUTORE

EMANUELE BERTI [email protected]

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 17

Le désir au féminin : d’une « Lucrèce » à une autre Sur les réceptions élégiaques d’une adaptation tibulléenne de Tite-Live

Jacqueline Fabre-Serris

1 L’existence de cercles littéraires à Rome a, sans doute, joué un rôle décisif dans la façon dont les poètes écrivaient, chaque texte proposé à l’audition ou à la lecture se trouvant susceptible de susciter des échos ou de recevoir des réponses, plus ou moins immédiates. Ces conditions de réception expliquent le succès d’une pratique héritée d’Alexandrie, l’écriture allusive, qu’a sans doute favorisée le goût partagé alors par les poètes romains et leur public pour l’expérimentation et pour l’ingéniosité.

2 Aussi est-ce un parcours poétique que je vais proposer ici, sur le désir au féminin et la façon d’en parler, en passant d’un texte à un autre à partir de vers de Tibulle, qui sont un écho ou une réponse élégiaque à un auteur dont on n’a pas assez montré comment il a participé à la vie littéraire de son temps : je veux parler de Tite-Live, vers qui ont, à leur tour, généré une série de textes élégiaques, dont certains sont le fait de membres du même cercle que Tibulle : Sulpicia et Ovide.

3 Il s’agit des derniers vers de l’élégie 1, 3, où le poète propose de sa puella une image qui me paraît inspirée par celle de Lucrèce, symbole de la vertu des femmes romaines dont Tite-Live venait de faire le pivot du passage de la royauté à la République. Vu le rôle assigné par l’historien à l’épisode du viol de Lucrèce dans la fondation de l’Etat romain, il est plus que probable que cette illustration in actu du mos maiorum avait frappé les esprits, surtout dans le contexte politique de la fin du 1er siècle dont les effets sur la production littéraire ne sont plus à démontrer. Je précise que les dates ne sont pas un obstacle à une influence de Tite-Live sur Tibulle. Paul J. Burton1 a montré récemment que l’on pouvait raisonnablement faire remonter la rédaction de la première pentade à 33 av. J.-C. ou au plus tard à 32 av. J.-C. Le texte de Tibulle dont je vais parler est généralement daté de 29 av. J.-C.

4 Tibulle présente l’élégie 1, 3 comme un texte écrit en Phéacie, où il s’est retrouvé malade et incapable de poursuivre son voyage avec Messala. Retenu alors loin de Rome,

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 18

il émet le souhait que son amie lui soit restée fidèle. Ce souhait fait suite à une imprécation qui clôt un passage sur les Enfers : Illic sit quicumque meos uiolauit amores, Optauit lentas et mihi militias (81-82)2.

5 L’expression uiolauit amores est, peut-être, un écho gallien. Dans son commentaire à Tibulle, G. Lee3 cite un graffito pompéien où l’on trouve ce verbe dans un contexte incontestablement élégiaque : si quis forte meam cupiet uiolare puellam/ illum in desertis montibus urat Amor4. L’expression in desertis locis, l’adjonction d’Amor à un verbe5, le choix de ce verbe : uro composent, en effet, un ensemble à résonance gallienne. Du coup, le verbe le plus fort : uiolare a aussi toutes les chances d’être un emprunt à Gallus, le graffito pouvant être soit une espèce de pastiche, soit une citation plus ou moins précise. Dans la perspective que je propose : celle d’une influence du portrait de Lucrèce sur la fin de l’élégie 1, 3, il est tentant de supposer une deuxième raison au choix de uiolare en y voyant une allusion au destin de la femme que Tibulle va prendre pour modèle de sa Délie dans les vers qui suivent.

6 La fidélité en amour n’étant pas l’attitude la plus attendue chez une puella élégiaque, la fin du texte est entièrement écrite sur le mode du souhait et de la scène rêvée. Elle s’ouvre sur ces mots : At tu casta precor maneas…(83) Un des termes-clefs de la vertu des femmes+ est l’adjectif casta, qui implique la fidélité pour celles qui sont mariées et la chasteté pour les jeunes filles. Toutefois, l’originalité vient ici, non du vocabulaire : casta est redoublé par sancti pudor (84) 6, mais du choix de mettre en scène le comportement espéré en recourant à l’imagerie livienne.

7 L’historien raconte qu’un spectacle édifiant s’était offert aux yeux des Tarquins, arrivés à Collatie après un arrêt à Rome chez les belles-filles étrusques du roi : … pergunt inde Collatiam, ubi Lucretiam haudquaquam ut regias nurus, quas in conuiuio luxuque cum aequalibus uiderant tempus terentes, sed nocte sera deditam lanae inter lucubrantes ancillas in medio aedium sedentem inueniunt (1, 57, 9) 7. La scène décrite par Tibulle fait dans son ensemble penser au tableau composé par Tite-Live, avec quelques modifications dans les détails. Tibulle a réduit lenombre des comparses (Délie se trouve seulement avec une anus et une jeune esclave) et modifié la répartition des tâches : tandis que ses compagnes filent la laine, Délie se contente d’écouter les fabellae que lui raconte l’anus. sanctique pudoris adsideat custos sedula semper anus. haec tibi fabellas referat positaque lucerna deducat plena stamina longa colu ; at circa grauibus pensis adfixa puella paulatim somno fessa remittat opus (83-88)8.

8 Nécessitée par la situation sociale de Délie9, cette adaptation n’en est pas moins ingénieuse. Il était difficile d’imaginer l’amie de Tibulle en domina régissant sa domus ; la voilà décrite, mais sans mots suggérant qu’elle pourrait avoir une occupation, attentive aux genres de récits que raconte une vieille femme annoncée comme la gardienne de sa chasteté par l’expression sancti pudoris custos.

9 Le récit de Tite-Live était clairement organisé sur le mode théâtral. Tarquin Collatin propose à ses compagnons, parce qu’il échoue à prouver en paroles la supériorité de sa femme, de confronter les « spectacles » qui vont s’offrir à leurs yeux au retour impromptu de chaque mari : Id cuique spectatissimum sit quod in necopinato uiri aduentu occurrerit oculis (1, 57, 7)10. À ce jeu-là Lucrèce a la palme : Muliebris certaminis laus penes Lucretiam fuit (1, 57, 10)11. L’historien ajoute un mot bref sur la façon dont elle a accueilli

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 19

alors son époux : Adueniens uir Tarquiniique excepti benigne (1, 57, 10)12. Cette retenue de Lucrèce est en accord avec le mos maiorum : pas de familiarité entre époux en présence de tiers13.

10 Tibulle a gardé l’idée d’une arrivée inattendue et modifié la suite dans un sens conforme à la passion qu’implique la fidélité chez une puella élégiaque : Tunc ueniam subito, nec quisquam nuntiet ante, sed uidear caelo missus adesse tibi ; tunc mihi, qualis eris longos turbata capillos, obuia nudato, Delia, curre pede (89-92)14.

11 Certains commentateurs rapprochent le texte de Tibulle, à cause du détail des fabellae racontée par la nourrice, d’un passage de l’histoire d’Aristée, où l’on trouve une scène du même genre : la nymphe Cyréné y est décrite dans sa demeure marine comme une domina entourée de fileuse, parmi lesquelles se trouve une conteuse : …Eam circum Milesia uellera Nymphae carpebant hyali saturo fucata colore (…) Inter quas curam Clymene narrabat inanem Volcani Martisque dolos et dulcia furta aque Chao densos diuom numerabat amores (Géorg., 4, 334-335 ; 345-347)15.

12 Le rapprochement est, je crois, d’autant plus justifié qu’un même auteur est à l’arrière- plan du texte de Virgile et de celui de Tibulle. Comme l’a montré G.B. Conte dans ses analyses magistrales de la fin des Géorgiques 416, Virgile a conçu les figures d’Aristée et d’Orphée en relation avec deux genres littéraires : celui qu’il est en train de pratiquer, la poésie didactique consacrée aux travaux de la campagne, et l’élégie érotique, lancée par Gallus. L’œuvre du poète élégiaque est en fait, me semble-t-il, convoquée dès la description de l’entourage de Cyréné et des occupations auxquelles se livrent les nymphes. Les noms de trois d’entre elles renvoient, en effet, aux Amores. Lycorias (4, 339) est une variante de Lycoris, le nom de la domina gallienne. L’histoire de Cydippé (4, 339) et d’Acontius faisait partie des exempla mythologiques des Amores. Quant à Aréthuse17 (4, 351), deux détails laissent supposer qu’elle apparaissait aussi chez Gallus. Elle est sollicitée dès le premier vers de la Bucolique 10, un texte adressé à Gallus, qui reflète en partie sa poétique ; Properce couple ce nom avec celui de Lycotas (formé sur la même racine que Lycoris) dans l’élégie 4, 3. Les mots cura et dulcia furta employés pour résumer la première fabella racontée par Clyméné appartiennent au glossaire élégiaque. Quant au thème général : les amours des dieux depuis le chaos, comme on l’a depuis longtemps noté, il fait du chant de la nymphe une variation sur celui de Silène dans la Bucolique 6, où le satyre commence par l’origine du monde et poursuit avec un catalogue de passions excessives, majoritairement amoureuses, vécues par les mortels. Comme ce chant renferme en son milieu un hommage à Gallus, consacré par les Muses comme un nouvel Hésiode, il est plus que probable que les histoires évoquées par Silène soient en rapport avec des poèmes et/ou, au moins, avec une orientation poétique de l’auteur ainsi honoré18.

13 Du personnage commun à Virgile et à Tibulle : la fileuse quiraconteà ses compagnes des fabellae, peut-on inférer l’existence d’un antécédent chez Gallus ? L’hypothèse est tentante. Ce qu’il y a de sûr en tout cas, c’est que l’élégie 1, 3 constitue une variation sur une des situations amoureuses des Amores, celle que choisit d’évoquer Virgile dans la Bucolique 10, au moment où il donne la parole à son ami19. Gallus y évoque une

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 20

séparation d’avec Lycoris : lui, est retenu sous les armes loin de sa patrie ; elle, ne lui est pas restée fidèle et est partie loin de Rome. Le cas de Tibulle est voisin : il est aussi retenu sous les armes à l’étranger, mais il espère que Délie, demeurée à Rome, lui sera restée fidèle. Avant de faire allusion au destin de Lucrèce, c’est, sans doute, d’abord cette variation sur une situation gallienne que signale le uiolauit. Les vers du graffito souhaitent à un rival éventuel des souffrances amoureuses dans des lieux déserts, selon un modèle gallien (c’est ce type de paysage que Gallus associait aux souffrances amoureuses20, et on peut là aussi citer la fin des Géorgiques 421) ; dans l’élégie 1, 3, Tibulle voue ce même rival aux Enfers.

14 Replacé dans cette perspective, le choix du détail – s’il est gallien – des fabellae , racontées par une fileuse, est peut-être une allusion supplémentaire à l’auteur à qui Tibulle reprend la situation des amants séparés par la guerre. Toutefois comme cette situation était commune à un texte fameux des Amores22et à un passage de Tite-Live devenu, lui aussi, célèbre, Tibulle a joué de cette similitude en ajoutant, au moment où il se livre à une variation sur le texte gallien, un motif tiré du livre 1 de Tite-Live : le retour impromptu du uir, à qui s’offre alors la vision d’une domina entourée de servantes en train de filer. C’est ce motif qui lui permet de proposer une réponse personnelle à une question répétitive dans l’élégie : comment se comporte la puella quand son amant est au loin23 ? Mais du coup il infléchit la scène livienne, en la modernisant en quelque sorte. La sobriété était, nous l’avons vu, de mise et dans le comportement de Lucrèce et dans les mots de Tite-Live. Ici non seulement un élan, signe d’une passion partagée, emporte Délie dans les bras de son amant, mais les termes pour le décrire participent à l’érotisation de la scène : longos turbata capillos, nudato pede.

15 Tibulle est le poète majeur du cercle de Messala, dont on ne peut aujourd’hui citer que quelques autres participants : Lygdamus, Sulpicia et Ovide. C’est dans ce cercle qu’a probablement été lue d’abord l’élégie 1, 3, ce qui rend plus vraisemblable l’hypothèse que je vais soutenir maintenant : le fait que ce poème a été une matrice pour une série d’autres poèmes, à commencer par trois des textes que l’on peut attribuer à Sulpicia.

16 Mon point de départ sera les échos textuels qu’on peut relever entre cette élégie et l’élégie 3, 9 du Corpus Tibullianum24 : tunc mihi, tunc placeant siluae, si, lux mea, tecum arguar ante ipsas concubuisse plagas ; tunc ueniat licet ad casses, inlaesus abibit, ne ueneris cupidae gaudia turbet, aper […] caste puer, casta retia tange manu (…) Attu uenandi studium concede parenti, et celer in nostros ipse recurre sinus (15-18 ; 20 ; 23-24)25.

17 Avant de commenter ces échos (auxquels il faut ajouter le nom de Delia au vers 5, qui chez Sulpicia désigne Diane, mais n’en renvoie pas moins à Tibulle), il est à souligner que Gallus est aussi convoqué à l’arrière-plan de ce texte, non seulement par le choix du motif central : la chasse (qui, chez tous les élégiaques, renvoie aux Amores, où le grand exemplum de seruitium amoris consistait dans les services rendus par Milanion à Atalante lors de ses chasses), mais aussi par un certain nombre de reprises textuelles. Je citerai simplement une similitude avec un passage de la Bucolique 10, truffé de citations de Gallus et pas seulement au dire de Servius. Le vers 15 : tunc mihi, tunc placeant siluae … inclut deux mots présents aussi au vers 63 du discours de Gallus chez Virgile : Ipsa placent ; ipsae rursus concedite siluae. Cette présence en filigrane de Gallus s’explique ici

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 21

à la fois, d’une façon générale, par le fait que l’auteur des Amores est le fondateur du genre que pratique Sulpicia et, d’une façon particulière, par l’existence d’échos galliens dans l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle, modèle principal du texte de Sulpicia. Quand ils se livrent à une variation sur le texte d’un autre poète, qui fait lui-même référence à un prédécesseur, c’est une pratique en usage chez les poètes que d’inclure aussi dans leurs vers des renvois à cet auteur.

18 Voyons maintenant ce qui rapproche l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle et l’élégie 3, 9 de Sulpicia. Nous avions chez Tibulle une variation sur une situation gallienne : la séparation entre deux amants, dont l’un est retenu sous les armes, avec reprise du terme uiolare dans deux vers dont il existait, très probablement, un équivalent dans les Amores, sous la forme d’une imprécation à l’encontre d’un éventuel rival. Chez Sulpicia, les amants sont séparés : l’homme est au loin, retenu par sa passion pour la chasse, et on trouve aussi, sans surprise, un équivalent de l’imprécation gallienne avec reprise du pronom quicumque, employé par Tibulle : et, quaecumque meo furtim subrepit amori, incidat in saeuas diripienda feras (21-22)26.

19 L’innovation introduite par Tibulle consistait à imaginer un retour impromptu et des retrouvailles amoureuses après constatation de la fidélité de Délie. Les vers que je viens de citer sont encadrés par un double souhait : que Cerinthus reste chaste et qu’il revienne vite se jeter dans les bras de Sulpicia : caste puer,casta retia tange manu […] Attu uenandi studium concede parenti, et celer in nostros ipse recurre sinus (20 ; 23-24)27.

20 L’élan de Délie vers Tibulle autant que les détails à valeur incontestablement érotiques ajoutés par l’auteur (les longs cheveux en désordre et les pieds nus) laissaient présumer une fin de l’histoire – hors champ poétique – dans le lit de la jeune femme. Cette séquence existe chez Sulpicia, où elle est, en même temps, une version féminine de l’ exemplum gallien de Milanion. La jeune femme s’imagine en train d’accomplir pour Cerinthus le même seruitium amoris que Milanion à l’égard d’Atalante : elle portera les filets, cherchera la trace du gibier, s’occupera du chien. Sur le même mode que Tibulle, celui de la scène imaginaire, elle évoque le type de récompense qui couronnait la conquête d’Atalante : une union en pleine nature (…si, lux mea, tecum/ arguar ante ipsas concubuisse plagas28).

21 L’élégie 3, 9 est un petit chef d’œuvre d’ingenium, cette virtuosité – dont je parlais en introduction – à recomposer autrement des éléments qui faisaient la célébrité de telle ou telle poésies lues alors dans les cercles romains. Reste que la nouveauté de ce texte tient aussi à la prise de parole d’une femme, qui se met dans la position de l’amant élégiaque écrivant à un être aimé absent. Et au fait que dans cette prise de parole se fait entendre un désir qui présente deux particularités. La première est qu’il est, parce que c’est celui d’une femme, confronté à des menaces d’entrave : la question du pudor et de la fama est centrale dans la première épigramme de Sulpicia ; ici le mot arguar au vers 16 sonne comme une provocation assumée. La seconde c’est que ce désir s’exprime à travers des allusions répétées à l’union sexuelle (il est question d’abord d’une union imaginée en pleine nature, puis d’une union réelle souhaitée à la fin du poème), qui font ressurgir la voix de Sappho, laquelle – on ne s’en étonnera pas – est un modèle auquel renvoie la première épigramme de Sulpicia29.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 22

22 Quelques mots encore sur Sulpicia. Une des visées de cet article est de montrer que l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle a été une matrice pour toute une série d’autres textes30, qui ont exploité tel ou tel de ces éléments, et plus particulièrement la séparation et le retour inopiné. Or l’on trouve chez Sulpicia deux textes qui recomposent autrement ces deux situations. L’épigramme 3,14 évoque un futur départ de la puella à la campagne, ce qui l’empêchera de célébrer avec son ami l’anniversaire de ce dernier. L’épigramme suivante annonce à Cerinthus que ce départ est annulé, avec un déplacement du motif de l’arrivée imprévue sur le jour même de l’anniversaire et pour ce qui est du choix des mots, un nec opinanti et un uenit qui rappellent respectivement Tite-Live (necopinato, 57, 7) et Tibulle (ueniam, 1, 3, 89) : Omnibus ille dies nobis natalis agatur qui nec opinanti nunc tibi forte uenit (3, 15, 3-4)31.

23 J’en viens maintenant à Properce, qui, dans les trois premiers livres de son recueil, rapporte, par deux fois (dans l’élégie 1, 3 et dans l’élégie 2, 29), des propos de Cynthie. Je voudrais montrer que ces deux textes ont été inspirés par l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle32 et qu’ils ajoutent une dimension nouvelle : la prise de parole de la puella.

24 L’élégie 1, 3 raconte un retour de Properce auprès de son amie, à la fin d’une nuit qu’il a passée loin d’elle, à boire, semble-t-il. Il la retrouve endormie et seule ; elle lui est donc restée fidèle, ce qui n’est peut-être pas son cas à lui. Cynthie se réveille alors et parle. Elle suppose aussitôt une infidélité de son amant : Tandem te nostro referens iniuria lecto/ alterius clausis expulit e foribus ? (35-36)33 et raconte ce qu’a été sa nuit à elle : elle l’a attendu en filant et en chantant : Nam modo purpureo fallebam stamine somnum rursus et Orpheae carmine fessa lyrae ; interdum leuiter mecum deserta querebar externo longas saepe in amore moras, dum me iucundis lapsam sopor impulit alis. Illa fuit lacrimis ultima cura meis (41-46)34.

25 Si le mot stamine est un écho de l’élégie 1, 3, la mention de la lyre d’Orphée semble, elle, renvoyer au livre 4 des Géorgiques, la description de la demeure de Cyréné préludant au récit des malheurs de l’époux d’Eurydice. Première différence introduite par Properce : la scène racontée est réelle. Tibulle imaginait un retour ; celui de Properce est effectif. Tibulle espérait que Délie lui serait restée fidèle ; Cynthie affirme qu’elle l’a été. Le geste de filer que Tibulle prêtait aux deux compagnes de Délie, a réellement été pratiqué par Cynthie et il sert ici aussi – comme c’était le cas initialement chez Tite- Live – de preuve de chasteté. La principale innovation imaginée par Properce consiste, je l’ai dit, dans la prise de parole de Cynthie, non seulement à l’arrivée du poète (où elle retourne contre lui le soupçon d’infidélité qui troublait Tibulle35), mais durant son absence. Elle raconte qu’elle a passé son temps à exprimer les souffrances causées par son abandon en accompagnant son chant à la lyre ou en se plaignant à elle-même de sa situation. Cette lyre est qualifiée de lyre d’Orphée, une figure gallienne chez Virgile ; l’allusion à l’élégie est, ensuite, encore plus nette avec l’expression leuiter mecum deserta querebar.

26 L’élégie 2, 29 évoque à peu près la même situation. Properce erre dans les rues de Rome, ivre. Il est ramené à la demeure de son amie par une bande d’Amours que Cynthie a chargés de cette tâche. Ce sont eux qui expliquent à Properce que son amie l’a attendu des heures durant, sans préciser comment elle a occupé son temps :

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 23

Haec te non meritum totas exspectat in horas : at tu nescio quas quaeris, inepte, fores (13-15)36.

27 Malgré ces paroles, le premier geste de Properce à son retour est de s’assurer que Cynthie est bien seule dans son lit : Mane erat et uolui, si sola quiesceret illa/ uisere : at in lecto Cynthia sola fuit (2, 29, 23-24)37.

28 Comme dans l’élégie 1, 3, la jeune femme se réveille et lui fait des reproches. Cette fois, elle prend comme témoins de sa chasteté son lit (on n’y voit aucune trace suggérant que deux personnes y auraient couché) et son corps, sans parfum d’adultère. Tout cela sert de prélude à une modification de la scène finale chez Tibulle : Cynthie se lève en effet d’un bond, mais c’est pour, les pieds dans ses sandales, repousser d’un geste de la main les baisers de son amant : Dixit, et opposita propellens sauia dextra prosilit in laxa nixa pedem solea (39-40)38.

29 Le vers suivant signale par une citation cette inversion du finale tibulléen : Sic ego tam sancti custode reludor amoris :/ ex illo felix nox mihi nulla fuit (41-42).39

30 Il est souvent difficile de situer chronologiquement les textes des poètes élégiaques, non seulement à l’intérieur de leur œuvre, mais aussi les uns par rapport aux autres : l’ordre de composition d’un recueil n’est pas celui de l’écriture ; quant à la date de publication, elle intervient de toute façon après que les poèmes aient été diffusés par des lectures. En l’absence d’éléments qui renvoient à des événements extérieurs, on peut seulement chercher des arguments du côté de la cohérence interne et en conclure, par exemple, ici que l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle a inspiré les deux textes de Properce que je viens d’évoquer (d’autant que la citation sancti custode peut jouer comme une authentification du rôle de modèle joué par ce texte)40.

31 Reste la question des rapports entre Properce et Sulpicia. Le recueil de Properce présente un certain nombre de convergences avec les poèmes de Sulpicia, mais ils peuvent s’expliquer par l’existence d’un référent commun : Gallus. Je ne me prononcerai donc pas sur l’antériorité de l’un par rapport à l’autre, du moins pour ce qui est des trois premiers livres de Properce. La situation est différente quand on prend le quatrième livre : le poème placé à la fin du quatrième livre date au plus tôt de 16 av. J.-C. puisqu’il évoque la mort de Cornélie, la femme de Lucius Aemilius Paullus ; on peut supposer que les autres ne sont guère antérieurs. Quant à Sulpicia, je rappellerai, sans entrer dans les détails, que ses textes sont probablement antérieurs à la promulgation en 18 av. J.-C. de la Lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus et de la Lex Julia de adulteriis. Je considérerai donc – et je vais essayer de le montrer par des arguments tirés des poèmes – que l’élégie 3, 9 de Sulpicia a pu influencer le dernier texte de Properce que je vais analyser, l’élégie 4, 3.

32 Ce poème, qui se présente sous la forme d’une lettre écrite par une jeune femme romaine à son mari retenu au loin, est une variation sur les motifs – couplés par Gallus – des amants séparés par la guerre et de la fidélité ou de l’infidélité de la puella, ce que signalent, j’y ai déjà fait allusion, dès le premier vers, les noms des protagonistes, Aréthuse et Lycotas. Mais comme cette situation a déjà été retravaillée par Tibulle et par Sulpicia, nous avons aussi des renvois à ces deux poètes.

33 Je commencerai par Sulpicia. Premier point commun : l’élégie 4, 3 est un texte écrit par une femme qui s’adresse à son ami, retenu au loin. Comme le faisait Sulpicia, cette femme demande à l’absent de revenir en espérant qu’il lui est resté fidèle. L’innovation ici consiste à associer les deux motifs, en faisant du second (la fidélité) la condition non

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 24

seulement du retour de l’absent, mais du succès de son entreprise (le texte de Sulpicia était, lui, simplement une prière adressée au sanglier pour qu’il épargne son ami) : Sed (tua sic domitis Parthae telluris alumnis pura triumphantis hasta sequatur equos) incorrupta mei conserua foedera lecti ! Hac ego te sola lege redisse uelim ; armaque cum tulero portae uotiua Capenae, subscribam SALVO GRATA PUELLA VIRO (67-72)41.

34 Sulpicia et Aréthuse craignent, l’une et l’autre, que l’activité à laquelle se livre leur bien-aimé n’abîme leur corps d’amant. Sulpicia s’inquiète pour les mains et les jambes de Cerinthus (Quis furor est, quae mens, densos indagine colles/ claudentem teneras laedere uelle manus ?/ Quidue iuuat furtim latebras intrare ferarum/ candidaque hamatis crura notare rubis ? (7-10) 42) ; Aréthuse pour les membres et les mains de Lycotas : Dic mihi, num teneros urit lorica lacertos ?/ num grauis imbellis atterit hasta manus ? (23-24)43

35 Le souhait de Sulpicia était de partager les chasses de son ami ; le regret d’Aréthuse est de n’avoir pu accompagner son mari dans ses campagnes : Felix Hippolyte ! nuda tulit arma papilla et texit galea barbara molle caput. Romanis utinam patuissent castra puellis ! Essem militiae sarcina fida tuae (43-46)44.

36 Je passe maintenant à Tibulle. Qu’est-ce que Properce a repris de la scène évoquée à la fin de l’élégie 1, 3 ? Une situation d’abord : Aréthuse est une femme restée seule en compagnie de deux autres. L’anus et la jeune esclave de l’élégie 1, 3 sont ici remplacées par une sœur et une nourrice (ce qui est simplement une explicitation de ce qu’était l’ anus) : Assidet una soror curis et pallida nutrix peierat hiberni temporis esse moras (41-43)45.

37 L’autre élément repris évidemment, ce sont les occupations chastes que Properce, dans la ligne inaugurée par l’adaptation tibulléenne de Tite-Live, module à la manière élégiaque. Son Aréthuse occupe ses nuits d’hiver à tisser. L’ingenium ici consiste dans le détail de ce qu’elle tisse : des manteaux de guerre pour son époux, un signe non seulement de sa chasteté, mais de son amour puisque ces vêtements sont destinés à protéger Lycotas : texitur haec castris quarta lacerna tuis […] Noctibus hibernis castrensia pensa laboro et Tyria in gladios uellera secta suo (18 ; 33-34)46.

38 Elle occupe aussi son temps à lire (une variante d’écouter des histoires). Là encore ces lectures sont ciblées : elle regarde des cartes pour connaître la géographie des lieux où Lycotas combat et sans doute lit-elle des textes sur ces régions puisqu’elle est au courant des climats et de la façon dont y soufflent les vents.

39 Je terminerai avec un détail rajouté qui est une variante de l’union amoureuse imaginaire sur laquelle s’achève l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle : quand vient le soir, Aréthuse couvre de baisers les armes qu’a pu laisser son époux : At mihi cum noctes induxit uesper amaras, si qua relicta iacent, osculor arma tua (29-30)47.

40 Avec Ovide évidemment plus de problèmes de date : les Fastes sont postérieurs à tous les textes que nous avons vus. Leur auteur y orchestre magistralement, au livre 2, une

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 25

réécriture de l’histoire de Lucrèce, qui intègre la perspective élégiaque développée par Tibulle et Properce

41 Comme chez Tite-Live, Lucrèce est entourée de ses servantes qui filent leur poids de laine (pensa, un mot utilisé par Tibulle), mais la scène évoquée a lieu, à l’instar de Tibulle et Properce, dans la chambre (il est question de son torus au vers 742) et non in medio aedium.

42 Chez l’historien le comportement de Lucrèce est immédiatement reconnu comme un signe de sa chasteté (spectata castitas, 1, 57, 10). À cette activité Ovide a ajouté des paroles, largement inspirées par l’élégie 4, 3 de Properce. Sa Lucrèce parle d’une voix tenuis (743), un des termes programmatiques du discours élégiaque, pour évoquer d’abord le manteau de guerre (lacerna au vers 746, une idée de Properce) que ses servantes et elle tissent pour Tarquin, retenu sous les remparts d’Ardée. Comme Aréthuse, elle souhaite ardemment le retour de son mari et s’effraie de son courage qui l’expose au danger. On lit chez Properce : Ne, precor, ascensis tanti sit gloria Bactris/ raptaue odorato carbasa lina duci,/ plumbea cum tortae sparguntur pondera fundae/ subdolus et uersis increpat arcus equis ! (4, 3, 63-66)48 et chez Ovide : Sint tantum reduces ! sed enim temerarius ille/ est meus et stricto qualibet ense ruit./ Mens abit et morior quotiens pugnantis imago/ me subit, et gelidum pectora frigus habet (751-754)49. Ces paroles qui expriment l’amour passionné de la jeune femme pour son époux sont accompagnées de larmes et d’une faiblesse soudaine qui lui fait abandonner son ouvrage. Ovide précise que tout cela s’accorde parfaitement avec la vertu de Lucrèce (manifestée par son activité de fileuse) : Hoc ipsum decuit : lacrimae decuere pudicam, et facies animo dignaque parque fuit (757-758)50.

43 On pourrait croire à une simple correction du récit livien inspirée par l’idée que les élégiaques se font souvent du mariage, auquel ils associent l’amour. Comme souvent chez Ovide, la situation est plus complexe. Properce avait innové en donnant la parole à la femme laissée seule et restée fidèle ; Ovide, lui, fait parler le mari, avec des mots, empruntés à un texte du Corpus Tibullianum généralement attribué à un poète inconnu, l’élégie 3, 10, où ce poète s’adresse à Cerinthus, qu’inquiète une maladie de Sulpicia. Pone metum, Cerinthe : deus non laedit amantes ; tu modo semper ama : salua puella tibi est (15-16)51.

44 Tarquin Collatin a la même intention : lui aussi veut rassurer Lucrèce, à moitié évanouie de douleur : « Pone metum, ueni ! » coniunx ait ; illa reuixit deque uiri collo dulce pependit onus (759-760)52.

45 Le pone metum, repris du vers 15, s’accompagne d’un ueni, qui renvoie à Tibulle, et, du coup, peut-être aussi à Sulpicia (dont l’épigramme 3, 13 s’ouvre sur les mots : tandem uenit amor). Ce qui rend encore plus certain le renvoi de pone metum à l’élégie 3, 10 est qu’Ovide a repris le début du vers suivant : tu modo semper ama dans une de ses Héroïdes doubles : on lit, au vers 256 de la lettre d’Hélène : Bella gerant fortes ; tu, Pari, semper ama. Quand une expression renvoie à un texte, l’un des effets de cette pratique allusive est de convoquer le reste du passage dans la mémoire des lecteurs. Ceux d’Ovide, ou du moins ceux qui avaient fréquenté le cercle de Messala ou connaissaient ses productions, quand ils lisaient, dans les Fastes : pone metum, ueni, devaient penser au vers suivant de l’élégie 3, 10 : tu modo semper ama53. Ce vers, qui résonne comme une maxime (c’est en tant que tel qu’il est repris dans l’Héroïde 17), correspond exactement à la position des

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 26

élégiaques : la seule chose que les amants aient à faire, c’est d’aimer, et en théorie tout est alors pour le mieux puisque idéalement l’amour implique constance et fidélité.

46 Or c’est cette conception que le texte ovidien met ensuite en doute puisque c’est – précisément – l’amour de Lucrèce pour son mari qui fait naître le désir de Tarquin, entraîne la perte de la jeune femme et anéantit son bonheur : l’amour et non uniquement la chasteté, ce qui était le cas chez Tite-Live, qui ajoutait aussi la beauté, en deuxième position : cum forma tum spectata castitas incitat (1, 57, 10)54. L’expérience acquise et transmise dans l’Art d’aimer est passée par là : la vue d’une passion mise à nu dans toute son intensité est un des moyens les plus sûrs de déclencher le désir, comme Ovide le note à propos du spectacle produit par la douleur d’une amante aux funérailles de son ami : Funere saepe uiri uir quaeritur ; ire solutis crinibus et fletus non tenuisse decet (3, 431-432)55.

47 Le pone metum a aussi une autre conséquence : il convoque derrière le couple Lucrèce/ Tarquin Collatin celui, illégitime de Sulpicia et de Cerinthus. Le point commun entre les deux femmes est qu’elles parlent de leur amour pour un homme en exprimant leur désir. Ce qui diverge, c’est l’effet que ce discours vise, dans un cas, et a effectivement, dans l’autre, sur leur fama.

48 L’idéologie romaine traditionnelle postule une relation simple de cause à effet entre pudor et fama. La réputation d’une femme (fama) découle directement de son comportement sexuel (pudor), qui est réglé par son statut social : une épouse doit être fidèle ; une jeune fille, vierge. C’est dire si dans les deux premiers vers de l’épigramme 3, 13 : Tandem uenit amor, qualem texisse pudori/ quam nudasse alicui sit mihi fama magis (1-2)56 l’acception que Sulpicia donne à ces deux termes surprend. Elle ne met pas sa fama en relation avec le fait d’avoir une liaison, autrement dit, d’avoir bafoué le pudor, mais relativise la portée du terme en le glosant par les deux comportements qui lui étaient alors possibles : révéler ou dissimuler cette aventure. C’est le pudor qui est utilisé comme critère de jugement, mais le motest pris au sens général de honte, et également relativisé par l’emploi de magis. Sulpicia juge que la réputation d’avoir « couvert » d’un voile ses amours aurait été plus honteuse pour elle que celle de les avoir « mis à nu ». Le « pour elle » est essentiel. Comme on s’en aperçoit à la lecture des derniers vers, l’amante de Cerinthus cherche à contrôler sa fama, en en dictant le contenu, qu’elle oriente dans un sens positif grâce à l’idée de dignitas : …cum digno digna fuisse ferar (10).

49 La Lucrèce ovidienne, elle, se lance – en privé, croit-elle – dans la proclamation fougueuse de son amour. Ovide insiste ensuite longuement sur l’effet qu’ont produit sur l’esprit de Sextus Tarquin des paroles et la vue d’un corps si fortement marqués par la passion : uerba placent et uox et quod corrumpere non est, quoque minor spes est, hoc magis ille cupit […] Sic sedit, sic culta fuit, sic stamina neuit, iniectae collo sic iacuere comae, hos habuit uoltus, haec illi uerba fuerunt, hic color, haec facies, hic decor oris erat (765-766 ; 771-774)57.

50 Si l’on considère qu’on a affaire dans les vers 771-774 à un développement sur la fama (ce que les autres pensent ou disent de quelqu’un), on voit que la Lucrèce ovidienne a en fait déjà perdu toute prise sur sa réputation. Pour tenter de revenir à un état antérieur de cette fama, elle n’aura d’autre issue que la mort. Une situation qui

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 27

contredit dans les faits les revendications de Sulpicia, pour qui une femme pouvait exprimer en public un désir légitime ou tenu pour tel sans retombée négative sur sa fama !

51 L’ingéniosité de ce texte, qui est le dernier d’une longue série, est, comme c’est souvent le cas, chez Ovide, de proposer un bilan et d’ouvrir des perspectives. Au moment de raconter une histoire du passé romain que Tite-Live avait rendue célèbre, le poète répercute tous les infléchissements élégiaques qui permettent d’en donner une version moderne, et développe des réflexions nouvelles en attribuant à une héroïne antique un comportement et des paroles anachroniques qui font surgir le souvenir d’une Romaine contemporaine.

52 Si l’on suit J. Hallett58, Ovide avait critiqué, dans l’élégie 3, 14 des Amours, la position de Sulpicia en se plaçant d’un point de vue masculin : celui de l’amant délaissé, qui supporte mal de voir son infortune publiée par sa maîtresse. Ici aussi, c’est une réaction masculine qui est à l’origine d’une mise en question de la thèse défendue par l’amante de Cerinthus. Néanmoins, comme Ovide n’a cessé de narguer les Lois Juliennes et le retour à la morale ancienne dont elles étaient le bras armé, en se targuant de l’appui de son public59, on peut supposer qu’il attendait surtout de son lecteur qu’il conclue – une fois de plus – de cette version revue et corrigée du modèle archaïque qui en était la figure de proue, à l’inadaptation d’une législation, qui, nous le savons, fut très mal accueillie.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

Burton P.J. (2000) « The Last Republican Historian: a New Date for the Composition of Livy’s First Pentad », Historia, pp. 429-446.

Cairns F. (2006) Sextus Propertius. The Augustan Elegist, Cambridge.

Conte G.B. (1984) « Aristeo, Orfeo e le Georgiche. Struttura narrativa e funzione didascalica di un mito », Virgilio, il genere e i suoi confini, Milano, pp. 13-42.

(1998) « Aristeo, Orfeo e le Georgiche. Una seconda volta », SCO, pp. 103-136.

Fabre-Serris J. (2005) « Sulpicia : une autre voix féminine dans les Héroïdes ? Propositions de lecture des lettres 4 et 15 », REL, pp. 120-139.

(2008) Rome, l’Arcadie et la mer des Argonautes. Essai sur la naissance d’une mythologie des origines en Occident, Lille.

(à paraître) « Empédocle, Lucrèce et les discours virgilien (Buc., 6 ; Én., 6) et ovidienne (Mét., 15) sur la “nature des choses” », communication présentée au colloque, La poésie scientifique de Lucrèce à nos jours, organisé par J. Dhombres, Peyrescq, 14-19 juin 2008.

Hallett J.P. (1989) « Women as same and other in the classical Roman elite », Helios, pp. 57-78.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 28

(2002) « The Eleven Elegies of the Augustan Poet Sulpicia », Women Writing Latin from Antiquity to Early Modern Europe, Volume I : Women Writing Latin in Roman Antiquity, Late Antiquity, and the Early Christian Era, ed. by L.J. Churchill, P.R. Brown and J.E. Jeffreay,New-York and London, pp. 45-65.

(2008) « Sulpicia and her resistant intertextuality », Jeux de voix. Énonciation, intertextualité et intentionnalité dans la littérature antique, D. Van Mal Maeder, A. Burnier, L. Núñez (éds.), pp. 141-155.

Hinds S. (1987) « The Poetess and the Reader : further Steps towards Sulpicia », Hermathena, pp. 29-46.

Keith A. (1997) « Tandem uenit Amor : A Woman speaks of Love », Roman Sexualities, ed. by J.P. Hallett and M. Skinner, Princeton, pp. 295-310.

Lee G. (1982) Tibullus (2nd ed), Liverpool.

Maltby R (2002) Tibullus : Elegies. Text, Introduction and Commentary, Cambridge.

Parker H. (1994) « Sulpicia, The Auctor de Sulpicia and the Authorship of 3, 9 and 3, 11 of the Corpus Tibullianum », Helios, pp. 39-62.

Piastri R. (1998) « I carmi di Sulpicia e il repertorio topico dell’elegia », Quaderni, pp. 137-170.

Skoie M. (2002) Reading Sulpicia, Oxford, New-York.

NOTES

1. P. J. Burton (2000). 2. « Que soit là-bas quiconque a violé mes amours et m’a souhaité une campagne militaire lente. » 3. G. Lee (1982, p. 124). 4. « S’il se trouve quelqu’un pour faire violence à mon amie, qu’il soit sur des monts solitaires brûlé par les feux de l’Amour » (CIL 4, 1645) 5. On trouve cet emploi, par exemple, dans deux textes adressés à Gallus, la Bucolique 10 (aux vers 28-30 : …Amor non talia curat/ nec lacrimis crudelis Amor nec gramina riuis/ nec cytiso saturantur apes nec fronde capellae)et l’élégie 1, 5 de Properce (au vers 24 : nescit Amor priscis cedere imaginibus). 6. En fait, comme on l’a depuis longtemps fait remarquer et il suffit d’évoquer Catulle, le vocabulaire associé aux relations conjugales est appliqué par les poètes romains à leurs liaisons. 7. « … ils se rendent à Collatie. Là ils trouvent Lucrèce non pas comme les belles-filles du roi qu’ils avaient vues passant le temps dans un banquet au milieu du luxe, avec un entourage du même âge, mais alors que la nuit était avancée, dédiée au travail de la laine au milieu de servantes qui travaillaient à la lueur de la lampe, assise au centre de sa maison. » 8. « … que, gardienne attentive de la sainte pudeur, une vieille femme reste assise à tes côtés. Qu’elle te raconte des historiettes et que, près d’une lampe, elle tire de longs fils de sa quenouille pleine, tandis que, à côté d’elle, attachée à sa lourde tâche quotidienne, une jeune esclave peu à peu, sous l’effet du sommeil, épuisée, laisse tomber son ouvrage. » 9. Quoique la situation sociale des puellae élégiaques soit relativement floue, attribuer à Délie une attitude exactement calquée sur celle d’une matrona romaine aurait été incongru. 10. « Que chacun considère comme ce qui (devra être) le plus à regarder ce qui s’offrira à la vue lors d’une arrivée inopinée d’un époux. » 11. « Dans cette lutte entre femmes la louange revient entièrement à Lucrèce. » 12. « Son époux et les Tarquins sont accueillis de façon obligeante. »

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 29

13. Caton l’Ancien exclut du sénat un personnage qu’on s’attendait à voir élu consul pour avoir embrassé sa femme en pleine rue devant sa fille, excès de rigueur certes, mais qui, semble-t-il, ne fut pas contesté (Plutarque, Caton l’Ancien, 17, 7). 14. « Alors puissé-je arriver soudain, sans que personne ne m’annonce avant, et apparaître en envoyé du ciel auprès de toi ! Alors telle que tu seras avec tes longs cheveux en désordre, à ma rencontre, cours, Délie, pieds nus. » 15. « Autour d’elle les Nymphes détachaient les flocons de laine milésienne, teintes en vert foncé […] parmi elles, Clyméné racontait les soins vains de Vulcain, les ruses de Mars, les doux larcins et à partir du Chaos énumérait les abondantes amours des dieux. » Ici le mot cura renvoie, sans doute aussi, à l’élégie où il a le sens de soucis amoureux (ou d’objet de ces soucis) ; il permet à la fois d’évoquer le tourment amoureux du dieu et ses vaines précautions. 16. G.B. Conte (1984 et 1998). 17. Sur Aréthuse et Gallus, voir J. Fabre-Serris (2008, pp. 62-63). 18. Pour un nouveau développement sur l’hypothèse proposée par F. Skustch de sujets en relation avec Gallus, voir J. Fabre-Serris (à paraître). 19. Vu la situation d’énonciation choisie, il est impossible que les paroles attribuées par Virgile à Gallus ne renvoient pas alors à son œuvre. 20. J. Fabre-Serris (2008, pp. 71-72). 21. Septem illum totos perhibent ex ordine mensis/ rupe sub aeria deserti ad Strymonis undam/ fleuisse et gelidas haec euoluisse sub antris (4, 597-599). 22. On compte plusieurs variations qui attestent le succès du propemptikon de Gallus : par exemple, Properce, 1, 8 et Ovide, Amours, 2, 11. 23. Les commentateurs ont parfois vu dans la scène finale de l’élégie 1, 3 une allusion à l’Odyssée (que signalerait le mot Phaeacia au vers 3) et, plus particulièrement, aux retrouvailles d’Ulysse et de Pénélope. La présence en arrière-plan de la figure grecque de femme fidèle la plus célèbre conforte le renvoi à Lucrèce en tant que son équivalente romaine. Mais ce n’est peut-être pas son seul effet. Comme S. Hinds me l’a suggéré – et je l’en remercie – Pénélope est aussi d’une part une figure méta-poétique de poète femme, d’autre part (ce qui ouvre d’autres perspectives dans le contexte d’une élégie où le poète s’inquiète du comportement de la femme aimée en son absence) un personnage à propos duquel coexistent deux points de vue antagonistes : ce modèle de l’épouse fidèle est, en effet, parfois mis en doute (voir, par exemple, pour le premier point de vue, l’Art d’aimer, 3, 15-16 (est pia Penelope lustris errante duobus/ et totidem lustris bella gerente uiro) et pour le second, les Amours, 1, 8, 46-47 (Penelope iuuenum uires temptebat in arcu ;/ qui latus argueret, corneus arcus erat). 24. Je précise que j’adhère à l’argumentation développée dans Helios en 1994par H. Parker en faveur de l’attribution de ce texte à Sulpicia et que j’ai argumenté dans le même sens dans un article publié dans la REL en 2005, dont une version anglaise remaniée doit paraître dans Helios. 25. « C’est alors, alors que les forêts me plairaient, si avec toi, ma lumière, j’étais surprise couchée devant les filets eux-mêmes, c’est alors qu’il pourrait venir près des pièges, c’est sans avoir été blessé qu’il s’en ira, le sanglier, pour ne pas troubler les joies de Vénus […] chaste enfant, touche d’une main chaste les filets […] mais toi, laisse à ton père l’ardeur à la chasse et vite reviens en courant dans mes bras. » 26. « et quelle que soit celle qui se glissera furtivement dans les bras de mon amour, qu’elle tombe au milieu des bêtes sauvages et se fasse déchirer. » 27. « chaste enfant, touche d’une main chaste les filets […] mais, toi, laisse à ton père le goût de la chasse et vite en personne reviens en courant dans mes bras. » Le ipse : « en personne » est peut- être une correction du texte de Tibulle, qui rêvait seulement cette situation ; Sulpicia veut qu’elle se réalise. 28. « si, lumière de ma vie, j’étais surprise couchée avec toi devant les filets mêmes » (15-16). En arguant de l’emploi, qui leur est commun, d’un mot inhabituel : indagine, J. Hallett (2002, p. 53) a

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 30

mis la scène de chasse de l’élégie 3, 9 en relation avec le passage du livre 4 de l’Énéide où Junon évoque la chasse au cours de laquelle Énée et Didon s’uniront, une suggestion qui conforte la proposition d’A. Keith (1997) de voir dans les poèmes 13-18 une réponse à la version virgilienne de la liaison entre Énée et Didon. 29. Voir R. Piastri (1998, p. 140). 30. Voir à ce sujet R. Maltby (2002). 31. « Passons tous ensemble ce jour d’anniversaire, qui alors que tu ne t’y attendais pas arrive par hasard maintenant pour toi. » 32. Le fait que l’élégie de Properce se trouve dans son recueil à la même place que celle de Tibulle dans le sien, est, je crois, un élément en faveur de mon hypothèse : c’est probablement une façon d’inciter le lecteur à mettre les deux textes en relation. 33. « Enfin ce qui te renvoie à mon lit ce sont les mauvais traitements d’une autre qui t’a poussé dehors en fermant la porte ? » 34. « En effet tantôt je trompais le sommeil en tissant un fil pourpre, et de nouveau, quand j’étais lasse, avec un chant accompagné à la lyre d’Orphée ; quelquefois dans mon abandon je me plaignais doucement à moi-même des longs délais qu’il y a souvent quand celui que l’on aime est au-dehors, jusqu’à ce que le sommeil où j’avais glissé me pousse agréablement avec ses ailes. Voilà comment à la fin je soignais mes larmes. » 35. Il est probable en effet que l’infidélité masculine ait été un motif des Amores de Gallus. Dans l’élégie 1, 13 de la monobiblos, celui que Virgile présente, dans la Bucolique 10, comme l’amant de la seule Lycoris, est décrit comme un séducteur accumulant les conquêtes : Dum tibi deceptis augetur puellis fama/ certus… (1, 13, 5-6 : « Tandis que tu augmentes ta réputation à coup de filles trompées, sûr de toi… »). 36. « Celle-ci t’attend sans que tu le mérites pendant des heures entières, mais toi, idiot, tu cherches je ne sais quelles portes. » 37. « C’était le matin et je voulus voir si elle reposait seule : mais dans le lit Cynthie était seule. » 38. « Elle dit et repoussant mes baisers en leur opposant sa main, elle s’élance en avant, après avoir pris appui sur son pied dans sa sandale desserrée » 39. « C’est ainsi que je suis renvoyé par la gardienne d’un amour si saint ; à partir de ce jour je n’eus plus de nuit heureuse. » 40. La place des poèmes dans les recueils (j’ai souligné le choix de la troisième place par l’un et l’autre poète) incite simplement le lecteur à une mise en relation ; l’antériorité de la composition est à inférer à partir de l’analyse comparée des éléments textuels et thématiques communs aux deux textes. 41. « Mais (qu’à ce prix, une fois les fils de la terre parthe domptés, une lance sans fer suive tes chevaux triomphants) conserve sans les altérer les nœuds qui t’attachent à mon lit ! C’est à cette seule condition que je voudrais que tu reviennes et quand j’aurai porté tes armes pour les vouer à la porte Capène, j’écrirai dessous : « pour son mari revenu sain et sauf une fille reconnaissante. » 42. « Quelle fureur, quelle idée de vouloir, en enfermant d’un cordon de filets des collines touffues, blesser de tendres mains ? Quel plaisir y a-t-il à entrer furtivement dans les retraites des bêtes sauvages et à marquer des jambes blanches avec les épines des ronces ? » 43. « Dis-moi si la cuirasse ne brûle pas tes tendres membres ? si le poids de la lance n’use pas en frottant tes mains peu propres au combat ? » 44. « Heureuse Hippolyte ! Elle a, le sein nu, porté des armes et un casque barbare a couvert sa douce tête. Ah ! Si les camps étaient ouverts aux filles romaines ! Je serais un bagage qui te resterait fidèle dans ta campagne… » 45. « Ma sœur est assise à côté de moi et ma nourrice pâle d’inquiétude se parjure en disant que c’est l’hiver qui te retarde. »

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 31

46. « C’est le quatrième manteau que je tisse pour ta campagne […] Pendant les nuits d’hiver je travaille à filer de la laine pour tes campagnes et je couds des peaux tyriennes coupées pour tes épées. » 47. « Mais quand le soir a amené pour moi des nuits amères, s’il y en a quelques-unes que tu as laissées, je couvre de baisers tes armes. » 48. « Je t’en prie, n’attache pas tant de gloire à escalader les murs de Bactres ou à enlever à un chef qui sent le parfum ses vêtements de lin fin alors que les frondes tournoient en répandant leur poids de plomb et que crépitent les arcs au moment où les chevaux font demi tour. » 49. « Pourvu seulement qu’ils reviennent ! Mais le mien est téméraire et il se rue partout l’épée dégainée. Je défaille, je meurs chaque fois que se glisse dans mon esprit une vision de lui en train de combattre et l’effroi glace mon cœur. » 50. « Cela même lui convenait : les larmes conviennent à une femme pudique et sa beauté était digne de son âme et l’égalait. » 51. « Cesse de craindre, Cerinthus : le dieu ne blesse pas ceux qui aiment. Toi seulement aime toujours ; ton amie est sauve pour toi. » Je dois à S. La Barbera, à la suite d’une conférence que j’avais faite sur Sulpicia, Gallus et les textes attribués à l’amicus dans le séminaire de G.B. Conte en 2004, la suggestion qu’il y aurait dans le passage ovidien des renvois à Sulpicia. Les points de contact relevés par lui étaient, outre pone metum, l’emploi de meus (Fastes, 2, 752, Sulpicia, 3, 13, 8 ; voir la note56), de l’adjectif digna (Fastes, 2, 758 ; Sulpicia, 3, 13, 10) et de l’expression deposuitque (Fastes, 2, 756 ; Sulpicia, 3, 13, 4). 52. « Cesse de craindre, je suis venu » dit son époux. Elle est alors rendue à la vie et s’est suspendue, doux fardeau au cou de son mari. » 53. Ovide use aussi de l’expression pone metum dans les Remèdes à l’amour en relation aussi avec l’idée de durée de l’amour : Fit quoque longus amor, quem diffidentia nutrit ;/ hunc tu si quaeres ponere, pone metum (543-544), mais dans une perspective tout à fait différente : la défiance alimente l’amour ; qui cherche à se guérir, doit se défaire de la crainte. 54. On peut aussi citer cet extrait : Quo terrore cum uicisset obstinatam pudicitiam uelut uictrix libido profectusque inde Tarquinius ferox expugnato decore muliebri esset… : « Comme par la terreur produite son désir, en quelque sorte victorieux, avait vaincu une pudeur obstinée et que Tarquin était parti de là fier d’avoir pris d’assaut l’honneur d’une femme… » (1, 58, 5). 55. « On trouve souvent un ami aux funérailles de son ami ; marcher les cheveux épars et ne pas retenir ses larmes convient bien. » 56. « Enfin est venu l’amour tel que la réputation de l’avoir caché soit pour moi un sujet de honte plus grand que la réputation de l’avoir dévoilé à quelqu’un. » Outre le uenit, repris peut-être sous la forme ueni par Ovide, il est possible qu’il y ait un autre écho du poème de Sulpicia dans le meus du vers 752 (…sed enim temerarius ille/ est meus…), qui pourrait renvoyer au vers 8 de l’épigramme 3, 13 : ne legat id nemo quam meus ante, uelim. L’emploi de l’adjectif meus est fréquent chez Sulpicia : on trouve, par exemple, dans l’épigramme 3, 13 : meis Camenis (3), mea gaudia (5). Peut-être doit- on du coup voir aussi une allusion à Sulpicia dans l’usage de meus par Properce au vers 2 de l’élégie 4, 3 : …si potes esse meus. 57. « Ses paroles lui plaisent, sa voix et ce qui ne peut être corrompu, et moins il a de l’espoir, plus il est rempli de désir […] c’est ainsi qu’elle était assise, ainsi qu’elle était vêtue, ainsi qu’elle filait sa quenouille, ainsi que ses cheveux s’étalaient épars sur son cou ; elle avait ce visage, elle tenait ces propos, elle avait ce teint, cette expression, cet éclat. » 58. J. Hallett, 2008, pp. 152-153. 59. Voir par exemple les Remèdes à l’amour, 361-398.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 32

RÉSUMÉS

Cet article propose deux hypothèses. La première est celle d’une réception élégiaque du célèbre portrait livien de Lucrèce dans l’élégie 1, 3 de Tibulle. La fin de l’élégie 1, 3 constitue une variation sur un motif des Amores (la séparation des amants due à l’absence de l’homme, retenu au loin) que Virgile avait évoqué dans la Bucolique 10. Dans ce passage Tibulle apporte à la question « comment se comporte alors la puella ? » une réponse inspirée par l’image que Tite-Live venait de donner, avec sa Lucrèce, de la vertu des femmes, réponse qui infléchit la scène livienne dans le sens de la passion. La seconde hypothèse est que le texte de Tibulle a été la matrice de plusieurs autres textes centrés sur la séparation, la fidélité et le désir féminin : les poèmes 3, 9 ; 3, 14 et 15 de Sulpicia ; les élégies 1, 3 ; 2, 29 et 4, 3 de Properce et le passage des Fastes consacré à Lucrèce.

INDEX

Mots-clés : désir féminin, fama, fidélité, fileuse, Gallus, Ovide, Properce, pudor, Sulpicia, Tibulle, Tite-Live

AUTEUR

JACQUELINE FABRE-SERRIS Université Charles-de-Gaulle – Lille 3 [email protected]

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 33

The Poetics of Alliance in Vergil’s Aeneid

Bill Gladhill

1 The following paper argues that the series of desecrated altars in the Aeneid reflects prior moments of ruptured alliances that have taken place in the epic cycle and Roman history more generally. Vergil has constructed these ruptured alliances along of number of parallel lines that focus on the various means by which the poem constructs ethnic and spatial unification. From the perspective of ethnic amalgamation the infectum foedus of Aeneid 12 raises a number of problems concerning the foundation of Rome and the nature of Roman alliance through time. This problematic alliance that ends the poem, however, moves against the theme of East-West unification in which a central feature of Aeneas’ actions is the reunification of Europe, Asia and Africa through a new system of alliance.

2 Gian Biagio Conte famously wrote that the Aeneid is something like a “broken mirror”, a “fragmented reality.”1 The manifold perspectives offered by the narrator and the incredible violence of the poem move simultaneously with and against the poem’s imperial cadences, its political metaphors and variegated meanings of its narrative. The poem says one thing, yet tells another and another and another… Since Conte’s important formulation, scholars have been making considerable progress in rationalizing the poetics of a fractured narrative. Essentially, one can never contemplate in toto the complex interplay between narrative dilation and closure that organizes much of the poem’s tension, while also interpreting the infinitely (sine fine) expanding temporal and spatial spheres of a myth that paradoxically is charging continually with ever more energy, more directly and intently, toward a final battle between two men in a confined, closed space.2 But it no longer seems fruitful to study these elements of the poem as signs of broken, fractured shards of competing meanings that bend the mind into antithetical interpretations (often framed by the tired juxtaposition Augustan and anti-Augustan), but instead to see that Vergilian poetics construct a complex system of spaces where the ontology of Rome is constantly shifting between various times, places, and ethnicities, as though the reader is bearing witness

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 34

not to a fractured poetics of empire, but to a sensitive portrait of the imperial landscape that composed Rome and Roman history.3

3 In the following paper I would like to approach the process of ethnic and spatial unification through what I am calling a poetics of alliance. The poetics of alliance argues that the narrative action of the Aeneid is a function of foedera, or ritual events that perform treaties.4 The ways one can approach the poetics of alliance are many and manifold, but for my purposes I will move through arae whose negatively charged valence signifies a crisis of alliance in Vergil’s epic landscape, while raising a series of questions about the efficacy and problems connected to alliances. The paper comes in three movements. In the first movement I will discuss the Arae at Aeneid 1.108 and their connection to the violated arae of Aeneid 12. After an analysis of these polysemously configured altars, it will become clear that altars are closely connected to the ritual event of a foedus. In the second movement, I will elaborate on the relationship between altars and foedera throughout the epic in order to suggest that the altars signify that the epic landscape of the Aeneid is a function of a series of violated foedera that have resulted in the sundering of Europe and Asia. Violations of arae reflect the aftermath of prior violations of alliance ; one cannot be separated from the other. In the final movement, I will broaden the argument beyond the scope of violated altars in order to address a primary concern of the Aeneid, the re-fusion of Europe and Asia through Trojan colonization and alliance. While the narrative moves through a series of violent acts upon altars that reflect ruptured alliances in the mythic past, the epic landscape itself is becoming reunited and redrawn according to an entirely new poetics of alliance. Much of my analysis will follow insights first offered by Servius.5

Altar Violation, Alliance, and the Foundation of Rome

4 Early in the poem the Aeneid makes no secret that altars are troubling spaces in the poetic landscape, as suggested by the cluster of rocks called the Arae by the Itali, where Orontes is thrown from his ship during the storm of Aeolus. The first encounter with Arae is contemporaneous with the first death (and sacrifice) of the Aeneid.6 While his death and its relation to altars spread branch-like throughout the rest of the poem, causing no shortage of literary analyses, I wish to follow a branch similar to that taken by Servius. Servius is keenly aware that the Arae play a dynamic role within the narrative as markers of memorial of the fines imperii separating Carthaginian and Roman spheres of influence. In a note to Aeneid 1.108 Servius states the following in reference to the line, saxa vocant Itali mediis quae in fluctibus Aras :7 haec autem saxa inter Africam, Siciliam, et Sardiniam et Italiam, quae saxa ob hoc Itali aras vocant, quod ibi Afri et Romani foedus inierunt et fines imperii sui illic esse voluerunt. unde et Dido (4.628) litora litoribus contraria, fluctibus undas imprecor.8 (ad Aen.1.108)

5 Servius continues the discussion, offering other appellations for the Arae found in the works of Sisenna, Claudius Quadrigarius, Varro, and some unnamed Greek (among other unnamed) sources. Servius’ comments show the ease with which Vergil moves from fabula to historia, that is from a divinely caused storm to space within the epic topography that is a function of historical action.9 The Arae establish the boundaries of imperium between Carthage and Rome prior to the first Punic War. 10 The shipwreck

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 35

beside the Arae is a moment of historical prolepsis within the mythic past ; the Trojans are wandering into a landscape that is already imbued with the memory of the future. This linkage between the Arae and a foedus, at first glance, seems like a bit of antiquarian information slipping into Servius’ commentary that has no bearing on textual analysis.11 Yet, the range of sources cited lends this comment a particularly forceful valence of scholarly authority, and Servius’ gesture to Dido’s curse belies a rather inspired insight, one that would be fruitful to continue, especially when considering Pamela Bleisch’s thesis that arae are etymological allusions to Greek arai, curses, a feature of language inherent to foedera.12 Vergil even seems to suggest this reading by attaching the epithet fidus to Orontes (1.113) ; not only is Orontes the first hero of the poem to die, but he is also the first to receive an epithet that is both etymologically connected to foedus (and fides) as well as part of the cognitive system Romans used to rationalize human sacrifice.13

6 Servius’ comment catalyzes the reader to look outside of the text, to situate the epic landscape within topographical and political referents, and to compare it to similar moments when fabula and historia merge around altars. Servius’ insight on the Arae is far cleverer than he may have realized ; they refer not only to Dido’s curse, but they are an important configuration for an interpretation of the foedus between Aeneas and Latinus in Book 12. Emphatically, the Aeneid is framed by ring (or altar ?) composition whereby the vast action of the poemhappens between two arae, and significantly these arae are functions of the ritual event of a foedus. Leaving behind for the moment the deep connection between these two altars, I would like to use Servius again as a frame in which to set the foedus of Aeneid 12 in order to illustrate how Vergil configures the arae in a way that upsets the reader’s traditional approach to this episode. Servius states the following at Aeneid 12.116 (campum ad certamen magnae sub moenibus urbis) : Totus hic de foederibus locus de Homero translatus est, ubi Alexander Paris cum Menelao singulari est certamine dimicaturus (ad Aen. 12.116).14 Servius tells us that the foedus between Latinus and Aeneas is “completely translated” from Iliad 3.15 He spells out the narrative parallels ad Aen. 12.176 : sane iuxta Homericum foedus hic inducit fieri : nam ut ibi Priamus, ita sic Latinus ; ut hic Aeneas, ita ibi Agamemnon. et priores precantur qui servaturi sunt foedus, quod ruperunt qui posteriores iuraturi erant, ibi per Pandarum Troiani, hic Tolumnium Latini.16 (ad Aen 12.176)

7 Although Servius captures succinctly the overt parallels between each episode, his focus on general patterns of imitation create a number of problems. If Aeneas is comparable to Agamemnon, what does this say about Aeneas, and likewise, how does Aeneas force us to reread Homer’s Agamemnon ? Why would Vergil create an episode that intrinsically recalls Trojan perfidy in the Iliad through the overt impiety of the Italians ? This binary categorization Servius encourages masks very significant differences between Aeneid 12 and Iliad 3 that are far more important than surface parallels. To point to one example, Servius compares Tolumnius and Pandarus, which appears to be a clear parallel. Yet, Vergil himself describes Pandarus at Aeneid 5.496-7 as Pandare, qui quondam iussus confundere foedus in medios telum torsisti primus Achivos. Confundere foedus is significant : this phrase is not used to describe Tolumnius, as we might surmise based upon Servius’ statement, but rather to the Italian Messapus called avidus confundere foedus in the context of altar desecration and human sacrifice upon altars in Aeneid 12. Later Tolumnius is described as primus in adversos telum qui torserat

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 36

hostis (12.461), a phrase which at one moment gestures to Vergil’s Pandarus, and at another instant severs his action as a violation of ritual since he casts his spear against adversi hostes, a phrase which characterizes the Trojans, Arcadians and Etruscans as hostile enemies, not ritual observers. It is Messapus to whom Vergil links Pandarus’ ritual violation, a point we will flesh out below.17

8 Although Servius’ approach lacks the requisite sophistication to elucidate the foedus of Aeneid 12, the clear “translation” by Vergil of Iliad 3 is nonetheless an important statement. The ritual activity of both episodes overlaps slightly ; the two leaders of their respective peoples perform the ritual, which involves the invocation of divine witnesses to the oaths, the declaration of terms, and the sacrifice of animals.18 But it is in the key divergences between the Homericum foedus and the Vergilian foedus where the Iliadic parallel becomes especially pronounced and vital. The Iliadic ο◌̔́ ρκια in Book 3 implicate the Trojans fully in the violation of the compact, resulting in the eventual fulfillment of the oath-curse pronounced by both armies and most dramatically confirmed in the brutal death of Astyanax and the allocation of the Trojan Women to the Greek heroes (Ζευ̃ κύδιοτε μέγιοτε καί άθάνατοι θεοί άλλοι / ỏππότεροι πρότεροι υ◌̔ πέρ ο◌̔́ ρκια πημήνειαν / ω◌̔̃δέ σφ’ έγκέφαλος χαμάδις ρ◌̔έοι ω◌̔ς όδε οί̃νος / αυ̃τω̃ν καὶ τεκέων, ά◌̕οχοι δ’ ά◌̕λλοισι δαμεĩεν : 3.298-301). The global narrative course of the Iliad is the performance of this curse, which is finally brought to conclusion upon the destruction of Troy.19 This horkos will not end the war, and the ritual violation of the Trojans stands like a shadow behind the epic action of the next twenty-one books. The audience knows that Troy will fall a few months after this oath. The force of the dilation centers on those moments of the epic when heroes become signifiers of Troy itself, so that one simultaneously experiences the death of an individual as well as the annihilation of a community. The Aeneid, on the other hand, places the foedus in the final act as a marker of closure to the epic as a whole. This is an obvious distinction, narrative dilation versus narrative closure. The problem, which we shall discuss below, is that the foedus of Book 12 only appears to be a formal closure ; in fact, its dilatory effect is far more dramatic and profound than that of the Iliad.20 The parallel with the Iliad, however, prepares us for this facet of the poem’s conclusion that it will end with the expectation of narrative dilation and the interpretative cruces that accompany it.21 The Aeneid ends with a destabilizing dilation, since the enactment of the foedus in the death of Turnus leaves open questions about the efficacy and consequences of this “alliance.”

9 Be that as it may, for our purposes the single most significant difference between the two poems is ironically found at the moment of their most obvious similarity. In both epics the foedera are broken, and since Servius, Tolumnius’ spear cast has been interpreted as the act that ruptures the foedus, in large part because of the Homeric model. The Homericum foedus is officially ruptured when Menelaos is struck by Pandarus’ arrow, an event that Vergil curiously connects to the blush of Lavinia.22 Unlike the recipient of Pandarus’ arrow, who actually participated in the contest authorized by the ritual, the recipient of the hasta is an unnamed individual wearing a balteus, the most beautiful of nine brothers, all of whom stand on the periphery of the ritual watching Latinus, Aeneas, and Turnus perform the foedera (Aen. 12.257-76). That his death appears to gesture to Pallas and not Menelaos is clear. The hasta volans in the Vergilian foedus violates neither the ritual space, nor the oath, nor the agents of the ritual. Unlike in the Iliad where both armies pronounce the oath, no one else outside of

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 37

Aeneas and Latinus states an oath, which suggests that the bystanders may not be bound to the ritual events occurring.23 In this respect, the death of the brother is collateral and arbitrary, a tragic event, but it in no way violates the foedus. Pandarus actually violates his oath and strikes the victor of the sanctioned battle, while Tolumnius violates no oath and strikes none of the participants of the ritual. It is notable in this regard that Pandarus’ arrow is thrown against medii Achivi, in contrast to Tolumnius’ adversi hostes ; the shift from medii to adversi signifies the different ritual circumstances of the witnesses within the two poems, between those who are bound by an oath, thereby losing their inimical valence, and those who pronounce no oaths, and therefore are still enemies at war.

10 Vergil’s purpose in driving a wedge between Tolumnius and Pandarus, between Aeneid 12 and Iliad 3, is to confuse exactly which party or individual is responsible for violating the foedus. The Iliadic episode is devoid of arae.24 Vergil builds the arae of Book 12 in order to have them desecrated and destroyed. The ritual of Aeneid 12 is infected by the defilement of the arae dis communibus built in preparation to the foedus (12.118), and his description of their violation looks back directly to the Arae of Aeneid 1. Essentially, at one of the most Iliadic moments of the Aeneid, Vergil severs his epic from its primary model and accords it with the themes and structures operative within his own poem. Their destruction is described in this way : ...quos agmina contra procurrunt Laurentum, hinc densi rursus inundant Troes Agyllinique et pictis Arcades armis : sic omnis amor unus habet decernere ferro. diripuere aras, it toto turbida caelo tempestas telorum ac ferreus ingruit imber, craterasque focosque ferunt. fugit ipse Latinus pulsatos referens infecto foedere divos.25 (12.279-86)

11 The altars are ripped apart by all the parties affected by the performance of the foedus – Italians, Trojans, Greeks and Etruscans – but the ethnicities become elementalized as they “inundate” (inundant) the rushing Italians, as though their flesh, bone, and armor burst into torrents of water. The populations flood into the arae between them. The storm imagery continues ; immediately after the destruction of the altars a tempest of spears (turbida…tempestas) rains down (imber) on the warriors. The connection between foedus, arae and storms – and we should include the narrative parallels of Juno-Aeolus and Juno-Juturna in the creation of these storms – situate the activity in Book 12 in relation to the shipwreck beside the Arae in Book 1 and all the cosmologically cataclysmic imagery and symbolism connected to it.26

12 While the language of altar desecration suggests the potentiality of cosmic annihilation as the parallel to the Arae indicates, the purpose of the arae themselves in the context of the foedus is the qualitative realignment of Iliad 3 away from an individual’s responsibility for the rupturing of the foedus to collective pollution. This is best evidenced at the moment of the altar’s desecration ; after Tolumnius strikes the brother, his eight siblings rush against the altars, matched in their onslaught by the Italians, Trojans, Arcadians, and Etruscans, all of whom are implicated in the syncopated perfect diripuere aras, with aras replacing ere/erunt through elision (diripueraras). The syncopation and elision result in the formation of a word whose syntactic distinctions between the parts of speech break down, as objects replace the

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 38

verb’s marker of person and number, while the verb itself is elided to become an accusative plural. This mixture of syntactic elements is an iconicity for the events unfolding in the narrative. This point is particularly relevant in light of the Iliadic model ; in the Iliad all of the soldiers pronounce the same oath, and the hairs of the sacrificial animals are passed out to each man.27 It is only in the violation of the altars do the spectators of the ritual in the Aeneid actually touch and participate in the event in a way that is reminiscent of the horkos of the Iliad.

13 As the populations inundate the altars, Vergil then focuses on key characters whose desecration of the arae greatly ambiguates the sacrilegious and the pious while revealing perplexing possibilities about the ritual efficacy of this foedus. Is the destruction of the arae and the “sacrifice” upon them the ritual performance first begun by Aeneas and Latinus ? On the one hand, Messapus, whose connection to Pandarus has already been noted in the phase avidus confundere foedus, “smites” (ferit) the Etruscan Aulestes upon the arae.28 This would suggest that Messapus is the prime mover of the violated foedus. Aulestes, on the other hand, had already fallen upon the arae themselves, which is in and of itself an act of desecration, requiring further sacrifice (piaculum).29 This further sacrifice happens to be Aulestes himself : hoc habet, haec melior magnis data victima divis (12.296). That Aulestes is an inverted piaculum highlights the theme of ritual perversion, but it also suggests that it is the collective violation of the arae themselves by all the ethnicities that marks the ritual pollution of the foedus, not any single act of any single character. To put it another way, is it Messapus’ desire (avidus) to rupture the foedus that becomes the ultimate catalyst for its infection or the act of altar violation by Aulestes as his body tumbles into the sacred space ? The text offers no clear answer to this question. The rhythm of violation continues as the Itali “despoil” the calentia membra upon the arae (which may refer to the limbs of Aulestes : 12.297). Coryaenus, a Trojan, tears a flaming log from the altar and shoves it down Ebysus’ throat and then smites (ferit) his latus (12.298-9). The two uses of ferit, one in reference to an Italian, the other to a Trojan, suggest that this foedus has been struck, a foedus that is infected (infectum foedus : 12.286).

14 Infectum is itself a gloss on the “folk” etymology connecting foedus to foed-itas (see for example Catullus 64.223-4 : canitiem terra atque infuso pulvere foedans,/ inde infecta vago suspendam lintea malo/“befouling my white hair with dirt and dust mixed in, from there I will hang a bleak sail upon a swaying mast”).30Foedus infectum is highly significant ; as Aeneas and Latinus are pronouncing their prayers and oaths over the arae, Vergil gestures to the Itali and their dicta, as their words move from hoping and wishing to actual prayer : qui sibi iam requiem pugnae rebusque salutem/ sperabant, nunc arma volunt foedusque precantur/ infectum/“they (Latins) who just before had hoped for a rest from war and for security, are changed ; they now want weapons, pray the pact can be polluted” (12.241-3). While dicta are being spoken over the arae by Aeneas and Latinus, the Itali are praying contra-dicta, as though their own prayers have fused with the ritual actions of Aeneas and Latinus ; the ritual events on the periphery of the sacred space run counter to those at the core.

15 The implication of the desecration of the altars is that the Latins, the various races of Italy and the Trojans are all implicated in violating the ritual of the foedus.31 A proof of this argument is best seen in an evaluation of Aeneas’ oath. Aeneas conditions his oath on the outcome of his certamen with Turnus in the following way :

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 39

cesserit Ausonio si fors victoria Turno, convenit Evandri victos discedere ad urbem, cedet Iulus agris, nec post arma ulla rebelles Aeneadae referent ferrove haec regna lacessant. sin adnuerit nobis victoria Martem (ut potius reor et potius di numine firment), non ego nec Teucris Italos parere iubebo nec mihi regna peto : paribus se legibus ambae invictae gentes aeterna in foedera mittant.32 (12.183-91)

16 Aeneas states that he is not seeking a kingdom for himself, but rather that both races rule unconquered under eternal foedera and equal leges.33 Does this oath come to pass ? Do the Teucrians and Italians join in eternal foedera and equal laws ? Vergil’s language is as close as one can come to stating terms of citizenship, but these terms not fully extended to non-Romans until the conclusion of the Social Wars when “all Italians were Romans,” essentially negating the need for foedera.34 Aeneas’ oath lacks the quality of time needed to shape such a variegated ethnic alliance into a cohesive unit “unconquered under the laws.”

17 The negative potential of the oath, however, is also fulfilled. It is the case that the Trojan line does reside in the city of Evander and that the city of Iulus, Alba Longa, will yield its lands, but only after Mettius Fufetius violates foedera with Rome and Alba Longa is sacked. That both potentialities of the oath are realized at some point in the course of Roman history requires explanation : the infectum foedus, which is performed once Aeneas sacrifices Turnus, results in the fulfillment of both the negative and positive conditions of the oath.35 This suggests not only that the Trojans are agents in the violation of this foedus, but also that the consequences for its violationare not instantaneous, but are actualized through the course of time. The seed that will grow into Roman Italy is infected. We are not dealing with allegory, but rather Vergil has shown that the links of history are in the process of becoming a chain of events with one link ultimately shaping the course and shape of the links that follow. It is one of the great ironies of the poem that when Juno agrees to terms with Jupiter in Book 12, she has successfully brought to fruition not only the war with Carthage because of the violation of foedera in Book 4, but furthermore the sack of Alba Longa, the Social Wars and Civil Wars because of the foedus infectum.36 In fact, Civil War is a violation of these ur-Roman foedera, the consequences of which are profound.

18 The two key differences in the Vergilian foedus when read in light of the Homericum foedus are whom the hasta strikes and who desecrates the arae. Vergil has displaced the wounding as the marker of violation and joined it to the arae themselves. This point is brought into more vivid focus at 12.311-23 where pius (12.311) Aeneas, unarmed and nudato capite, attempts to restrain the tempest – like Neptune in Book 1 – calling upon the ictum iam foedus et omnes compositae leges. He states that he will make the foedera firma in hand to hand combat (ego foedera faxo/ firma manu). Aeneas is not Neptune, but Menelaos ; a sagitta strikes Aeneas recalling the actions of Pandarus. In the Homeric model, one man is able to violate the horkos thereby incriminating his countrymen ; in the Aeneid, only a single man abstains from the desecration of the altars, while every other individual violates the foedus. Whereas the striking of Menelaos represents the violation of the oaths, Aeneas’ wounding results in the hero’s becoming the only character who does not violate the arae foederum by participating in the conflict. It is significant that the poet cannot name the archer from whose bow the arrow originated.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 40

The archer could have been Italian, Trojan, Etruscan or Arcadian.37 In the end, it matters naught ; everyone has already been implicated in the infectum foedus.

Altars, Alliances, and the Sundering of East and West

19 That the Aeneid is bookended by two arae,which are in one way or another connected to the ritual of a foedus, is cause of enough to explore the activity around the remaining arae of the poem in order to consider whether they are conditioned on the poetics of alliance. A quick tour of violated arae in the Aeneid will provide a pattern that highlights the connection between foedera and arae within the overall design of the poem, which will allow us with greater clarity to understand the full significance in concluding the Aeneid with this troubling foedus. Juno refers to the absence of honor set upon her arae by a suppliant, which suggests a profound breakdown in the relationship between gods and humans (1.48-9). Sychaeus is slaughtered before altars by his brother-in-law (1.348-52).38 Sinon refers to arae which are to be used for his own sacrifice in an episode Servius connects to foedus (2.128-9),39 Laocoon is compared to a bull slaughtered as it flees from an ara (2.223-4),40 Coroebus and the rest of the Trojans in Greek armor are killed before the altar of Athena (2.424-30),41 Priam is struck down by Neoptolemus beside altars (2.499-502),42 Aeneas violates the tomb of Polydorus while building an ara (3.24-6),43 he burns altars while celebrating the Actian games (3.278-80 : 44 a memorial of closure of a Civil War, a war which Tacitus construes as a violation of foedera),45 Andromache sacrifices at twin arae, symbols for Hector and Astyanax (3.305), 46 and Orestes kills Pyrrhus at his ancestral arae (3.330-2).47 Furthermore, Dido’s pyre is surrounded by arae in the context of violated foedera (4.509, 520), 48 the votive arae in memory of Anchises through which the anguis slithers in Book 5 is contrasted with the arae destroyed by the Trojan women at the end of the book (5.84-9 ; 5.659-61), 49 Romulus and Titus Tatius on the shield of Aeneas stand beside arae as they perform a foedus,50 a scene followed immediately by the dismemberment of Fufetius (8.639-41), arae are etched in the shield at 8.718-19 in the context of Augustus’ triumphs (...omnibus arae/ante aras terram...), and lastly the arae in Book 12 are violated after an absence of arae for three books, and at a critical juncture in the book Aeneas significantly invokes these arae in their connection to the ruptured foedus : multa Iovem et laesi testatus foederis aras/“having often pleaded with Jove and the altars of the shattered treaty” (12.496).51

20 The entire Mediterranean world and its epic landscape are marred by violated arae, except for Italia, where the first ara to suffer ritual pollution occurs in Book 12. The three sets of arae of Book 8 (Ara Maxima, arae Tatii et Romuli, arae Augusti) are anomalous in this sequence ; they are all located in Italy, but they stand outside of the narrative present of the poem, one as a monument signifying victory over a culture monster in the mythic past, and the other two referring to future events in Roman history, one clearly legendary and the other historical. The narrative of Book 8 presents three arae that are marked for their productive and inviolate states. They all memorialize a productive shift in reality while simultaneously bringing Civil War (whether allegorical or actual) to an end.52

21 In order to contextualize the various acts of altar desecration throughout the poem, I would like to discuss two violations of foedera within the epic cycle that reveal the underlying causes of Vergil’s troublesome epic topography. The first I will discuss

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 41

occurs after the Homericumfoedus in the death of Achilles, and the other begins the epic cycle itself with the rape of Helen. Servius ad Aen 3.321 states the following : quam (Polyxena) cum Troiani fraude promisissent, Paris post Thymbraei Apollinis simulacrum latuit et venientem Achillem ad foedus missa vulneravit sagitta. tum Achilles moriens petiit, ut evicta Troia ad eius sepulcrum Polyxena immolaretur : quod Pyrrhus implevit.53 (ad Aen 3.321)

22 In this passage Servius refers to one variation of Achilles’ death.54 In this version of events Polyxena accompanies Priam to the hut of Achilles in order to retrieve the body of Hector. Priam offers Polyxena to Achilles in marriage, but the hero rejects the proposal. After the death of Memnon, Priam offers Polyxena to Achilles a second time on the condition that he ends the war. Achilles meets Priam at the precinct of Thymbraean Apollo in order to discuss the proposal, but is assassinated by Paris as he approaches Priam and Polyxena. Dying, Achilles commands that Polyxena be sacrificed at his grave, an act subsequently performed by Pyrrhus. In one variant Achilles dies upon an altar.55 The key detail shared by most sources for this variation is that Achilles is killed when meeting Priam to discuss a marriage proposal that will end the war.

23 Servius states that this narrative sequence is a foedus. It is important to realize that Servius is reading the events of the epic cycle as a function of foedera and of their violation, which in this case is the murder of Achilles and the sacrifice of Polyxena, an act that marries violated foedera, arae (and Bleisch’s arai), and human sacrifice (Dido and Turnus should be on our minds). One might even say that Servius is reading the events of the Aeneid back into the epic cycle, and essentially the narrative of the Aeneid becomes the literary matrix in which Servius sets his own readings of Homer et al. While the death of Achilles blends the myriad of themes we have been discussing (and adding a few more) it is notable that Achilles is slaughtered as he attempts to strike a foedus and that this foedus, which would bring an end to the Trojan War, is completely devoid of any notion of ethnic assimilation and merging, just as was the case with respect to the horkos of Iliad 3.

24 The second example occurs at Aeneid 10.90-1, where Vergil suggests through the mouth of Juno that the events of the epic cycle ultimately derive from the violation of foedera : quae causa fuit consurgere in arma/ Europamque Asiamque et foedera solvere furto ? Servius’ comments for these lines are particularly interesting since they indicate that the entire narrative of the epic cycle is motivated by violated foedera. It is important to quote Servius in full : FOEDERA SOLVERE FVRTO legitur in historiis quod Troiani cum Graecis foedus habuerunt. tunc etiam Paris est susceptus hospitio et sic commisit adulterium. ergo ‘foedera solvere furto’ amicitias adulterio dissipare : nam furtum est adulterium, unde est “et dulcia furta”. et eversi Ilii haec est vera causa : nam foedera quae inter Graecos et Troianos fuerunt, ita soluta sunt. Hercules cum expugnato Ilio filiam Laomedontis Hesionam, Priami sororem, Telamoni dedisset, profecti sunt legati cum Priamo et eam minime repetere potuerunt, illis dicentibus se eam habere iure bellorum. unde commotus Priamus misit Paridem cum exercitu, ut aliquid tale abduceret, aut uxorem regis, aut filiam. qui expugnata Sparta Helenam rapuit. hinc ergo Vergilius utrumque tangit, et istam historiam quam modo diximus, et propter iudicium Paridis : quamvis fabula sit illa res et a poetis composita.56 (ad Aen. 10.90)

25 Servius tells us that the historiae (meaning rationalizing readings, purged of fabulous epic events) judged the rape of Helen as a violation of foedera that existed between the

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 42

Greeks and Trojans.57 There are two approaches to the foedera. The first is that Paris committed an act of adultery while under the protection of hospitium, and that this act violated the foedera. Here, a violation of the foedushospitii results in the violation of the political foedera between nations. The other explanation is that Paris invaded Greece and took Helen at the behest of Priam because the Trojan king was unable to reclaim his sister Hesiona, who had been seized by Hercules and given to Telamon. Servius tells us that Vergil alludes to both, in what is perhaps the first “have your cake and eat it too” argument in literary criticism. From the examples given above, we can map the sequence of violated foedera as the following : the rapes of Hesiona and Helen rupture the foedera between Europe and Asia, which give rise to war, and during this war foedera continue to be ruptured between men alone, first in Iliad 3 and then in at least one variant of the death of Achilles.

26 Can the negative valence of altars in Aeneid 2 and 3 be interpreted as signifiers that foedera have been violated, thereby aligning the narrated past of the poem with events as they unfold in Carthage and Italy ? In other words, are the Arae of Book 1 and the arae of Book 12 merely marked places where violated foedera and desecrated altars become unified ? I think that it is probable that the massive violation of arae in the Aeneid signifies the continued theme of ruptured foedera, which began with the rapes of Hesiona and Helen that infected the alliance between Europe and Asia.58 It is precisely this idea that accounts for the language describing the death of Priam at Aenied 2.501-2 : uidi Hecubam centumque nurus Priamumque per aras/ sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignis/“I saw Hecuba together with her hundred daughters, and among the altars I could see King Priam, polluting with his blood the fires he himself had hallowed.”59 The cognitive association between foedus and foeditas suggests that Pyrrhus’ sacrifice of Priam is the fulfillment of the sort of foedera one encounters in the epic cycle – foedera besmirched and foul in their performance upon violated altars. 60 Essentially, the characters of the Aeneid are in a nightmare world where the chain reaction of violated foedera ripple throughout the epic landscape Vergil inherits, which he fashions for his own poetic, political and symbolic aims, as the historically polysemous language used of the location of Priam’s corpse suggests.61 It is notable in this regard that the altar of his sacrifice is described as ingens ara iuxtaque veterrima laurus/ incumbens arae : 2.512-13 ; ingens ara and its veterrima laurus are markers of Magnus. The reference to Civil War in Priam’s death suggests that this cycle has continued unbroken from Greek mythology, through Roman legendary history, until the recent events of Vergil’s Rome.

27 Let us return to Aeneid 10.90-1 and the implications of ruptured compacts within an East-West opposition : quae causa fuit consurgere in arma/ Europamque Asiamque et foedera solvere furto/“was it not he who caused both Europe and Asia to rise in arms, whose treachery first violated ties of peace.” The rape of Helen results in ruptured foedera that up until that point had created an alliance between the two continents. Organizing the spatial matrices of the poem is the highly charged binary of East and West antagonism (or rather “consurgence”), which Juno characterizes in an almost Herodotean manner, if we agree that furto refers to the rape of Helen. Yet Juno’s perception of epic events does not respond to the fact that the effeminate, eastern potentate Aeneas is migrating to the West, a process that restructures this problematic spatial bifurcation and realigns the symbolic content created by it.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 43

28 The Polydorus episode is thematically important in this regard because it marks Aeneas’ first engagement with Europe after crossing the Hellespont, where he encounters a strange portent while building, of all things, an altar. After founding a city and sacrificing a taurus to Jupiter – an act Servius states was contra morem (ad Aen. 12.11962) – Aeneas attempts to build an ara, an act that (unsurprisingly after the narrative of Book 2 and the presence of iuxta with cornea virgulta and myrtus upon the tumulus suggesting an inversion of Priam’s altar) becomes a monstrum as blood and gore seep from the mound.63 In his first engagement with Europe Aeneas unwittingly violates arae in the sense that the materials he is using to construct it are polluted by human crime and blood.64 The landscape retains the memory of the violated rites of hospitium and the rupturing of all that is fas because of Polydorus’ murder by Lycurgus (3.55-61). I would like to suggest that this peculiar episode marks the reenactment of the ruptured foedera between Asia and Europe, which, as Servius told us, was based on the violation of hospitium through adultery.65 The death of Polydorus in the context of hospitium, the violation of altars, and the shift from Asia to Europe all suggest that this groaning and gore-filled tumulus in the poetic landscape of the Aeneid represents the continuing influence of ruptured foedera.

29 All of these connections suggest that the earth’s blood-dripping intimates to the reader that Aeneas’ crossing over into Europe is itself a kind of violation. The various themes orbiting this passage offer a bold proposal : the graphic imagery attending Aeneas’ pulling hastilia from the earth could be interpreted as an inversion of the spear- throwing ritual resuscitated (or invented) by Augustus before declaring war on Cleopatra and Antony, another conflict memorialized as an East-West adversarial axis, most famously depicted on the shield of Aeneas. Instead of throwing the spear to declare war, Aeneas ignorantly pulls it from the ground and reawakens the memory of the conflict that has already been suffused with the landscape he encounters. This is an important moment for Vergil’s epic design ; he marries the negative forces memorialized in the landscapes to a character marked for his piety. Aeneas is the only hero who might engage with these landscapes positively, an idea expressed in his erection of arae more suitable to the memory of the landscape itself : ergo instauramus Polydoro funus, et ingens/ aggeritur tumulo tellus ; stant Manibus arae/ caeruleis maestae vittis atraque cupresso,/ et circum Iliades crinem de more solutae/“And thus we give fresh funerals to Polydorus and heap earth high upon his mound and build our altars to the Shades, with melancholy dark garlands and black cypresses, and around us the Trojan women stand ; their streaming hair is loosened as custom bids”(3.62-5).66 Aeneas is simultaneously confronted with the full force of ruptured foedera entombed in landscapes and violated arae, while also having the wherewithal to negotiate the pollution inherent in these landscapes. He is at once ignorantly part of the drama of violated foedera as well as the key factor for their solution. His first engagement with Europe is marked by the violation of arae, and yet the actions that follow this initial interaction result in the closure of this violated landscape. A crucial aspect of Aeneas’ mission, unknown to him, is that he is in the process of reuniting Europe and Asia, East and West, and as a consequence bringing to finality the accompanying pollution.67

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 44

Reorienting the Orient

30 This interplay between arae and foedera and their connection to themes of East-West opposition encourage one to address more formally the poetics of East-West unification in the poem. The remainder of the paper will move beyond altars in order to dissect the configuration of this opposition, while resituating what is at stake when Aeneas sacrifices Turnus in the final lines of the poem.

31 The opening lines of the Aeneid motivate a reading whereby the cities of Troy and Rome frame and shape our spatial perspective along an East-West continuum, which takes on an added valence once we set these lines in the context of Aeneid 10.90-91 : arma virumque cano, Troiae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit litora, multum ille et terris iactatus et alto vi superum, saevae memorem Iunonis ob iram, multa quoque et bello passus, dum conderet urbem inferretque deos Latio ; genus unde Latinum Albanique patres atque altae moenia Romae.68 (1.1-7)

32 The opening seven lines of the Aeneid form a super sentence of unruly subordination that summarizes rather succinctly the main thread of the Aeneid ; Aeneas travels from Troy to the region around Rome where he will endure wars because of Juno’s ira. The subordinate clause is itself framed by Troiae and Romae. These are the only two cities in the epic, which are absent from the poetic landscape of the Aeneid, except through acts of story telling or prolepsis. Troy no longer exists and Rome has yet to exist within the narrative, yet these two cities transport us across the Mediterranean world, from East to West, as we move from Troia to Roma. Furthermore, Vergil refers to Lavinia litora and Albani patres, both of which are functions of the poetics of alliance of the Aeneid. Lavinium is founded on foedera struck between Aeneas and Latinus in Book 12 ; the Albani are subsumed into Rome after Fufetius violates the foedera fashioned during the certamen of the Horatii and Curiatii (see AUC 1.24) and is drawn and quartered, a punishment depicted on the shield of Aeneas (8.642-5). Implicit in the spaces referenced are those ritual moments known as foedera.

33 One can add to the poem’s opening lines a number of additional examples that highlight a variety of methods that Vergil employs in order to manipulate the audience’s perspective of space, which reaffirm this reframing of the conflict between Europe and Asia. Later in Book 1, for example, Juno states to Aeolus : gens inimica mihi Tyrrhenum navigat aequor/ Ilium in Italiam portans victosque penatis/“over the Tyrrhenian now sails my enemy, a race that carries the beaten household gods of Ilium to Italy” (1.68-9). Ilium in Italiam not only re-enacts the movement from Troia to Roma, but the shift from East to West is then extended to include the incorporation of one landscape into another imitated not only through Vergil’s use of elision to symbolize the process, but also through the paragram of Ilium spilling into Italiam.

34 Also in Book 1, while reassuring Venus of the fate of her son, Jupiter states : nascetur pulchra Troianus origine Caesar, imperium Oceano, famam qui terminet astris, Iulius, a magno demissum nomen Iulo.69 (1.286-8)

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 45

35 Troianus shifts our perspective to the East.70 Four syllables later, Caesar snaps us back to Rome. This movement from East to West in the naming of the Troianus Caesar is then reframed by the subordinate clause to include Oceano, which in effect changes the audience’s perspective from Troy and Rome into the conception of this space as bound together within the frontier limits of Oceanus, which then extends to the stars as the line concludes. Yet the space of Ocean and the stars are framed by the hyperbaton Caesar...Iulius, setting the frontier regions of earth and heaven within the name of a single man. The reorientation continues in deriving Roman Iulius from the Trojan Iulus. Iulius and Iulo frame the line, again shifting us in simultaneous snaps between East and West with hardly any differentiation between them, while mixing past, present and future, intertwining the boundaries and expanses of space and time to mere shifts of perspective and alternative viewpoints that collapse, condense and blur large expanses of physical space, metamorphing them into mere terminology, amalgamation, and assimilation. It is this very perspective that Aeneas lacks as he crosses from Asia into Europe.

36 Subtle allusions in the descriptions of cities continue this theme of spatial ambivalence. In two important insights by Servius regarding Aeneid 2.313 and 2.486, it becomes apparent that the fall of Troy is spatially and temporally loaded : exoritur clamorque virum clangorque tubarum71 (2.313) plerumque ad tubam evertuntur civitates sicut Albam Tullus Hostilius iussit everti72 (ad Aen 2.313) at domus interior gemitu miseroque tumultu miscetur, penitus cavae plangoribus aedes femineis ululant, ferit aurea sidera clamor. tum pavidae tectis matres ingentibus errant amplexaeque tenent postes atque oscula figunt.73 (2.486-90) at domus interior : de Albano excidio translatus est locus.74 (ad Aen. 2.486)

37 We learn that parts of Vergil’s fall of Troy are allusions to Ennius’ fall of Alba Longa in the Annales.75 From Carthage Aeneas narrates the ruinous events of the final moments of Troy while unwittingly gesturing to the destruction of his son’s city in Alba Longa, an act that is little more than three hundred years in the future (etLongam multa vi muniet Albam. hic iam ter centum totos regnabitur annos gente sub Hectorea. 1.271-2). These subtle conflations of past, present, and future, from Troy to Alba Longa, from Asia to Europe, all lead through urbes captae to the same endpoint, Rome (just as the opening lines move from Troy, to Lavinia, Alba Longa and finally to Rome). This point is well articulated by Livy – another writer who was most assuredly influenced by Ennius’ Fall of Alba Longa – Roma interim crescit Albae ruinis (AUC 1.29). The fall of Troy prefigures the Fall of Alba Longa to the Romans – Carthage is not in the equation, yet Vergil has Aeneas connect Troy, Alba Longa, and Rome while sitting in a Carthaginian space. Aeneas’ description of the fall of Troy stands for the destruction of every city that both violated foedera and contributed to the expansion of Roman imperium in the process.76

38 This mixing and shifting of the audience’s perspective finds its most significant example in Book 6 as Anchises unfolds to Aeneas the mixed lineage of the Trojans and Italians beginning with Silvius – described as Italo commixtus sanguine – and ending with Augustus Caesar :

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 46

quin et avo comitem sese Mavortius addet Romulus, Assaraci quem sanguinis Ilia mater educet. viden, ut geminae stant vertice cristae et pater ipse suo superum iam signat honore ? en huius, nate, auspiciis illa incluta Roma imperium terris, animos aequabit Olympo, septemque una sibi muro circumdabit arces, felix prole virum : qualis Berecyntia mater invehitur curru Phrygias turrita per urbes laeta deum partu, centum complexa nepotes, omnis caelicolas, omnis supera alta tenentis.77 (6.777-87)

39 Anchises points out Romulus and describes his birth in Asian terms through Assaraci sanguinis, an allusion to Phrygia and the grandfather of Anchises. It should not be a surprise that Vergil has set Assaraci between Romulus and the relative pronoun quem ; the hyperbaton of Assaraci sanguinis set between Romulus and quem intertwines the founder of Rome and his genetically Trojan lineage. More importantly, line 781 is the only explicit naming of Roma in the Aeneid by a character within the narrative outside of the voice of the poet. Yet, Anchises displaces our mental image of Rome and its seven hills by setting it within a Phrygian realm being circumnavigated by the Berecynthian Mater upon her chariot, wearing a mural crown.78 Anchises transports into our mental imagery of Rome the Eastern world of Phrygia, essentially shifting us from an inward perspective of Rome – highlighting the seven hills and the continuous wall – to an outward perspective of cities being connected through the journey of Cybele. And yet the reference to Cybele transports us back inside the walls of Rome to the Palatine Hill where the goddess in her temple could look out over the ludus Troiae taking place in the Circus Maximus (while Augustus’s quarters lied in between the temples of Cybele and Apollo). Or she points us to coinage where her image signified triumph and world empire, a point Vergil alludes to by setting her on a chariot.79 Inside and outside become alternative points of view, which offer the same significance of meaning : Rome and Troy, present and past, Europe and Asia, West and East and vice versa are merely ways of approaching the same object.80 The binary essentially becomes Janus-faced.

40 The mention of cities in the Aeneid is always important, and the above case with regard to Phrygias...urbes is of special significance considering that Aeneid 3 is a narrative about the founding of Phrygian cities. I do think that Anchises’ statement is meant to recall Book 3 in which the cities Aeneadae/Aineia, Pergamea, and Buthrotum are founded, making the journey of the Berecynthian mother a kind of re-enactment of the Trojan journey in Book 3. Amidst this theme of colonization is the transformative power of the Trojans upon the landscape of the Mediterranean world either through city-building itself or through the force of their descriptive speech acts. It is from this perspective that we can counter the negative valence of the arae in the context of violated foedera ; Aeneas is reorganizing the spatial antagonism of the epic landscape he moves through.

41 The first description of landscape in Book 3 is not so much transformative as it is programmatic : diversa exilia et desertas quaerere terras auguriis agimur diuum, classemque sub ipsa Antandro et Phrygiae molimur montibus Idae.81 (3.4-6)

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 47

42 After the burning of Troy, the Trojans meet at that famously Phrygian location of Mount Ida. On Delos, the second stop of the Trojan journey, Anchises puts the programmatic language into practice as his description of Crete moves from a traditional account of the island as the birthplace of Jupiter and the island of one hundred cities to a less traditional Crete incorporated into Phrygian landscape : Creta Iovis magni medio iacet insula ponto Mons Idaeus ubi gentis cunabula nostrae. centum urbes habitant magnas, uberrima regna, maximus unde pater, si rite audita recordor, Teucrus Rhoeteas primum est advectus in oras, optavitque locum regno. nondum Ilium et arces Pergameae steterant ; habitabant vallibus imis. hinc mater cultrix Cybeli Corybantia aera Idaeumque nemus, hinc fida silentia sacris et iuncti currum dominae subiere leones.82 (3.104-13)

43 In Anchises’ description of Crete we find that the island was, for all intents and purposes, a former Troy. It has its own Mount Ida, Idaean Grove, Cybele and her cultic activity. Troy and Crete are linked, making Crete and Troy a single unit snapping the imagery from the middle of the pontus to Asia, conflating each landscape into an indistinguishable image of the other. Furthermore, Teucrus highlights the productive capacity for Trojan city-building ; Teucrus’ activity on Crete results in the flourishing of a 100 great cities. The Trojan journey under the guidance of Aeneas is continuing this trend, a trend that will persist under the Romans.

44 As the Trojans move from Crete to Buthrotum Vergil manipulates our expectations of space by directing our attention away from the Idaean Grove of Crete to the urban setting of Buthrotum’s Troy, in essence transforming the space between Crete and Buthrotum into a kind of imaginary Troad : procedo et parvam Troiam simulataque magnis Pergama et arentem Xanthi cognomine rivum agnosco, Scaeaeque amplector limina portae ; nec non et Teucri socia simul urbe fruuntur.83 (3.349-52) effigiem Xanthi Troiamque videtis quam vestrae fecere manus, melioribus, opto, auspiciis, et quae fuerit minus obvia Grais. Si quando Thybrim vicinaque Thybridis arva intraro gentique meae data moenia cernam, cognatus urbes olim populosque propinquos, Epiro Hesperiam (quibus idem Dardanus auctor atque idem casus), unam faciemus utramque Troiam animis : maneant nostros ea cura nepotes.84 (3.497-505)

45 Though Buthrotum is a bit repressed (to say the least), its meaning transcends the meekness of its physical presence.85 It is of particular significance that Buthrotum was in fact an actual Roman colony, like Carthage, and that its nomenclature as parva Troia simulataque is echoed later by Aulus Gellius in his description of Roman colonies as effigies parvae simulacraque esse ( Attic Nights 16.13.9). 86 Buthrotum departs from its meager monumentality and becomes a linchpin between Epirus and Hesperia, as the elision emphasizes, and in essence the parva Troia becomes the ironic counterpart to

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 48

magnaGraecia, a landscape that finds itself squeezed in between the elision itself. Aeneas ends his valediction with a promise that each city will be made a single Troy through the force of their animis, a phrase that Servius connects to the discourse of foedus.87 Aeneas’ statement not only connects Greece to Italy and Buthrotum to Rome, but the polysemy of Troia forms a bond between Asia and Buthrotum which then extends through to Italy resulting in the union of Asia, Greece and Italy through the parvaTroia.

46 I think this mixing of landscapes and cities is confirmed upon the final episode of Book 3 when the Trojans encounter the forgotten crewmember of Odysseus’ ship – Achaemenides. As the Trojans approach Sicily they see him : cum subito e silvis macie confecta suprema ignoti nova forma viri miserandaque cultu procedit supplexque manus ad litora tulit. respicimus. dira inluuies immissaque barba, consertum tegimen spinis : at cetera Graius...88 (3.590-4) sum patria ex Ithaca, comes infelicis Ulixi nomine Achaemenides, Troiam genitore Adamasto paupere (mansissetque utinam fortuna !) profectus.89 (3.613-15)

47 When Vergil describes Achaemenides with the curious terms nova forma and ignoti he is in fact telling us something we already know – Achaemenides is something new in poetry, especially in comparison to Polyphemus who is both seeking known shores (litoranota petentem 3.657) and has himself been sought again and again by previous poets. However, the full innovation of the episode is found in the multiple significations inherent in the polysemous potential of the vagabond’s name. Achaemenides means the waiting Achaean – to be more accurate, the son of the waiting Achaean.90 He is also an Ithacan. In his name and his homeland we are struck by his Greekness. Yet his name has further connotations recalling the Persian Achaemenid dynasty. This polysemous appellation operates on three simultaneous spatial levels, all of which snap our mental gaze from West to East, moving from Sicily, to Greece, to Persia. When the Trojans accept Achaemenides, we again encounter another instance of integration, but as opposed to assimilating Rome and Troy, or Troy and Alba Longa, or various landscapes to Phrygia, we have the integration of Greece, Asia and Hesperia bound up together into a single moment of supplication and acceptance.

48 The space formed and shaped by Rome and Troy and then the epic landscape becoming over-mapped by Trojan imagery is something that seems to be closely connected to the acceptance of Achaemenides at the end of Book III. I do believe that we are meant to understand this continual theme as the blurring and then the annihilation of the traditional Greek frame of East and West within the context of alliance. It is notable that this act of acceptance is described as the following : ipse pater dextram Anchises haud multa moratus/ dat iuveni atque animum praesenti pignore firmat/“Father Anchises does not wait long to offer his hand and steadies the young man with that strong pledge” (3.608-9). Anchises performs the iunctio dextrarum, an act that orbits the ideology of foedus, especially in the context of pignus, a word that implies the surety inherent in accepting one into a relationship of hospitium or amicitia based on fides (see AUC 22.58.6, 25.16.14, 40.47, 42.39 to name only a few examples from a single author). We can add to this idea the following line at Aeneid 11.363 where pignus seems to be related closely to foedus : nulla salus bello, pacem te poscimus omnes,/ Turne, simul pacis solum inuiolabile

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 49

pignus/“There is no safety in war. What all of us are asking you, Turnus, is peace – peace and the only thing that is the inviolable pledge of peace.” An inviolable pignus of peace is closely related to foedus,as AUC 2.13.9 shows : et Romani pignus pacis ex foedere restituerunt. Given the spatial and political symbolism of this moment in the narrative, in addition to the iunctio dextrarum and its relation to pignus, I think it is advisable to see the discourse of alliance activated.91 This polysemous and symbolic moment responds to the ruptured foedera that began the epic cycle, but here we are meant to see the unification of East and West through the allusion to the historical clan of the Achaemenids. When Anchises states in Book 3, sed quis ad Hesperiae venturos litora Teucros crederet ?/“But who would believe that the Teucrians would go to the shores of Hesperia” (3.185), this is not merely a rhetorical question. What he is really asking is : who would believe that East would go West ? It is an astonishing insight on Anchises’ part. Anchises is aware that the Trojans are in the process of reorienting the orient.

49 The East-West binary is a curious model by which to describe space and the relationships between landscapes. Its meaning derives from oppositions that fail to acknowledge an implicit paradox between the binary. It is this paradox that makes Troy so vital in conceiving of Vergil’s poetic space and his manipulation of geographies. Any boundary between entities implicitly involves a tripartite relationship : the two objects which are separated from one another by the boundary and the boundary itself, which is in a state of liminality between the two entities. In the present case, the binary of East and West implicitly contains a space that is neither East nor West, at the very point of separation itself. I would like to suggest that the space between the binary was for the Romans Troy. Catullus 68 in fact highlights the idea of Troy as a liminal zone between East and West, or in Catullus’ words Asia and Europe – though it must be remarked that Catullus’ Troia is something quite different than that of Vergil : Troia (nefas !) commune sepulcrum Asiae Europaeque, Troia uirum et uirtutum omnium acerba cinis.92

50 Troy is a liminal city – or in his terms – a shared tomb of both Asia and Europe. The elision mimics the idea, a fact further highlighted by the first reference in Western literature to Eurasia. Troy is a space where the binary dissolves, forming an amalgamation of landscape that is both East and West, yet outside of East and West, a place where Trojans can become Greeks as in the case of Aeneid 2 or where East can become West in the case of Aeneid 3. I do not think one would be incorrect in stating that Troy is the man-made structure that divides the ancient world between Asia and Europe, corresponding to the natural landscape of the Hellespont.93

51 This idea is somewhat problematic with regard to the Aeneid. If we are in agreement that Troy is the boundary between East and West and is also the shared space between them both, then we encounter an interesting dilemma upon Aeneas’ description of Troy at the beginning of Book 3 ; Aeneas tells us that all of Neptunian Troy is smoking on the ground. The marker that had divided East and West no longer exists. In essence, East and West are no longer in a binary opposition prefigured by a man-made liminal zone separating them, but both exist in the Trojan expedition itself as it moves from East to West. The Trojans are a walking, talking, breathing, moving liminal zone. Wherever they go, they change the boundaries and demarcations establishing not binary oppositions, but instead, places of mixing and commingling. The most salient feature of this mixing and commingling is the unification of Asia and Europe itself. The

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 50

Romans have retained this unique Trojan quality even if Trojan dress and language has been obliterated according to the foedus enacted between Juno and Jupiter in Book 12.

52 We in fact encounter a proof of this assertion in Book 1, but in an unlikely context. Aeneas describes his wanderings to Venus in Book 1.384-5 in this way, ipse ignotus, egens, Libyae deserta peragro,/Europa atque Asia pulsus/“and I myself, a needy stranger, roam across the wilderness of Libya ; I am driven out of Europe and Asia.” Because the Trojans are innately liminal, they are in essence inhabitants of both Asia and Europe simultaneously. If they are unable to live in Europe and Asia, then it seems only natural that they reside in a place that is neither East nor West, neither Europe nor Asia, that is Africa/Libya (and symbolically, Egypt). For Aeneas he must either exist in Europe and Asia simultaneously, or he must exist outside of them both. In this case Libya, and by synecdoche Africa, is the only place the Trojans might inhabit, as Mercury himself seems to suggest when he rebukes Aeneas for dressing like a Tyrian at 4.262-3.94 But by doing so they will deny their liminality and their unique positions within the Mediterranean geography. Europa atque Asia in fact highlights this idea. This phrase is as close as Latin can come to saying Eurasia since the elision connects Europa to Asia into a single mass, in essence uniting East and West. The verbal artifact is charged with political and symbolic potential.

53 This statement by Aeneas is all the more impressive upon reflection of the key lines at 10.90-1 : quae causa fuit consurgere in arma/ Europamque Asiamque et foedera solvere furto. We encounter this impressive elision, ending at the caesura, at which point Juno refers to the loosening of foedera through the rape of Helen. Juno highlights the fact that Europe and Asia used to be united – stressed by the elision – until the violation of foedera. The elision and caesura symbolize the movement from unification to separation and antagonism. But because of his unique relationship to Eurasia, Aeneas is in the process of reuniting the two continents into a unified whole. Aeneas interprets his journey as a sign that he has been repulsed by Eurasia, without realizing that his journey has in fact reunited them.

54 These lines become all the more symbolically charged upon consideration of Servius’ comments in which he discusses the debate over whether the orbis is divided into two or three parts.95 There was debate over whether the Mediterranean landscape was considered to be three or two continents. I strongly assert that Aeneas is well aware that he has landed in a place outside of Europe and Asia. This is a crucial point to understand because while Vergil is uniting East and West through the journey of Aeneas, he is simultaneously reorganizing the antagonistic axis along a North-South, or Eurasia-Africa axis. We need only to remember the discussion of the Arae, which began this long discussion in order to see that one theme of the Aeneid is the realignment of the epic cycle along a new kind of foedera that reconfigures the tensions and ideologies inherent in the epic landscape Vergil inherited. But the Arae in Book 1 implicitly acknowledge that Carthage has paid the ultimate price for violating its foedera with Rome, not only losing its control over Sardinia and Sicily, but also suffering complete annihilation and then colonization by Rome. Even as Vergil is realigning the adversarial axes, he is simultaneously suggesting that East, West, North, and South are becoming a unified whole from the global perspective of the poem.

55 We can approach this material from another angle ; the arae of Tatius and Romulus depicted on the shield of Aeneas embody the role arae and foedera play in the poetics of this unification of space discussed above. Servius clearly understood that foedus brings

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 51

to realization the nature of Roman etiology as a function of ethnic amalgamation. Servius alludes to the logic that informs the Vergilian foedus in a remark at Aeneid 12.198 : Latonaeque genus duplex Ianumque bifrontem. LATONAEQUE GENUS DUPLEX ac si diceret, utrumque sexum prolis Latonae vel subolis. et bene in foederibus duplicia invocat numina, quia in unum duo coituri sunt populi. IANUM quoque rite invocat, quia ipse faciendibus foederibus praeest : namque postquam Romulus et Titus Tatius in foedera convenerunt, Iano simulacrum duplicis frontis effectum est, quasi ad imaginem duorum populorum.96 (ad Aen 12.198)

56 Servius tells us that the genus duplex and the famous double face of Janus symbolize in different ways the process of two ethnicities becoming a single entity (quia in unum duo coituri sunt populi and Iano simulacrum duplicis frontis effectum est, quasi ad imaginem duorum populorum), and furthermore that Janus is invoked in the performance of foedera and that his duplex frons is an imago of two populations. 97 The first Romanfoedus performed by Tatius and Romulus is memorialized by a double face that signifies ethnic merging. Earlier ad Aen. 1.291 Servius discusses the same idea ; after the foedus had been made (facto foedere) Tatius and Romulus built the temple. He then gives a series of explanations for the meaning of Janus’ two faces as proposed by the alii : they represent a coitio of the two kings or symbolize the “reversion” to peace by parties who are about to embark on war.98 The explanations are set in contrast to Servius’ own interpretation of the duplex frons’ significance in his comments in Book 12 where unification of two populations is the overriding idea. The double face of Janus is actually a mirror or imago of Rome itself, a symbol of the continual merging of multiple ethnicities into one, and yet the double face reflects the limits of full amalgamation.

57 Servius’ theory of the double-faced Janus offered in his reading of Book 12 is quite consistent with the thematic patterns within the Aeneid itself. We see confirmation of this from the divine perspective of the poem : first in Book 4, where the first usage of foedus can be found in direct speech,99 then in Book 12, when Juno and Jupiter agree to foedera.100 Both passages reflect the idea of making two nations one, and that part of this unification is the mixing of cultures into a novel syncretism. The gods are aware that implicit in the formation of foedera is the mixing of cities and peoples. One gets the sense that Servius had come to this conclusion by the time he reached Book 12 where he offered his own interpretation of the meaning of the double face of Janus.

58 In the course of the epic, however, the theme of spatial and political unification swings pendulum-like between those moments of fruitful unification and those of atomization and catastrophe. Violated arae intimate that the pendulum has swung to the side of strife. These negatively charged arae are part of the aftermath of violated foedera that have permeated the poetic landscape of the epic cycle prior to the events of the Aeneid. From a certain perspective we can say that the Aeneid both continues the theme of violated foedera that shaped the narrative of the epic cycle as a whole, while simultaneously creating a new epic landscape where violated foedera are replaced by a stable system of alliance that breaks the wheeling cycles of violence.101 This last point is significant since it casts in high relief the foedus of Aeneid 12. The death of Turnus in the fulfillment of the infected foedus actualizes both conditions of Aeneas’ oath as we remarked above, but just as importantly, within the epic landscape of the Aeneid this foedus brings to a close the theme of altar violation and ruptured alliances. There must be a last epic foedus that both confronts the problems of ritual pollution preceding it, while bringing into being a new system of alliance. The foedus of Romulus and Tatius

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 52

and the temple of Janus, built as a symbolic artifact of the nature and consequences of Roman foedera, reflect the successful transition of alliance from the epic cycle, upon which the Aeneid is built, to Roman history and a new poetics of alliance.

NOTES

1. Gian Biagio Conte, The Rhetoric of Imitationoui sur d'accord : Genre and Poetic Memory in Virgil and other Latin Poets, trans. Charles Segal (Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1986) 167. 2. See Philip Hardie, The Epic Successors of Virgil : A Study in the Dynamics of a Tradition (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993) 11-18. 3. For recent approaches to these issues, see J.D. Reed, Virgil’s Gazeoui sur d'accord : Nation and Poetry in the Aeneid (Princeton University Press : Princeton, 2007) ; Brent Hannah, “Manufacturing Descent : Virgil’s Genealogical Engineering,” Arethusa 37 (2004) 141-64 ; Eve Adler, Vergil’s Empire : Political Thought in the Aeneid (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers : USA, 2003). To quote Reed (38), who uses focalization to diagnose the process of the poem’s various configurations, “Euryalus is a Trojan, Pallas an Arcadian Greek settled in Latium, Lausus an Etruscan, Camilla an Italian, specifically a Volscian from Privernum. The first two die fighting for Aeneas, the later two against him, but all four belong to peoples that will be absorbed into the new nation that is eventually to become Rome.” Reed is particularly interested in the absent ethnicity in this process of subsumation, that of Rome. This conception of the poem can be generally applied to many of its spatial and temporal features. Conflation and subsumation are essential. 4. Outside of Aeneid 12, Livy AUC 1.24 is the fullest account of the ritual act of a foedus. Foedera were overseen by the college of fetial priests who pronounced the oath/curse of the foedus and sacrificed a piglet in order to sanctify the conditions (leges) of the foedus. Foedera were closely connected to the creation of fines between Rome and its allies. Foedera not only constructed the conditions for interstate alliances (and they varied depending on the proximity to Rome), but they organized the spatial boundaries between empires (as is the case of the foedera between Carthage and Rome), defeated nations (as is the case of Carthage after the 2nd Punic War), or other allies (as is the case in the foedus between Rome and Antiochus). Foedera establish formal spheres of influence. I am currently writing a full-length study on the poetics of alliance and the role of foedera in Roman literature. 5. By Servius I mean the aggregation of interpretations that have grown around the commentary under his name. 6. It must be noted that this cluster of rocks function as the first landscape (sequentially speaking) the Trojans encounter. Orontes’ name consequently points the reader to the coast of Asia and the Orontes river, known also as Typhon and Draco. His name creates a spatial ambiguity, whereby a very Italian space (noted by the Itali naming the rocks) encounters an Asian river. On Orontes’ death as a human sacrifice see James O’Hara, Death and the Optimistic Prophecy in Vergil’s Aeneid (Princeton University Press : Princeton, 1990) 22. 7. For the significance of the Arae as an “etymological signpost” see O’Hara (1990) 19-22. 8. “Moreover, these rocks are between Africa, Sicily, Sardinia and Italy, and they are called “Altars” by the Italians because at that place the Africans and Romans entered into a foedus and

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 53

wished that the boundaries of their Empires be there. For this reason Dido (4.628) prays that shores are contrary to shores, waters to waves.” All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated. 9. We must also add the possibility that the Arae mirror the Ara which was established in the caelum by Jupiter after his victory over the Gigantes. Manilius describes them in this way, ipsius hinc mundo templum est, victrixque solutis/ Ara nitet sacris, vastos cum Terra Gigantas/ in caelum furibunda tulit (Astro. 1.420-2). 10. The foedus referenced must be prior to the first Punic War because of the presence of Sardinia and Sicily in the terms of the foedus. In fact Sardinia, Sicily and the Arae all operate as the fines between Roman and Carthaginian imperium. See J. Serrati, “Neptune’s Altars : The Treaties between Rome and Carthage (509-226 BCE),” CQ 56 (2006) 113-34 on the dating of this treaty as 306 BCE and discussion of the various historical sources Servius mentions. 11. While foedus does not actually occur in the text at this point in the narrative, I think it is safe to assume that a Roman reader would have understood the political etiology for the naming of these rocks as Arae. That is to say that the Arae signify an ancient foedus with Carthage, and given the vast tradition of exegesis Servius discusses, which suggests more than an obscure reference, I think that we can read the poetics of alliance into the Arae. 12. See also Pamela Bleisch, “Altars Altered : The Alexandrian Tradition of Etymological Wordplay in Aeneid 1.108-12”, AJP 119 (1998) 599-606. Bleisch’s discussion of the wordplay between arae (altars) and the Greek word for curses, aria, is important for the entire discussion that follows. 13. Cicero’s comments on Gallic human sacrifice are apt : ab isdem gentibus sanctis et in testimonio religiosis obsessum Capitolium est atque ille Iuppiter cuius nomine maiores nostri vinctam testimoniorum fidem esse voluerunt. postremo his quicquam sanctum ac religiosum videri potest qui, etiam si quando aliquo metu adducti deos placandos esse arbitrantur, humanis hostiis eorum aras ac templa funestant, ut ne religionem quidem colere possint, nisi eam ipsam prius scelere violarint ? quis enim ignorat eos usque ad hanc diem retinere illam immanem ac barbaram consuetudinem hominum immolandorum ? quam ob rem quali fide, quali pietate existimatis esse eos qui etiam deos immortalis arbitrentur hominum scelere et sanguine facillime posse placari ? cum his vos testibus vestram religionem coniungetis, ab quicquam sancte aut moderate dictum putabitis ? Pro Fonteio 31) 14. “This entire passage concerning the foedera has been translated from Homer where Alexander Paris is about to battle with Menelaos in single combat.” 15. See Tilman Schmit-Neuerburg, Vergils Aeneis und Die Antike Homerexegese : Untersuchungen zum Einfluss ethischer und kritischer Homerrezeption auf Imitatio und Aemulatio Vergils (Walter de Gruyter : Berlin, 1999) 296-300. 16. “Surely he leads one to compare this passage to the Homeric foedus : for just as in that one there is Priam, thus here is Latinus ; just as here is Aeneas, so there is Agamemnon. And those who pray first will preserve the foedus, but those who give their oaths last rupture it, just as there the Trojans through Pandarus, and here the Latins through Tolumnius.” 17. See Schmit-Neuerburg (1999) 318-25 highlights the fact that Pandarus’ actions have been divided between Tolumnius and Messapus, but he does not comment on the significance of this. 18. See Iliad 3.264-309 and Aeneid 12.163-215 for a description of the entire ritual. 19. On this point see Renaud Gagné, “The Poetics of Exoleia in Homer,” Mnemosyne 62 (2009, forthcoming) 16 p. 20. To quote Hardie (1993) 12, “[T]his is partly the achievement of the end of the poem, which as so many have felt is not an ending at all (except for Turnus), merely a beginning of the history of the Aeneadae once they have vindicated their right to settle in the land of future Rome.” Of course we must add the lens of the underworld where those who have yet to begin (their lives) are also located where those who have ended their lives exist, conflating the idea of beginning and ending, past and future. On the many endings of the Aeneid see also Hardie, “Closure in Latin

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 54

Epic,” Classical Closure, eds. Roberts, Dunn, and Fowler (Princeton University Press : Princeton, 1997) 142-51. 21. See Julia Dyson, King of the Wood : Sacrificial Victor in Virgil’s Aeneid (University of Oklahoma Press : Norman, 2001) 95-6 for an apposite discussion. 22. See Y. Syed, Vergil’s Aeneid and the Roman Self : Subject and Nation in Literary Discourse (University of Michigan Press : Ann Arbor, 2005) 134. 23. On the Iliadic material see Gagné (2009). 24. Frances Hickson Hahn, “Vergilian Transformation of an Oath Ritual : Aeneid 12.169-174, 312-315,” Vergilius 45 (1999) 24. For a brief discussion, see also C.J. Mackie, The Characterization of Aeneas (Scottish Academic Press : Edinburgh, 1988) 190-6. 25. “And the Laurentians charge against them ; but here again the compact ranks of Trojans pour out—together with Agyllines and Arcadians with ornamented armor. They all have just one passion : for the sword to settle the dispute. They strip the altars for firebrands ; across the skies a dense tempest of shafts, a rain of iron falls. Within the storm some of the Latins carry libation cups and braziers toward the city. And king Latinus, bearing back his repulsed gods and the infected treaty, now retreats.” (All translations of the Aeneid are by Mandelbaum). 26. We should also see this episode in dialogue with the battle of Actium, which Hardie connects to the storm in Book 1. See Hardie (1986) 97-110. 27. See Gagné (2009) 9 on this point. 28. See Schmit-Neuerburg (1999) 322-3. 29. On piacula in the Aeneid generally see Dyson (2001) 29-49 30. For references connecting foedus to the sacrifice of a piglet foede see TLL 1002.4-13. This connection can probably be dated back to Verrius Flaccus. Foedus and foeditas are not actually related. See Michiel de Vann, Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages (Brill : Leiden, 2008). 31. We should add to this violation the Trojans’ cutting down the sacred tree of Faunus (12.766-90) discussed by Dyson (2001) 221-7. 32. “But if the war is settled in our favor by victory (as I should rather judge, and may the gods confirm this with their will), then I shall not subject Italians to Teucrians, ask kingdoms for myself : both nations, undefeated, shall accept the equal laws of an eternal contract.” 33. Adler (2003) 183 interprets these lines as the validation that “the foundation of Rome is a peace treaty,” without recognizing that all the options Aeneas sets out do in fact come to pass. Though I do (generally) agree with her sentiments as stated at 187, worth quoting : “[A]s Aeneas’ founding of Rome was his imposing a peace treaty to unite the Trojan and Italian peoples through an innovation of their common rites and gods, so the perfected founding of Rome will be the peace treaty unifying the Romans with all the peoples of the world through this same innovation.” We must differentiate the scope of the poem in non-Italian versus Italian contexts. The full actualization of this process is directly dependent upon these primordial foedera that are not as positively presented as Adler suggests. It is through bloodshed and its finality through peace that brings Adler’s view of the poem into focus. But within the scope of the poem this bloodshed is ultimately derived from flawed attempts at peace. Having said that, Adler (189) does hit upon an important conclusion, but from the point of view of ruler-gods, “(U)nder the dispensation of the universal Roman ruler-gods, the imposition of the habit of peace takes on a peculiar character because war itself can no longer be conceived as the contest of nation, but only Civil War, or, from another point of view, as guilty violation of divine law. The narrative of the Aeneid shows what is meant by the transformation of foreign into Civil War by showing the transformation of Italians and Trojans, in the very war between them, from foreigners into fellows—fellow Romans.” My only disagreement with this argument is that Civil War has nothing to do with ruler-gods and any violation of divine law is directly connected to the violation of the foedera that bind the ur-Roman peoples.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 55

34. See Clifford Ando, “Vergil’s Italy : Ethnography and Politics in First-Century Rome,” in Clio & the Poets : Augustan Poetry and the Traditions of Ancient Historiography, eds. Levine and Nelis (Brill : Leiden, 2002) 123-42. 35. Although Aeneas’ oath does not contain a curse (like that we find in Iliad 3), it is perhaps advisable to surmise the implicit presence of the curse that we find at Livy, AUC 1.24 : “Audi” inquit, “Iuppiter ; audi, pater patrate populi Albani ; audi tu, populus Albanus. Vt illa palam prima postrema ex illis tabulis ceraue recitata sunt sine dolo malo, utique ea hic hodie rectissime intellecta sunt, illis legibus populus Romanus prior non deficiet. Si prior defexit publico consilio dolo malo, tum ille Diespiter populum Romanum sic ferito ut ego hunc porcum hic hodie feriam ; tantoque magis ferito quanto magis potes pollesque.” 36. For the war with Carthage being built into the foedus between Juno and Jupiter due to the Ennian intertext, see D. Feeney, “The Reconciliations of Juno,” CQ 34 (1984) 179-94. It must be stated that although Juno has shaped the future landscape of war within the movement of Roman history, her final line is ironically unfulfilled (occidit, occideritque sinas cum nomine Troia : 10.828) as the building programs under Augustus in Troy attest. It is appropriate to quote Dyson (2001) 18 on this point, “[I]t may be that Juno is pacified only by the promise of endless human sacrifices. The final interview between her and Jupiter points in several ways toward a dark future for Aeneas and his people. Parallels with the conversation between Jupiter and Mercury in Book 4, which leads to a new series of adventures for Aeneas, imply, that Juno, too, may be at the beginning rather than the end of her intervention in Aeneas’ affairs.” Dyson expands on her thoughts in 125-130 where she argues that Juno “is pacified only by the promise of endless human sacrifices.” She concludes this discussion with Perusia (130). Perusia plays a role only in so far as it is part of the vast network of Italian killing Italian, Roman killing Italian, and Roman killing Roman. 37. Ecce viro stridens alis adlapsa sagitta est,/ incertum qua pulsa manu, quo turbine adacta,/ quis tantam Rutulis laudem, casusne deusne,/ attulerit ; pressa est insignis gloria facti,/ nec sese Aeneae iactavit vulnere quisquam (12.319-23). Although the poet states that this deed might bring praise to some Rutulian, he undercuts this statement by stating that casus or a deus may have been responsible. This absence of knowledge by a poet whose gaze spans all time and space is crucial. It is just as likely that a non-Italian’s arrow hit Aeneas. Either the poet does not know or he chooses to keep silent on the culprit. 38. ille Sychaeum /impius ante aras atque auri caecus amore/clam ferro incautum superat,/ securus amorum/ germanae ; factumque diu celauit et aegram/ multa malus simulans uana spe lusit amantem. 39. vix tandem, magnis Ithaci clamoribus actus,/ composito rumpit vocem et me destinat arae. Servius ad Aen. 2.134 : ergo vincula religionis intellege, ut “et vinclis innaret Cloelia ruptis,” scilicet foederis. 40. qualis mugitus, fugit cum saucius aram/ taurus et incertam excussit ceruice securim. Dyson (2001) 105 reads the simile as the “worst possible omen” in terms of sacrificial ideology. 41. See Dyson (2001) 98-103 for the ritual reversals of this episode and the sacrificial repayment for the Trojans’ donning the armor of their enemies. 42. uidi ipse furentem/caede Neoptolemum geminosque in limine Atridas,/ uidi Hecubam centumque nurus Priamumque per aras/ sanguine foedantem quos ipse sacrauerat ignis. 43. accessi uiridemque ab humo conuellere siluam /conatus, ramis tegerem ut frondentibus aras,/ horrendum et dictu uideo mirabile monstrum. 44. Ergo insperata tandem tellure potiti/ lustramurque Ioui uotisque incendimus aras,/ Actiaque Iliacis celebramus litora ludis. 45. Annales 1.10 : sane Cassii et Brutorum exitus paternis inimicitiis datos, quamquam fas sit privata odia publicis utilitatibus remittere : sed Pompeium imagine pacis, sed Lepidum specie amicitiae deceptos ; post Antonium, Tarentino Brundisinoque foedere et nuptiis sororis inlectum, subdolae adfinitatis poenas morte exsolvisse. 46. et geminas, causam lacrimis, sacrauerat aras.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 56

47. ast illum ereptae magno flammatus amore/ coniugis et scelerum furiis agitatus Orestes/ excipit incautum patriasque obtruncat ad aras. 48. stant arae circum et crinis effusa sacerdos/ ter centum tonat ore deos, Erebumque Chaosque/ tergeminamque Hecaten, tria uirginis ora Dianae. 49. dixerat haec, adytis cum lubricus anguis ab imis/ septem ingens gyros, septena uolumina traxit/ amplexus placide tumulum lapsusque per aras,/ caeruleae cui terga notae maculosus et auro/ squamam incendebat fulgor, ceu nubibus arcus/ mille iacit uarios aduerso sole colores ; tum uero attonitae monstris actaeque furore/ conclamant, rapiuntque focis penetralibus ignem,/ pars spoliant aras, frondem ac uirgulta facesque/coniciunt. It is debatable whether the women destroy the arae to Anchises or the four arae to Neptune referred to at 5.639, although given their wish to remain in Sicily, the violation of arae to Neptune seems like a logical act by people who do not wish to sail. 50. post idem inter se posito certamine reges/ armati Iouis ante aram paterasque tenentes/ stabant et caesa iungebant foedera porca. 51. I omitted a few references to arae like the 100 arae of Jupiter Hammon beside which Iarbas prays (4.204). The multitude of arae results in the fulfillment of his prayer, which ultimately results in the flight of Aeneas and the death of Dido. Furthermore, the arae used by the Sibyl or the arae promised by Iulus if he should kill Remulus are also omitted since they appear to fall outside of the pattern. Furthermore, an analysis of altaria will show that they are rarely found in the context of violation. 52. See Hardie (1986) 110-18 on the connections between the Cacus episode and Civil War. This episode is likewise connected to the storm in Book 1, Actium of Book 8, and the foedus of Book 12 (by association). 53. “Since the Trojans had promised her out of deceit, Paris concealed himself behind a statue of Thymbraean Apollo, and he wounded Achilles as he approached the foedus with a shot arrow, then while dying Achilles demanded that after Troy was conquered Polyxena should be sacrificed at his grave, which Pyrrhus fulfilled.” Servius auctus continues as follows : et alius ordo fabulae huius : cum Graeci victores in patriam vellent reverti, e tumulo Achillis vox dicitur audita querentis, quod sibi soli de praeda nihil inpertivissent. de qua re consultus Calchas cecinit, Polyxenam Priami filiam, quam vivus Achilles dilexerat, eius debere manibus immolari ; quae cum admota tumulo Achillis occidenda esset, manu Pyrrhi aequanimiter mortem dicitur suscepisse. invenitur enim apud quosdam quod etiam ipsa Achillem amaverit, et ea nesciente Achilles fraude et insidiis sit peremptus. 54. For a complete discussion of the variations, see Timothy Gantz, Early Greek Myth, vol. 2 (The Johns Hopkins University Press : Baltimore, 1993) 628. 55. Dictys Hist., Fragmenta (Jacoby, FGrH, 1a.49.F ; fragment 7a. 24-25). 56. “To loosen the foedera by deceit : it is read in the historical renderings that the Trojans had a foedus with the Greeks. At that time Paris was also taken into hospitality and thus committed adultery. Therefore ‘to loosen the foedera by deceit’ ruptured the alliance of friendship by adultery : for ‘theft’ is adultery, from where comes ‘even sweet deceits.’ This is the actual reason why Troy was destroyed : for foedera which existed between the Greeks and Trojans were ruptured thusly. Since Ilium had been besieged and Hercules had given the daughter of Laomedon, Hesiona, the sister of Priam, to Telamon, legates came with Priam and they were little able to reclaim her, since the Greeks were saying that they had her according to the law of war. For this reason Priam, completely upset, sent Paris with an army, so that he might bring back an equivalent recompense, whether the wife of the king, or his daughter. He seized Helen after Sparta fell. Therefore, in this passage Vergil touches on both narratives, both that historia which we just outlined and on account of the judgment of Paris, although that matter is a fabula and made up by the poets. ‘To loosen foedera by deceit’ whether because he snatched Paris from death although he was beaten, or because Pandarus ruptured it so that it was through trickery.” Servius auctus adds other possibilities for these lines : FOEDERA SOLVERE FVRTO] an quod Paridem victum a Menelao subripuit morti ? an quod Pandarus dissipavit, ut sit ‘per furtum’ ?

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 57

57. Alan Cameron Greek Mythography in the Roman World (Oxford University Press : Oxford, 2004) 90-91 states that historia “is a matter of fact or subject matter in a classical text, as opposed to a detail of language or a rhetorical trope” and included both the subject matter that required elucidation and the “elucidation itself.” See also David Dietz, “Historia in the Commentary of Servius,” TAPA 125 (1995) 61-97. S.J. Harrison, Vergil : Aeneid 10 (Oxford University Press : Oxford, 1991) states that Servius is perhaps making up this reference to historiae. Once it is realized that we are dealing with plausible interpretation of fabulous events (something the Roman historiographers regularly did), rather than with an actual source, we are better able to see that Servius is referring to rationalizations of the rape of Helen through his notion of historia as stated in his introductory comments to the Aeneid. This precise historical interpretation must have been current at the time of the Aeneid because Juno herself uses the language of law and alliance between nations to describe the rape of Helen. There is no fabula in her interpretation of events ; in fact her interpretation is historia and is another moment where historia and fabula are mixed in the narrative. 58. This point highlights well Hardie’s discussion of epic continuity and repetition where the ending of one poem is the beginning of the next where repetition ensues, but in the present case we see that the internal structure of this continuity is based on the violations of foedera. See Hardie (1993) 11-18. 59. See Putnam (1998) 202 for the connection of this line to the baldric of Pallas. Vergil (and Lucretius) owe something to Ennius here : cui nec arae patriae domi stant, fractae et disiectae iacent,/ fana flamma deflagrata, tosti/†alii† stant parietes,/deformati atque abiete crispa./ o pater, o patria, o Priami domus,/saeptum altisono cardine templum./uidi ego te adstante ope barbarica,/tectis caelatis laqueatis,/auro ebore instructam regifice./haec omnia uidi inflammari,/Priamo ui uitam euitari,/ Iouis aram sanguine turpari./philosophandum est paucis ; nam omnino haud placet./quae caua caeli/ signitenentibus conficis bigis (H.D. Jocelyn ed., The Tragedies of Ennius, the Fragments [Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, 1967] Verse 84). 60. I prefer the term cognitive association to folk etymology. Cognitive association implies a vast network of mental and social conditions that give rise to the connection of foedus and foeditas. See G. Rundblad and D. Kronenfeld, “The inevitability of fok etymology : a case of collective reality and invisible hands,” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003) 119-138. 61. For the Civil War overtones of Priam’s death, see A.M. Bowie, “The Death of Priam,” CQ 40 (1990) 470-81. We, furthermore, cannot limit this imagery to Book 2, especially in the context of Aeneas’ human sacrifice in Book 11, which S. Farron suggests cannot help but recall the Perusine Altars : S. Farron, “Aeneas’ Human Sacrifice,” Acta Classica 38 (1985) 21-33. See also M. Owen Lee, Fathers and Sons in Virgil’s Aeneid (State University of New York Press : Albany, 1979) 14-16 for a discussion the Perusine altars within the context of proscriptions more generally. See also S.F.Wiltshire, Public and Private in vergil’s Aeneid (UMASS Press : Anhorst, 1989) 26-8. Suetonius Aug. 15 : Perusia capta in plurimos animadvertit, orare veniam vel excusare se conantibus una voce occurrens “moriendum esse.” scribunt quidam trecento ex deciticiis electos utriusque ordinis ad aram Divo Julio exstructam Idibus Martiis hostiarum more mactatos. 62. See Dyson (2001) 30-3 on the significance of this mis-sacrifice and her discussion of Macrobius’ analysis of this episode. scimus enim hoc ubique servare Vergilium, ut rebus, quibus denegaturus est exitum, det etiam infirma principia. sic in Thracia civitatem condens Aeneas, quam mox fuerat relicturus, contra morem Iovi de tauro sacrificavit, adeo ut hinc putetur subsecutum esse prodigium. 63. forte fuit iuxta tumulus, quo cornea summo/ virgulta et densis hastilibus horrida myrtus./ accessi viridemque ab humo convellere silvam/ conatus, ramis tegerem ut frondentibus aras/ nam quae prima solo ruptis radicibus arbos/ vellitur, huic atro liquuntur sanguine guttae/ et terram tabo maculant. mihi frigidus horror/ membra quatit gelidusque coit formidine sanguis./ rursus et alterius lentum convellere vimen/ insequor et causas penitus temptare latentis:/ alter et alterius sequitur de cortice sanguis./ multa movens animo Nymphis venerabar agrestis/ gradivumque patrem, Geticis qui praesidet arvis,/ rite

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 58

secundarent visus omenque levarent./ tertia sed postquam maiore hastilia nisu/ adgredior genibusque adversae obluctor harenae,/ (eloquar an sileam ?) gemitus lacrimabilis imo/ auditur tumulo et vox reddita fertur ad auris. (3.22-40) 64. This episode shares much with 6.180ff in which Italian antiqua silva is cut down for Misenus’ burial. The first interaction with Italian landscape is a repetition of his actions upon Europe. See Dyson (2001) for a discussion of the Trojan inclination to violate Italian landscape. 65. It is notable that the death of Orontes occurs upon Arae that acted as fines between Carthage and Italy, which suggests system related to the Polydorus episode ; Aeneas crosses the fines between Asia and Europe and engages with the theme of desecrated altars. 66. Dyson (2001) adds a number of similar ritualistic mistakes made by Aeneas. 67. Ennius’ formation of landscapes – as for example in the fragment Europam Libyamque rapax ubi dividit unda (9.4) in his description of the Rocks of Gibraltar – is clearly operational. Gallus is also important : uno tellures dividit amne duas,/ Asiam enim ab Europa separat. See E. Courtney, The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford University Press : Oxford, 2003) 263. Gallus also employs elision in an iconic fashion in this fragment. 68. “I sing of arms and of a man : his fate had made him fugitive ; he was the first to journey from the coasts of Troy as far as Italy and the Lavinian shores. Across the lands and waters he was battered beneath the violence of High Ones, for the savage Juno’s unforgetting anger ; and many sufferings were his in war – until he brought a city into being and carried in his gods to Latium ; from this have come the Latin race, the lords of Alba, and the ramparts of high Rome.” 69. “Then a Trojan Caesar shall rise out of that splendid line. His empire’s boundary shall be the Ocean ; the only border to his fame, th e stars.” 70. See O’Hara (1990) 155-63 ; E. Kraggerud, “Which Julius Caesar ? Symbolae Osloenses 67 (1992) 103-12 ; J. O’Hara, “Temporal distortions, ‘fatal’ ambiguity, and Julius Caesar at Aeneid 1.286-96,” Symbolae Osloenses 69 (1994) 72-82 and E. Kraggerud, “Caesar versus Caesar again : a Reply,” Symbolae Osloenses 69 (1994) 83-93. This is not the place to rehearse whether Julius Caesar or Augustus is meant in these lines, but I think it is essential to factor Ovid’s Metamorphoses 15.745-842, a moment of prophecy clearly modeled on the conversation of Venus and Jupiter in Aeneid 1. I am currently working on this material, but my initial feelings are that Vergil is referring to Julius Caesar alone or a mixture of Caesar and Augustus. Ovid’s reception of the prophecy suggests both possibilities. 71. “The cries of men are high, the trumpets clang.” 72. “Commonly states are overturned at the blast of a trumpet just as Tullus Hostilius ordered Alba be destroyed.” 73. “But deep within, confusion takes the palace, anguish and sad commotion ; and vaulted walls echo with the wail and woe of women, lament that beats against the golden stars. Across the huge apartments in their terror the matrons wander, clutching the doors, embracing them, imprinting kisses.” 74. “But the interior house : the passage has been translated from the sack of Alba.” 75. “Servius’ statements on the two Virgilian passages clearly refer to the same source, which can only be Ennius’ account of the destruction of Alba Longa.” (Skutch [1985] 179). See A.M. Bowie (1990) n25 and especially Andreola Rossi, Contexts of War : Manipulation of Genre in Virgilian Battle Narrative (University of Michigan Press : Ann Arbor, 2004) 27-47. 76. See Hardie (1992) 59-61. 77. “More : Romulus, a son of Mars. He will join Numitor, his grandfather, on earth when Ilia, his mother, gives him birth out of the bloodline of Assaracus. You see the double plumes upon his crest : his parent Mars already marks him out with his own emblem for the upper world. My son, it is beneath his auspices that famous Rome will make her boundaries as broad as the earth itself, will make her spirit the equal of Olympus, and enclose her seven hills within a single wall, rejoicing in her race of men : just as the Berecynthian mother, tower-crowned, when, through

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 59

the Phrygian cities, she rides on her chariot, glad her sons are gods, embraces a hundred sons of sons, and every one a heaven-dweller with his home on high.” 78. On Cybele in Augustan Rome both as a symbol and topographically important entity, see R.M. Wilhelm, “Cybele : Great Mother of Augustan Order,” Vergilius 34 (1988) 77-101. To quote Wilhelm (80), “the transformation has been achieved throughout the poet’s imaginative linking of the historical coming of Cybele to Rome with the legendary journey of Aeneas to Italy. Both Cybele and Aeneas move civilization westward...” 79. See Wilhelm (1988) 83-4, 92-3. Wilhelm nicely illustrates the parallel between Cybele and Rome in the passage in question (92) : “both have offspring...both have walls...both have an empire. In this simile Vergil has inextricably linked the life and fortunes of Cybele and Rome by a comparison that focuses on their qualities as creators and rulers.” 80. For a similar point made about references of landscapes in Vergilian similes, see Francis Cairns, Vergil’s Augustan Epic (Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, 1989) 113-4. This parallel strikes at the heart of what a poet considered to be the essence of “Rome.” 81. “Then we are driven by divine commands and signs to sail in search of fields of exile in distant and deserted lands. We build a fleet beneath Antandros, in the foothills of Phrygian Ida, knowing not where fate will carry us or where we are to settle.” 82. “Out in the middle of the sea lies Crete, the island of great Jupiter. There is Mount Ida, cradle of our people. The Cretans have a hundred splendid cities, the richest realms. If I remember what I have heard, our greatest father, Teucer, sailed out from Crete to Rhoetean coasts and chose a place fit for his kingdom. Ilium, the towers of Pergamus were not yet built. Men lived deep in the valleys. And from Crete the Mother Goddess came to Cybele, as did the Corybantes’ brazen cymbals within the grove of Ida ; and from Crete she brought the reverential silence of her mysteries ; the team harnessed lions that draw her chariot—a Cretan custom.” 83. “As I advance, I see little Troy, a Pergamus that mimes the great one, and a dried-up stream that takes its name from Xanthus. I embrace the portals of the Scaean gates. My Trojans also enjoy the kindly city where the king has welcomed them to spacious porches.” 84. “Here you can see the image of new Xanthus and of the Troy your hands have built beneath more kindly auspices, I hope – a city less open to the Greeks than was old Troy. If ever I shall enter on the Tiber and on the lands that lie along the Tiber and see the ramparts given to my race, then we, in time to come, shall build one Troy in spirit from our sister cities in Epirus and Hesperia and from our kindred peoples – those who share one founder in Dardanus and share one destiny. May this become the care of all our sons.” 85. On the interpretation of Buthrotum (among other landscapes) as the negative pull of the past, see M. Bettini, “Ghosts of Exile : Doubles and Nostalgia in Virgil’s parva Troia (Aeneid 3.294ff),” ClAnt 16 (1997) 8-33 ; Wiltshire (1989) 73-8 ; D. Quint, “Repetition and Ideology in the Aeneid,” MD 24 (1991) 9-54 ; Hardie (1993) 16-17. These arguments are only true from the microcosmic perspective of Aeneas as story teller, not from the macrocosmic perspective that is referred to by the Penates, Helenus, and later by Anchises himself in Book 6 and the shield in Book 8. In the Aeneid the past is the future ; time has collapsed. The true negative valence of Buthrotum has more to do with the violated landscapes based on ruptured foedera between Europe and Asia than it does on some desire to leave the past behind for the fulfillment of the future. This idea is not in the text, but is rather an interpretation of episodes that have negative valence through Aeneas’ eyes. In fact, I read the description of Buthrotum’s landscape as an allusion to a skene. Aeneas literally finds himself walking onto a tragic stage to witness Andromache’s tragic lament. For a similar point, see Syed (2005) 104-6. 86. On Buthrotum the colony, see Hans Peter Stahl, “Political Stop-overs...from Battling Harpies to the Battle of Actium : Aeneid 3.326-93,” Vergil’s Aeneid : Augustan Epic and Political Context, ed. Stahl (Duckworth Press : London, 1998) 45-6.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 60

87. ergo hoc dicit : quoniam et ab uno originem ducimus et iisdem casibus subiacuimus, Troiam utramque, id est quam et tu fecisti et ego facturus sum, iungamus et faciamus unam, sed ‘animis’, hoc est foedere et adfectione, quoniam re vera eas natura non sinit iungi (ad Aen. 3.501). 88. “When suddenly a tattered stranger, gaunt with final hunger, staggers from the woods and stretches pleading hands toward shore. We turn to look at him : his filth is ghastly – his beard is tangled and his clothing hooked by thorns ; and yet he is Greek.” 89. “I am of Ithaca and sailed from Troy, a comrade of unfortunate Ulysses ; my name is Achaemenides, the son of Adamastus, a poor father – would my lot had never changed.” 90. See A.G. McKay, “The Achaemenides Episode : Vergil, Aeneid III. 588-691,” Vergilius 12 (1966) 31-8 and M. Paschalis, Virgil’s Aeneid : Semantic Relations and Proper Names (Clarendon Press : Oxford, 1997) 140. 91. In passing, G.K.Galinsky in “Aeneid V and the Aeneid,” AJP 89 (1968) 160 says as much : “(W)ithout any questions, and before he has yet told his story, he is accepted by Anchises, who all but concludes a treaty with him.” 92. “Troy (unholy thing !), the common sepulcher of Eurasia, Troy, the repulsive ruins of men and all heroic deeds.” 93. To quote Andrew Erskine, Troy Between Greece and Rome (Oxford University Press : Oxford, 2003). “Many of these visitors [Xerxes, Alexander, Antiochos, Mindaros...] to the sanctuary of Athena Ilias were themselves making the crossing between Europe and Asia, and this may have had some bearing on their visit. This was the last or first major sanctuary in Asia, depending on the direction of travel. An army making the crossing of the Hellespont into Europe, or venturing into the new land of Asia, may have felt more comfortable after a sacrifice to Athena. The visit and the sacrifice could have acted as a form of liminal ritual, marking the transition from one continent to another. The border status of the sanctuary was emphasized still further by a panorama that encompassed both Asia and Europe ; anyone standing there could look across the plane of Troy and see the Chersonese stretched out on the far side of the Hellespont. Alexander appears to have treated the crossing as especially significant ; he is said to have sacrificed to Athena and other deities, both on his departure from the European shore and then again on his arrival at the Asian side. Because of its position on the threshold between Europe and Asia, Ilion/ Troy may seem in retrospect to symbolize conflict between East and West. This, however, was probably not the intention of the protagonists.” 94. See Wiltshire (1989) 92. Furthermore, it is notable that in the myth of Dido handed down by Timaeus and Justin, in which Dido commits suicide on a pyre in order to preserve her chastity for her dead husband, a Libyan is to marry her (see Niall Rudd, Lines of Enquiry [Cambridge University Press : Cambridge, 1976] 48). Vergil inserts Aeneas into the place of the Libyan king. The geographical realities embodied in Aeneas’ journey imply that Aeneas is on the verge of becoming a Libyan, a role he partially fulfills. It is this mythological variation that may help explain the crux of her premature death ; tradition offered another narrative that she chose not to fulfill. 95. EVROPA ATQVE ASIA PVLSVS aut orbem in tres partes divisit et absolutum est, quia in Africa positus, quae orbis pars tertia est : aut si Europam tantum et Asiam intellegimus, ut Africa in Europa sit, invidiose locutus est, ut supra Venus “cunctus ob Italiam terrarum clauditur orbis”, quasi cum indignatione dicat, per Troiam Asia careo, per Italiam Europa (ad Aen. 1.385). 96. “The double offspring of Latona : as if he were saying, each gender of the offspring of Latona or progeny. In addition, he rightly invokes two gods in the foedera, because two peoples are about to come together into one. Also he rightly invokes Janus, because he himself is present at the making of foedera : for after Romulus and Titus Tatius came into foedera, a statue of a double face was made for Janus as through in the image of the two populations.” 97. Servius comments are suggestive to say the least. It is notable that along with Janus’ duplex frons we can add the point that Apollo and Diana are twins, both double yet singular.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 61

98. alii dicunt Tatium et Romulum facto foedere hoc templum aedificasse, unde et Ianus ipse duas facies habet, quasi ut ostendat duorum regum coitionem. [vel quod ad bellum itiuri debent de pace cogitare.] est alia melior ratio, quod ad proelium ituri optent reversionem (ad Aen. 1.291). 99. In book 4 Venus rephrases Juno’s statement (4.99-104), quin potius pacem aeternam pactosque hymenaeos/ exercemus ?....communem hunc ergo populum paribus regamus/ auspiciis ; liceat Phrygio servire marito/ dotalisque tuae Tyrios permittere dextrae, as sed fatis incerta feror, si Iuppiter unam/ esse velit Tyriis urbem Troiaque profectis,/ miscerive probet populos aut foedera iungi. (4.110-12). 100. illud te, nulla fati quod lege tenetur,/ pro Latio obtestor, pro maiestate tuorum :/ cum iam conubiis pacem felicibus (esto)/ component, cum iam leges et foedera iungent,/ ne uetus indigenas nomen mutare Latinos/ neu Troas fieri iubeas Teucrosque uocari/ aut uocem mutare uiros aut uertere uestem. (12.819-25). 101. Hardie (1993) 27 makes a similar point in regard to sacrifice stating that the whole “sacrificial crisis” begins with Iphigeneia, which is itself an inversion of a foedus matrimonii. Through the lens of foedus we can move the crisis back even further in mythic time. Catullus 64 sets the crisis of foedera at the wedding of Peleus and Thetis.

ABSTRACTS

The following paper argues that the series of desecrated altars that are found in the Aeneid reflects prior moments of ruptured alliances that have taken place in the epic cycle and Roman history more generally. Vergil has constructed these ruptured alliances along a number of parallel lines that focus on the various means by which the poem constructs ethnic and spatial unification. From the perspective of ethnic amalgamation the infectum foedus of Aeneid 12 raises a number of problems concerning the foundation of Rome and the nature of Roman alliance through time. This problematic alliance that ends the poem, however, moves against the theme of East-West unification in which a central feature of Aeneas’ actions is the reunification of Europe, Asia and Africa through a new system of alliance.

INDEX

Mots-clés: Aeneid, Altars, East-West, Etiology, Foedus, Foundation of Rome, Geopoetics

AUTHOR

BILL GLADHILL [email protected]

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 62

Ovid’s Sappho and Roman Women Love Poets

Judith P. Hallett

1 Ovid’s erotic poetry portrays love as an enterprise in which women and men engage together, playfully and creatively. His writings acknowledge that the production and consumption of poetry about love are enterprises in which women engage too. Most notably, he represents Heroides 15 as a letter in elegiac verse from the celebrated sixth century BCE female poet Sappho to her young male lover Phaon ; at Amores 2.8. 26 and 34, when adopting the role of poet-speaker, he also announces his plans to write in the persona of Sappho. He makes complimentary remarks about Sappho and her poetry elsewhere in his works as well : at ArsAmatoria 3.331, where, assuming the persona of praeceptor amoris, he proffers erotic advice to his female readers ; and at Tristia 2. 365-366, where, speaking in his own person about his poetry after his banishment to the Black Sea, he defends his choice of erotic subject matter to Augustus.

2 What is more, at lines 59-60 of his autobiographical Tristia 4.10 Ovid confesses that in his Amores he referred to his beloved by a name, “not her own” (nomine non vero) but that of another, earlier, Greek female poet, Corinna. In Tristia 3.7, another self- revelatory and self-exculpatory poem from exile, Ovid addresses a young female literary protégée whom he calls Perilla ; after invoking Sappho as a literary model, he warns Perilla in 29-30 against writing verses that teach others how to love, although not against composing erotic poetry itself. In a more oblique fashion, he pointedly characterizes various female figures in his epic Metamorphoses as skillful erotic communicators, chief among them Thisbe in Book 4. While he does not specifically portray Thisbe as composing poetry, or even as engaged in the creation of narrative art through weaving like Arachne or Philomela, the eloquent words he places in Thisbe’s mouth are, of course, in dactylic hexameter. 1

3 Consequently, it is both striking and surprising that Ovid’s discussions of Roman love poetry, whether voiced as poet-speaker, as praeceptor amoris or in propria persona, do not evidently acknowledge the work of any Roman women love poets, especially in view of the prominence that he accords Sappho not only in his erotic elegiac works but also his poems from exile. My discussion attempts to account for this puzzling feature of his

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 63

writing. I will argue that Ovid does make such acknowledgments, but in a subtle and indirect way, through allusions, at times to speak critically of Roman women’s love poetry. I will also maintain that Ovid diminishes the contributions of Roman women love poets precisely because of the prominence accorded Sappho in his work, in order to identify himself with Sappho, as her true Roman counterpart.

Sappho and Roman Women Love Poets in Tristia 2

4 In Tristia 2, a lengthy plea written in his own person to Augustus from exile, Ovid refers to numerous writers of love poetry so as to justify his own literary practices. At lines 361 ff., defending the content of what he himself has written, he cites a roster of first Greek and then Roman predecessors who celebrated erotic passion without suffering adverse consequences. Significantly, the second in his roster of Greek love poets is Sappho, about whom he states at 365-366, Lesbia quid docuit Sappho, nisi amarepuellas ? / tuta tamen Sappho, “what did Sappho of Lesbos teach, other than girls how to love – or how to love girls – yet Sappho was safe.”

5 Before we turn to Ovid’s comparable roster of Roman poets who wrote on erotic topics with impunity, we should accord attention to his use of the adjective “Lesbia” in the context of invoking Sappho. By the final decades of the first century BCE, well before Ovid left Rome for Tomis, this word was closely associated with the love poetry, and the female love interest, of his illustrious and admired predecessor Catullus.2 The ambiguity of the phrase amare puellas is noteworthy as well. It testifies to the tradition that Sappho not only instructed young women in the arts of loving, but also instructed her poetic audience about how to love young women. Yet Ovid does not say outright that those loved by the young women depicted in Sappho’s poetry, or that those depicted as loving them, were other women, among them Sappho herself. This proves to be a significant ambiguity in view of how he has characterized Sappho elsewhere, a detail to which we will return later.

6 Ovid’s roster, at Tristia 2. 421 ff., of Roman poets who wrote on erotic topics, immediately contrasts with his preceding list of Greek love poets, since it contains no female Roman counterpart to Sappho. Indeed, at first glance it seems to contain no references to any woman poet. But close inspection suggests that Ovid may well be alluding to several women poets without mentioning them directly. Most important, in lines 427-430 he states about Catullus, the third poet on his list, sic sua lascivo cantata estsaepe Catullo/femina, cui falsum Lesbia nomen erat. Nec contentus ea, multos vulgavit amores, in quibus ipse suum fassus adulterium est, “often in this way his woman, to whom the false name Lesbia was assigned, was celebrated in song by sexually playful Catullus. And not satisfied with her he broadcast many love affairs (or widely circulated many love poems), in which he himself admitted to his own adultery.” 3

7 While Ovid does not explain Catullus’ choice of “false name” for his “woman” here, Catullus’ decision to represent his beloved by the pseudonym Lesbia clearly honored Sappho of Lesbos as a poet. In addition to adopting Sappho’s distinctive meter in 11 and 51, translating Sappho L-P 31 in 51, and evoking her words in 62, Catullus compliments Caecilius’ female beloved with the phrase Sapphica puella/Musa doctior at 35.15-16. 4 Consequently, by mentioning the actual name that Catullus used for his beloved, Ovid highlights Catullus’ decision to pay literary homage to Sappho, homage Ovid himself awards to Sappho by including her in his roster of Greek poets.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 64

8 The second century CE author Apuleius casts further light on Catullus’ choice of the pseudonym Lesbia at Apologia 10. There he notes : Eadem igitur opera accusent C. Catullum quod Lesbiam pro Clodia nominarit, et Ticidam similiter quod quae Metella erat Perillamscripserit, “For that reason therefore let [those who criticize the use of pseudonyms] accuse Catullus because he supposedly used the name Lesbia for Clodia, and likewise Ticidas because he supposedly wrote of a woman as Perilla who was actually called Metella.” On the basis of this statement, as well as of other evidence from Catullus’ own poetry and elsewhere, the woman he calls Lesbia is usually identified as Clodia Metelli : a sister of the demagogue Publius Clodius Pulcher, and the wife of Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer, consul in 60 BCE.5 By referring to Clodia Metelli as “Lesbia”, moreover, Catullus may have acknowledged that Clodia Metelli was herself a poet, a counterpart as well as a reader of the Greek Sappho. Ovid may have highlighted Catullus’ decision to identify his beloved by the pseudonym “Lesbia” for the same reason.

9 After all, Catullus represents Lesbia as speaking, and speaking “poetically”, in various poems. In poem 36, for example, he portrays her as criticizing his own poetry ; in poem 70 he represents her as recalling earlier Greek Hellenistic poetry with her professions of love to him.6 Furthermore, when attempting to discredit Clodia Metelli in chapter 64 of his Pro Caelio, a courtroom speech on behalf of a privileged young man who had once been Clodia’s lover, Catullus’ contemporary Cicero refers to her with the noun poetria : [velut haec tota fabella] veteris et plurimarum fabularum poetriae., “[this entire little fictional story] by a female poet, of longstanding and a very great number of narrative plots” Other authors, including – as we will see – Ovid himself, use this same noun, of Greek origin and signifying “female poet”, to refer to Sappho.

10 To be sure, Cicero utters these words sarcastically, to ridicule Clodia’s scheming and plotting. But Cicero’s sarcastic tone does not rule out the possibility that Clodia actually wrote poetry. Indeed, his statement is more pointed if she was in fact a poet, a writer of performed words. By the same token, in chapter 116 of his Pro Sestio, Cicero says that Clodia’s brother Clodius omnia sororis embolia novit, “knows all of his sister’s ballet interludes.” Here again Cicero employs a Greek word – embolia – to describe Clodia’s literary activities. While he may use this exotic term as a euphemism for her sexual activities, he may well indicate, at the same time, that she composed “dance performances.” 7

11 Second, at Tristia 2.437-438, a few lines after his remarks on Catullus, Ovid adduces, as both precedent and justification for his erotic poetic endeavors, a woman who wrote under a pseudonym, et quorum libris modo dissimulata Perillae/nomine, nunc legitur dictaMetella suo, “and in whose books Metella, recently disguised under the name of Perilla, now is read under her actual name.” This Metella appears to have been [Caecilia] Metella, a daughter of Clodia Metelli, the woman whom Catullus called Lesbia in his poetry. As we have seen as well, Apuleius identifies Perilla as the pseudonym for Metella that Ticidas used.8

12 Significantly, Ovid mentions Ticidas as a reputable forerunner in the realm of erotic poetry a few lines earlier, at 433-434 of this same passage from Tristia 2. There he describes Ticidas as using explicit sexual language : quid referam Ticidae, quid Memmi carmen, apud quos/rebus adest nomen nominibusque pudor ?, “what am I to say about the poetry of Ticidas or of Memmius, in whose writings there is an explicit naming of things, and shame attached to the names.” Admittedly, Ovid says nothing here about

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 65

how or what Metella wrote, or that she was also evidently written about in the poetry of Ticidas. It is possible to construe what Ovid says about Perilla – that “until recently” Perilla was a name disguising Metella – primarily as testimony that only readers since Ticidas’ day, such as Ovid himself, been able to learn the actual identity of Ticidas’ celebrated inamorata, and that Ticidas, unlike Ovid himself, wrote about an actual woman. But Ovid’s reference to Metella may still be interpreted as evoking a poetic precedessor who is “read”, another Roman female counterpart to Sappho.

13 Finally, at lines 440-441 of this passage, Ovid mentions the sexually provocative poems of one Servius : nec minus Hortensi, nec sunt minus improbi Servi carmina ? quis dubitet nomina tanta sequi ?, “No less improper are the verses of Hortensius, or those of Servius. Who would hesitate to follow such great names ?” Here Ovid refers to Servius Sulpicius Rufus, an illustrious political leader and jurist who died in 43 BCE. Many scholars view this Servius as the father of the Augustan female poet Sulpicia.9

14 Eleven “Sulpicia elegies” – 8 through 18 in the third book of poems by Tibullus – portray her as engaging in a mutually gratifying, illicit love affair with a young man she calls by the pseudonym Cerinthus. These elegies apparently owe their initial publication to the literary patronage of Sulpicia’s maternal uncle, Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus. A distinguished general, statesman and longtime supporter of Augustus, Messalla is celebrated for championing the literary efforts of Tibullus, and of Ovid himself.10

15 In Amores 3.9, Ovid mourns the death of the youthful Tibullus, an event that can be dated to 19 BCE, the same year in which Vergil died, quoting from and rewriting Tibullus’ own verses in 1.1 and 1.3.11 He invokes Tibullus as a role model at Tristia 2. 447-464, summarizing the contents of Tibullus’ love poetry. But Ovid makes no direct reference in Tristia 2, or anywhere else in his verses, to the poetry of Sulpicia herself.

Addressing Perilla, and invoking Sappho, in Tristia 3.7

16 We should pay careful attention to Ovid’s indirect way of referring to these Roman women who wrote, or at least appear to have written, love poetry – his mention of Sulpicia’s father but not Sulpicia herself ; his oblique mode of acknowledging that Metella wrote verse of an erotic nature ; his reference to the pseudonym, paying tribute to the poet Sappho, that Catullus employed for his beloved – when legitimating his love poetry to Augustus in Tristia 2. It sharply contrasts with his direct invocation of Sappho, and the details that he provides about her, a few lines earlier. But another poem, also written after Ovid’s exile in 8 CE – Tristia 3.7 – merits note in helping to explain his apparent strategy of downplaying these women as literary predecessors and justifications.

17 Here, writing in propria persona as he does in Tristia 2, Ovid offers literary advice to a young woman poet, whom he also calls Perilla, presumably in homage to the pseudonym used by her predecessor Metella. Ovid asks her if “you are still committed to our common pursuit, and compose learned poetry, though not in your father’s way” (11-12 studiiscommunibus ecquid inhaeres/doctaque non patrio carmina more canis) ; he characterizes her talent as a rare dowry (14 [natura] raras dotes ingeniumque dedit) ; he takes credit for being her first instructor, “as a father to his daughter, guide and comrade” (18 utque pater natae duxque comesquefui). Owing to this reference, and to

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 66

Ovid’s statement that she will greet his letter “while seated with her sweet mother” (3 dulci cum matre sedentem), she is thought by some to be Ovid’s stepdaughter.12

18 More significantly, and as noted earlier, in lines 19-20, Ovid tells Perilla that if the same ignes, “fires” “remain in your breast,” only the work of the Lesbian bard, Sappho, will surpass yours”, sola tuum vates Lesbia vincet opus. Since Sappho wrote love poetry, and since Ovid also refers to the passionate love poems of the Augustan Propertius with the word ignes at Tristia 4.10.45, he may be characterizing Perilla’s earlier poems as also erotic in nature. Yet even though Ovid worries that his departure and banishment have caused her to neglect her poetry writing, he vehemently insists that Perilla not follow his example, contrasting her “father’s way” with her own “virtuous ways” (13 pudicos mores). He concludes Tristia 3.7 by reminding her of the immortality available to poets, saying that he will be read as long as Rome rules the world. But, in reassuring Perilla about her literary potential, he urges that “no woman or man learn from your writings how to love” (30 neve vir a scriptis discat amaretuis), in the way that they have from his own poetry, and – as he specifies in Tristia 2 – from that of Sappho.

19 Ovid’s admonishing words to his addressee here, a contemporary Roman female poet likely to have written about love, and at risk of adopting an amatory instructional role like the one which he himself assumes in the Ars Amatoria, is understandable in light of his banishment, and of the role possibly played by that poem in his punishment. At Tristia 2.207, he attributes his exile to a “mistake and a poem” (carmen et error). To be sure, he does not identify this poem by name. Yet when addressing Augustus later in the poem, at Tristia 2. 239 ff., he specifically defends the Ars as containing “nothing that allows a charge of misbehavior” (nullum crimen). 13

Alluding to Sulpicia in Amores 3.14

20 Ovid, however, seems to voice criticisms of love poetry by another Roman woman well before both his banishment and even the Ars itself. For he evidently wrote Amores 3.14 soon after the passage, in 18 BCE, of Augustus’ “moral legislation”, which increased the penalties for extra-marital sexual activity by and with married and marriageable Roman women.14 This poem features a first-person male speaker who faults an unnamed female addressee for discussing her sexual feelings and misbehavior in a frank and forthright manner. In it Ovid employs language and themes that figure prominently in Sulpicia’s poetry. The affinities with Sulpicia’s poems, and the context in which these affinities occur, indeed suggest that he is here obliquely critiquing Sulpicia’s outspoken mode of celebrating her illicit love affair, and rebuking her in the persona of an emotionally wounded lover.

21 For example, Amores 3.14 employs four forms of the verb peccare, “to commit a moral transgression, misbehave sexually,” within its first eleven lines. Here its speaker agrees to endure the sexual misbehavior of his female addressee, but pleads with her to deny her misbehavior in public. Sulpicia uses this same verb – with peccasse iuvat, “it delights me to have already misbehaved sexually” – at [Tibullus] 3.13.9. She does so after enjoining her readers without love affairs of their own to share her experiences vicariously, while proclaiming to the public that she and her lover have physically consummated their passion.

22 So, too, having observed that only sexual misbehavior publicly acknowledged makes a woman famosa, “subject of ill rumors”, in line 6, the speaker of Amores 3.14 begs his

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 67

addressee to spare her fama, “what is rumored, reputation”, in line 36. He then notes in line 17-18 and 21-22 that while there is no need for pudor,” shame”, during private lovemaking, pudor should be displayed before others. He also tells her in line 27 to put on a modest facial expression, vultus. Sulpicia uses the word fama twice in [Tibullus] 3.13, along with pudor and vultus as well : first to assert that the fama, “rumor”, that she had covered up her affair would cause her more shame, pudor, than the rumor that she had disclosed it ; then to state that she will not put a respectable face, vultus, on her conduct for the sake of fama.

23 In Amores 3.14 Ovid also repeatedly refers to verba, words, of his female addressee. He mentions her voces, phrases, in line 25 too. It is, in fact, Ovid’s emphasis on the language of this woman, and its celebration of her misbehavior, that suggests that his poet-speaker is himself addressing a female poet. And it is the intertextualities, both verbal and thematic similarities, between this poem and the Sulpicia elegies, that render her the most likely candidate for this role. Another apparent allusion to Sulpicia’s work in Amores 3.14 is the reference to tabellae, writing tablets, in line 11 ; echoes of Catullus’ poems 51 and 85 in lines 36-40 warrant attention as well. Sulpicia speaks of her unwillingness to entrust the details of her love affair to sealed tablets, signatis tabellis, at 3.13.7, and frequently evokes Catullus’ verses.15 To be sure, Ovid’s dramatic scenario in this poem, as so often in the Amores, involves a substantial amount of fictionalizing, far more than we encounter in his autobiographical poems from exile. But even though Ovid may distance himself from his poet-speaker, his critique of Sulpicia’s frankness about her sexual misconduct in her poetic self-portrayal is strong and significant.

Alluding to Sulpicia and identifying with Sappho in the Ars Amatoria

24 Ovid continues to evoke Sulpicia, when adopting the voice of an erotic instructor, in Ars Amatoria Book 3, which predates, and may well have provoked, his banishment. And to much the same effect. When advising his female audience about how, and how not, to adorn themselves in lines 29-30, Ovid calls to mind the description of Sulpicia’s jewelry at Tibullus 3.8.19-20. Although Sulpicia there receives praise for wearing “whatever gems the dark man of India, near the waters of the dawn, gathers from the shore of the Red Sea” (quascumque niger rubro de litore gemmas/proximus Eois colligit Indus aquis ), Ovid here tells his women readers not to “weigh down your ears with expensive stones, which the differently hued man of India gathers in the green water”(non caris aures onerate lapillis,/quos legit in virididecolor Indus aqua). His choice of words, especially Indus and aqua, suggests that he is not merely echoing but also taking issue with what Sulpicia’s poetry represents as a key component of her physical appeal.

25 No Roman women appear in Ovid’s roster, at Ars Amatoria 3. 329 ff, of the poets that he would have his female audience read to enhance their erotic appeal. As observed earlier, Sappho is among the five Greek poets on this list, described with the words quid enim lascivius illa, “what is more sexually playful than she ?” But he only mentions the love poets Propertius, Gallus, and Tibullus, and the epic poets Varro of Atax and Vergil as recommended Latin authors. Furthermore, at lines 339-348, Ovid expresses the hope that his own name will be added to theirs, owing to the erotic value of his Ars Amatoria, Amores and Heroides, letters in elegiac verse from legendary women to their male lovers.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 68

26 We will return to the implications of Ovid’s self-promotional statement here, to consider how it may explain why a woman appears in his list of Greek, but not Roman, poets recommended to his female readers here. First, however, we should consider the context in which he offers these reading recommendations, immediately after his advice, at lines 312 ff., that women learn to sing and accompany themselves on musical instruments. Here Ovid insists that his female readers merely repeat words they have “heard in marble theaters, and songs to Egyptian melodies,” and says nothing about composing words of their own. Since he praises the poetry of Sappho, and later reveals – in Tristia 3.7 – that he himself has taught poetry writing to the young woman he calls Perilla, it is noteworthy that he does not raise this as a possibility.

27 It also merits notice that Ovid returns to the topic of poets at lines 403 ff. of Ars Amatoria 3, after he has counseled his female readers about dancing, dice-playing board games, and places in Rome to meet men. Here, when discussing the desirability of being known, he claims that fama, “being known”, “renown”, is all that poets seek. This discussion eventually leads to advice, in lines 468 ff., on how women should write to their lovers on wooden tablets, tabellis. As we have observed, in Tibullus 3.13, Sulpicia twice employs the word fama while emphasizing her own erotic communications on such tablets, and while voicing the hope that her love affair will become known through her poetry, and shared vicariously by her loveless readers.

28 Ovid may, therefore, also be alluding to Sulpicia’s poetry in lines 479 ff., where he advises women on what words and sentiments to employ when communicating with their lovers on tablets. In 475-476 he urges a female addressee not to promise (promitte) yourself as an easy conquest, nor to deny what you lover asks ; in 479-490 he tells her to use ordinary, accessible language. He apparently approves of the phrase, lux mea, “light of my life,” which is found twice in the Sulpicia elegies, at [Tibullus] 3.9.15 and 3.18.1. At least he wonders, in lines 523-524, if a glum, sexually unresponsive figure of Greek myth, Tecmessa, would have called her husband Ajax lux mea, or used “words which are in the habit of pleasing a lover”.16

29 Nonetheless, with these remarks Ovid’s praeceptoramoris here seems to criticize Sulpicia’s words and sentiments. For Sulpicia not only promises her lover shared physical joys in 3.9 and 11, but also characterizes them at 3.13.5 as what the goddess Venus has made and fulfilled (exsolvit promissa Venus). If Ovid is again obliquely faulting Sulpicia and her poetry, her absence from his list of recommended readings becomes more comprehensible.

30 Why, though, does Ovid, when adopting the role of love-teacher in the Ars, extol his own writings, the Heroides among them, rather than list a Roman woman poet comparable to Sappho as worthwhile reading for women eager to enhance their amatory appeal ? His words elsewhere in this poem may furnish a clue. While providing advice about communicating on wooden tablets, Ovid recommends that women disguise the identities of illicit lovers by writing in deceptive ways. One tactic that he suggests, in lines 497-498, is “when you write, let your male lover always be described as a woman, and let who was he become she in your messages” (femina dicatur scribenti semper amator:/illa sit in vestris, qui fuit ille, notis). This idea of representing, in writing, a man as a woman warrants emphasis in view of how Ovid portrays Sappho in both Tristia 2 and in Heroides 15, a letter from Sappho to her younger male lover Phaon. It is also of a piece with the ambiguities in his representation of Sappho as a lover and love instructor.17

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 69

31 For, as we have seen, when writing in propria persona at Tristia 2.365-366, Ovid portrays Sappho as teaching girls how to love, or teaching how to love girls, without indicating that Sappho and her poetry portray love among women. At Heroides15.15-20, adopting Sappho’s own voice, he has Sappho enumerate various women who no longer hold any appeal for her, concluding with “another hundred whom I have loved without the charge of wrongdoing” (sine crimine).” But this Sappho does not elaborate on the nature of this love. She merely says that Phaon alone now possesses multarum quod fuit : “what was of many women”, or “what was for many women”. In other words, Ovid downplays and refashions the tradition that Sappho instructed women how to love one another, representing her in this poem primarily as an advocate of women’s love by and for men.

32 What is more, if – according to Ovid – a male lover can and should be fictionally represented as a woman, why not Ovid himself ? His advice that women desirous of deceiving represent a male lover as a female casts further light on what he has Sappho declare at Heroides 15.79-80 : molle meum levibusque cor est violabile telis,/et semper causa est, cur ego semper amem, “my heart is soft, and damageable by light weapons, and there is always a reason why I always love.” As scholars have noted, these lines recall the earlier Amores 2.4,10, where the poet-speaker proclaims : centum sunt causae cur semper amem, “there are a hundred reasons why I always love.” 18 What is more, they are themselves recalled in lines 65-68 of Ovid’s autobiographical Tristia 4.10, where he says of himself : molle Cupidineis nec inexpugnabile telis/cor mihi, quodque levis causa moveret, erat, “my heart was soft and not unassailable by Cupid’s weapons, the sort of thing which a slight impulse would move.”

33 Consequently, Ovid represents Sappho as he had represented his fictionalized poetic self in the Amores, and as he would later represent himself when acquainting his future readership with “the facts” of his life. Other details in Heroides 15 similarly allow the inference that he is portraying Sappho as his own, present-day, Roman female alter ego. Among them are the echoes of earlier Latin poetry, particularly that of Catullus, in Sappho’s words, and the use of his own, signature, elegiac meter for Sappho’s words.19 Expressing, in Ars Amatoria 3, a hope that the Heroides – including his own fictional letter in the persona of Sappho – will eventually rank along with works by the dead Latin poets recommended to his female readers may be Ovid’s indirect way of recommending that women read him, and regard him, as a Roman female love poet.

34 Heroides 15. 79-80, and the descriptions of Ovid – as poet-speaker in the Amores, and as self-revelatory autobiographer – that they resemble, underscore Sappho’s, and Ovid’s, erotic vulnerability. Like his words to the young female poet Perilla in Tristia 3.7, these passages appear to critique his own preoccupation with the topic of love, and his portrayal of himself as a vulnerable lover and opinionated amatory expert. They may also explain, if not excuse, why he does not have more to say, at least directly, about love poetry by Roman women.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 70

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Glare, P. G.W. 1982 ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (=OLD) Oxford : Clarendon Press.

Gibson, R.K. 2003 ed., Ovid Ars Amatoria Book 3. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Greene, E. 1996. ed., Re-reading Sappho: Reception and Transmission. Berkeley and Los Angeles : University of California Press.

Gordon, P. 1996. “The Lover’s Voice in Heroides 15 : Or, Why is Sappho A Man ?” In J.P. Hallett and M. Skinner eds., Roman Sexualities. Princeton : Princeton University Press : 274-290.

Hallett, J.P. 2005. “Catullan Voices in Heroides 15 : How Sappho Became a Man.” In Dictynna, on- line publication.

2006. “Catullus and Horace on Roman Woman Poets.” Antichthon 40 : 65-88.

2008. “Absent Roman Fathers in the Writings of Their Daughters.” In S.R. Huebner and D.M. Ratzan, eds. Growing Up Fatherless in Antiquity. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press : 175-191.

2009a. “Sulpicia and her Resistant Intertextuality”, In Écho 8, Université de Lausanne : Jeux de voix, Énonciation, intertextualité et intentionnalité dans la littérature antique : 141-155.

2009b. “Corpus erat : Sulpicia’s Elegiac Text and Body in Ovid’s Pygmalion Narrative (Met. 10. 238-297).” In T. Foegen and M. Lee, eds.. Bodies and Boundaries in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Berlin : DeGruyter : 111-124.

2009c. “Ovid’s Thisbe and a Roman Woman Love Poet”. In Approaches toTeaching World Literature. Teaching Ovid and Ovidianism, B.W. Boyd and C. Fox, eds., Modern Language Association.

Hejduk, J.D. 2008. Clodia. A Sourcebook. Norman : University of Oklahoma Press.

Hemelrijk, E.A. 1999. Matrona Docta: Educated Women in the Roman Elite from Cornelia to Julia Domna. New York and London : Routledge.

Hollis, A. S. 1977 ed., Ovid, Ars Amatoria Book I. Oxford : Clarendon Press.

Keith, A. 1997. “Tandem Venit Amor : A Roman Woman Speaks of Love.” In Hallett and Skinner, eds. Roman Sexualities. Princeton : Princeton University Press : 295-210.

Knox, P.R. ed. 1995. Ovid Heroides: Select Epistles. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Pelling, C.B.R. 1996. “Valerius Messalla Corvinus, Marcus.” In S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Sharrock, A. 1994. Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s Ars Amatoria 2. Oxford University Press.

2002. “An A-musing Tale : Gender, Genre and Ovid’s Battles with Inspiration in the Metamorphoses.” In E. Spentzou and D.P. Fowler, eds. Cultivating the Muse: Power, Desire, andInspiration in the Ancient World. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Skoie, M. 2002. Reading Sulpicia: Commentaries, 1475-1990. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Stevenson, J. 2005. Women Latin Poets: Language, Gender and Authority, from Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Syme, R. 1981. “A Roman Orator Mislaid.” CQ 31 : 421-427.

Wiseman, T.P. 1974. Cinna the Poet and Other Roman Essays. Leicester : Leicester University Press

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 71

NOTES

1. For Ovid’s portrayal of Thisbe as a skilled erotic communicator, evoking the language of Sulpicia, see Hallett (2009c). 2. See the OLD s.v. “Lesbia” 1018, which cites Propertius 2.32.88, “whose Lesbia is better known than Helen” (Lesbia quis ipsa notior est Helena). 3. Ovid often plays on the two senses of the plural noun amores – “love affairs” and “love poems,” the latter of course the title of his own erotic elegies: as he uses the term in this, literary, sense at 360, immediately before listing the Greek poets who wrote of love with impunity, we may assume he is engaging in word play here as well. 4. For Catullus’ expressions of admiration for Sappho, see, for example, Hallett (2006) 66-68, arguing that the phrase Sapphica Musa may refer to Sappho’s poetic inspiration, Sappho herself, or Lesbia herself. For Ovid on the Muses, see Sharrock (2002). 5. For evidence suggesting the identification of Catullus’ Lesbia with Clodia Metelli, see, for example, Hejduk, 3-9. 6. For Catullus’ representations of Lesbia as speaking poetically in these and other poems, see Hallett (2006) 76-85. 7. See Hallett (2006) 76-77, taking issue with Hemelrijk, 175. 8. For this Metella, see Hallett (2006) 77-78 ; and Wiseman, 188-191. 9. For this Servius, see Hallett (2008) 178 and 185-191 ; for the view that this man is Sulpicia’s grandfather, see Syme (1981). 10. For Messalla, see Pelling, 1580. for his patronage of Ovid, see, for example, EpistulaeEx Ponto 1.7.27 ff. ; 2.2.51, 97 ; 2.3.73ff. For Sulpicia, see also Keith (1997), Skoie (2002) and Stevenson (2005): 36-44. 11. For Tibullus’ date of death, see the epigram by Domitius Marsus quoted in the Suetonian Vita Tibulli : Te quoque Vergilio comitem non aequa, Tibulle,/Mors iuvenem campos misit ad Elysios/Ne foret, aut elegis molles qui fleret amores/aut caneret forti regia bella pede, “Tibullus, unfair Death also sent you as a young man, Vergil’s companion, to the Elysian fields so that there might not be anyone to weep over delicate loves in elegies, or not sing of kingly wars in powerful verse.” For Ovid’s quotes from, and rewriting of, Tibullus 1.1 and 1.3 in Amores 3.9, see, for example, Hallett (2009b). 12. For evidence and arguments on the identity of Perilla, see, for example, Hemelrijk, 149-151 and 320-321. 13. For the relationship between the Ars Amatoria, Augustus’ moral legislation, and Ovid’s exile, see Gibson (2003) 25-37, who regards the error as the main cause of Augustus’ displeasure, and the carmen as either a “smokescreen” or “as a form of probabile ex vita”, since several years intervene between the publication of the Ars and Ovid’s exile. 14. For the dates, and purport, of Augustus’ “moral legislation”, see, for example, Keith (1997 ) 295-296. 15. For Amores 3.14 as alluding to the elegies of Sulpicia, and rebuking her poetic persona, see Hallett (2009a) 141-155. 16. The phrase lux mea is found in earlier Latin erotic poetry—Catullus uses it for his female beloved at 68. 132 and 160— but Ovid is here concerned with its use by women. 17. On Sappho’s sexual representation, see, for example, various essays in Greene (1996) and especially Gordon (1996). 18. See, for example, Sharrock (1994) ; Knox (1995) :294-295. 19. See Hallett (2005) on Ovid’s echoes of earlier Latin poetry, particularly that of Catullus, in Heroides 15.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 72

ABSTRACTS

Ovid’s discussions of Roman love poetry – as poet-speaker in the Amores and praeceptor amoris in the Ars Amatoria, in propria persona in his exile poems – do not evidently acknowledge the work of any Roman women love poetswhile according prominence to the Greek female poet Sappho. I account for this puzzling feature of his writing by arguing that he makes such acknowledgments in a subtle and indirect way, through allusions, often to speak critically of Roman women’s love poetry, and that he diminishes their work in order to identify himself as Sappho’s true Roman counterpart.

INDEX

Mots-clés: Ovid, Sappho, Women, Latin love poetry, Catullus, Lesbia, Clodia, Metella, Perilla, Sulpicia

AUTHOR

JUDITH P. HALLETT University of Maryland, College Park

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 73

Der Held und die Versuchung des weiblichen Anblicks

Andrea Harbach

1 Am Ende von Dion von Prusas erster Rede über das Königtum wird erzählt, wie sich Herakles zwischen Basileia und Tyrannis habe entscheiden müssen. 1 Zu Grunde liegt offensichtlich die Geschichte, die in der Antike Prodikos zugeschrieben wird,2 und zufolge der Herakles, gerade erwachsen geworden, zwischen Tüchtigkeit (Arete) und Schlechtigkeit (Kakia) wählen muss. Doch während in den bekanntesten Versionen dieser Erzählung die Frauengestalten im Redewettstreit Herakles für sich zu gewinnen suchen, kommen in Dions Adaption weder Basileia noch Tyrannis zu Wort. Bei ihm muss der junge Held seine Entscheidung vielmehr aufgrund der äußeren Erscheinung beider Frauen treffen. Dies ist eine überraschende Neuerung : Die Übertragung des Gleichnisses auf eine Wahl zwischen Formen der Herrschaft ändert an sich nichts am rationalen Anspruch der Entscheidung. Man könnte also meinen, dass Herakles auch bei dieser Wahl durchdenken muss, welche Vorzüge und Nachteile die Optionen haben, dass er die Frage nacheinander unter persönlichen, moralischen und politischen Gesichtspunkten betrachtet, um sich schließlich zu einer differenzierten Stellungnahme durchzuringen. Von all dem ist in Dions Text nichts zu lesen. Dort gründet Herakles seine Entscheidung einzig und allein auf die ausgiebige Betrachtung des Erscheinungsbildes der beiden Damen.

2 Dions Text ist nicht die einzige Erzählung einer Wahl, in der das Aussehen der beiden Optionen, personifiziert als Frauen, alleiniges oder zumindest hauptsächliches Kriterium für die Entscheidung wird. Ziel meines Artikels ist es, diese Konzentration auf das Visuelle in Versionen der Geschichte von Herakles’ Wahl zu erklären, indem ich den Mythos vom Parisurteil heranziehe. Meine Absicht ist es, wechselseitige Einflüsse zwischen beiden Mythen aufzuzeigen, insofern sie als „Lebenswahl“-Geschichten gestaltet sind.

3 Den Inhalt der Geschichte von Herakles’ Wahl, wie sie uns bei Xenophon in maßgeblicher Form überliefert ist,3 werde ich im Wesentlichen als bekannt voraussetzen. Ich werde zunächst auf das Verhältnis der visuellen Schilderung beider Frauen und ihrer Redebeiträge, wie es sich in Xenophons Fassung findet, eingehen.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 74

Davon ausgehend, werde ich die Tendenzen einiger Versionen aufzeigen, das Visuelle übermäßig stark in den Vordergrund zu rücken (I). Dabei werde ich die Funktion des Mythos von Herakles als „Wahl“ in Frage stellen und ihn stattdessen als Schilderung einer Versuchungssituation deuten (II). In beiderlei Hinsicht werde ich zeigen, dass im Mythos vom Parisurteil eine Wahlsituation ähnlich konzipiert wird. Den Eindruck, dass beide Geschichten nicht nur einander ähneln, sondern sich tatsächlich gegenseitig geprägt haben, möchte ich bestätigen, indem ich darüber hinaus weitere Einflüsse dieses Mythos auf Dions Version von Herakles’ Wahl aufzeige (III).

I

4 In Xenophons Wiedergabe von Prodikos’ Gleichnis sind Arete und Kakia durch chiastische Verteilung ihrer Qualitäten und Schwächen voneinander unterschieden : Die eine ist gut, aber weniger schön ; die andere ist schön, aber nicht gut. Der Vorzug in moralischer Hinsicht geht mit einem Mangel an Attraktivität einher, und umgekehrt. So ergibt sich ein maximaler Kontrast zwischen den beiden Optionen. Kakias erotische Anziehungskraft und Aretes Sprödigkeit werden dem Leser dadurch vermittelt, dass Aussehen und Auftreten beider Frauen beschrieben werden. Die Gestaltung ihres Erscheinungsbildes ist offensichtlich anhand der Stereotype von Matrone und Hetäre entworfen ;4 darüber hinausgehend, lassen sich ihre Schilderungen jedoch in mehreren Hinsichten symbolisch verstehen : Zum einen sind in ihrer Haltung, Gestik und Mimik Charaktereigenschaften kodiert (τà δέ ο◌́̕ μματα αỉδοι̃, τò δε◌̀ σχη◌̀μα σωφροσύνη) ; eine derartige Auffassung, dass im Auftreten einer Person sich ihr Wesen manifestiere und es nur entschlüsselt werden müsse, war unter sophistischen Rednern sehr verbreitet.5 Als zweites spielt die Dichotomie von Schein und Sein eine wichtige Rolle bei der Kontrastierung der Frauengestalten. Die von Kakia verwendete Schminke (κεκαλλωπισμένην δε◌̀ τò με ◌̀ν χρω̃μα) signalisiert, dass ihre Schönheit nicht natürlich, nicht „echt“ sei (έρυθροτέραν του̃ ό◌̕ντος δοκει̃ν φαίνεσθαι). In späteren Versionen heißt es bisweilen, dass sie keine „wahre“ Schönheit besitze.6

5 Doch nicht alle Details der Beschreibung lassen sich mit diesen beiden Ansätzen erklären. Kakias transparentes Kleid (έσθη̃τα δε ◌̀ ε ◌̓ξ η◌̔̃ς ◌̓α◌̀ν μάλιστα ω◌̓́ρα διαλάμποι) ist weder ein Accessoire der Hetärentracht,7 noch drücken sich darin eine bestimmte Charaktereigenschaft oder gar unnatürlicher Schein aus. Vielmehr zielt dieses Element ihrer Aufmachung darauf ab, ihre Erotik als offensiv zu charakterisieren ; Kakia stellt eine Versuchung dar.

6 Der deskriptive Abschnitt der Geschichte in Xenophons Wiedergabe ist entscheidend, wenn es darum geht, das Dilemma zu eröffnen. Doch die anschließenden Reden rücken das zurecht ; entscheidend ist, wie sich Kakia und Arete rhetorisch bewähren. Dem Visuellen kommt in dieser Geschichte nur eine eingeschränkte Rolle : Betrachtet man, wie viel Raum ihrer äußerlichen Beschreibung (§ 22) und wie viel ihren Reden (§§ 23-33) zugestanden wird, ergibt sich ein Verhältnis von 1 :11.

7 Die Geschichte hat einen enormen Erfolg erlebt und ein reiches Nachleben begründet.8 Mal wird Prodikos zitiert und der Inhalt seiner Geschichte referiert ;9 oder das Gleichnis wird auf einen anderen Zusammenhang übertragen, wobei Kakia und Arete durch andere Personifikationen ersetzt und Herakles durch einen anderen Protagonisten abgelöst werden können.10 Auch an Parodien mangelt es nicht ; bald schon gibt es Schilderungen, in denen ein Sprecher zweier Frauen ansichtig wird, die

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 75

eine so züchtig wie die andere anziehend, und sich erwartungsvoll für die Attraktivere entscheidet.11 Zentral ist immer die Synkrisis zweier weiblicher Figuren ; bereits die Agone zwischen zwei als Frauen gestalteten Personifikationen in Aristophanes’ Wolken und in Kratinos’ Pytine könnten erste Reaktionen auf dieses Element darstellen, das man wohl auch für Prodikos’ Darbietung als gesichert annehmen darf.12 Doch während dort wie in Xenophons Fassung die wesentliche Betätigung der Frauengestalten in einem Redewettstreit besteht, fallen innerhalb der Tradition einige Adaptionen der Geschichte auf, die auf verbale Beteiligung der Personifikationen verzichten. Dions eingangs erwähnte Version ist nicht der einzige Fall. Dasselbe Merkmal liegt in den Fassungen von Maximos von Tyros, Philostrat, zwei Rhetoren des vierten Jahrhunderts und in der des Themistios vor. Auch in die Tabula Cebetis ist die Geschichte von Herakles’ Wahl eingegangen und hat dort in der Konzeption von Pseudopaideia und wahrer Paideia Spuren hinterlassen. Der Fall dieser Schrift ist besonders interessant. Sie gibt sich als Deutung eines Bildes aus, das in einem Kronos-Tempel hänge und in symbolischer Form das menschliche Leben abbilde. Durch die Gestaltung als Ekphrasis ist die Wirkweise der Personifikationen von vorne herein auf die visuelle Rezeption eingeschränkt.

II

8 Doch auch wenn sich weitere Beispiele dafür finden lassen, dass die Synkrisis allein visuell vollzogen wird, sticht Dions Version unter ihnen in besonderer Weise heraus. Die Geschichte ist als eine Art platonischer Mythos an den Schluss der Rede gesetzt, um die im Vorangegangenen entfalteten politischen Thesen zu illustrieren und so noch einmal zu bekräftigen. Dion, als Sprecher der Rede, verbürgt sich selbst für den Wahrheitsgehalt des Mythos : Auf einer seiner Wanderungen sei er vom Weg abgekommen und an einem alten Heraklesheiligtum auf eine alte Frau getroffen, die ihn ihm erzählt habe.13

9 Die Wahl läuft in seiner Fassung so ab, dass Hermes zu Herakles gesandt wird, als Zeus erkennt, dass das politische Interesse seines Sohnes erwacht. Der Götterbote führt den jungen Helden zu zwei Gipfeln, auf dem zwei Frauen sitzen, nämlich Basileia und Tyrannis. Ausführlich begutachten sie die Wege, die zu den Gipfeln heraufführen, den Lebensraum der beiden Frauen, sowie diese selbst und ihre Begleiterinnen. Als Hermes Herakles im Anschluss auffordert, sich für eine von ihnen zu entscheiden, fällt dieser seine Entscheidung sehr dezidiert zu Gunsten von Basileia (§ 83).

10 Die ausführliche Beschreibung aller Details der Frauengestalten und ihrer Gipfel nimmt nicht wie bei Xenophon einen, sondern dreizehn Paragraphen ein ; sie erstreckt sich über §§ 66-72 und 77-82. Was zwischen den beiden Abschnitten liegt, gibt sich zwar als Gespräch zwischen Herakles und seinem Führer aus, und ist in der Tat dialogisch gestaltet. Doch inhaltlich geht es auch in diesen Paragraphen wieder um den Anblick, der sich ihnen bietet. Hermes zeigt, benennt und erklärt, was sie sehen. Die wörtliche Rede dient allein dazu, in Form von Hermes’ Erläuterungen Aspekte sichtbar werden zu lassen, die Herakles sonst nicht hätte sehen können : So identifiziert er die Begleiter und Begleiterinnen von Basileia als Personifikationen ihr verwandter Werte (§ 74-75). Er erklärt, welche Art von Menschen zu Tyrannis’ Gipfel strebe (§ 76). Seine Rede dient dazu, sonst „unsichtbare und verborgene“ (δηλοι καὶ ἀφανεῖς, § 77) Details sichtbar zu machen.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 76

11 In Dions Fassung wird die Beschränkung der Personifikationen auf ihre visuelle Rolle nicht nur praktiziert, sondern auch explizit thematisiert. Auffällig ist die Häufung von Verben, die visuelle Wahrnehmung beschreiben : ἀναβλέπουσι (66) ; ὁρᾶσθαι (66) ; φαίνεται (68) ; ὁρῶσι (68) ; ἐπέδειξε (69) ; θεάσασθαι (69) ; ἵνακαὶσαφῶςἴδῃςτὴνδιαφορὰντῶνἄλλων, ἃλανθάνειτοὺςἀνοήτους (69) ; ἐπεδείκνυεν (70) ; τὸεἶδοςὁρᾶσθαι (71) ; ἰδὼν (73) ; ὁρῶν (76) ; θέασαι (76) ; ἐφαίνετο (77) ; θεατὴν (77) ; φαίνοιτο (80) ; προσέβλεπε(80) ; περιέβλεπε (80) ; φαινόμενοι(81) ; ἑωρᾶτο (81) ; τεθέατο (83). 12 Als sich Herakles am Ende der Geschichte entscheiden muss, wird seine Wahl in direkte Beziehung zu dem Anblick gestellt : Er äußert seinen Entschluss, „als er dies alles ausgiebig betrachtet hatte“ (ὡς δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἱκανῶς τεθέατο, § 83).

13 Am deutlichsten wird die Eingrenzung von Herakles’ Rolle auf die eines Betrachters, als es um des Weg geht, der zu Tyrannis’ Gipfel hinaufführe. Diesen habe er natürlich nicht betreten, heißt es von dem jungen Herrscher, der sich nichts hat zu Schulden kommen lassen. Doch es ist nicht allein dieser Nebensinn intendiert, den wir auch heute verstehen, wenn davon die Rede ist, dass man nie einen schlechten Weg eingeschlagen habe. Sondern es heißt explizit, er sei „nur als Betrachter da gewesen“ (ἅτε οἶμαι θεατὴν ἐσόμενον, § 77). 14 Tatsächlich tritt Herakles nicht nur insofern als Betrachter auf, dass er, wie beschrieben, alles genau inspiziert. Sondern die ganze Geschichte erscheint wie die Beschreibung eines Bildes ; der Blick des Lesers wird gelenkt durch den Blick des Betrachters Herakles. Dreimal wechselt die Perspektive auf den Anblick, und zwar wird dies dadurch erreicht, dass Herakles in der Geschichte zu einem anderen Beobachtungsposten geht. Am Anfang führt Hermes ihn auf einen erhabenen Ausblick (ἐπί τινα ὑπεροχὴν ὄρους, § 66), von dem aus er die zwei Gipfel erkennen kann. Für Betrachter hingegen, die von unten in die Höhe blicken, scheint es sich um die Spitze eines einzigen Berges zu handeln (τοῖς κάτωθεν ἀναβλέπουσι μίαν ὁρᾶσθαι τὴν ἄνω κορυφήν, § 66). Dann führt Hermes ihn weiter (ἄγων οὖν ἐκεῖσε, § 69), so dass er Basileia im Detail betrachten kann, und anschließend zu einem dritten Punkt, von wo aus er dasselbe mit Tyrannis tun kann. Die Geschichte von Herakles’ Wahl ist in dieser Fassung auf komplexeste Weise visualisiert : Die Geschichte besteht hauptsächlich aus Beschreibungen der Personifikationen ; die rein visuelle Entscheidungsfindung wird mehrfach thematisiert ; und der geschilderte Anblick bietet sich wie ein Kunstwerk da, das sich aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln betrachten lässt.

15 Welche Absicht könnte mit dieser Visualisierung verfolgt sein ? Wenn man bedenkt, um was für eine Art von Entscheidung es sich hier handelt – nämlich um eine fundamentale politische Orientierung –, mutet es doch erstaunlich an, dass die Wahl allein anhand visuellen Inputs getroffen wird. Aber handelt es sich wirklich um eine Wahl ?

16 Diese Frage kann man bereits an die prodikeische Urfassung stellen : Dort lässt sich beobachten, dass die Alternativen eigentlich alles andere als gleichwertig sind. Betrachtet man Aussehen und Wesen zugleich, besitzen zwar beide Frauen einen Vorzug und eine nachteilige Eigenschaft. Doch bei der Wahl, die Herakles zu treffen hat, geht es allein um eine moralische Entscheidung, nicht um eine ästhetische. Unter diesem Gesichtspunkt jedoch ist Arete ihrer Gegnerinbei weitem überlegen ; deren Schönheit stellt lediglich ein Moment der Ablenkung da in der ansonsten a priori eindeutig definierten Gewichtung. Bereits die Namen „Tüchtigkeit“ und

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 77

„Schlechtigkeit“ zeigen, dass an ihrer Bewertung kein Zweifel gelassen wird. Herakles’ Wahl erzielt also keineswegs einen Erkenntnisgewinn ; denn seine Entscheidung wirft kein neues Licht auf die Optionen. Vielmehr steht er selbst im Fokus der Bewertung : Lässt er sich von Kakias Schönheit trügen oder bleibt er standhaft und hält an seinem Wissen um den moralischen Wert beider Frauen fest ? Seine Wahl sagt in erster Linie etwas über ihn selbst aus. Er entscheidet sich für die Tüchtigkeit, denn er ist ein tüchtiger Held, so suggeriert die Geschichte. Bei der Begegnung mit Kakia und Arete handelt es sich also um eine Probe, bei der der Held seine moralische Standfestigkeit unter Beweis stellen muss. Tatsächlich wurde beobachtet, dass die Sprache der Verführung eine große Rolle spielt in der Tradition von Herakles’ Wahl.14 Die „Wahl“ ist eine Prüfung, der der Held unterzogen wird, eine Versuchung.

17 Deutlich zu beobachten ist dies an einer Parodie von Herakles’ Wahl, die eben diesen Effekt nutzt. In einem Fragment des Komikers Alexis fordert Linos, der mythische Erzieher des Herakles, seinen Schüler auf, sich ein Buch auszuwählen.15 Er bietet ihm Werke verschiedenster Gattungen und Autoren an : Orpheus, Hesiod, Tragödien, Choirilos, Homer, Epicharm und allerlei andere Schriften. Dann fügt er seiner Aufforderung zur Wahl hinzu : Denn damit wirst du dein wahres Ich zeigen, wonach dir am allermeisten ist (δηλώσεις γὰρ οὕτω τὴν φύσιν, / ἐπὶ τί μάλισθ’ ὥρμησε). Herakles aber fühlt sich zu keiner der intellektuell anspruchsvollen Lektüren hingezogen, sondern entscheidet sich für ein – Kochbuch. Der sonst so standhafte Held wird in der parodistischen Verzerrung zum Opfer der (in diesem Falle : kulinarischen) Versuchung. Was Linos mit seiner Warnung an Herakles zum Ausdruck bringt, ist genau die Tatsache, dass bei der Wahl letztendlich nicht die Beurteilung der Optionen im Vordergrund steht, sondern die Entscheidung auf denjenigen zurückfällt, der sie trifft, und mehr über ihn selbst aussagt als über das Objekt seiner Wahl.

18 Aus der 1. Person geschildert, kann das Modell von Herakles’ Wahl deshalb genutzt werden, um sich selbst darzustellen. Ovid lässt am Anfang des dritten Buches der Amores seinen poeta zwischen zwei personifizierten Gattungen wählen ; indem er Tragoedia (noch) zurückweist und sich für Elegia entscheidet, signalisiert er, Elegiker zu sein. Ähnlich schildert Lukian einen Traum, den er in seiner Jugend gehabt habe. Darin seien ihm Hermoglyphike, die Steinmetzkunst, und Paideia, die Bildung, erschienen, die ihn beide für sich hätten gewinnen wollen. Wie es der Rolle des Sprechers entspricht, der die Geschichte seinem Publikum vorträgt, hat er sich am Ende des Traumes für Paideia entschieden. 16 Die Handlung klingt zwar in der Zusammenfassung eindeutig, wird aber in der ausführlichen Gestaltung in mehrerlei Hinsicht unterlaufen. Literarische Anspielungen auf berühmte trügerische Träume deuten an, wie sehr sich seine Wahl tatsächlich bewährt habe ;17 das Ausmaß der glorreichen Zukunft, die er sich weiter erträumt, lassen weitere Zweifel aufkommen.18 Vor allem aber spielt diese Wahl mit widersprüchlichen Entsprechungen zwischen den beiden Personifikationen und ihren prodikeischen Vorbildern. Paideia, die Siegerin, tritt wie Arete an zweiter Stelle im Agon an. Doch äußerlich ähnelt sie eher Kakia ; denn sie ist bei weitem schöner als ihre Gegnerin (μάλα εὐπρόσωπος καὶ τὸ σχῆμα εὐπρεπὴς καὶ κόσμιος τὴν ἀναβολήν, § 6). In der Tat wird ihr Aussehen keinen unwesentlichen Einfluss haben auf die Entscheidungsfindung. Zwar bleibt es nicht allein bei der Beschreibung der beiden Frauengestalten, wie dies bei Dion der Fall war ; sondern die beiden halten durchaus Reden, mit denen sie den jungen Mann von sich zu überzeugen suchen. Aber er hört gar nicht bis zum Ende hin, sondern fällt seine Entscheidung, bevor die Reden beendet

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 78

sind (Ταῦτα ἔτι λεγούσης αὐτῆς οὐ περιμείνας ἐγὼ τὸ τέλος τῶν λόγων ἀναστὰς, § 14). So ist es dann auch die „Hässliche, Männliche“, die er zurücklässt (τὴν ἄμορφον ἐκείνην καὶ ἐργατικὴν ἀπολιπὼν, § 14). 19 Die Standhaftigkeit, die man eigentlich vom jungen Helden angesichts seiner Entscheidung erwartet, wird hier parodiert. Der Antiheld verfällt hoffnungslos dem Schönen und widersteht keine Sekunde lang der Versuchung. Zugrunde liegt aber dasselbe Schema : Die Wahl befördert nicht neue Erkenntnis über die Bewertung der Berufsbilder Bildhauer und Redner zutage ; sondern es handelt sich um einer Versuchungssituation, der sich der Held ausgesetzt sieht.

III

19 Insofern es sich also bei Herakles’ Entscheidung um eine Probe handelt, die es zu bestehen gilt, muss sich auch bei Dion der junge Held erst bewähren, bevor es ihm gestattet ist, sein politisches Interesse in die Tat umzusetzen. Herakles steht – abgesehen von parodistischen Umsetzungen – exemplarisch für den Helden, der sich in einer solchen Situation als standhaft erweist. Gegenteilig verhält es sich mit einem anderen mythischen Helden, der ebenfalls einer Wahlsituation ausgesetzt war :20 Als Paris beim Wettstreit der drei Göttinnen Aphrodite zur Schönsten kürte, löste dieses Urteil nicht nur den Trojanischen Krieg aus.21 In ihm manifestierte sich auch Paris’ Charakter, der in der Tradition immer als unkriegerisch und der Liebe zugeneigt geschildert wird.22 Besonders explizit wird der Zusammenhang zwischen dem Schiedsrichter des Schönheitswettbewerbs und seiner Entscheidung bei Apuleius formuliert. In seinen Metamorphosen wohnt Lucilius einer Aufführung des Parisurteils als Mimus bei.23 Zunächst noch begeistert vom lasziven Auftritt der Darstellerin der Venus, macht er plötzlich seiner Verärgerung über „Richter wie Paris“ Luft.24 Die Korruption heutiger Richter sei kein Wunder, wenn man bedenke, dass doch schon beim Inbegriff eines Urteilsspruchs Paris, „dieser Bauer und Hirte, vom Ratschluss des großen Jupiter zum Richter ernannt (iudex electus), zum Profit seiner Libido verschachert“ habe.25

20 Der iudex wird in dieser Tirade zum Beurteilten. Dies ist eine naheliegende Deutung des Parisurteils ; doch sie ist nicht notwendigerweise Bestandteil jeder Darstellung dieses Mythos. Er auch ohne weitere Deutung als Schönheitswettbewerb repräsentiert werden ; gerade in bildlichen Darstellungen scheint dies oft der Fall gewesen zu sein, da dort die Göttinnen zunächst überhaupt nicht differenziert wurden und somit keinen Anhaltspunkt für eine Unterscheidung in verschiedene „Optionen“ einer Wahl boten.26 Nur in einigen der uns überlieferten Versionen scheint eine moralisierende Lesart als Wahl zwischen drei Lebensweisen wirklich angebracht zu sein.27

21 Immer jedoch gilt Paris’ Entscheidung für Venus als Beispiel einer schlechten Wahl. Nie wird in Betracht gezogen, Paris für seine Entscheidung für die Liebe Anerkennung zu zollen. Wie anders die Lehre ausfallen kann, die aus demselben Stoff gezogen wird, zeigt eine indische Adaption des Parisurteils. Im Padmavati Natak sieht sich der König Indranil wie Paris ebenfalls drei schönen Göttinnen gegenüber ; er trifft genau wie sein okzidentaler Vorfahre seine Entscheidung zugunsten von Rati, einer Art ‚Aphrodite‘, und erhält dafür die schönste Frau : Jedoch endet an dieser Stelle die indische Version der Geschichte mit Heirat und Happy End.28

22 In der griechisch-römischen Tradition stellt die Geschichte vom Parisurteil jedoch, wie gesagt, eine Versuchungssituation dar, die sich komplementär zu der des Herakles

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 79

verhält. Während letzterer die Probe besteht und insofern eine ‚gute‘ Wahl trifft, weiß Paris der Versuchung nicht zu widerstehen und trifft also eine ‚schlechte‘ Wahl. Die strukturelle Ähnlichkeit beider Mythen wurde bereits von Athenaios konstatiert : „Ich aber sage, dass auch das Urteil des Paris früher schon zu einer Wahl der Lust auf Kosten der Tugend gemacht wurde. Dadurch dass freilich Aphrodite der Vorzug gegeben wird – und sie verkörpert eben die Lust –, gerät alles aus dem Gleichgewicht. Und mir scheint, dass unser guter Xenophon die Geschichte von Herakles und Arete genau danach gemacht hat.“29

23 Dem Mythos vom Parisurteil ist in besonderer Weise eine visuelle Dimension zu eigen.30 Unabhängig von seiner Deutung als Entscheidung zwischen drei Gaben, die die Göttinnen Paris anbieten und die ihm eine unterschiedliche Zukunft eröffnen, besteht die Handlung in erster Linie in einem Schönheitswettbewerb ; die Göttinnen präsentieren ihr Aussehen dem Schiedsrichter. Das Parisurteil war eines der beliebtesten Motive auf Vasenmalereien in der Antike.31 In der Literatur animierte der Auftritt der Göttinnen immer wieder zu detaillierten pornographischen Beschreibungen.32 Das erotische Potenzial des Mythos darf als sehr groß angesehen werden ; tatsächlich war er sehr beliebt in erotischen Epigrammen. Die Adaptionen spitzen den pornographischen Charakter des Stoffes häufig noch zu, beispielsweise wenn die drei Göttinnen durch drei (detailliert beschriebene) weiblichen Gesäßen oder drei (noch detaillierter beschriebene) Vulven ersetzt werden, die es zu vergleichen gilt. 33 Was bei Herakles’ Wahl durch Kakias Stilisierung zu einer verführerischen Frau erreicht wird, ist beim Parisurteil von vornherein vorhanden : Sexuelle Versuchung ist ein unabdingbarer Bestandteil dieses Mythos.

24 Die Tatsache aber, dass das Parisurteil sich so offensichtlich zu visueller Repräsentation anbietet, legt nahe, dass sich gerade auch visuell gestaltete Versionen von Herakles’ Wahl besonders durch den anderen Mythos haben inspirieren lassen. Der Verzicht auf wörtliche Reden der Frauengestalten und die komplexe Gestaltung ihrer Betrachtung durch Herakles erinnern an Paris’ Wahl. Die Entscheidung, die Herakles zu treffen hat, wird dadurch noch weiter als Versuchungssituation zugespitzt ; selbst unter dem rein visuellen Eindruck muss bei Herakles die Ratio die Oberhand behalten.

25 In der Tat lassen sich in Dions Version von Herakles’ Wahl noch andere Elemente entdecken, die traditionell zum Parisurteil gehören. Zum einen ist die Handlung an einen anderen Ort verlegt, als man es aus früheren Versionen findet. Gewöhnlich assoziiert man Herakles’ Wahl mit einer Weggabelung, an der ihm die zwei Frauen begegnet seien. Bei Dions hingegen sind die Personifikationen auf zwei Berge versetzt. Ein Gebirge als Umfeld kennt man aber gerade vom Parisurteil, dessen Vollstreckung gewöhnlich am Ida situiert wird.34 Des weiteren ist für den Vollzug der Wahl eine zusätzliche Figur eingeführt, nämlich Hermes. In früheren Versionen von Herakles’ Wahl existiert er nicht ; dort ist Herakles allein mit den beiden Frauengestalten. Bei Dion ist ihm der Götterbote an die Seite gestellt, der von Zeus gesandt wurde und die Aufgabe hat, die Wahl zu moderieren (§ 65-66) : Er führt Herakles zu verschiedenen Aussichtspunkten, erklärt den Anblick, benennt die Frauen, fordert ihn schließlich zur Wahl auf und referiert Herakles’ Entscheidung an Zeus (§ 83). Im Parisurteil ist Hermes immer zugegen ; wie gerade für Dions Version beschrieben, ist er dort der Tradition zufolge der Moderator des Wettstreits. Von Zeus beauftragt, geleitet er die Göttinnen zu ihrem Richter und sorgt dort für die Ausführung der Wahl. Seine Präsenz in literarischen Darstellungen wie auf Abbildungen ist notorisch, selbst in Fällen, wo sie

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 80

dramatisch nicht erforderlich ist. Fast nie wird seine Gestalt in Repräsentationen des Mythos weggelassen.35 Des weiteren findet sich ein wichtiger Anhaltspunkt in der Beschreibung von Basileia, bei der nämlich auf ihre Ähnlichkeit mit Hera verwiesen wird (ὁποίαν μάλιστα τὴν Ἥραν γράφουσι, § 70). Hera aber hatte Paris als Alternative zu Aphrodites Angebot der schönsten Frau vielen Darstellungen zufolge Macht als Herrscher angeboten.36

26 Bezeichnenderweise begegnen auch in den anderen Versionen von Herakles’ Wahl, in denen wie in Dions auf Reden der Frauen verzichtet wird, diese Elemente, die an Repräsentationen des Parisurteils erinnern. In der Tabula Cebetis, bei Themistios und zwei Rhetoren sitzen die Frauengestalten ebenfalls auf Bergen. Bei den zwei Rhetoren wird die Wahl noch dazu von Hermes geleitet ; bei Themistios wird Herakles von Phronesis geführt, einer allegorischen Personifikation, die aber offensichtlicht die gleiche Funktion erfüllt : den Anblick zu deuten und den ‘Richter’ zur Entscheidung zu führen. In den Versionen der Geschichte hingegen, in denen der Redeagon zwischen den beiden Kontrahentinnen beibehalten wird, ist weder von Bergen, noch von Hermes die Rede. Tatsächlich scheint Herakles’ Wahl in der Antike kein beliebter Bildstoff gewesen zu sein.37

27 Dions Gestaltung von Herakles’ Wahl greift offensichtlich eine bestehende Verwandtschaft mit dem Parisurteil auf und betont die Ähnlichkeit noch stärker. Darüber dürfen natürlich nicht die Elemente, die in Dions Version eindeutig der Tradition von Herakles’ Wahl entstammen, aus dem Blick geraten : Abgesehen von der Figur des Herakles an sich und der Zweizahl der Optionen, die sich ihm bieten, deuten das noch jugendliche Alter des Helden (§ 66) darauf hin, sowie der große Raum, den die Wegmetaphorik einnimmt (§ 67 und 77). Die Anklänge an das Parisurteil ersetzen nicht die eine Wahl durch die andere, sondern bewirken eine bestimmte Ausrichtung in der Gestaltung des Mythos, nämlich eine Zuspitzung der Versuchung.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE

J. Alpers (1912), Hercules in bivio, Göttingen.

F. Buffière (1973), Les mythes d’Homère dans la pensée grecque, Paris.

R. Cribiore (2007), „Lucian, Libanius, and the short road to rhetoric“, GRBSt 47, S. 71-86.

M. Davies (1981), „The judgement of Paris and Iliad Book XXIV“, JHS 101, S. 56-62.

M. Davies (2003), „The judgement of Paris and Solomon“, CQ ns.53, S. 32-43.

M. Davies (2004), „The temptress throughout the ages : further versions of Heracles at the crossroads“, CQ ns. 54, S. 606-610.

J. Elsner (2007), Roman eyes. Visuality and subjectivity in art and text, Princeton/Oxford.

E. Finkerpearl (1991), „The judgement of Lucius : Apuleius, Metamorphoses 10.29-34“, CA 10, S. 221-236.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 81

J.T. Fitzgerald und L.M. White (1983), The tabula of Cebes, Chico.

O. Gigon (1956), Kommentar zum zweiten Buch von Xenophons Memorabilien, Basel.

M. Gleason (1995), Making men. Sophists and self-presentation in ancient Rome, Princeton.

H. Gomperz (1912), Sophistik und Rhetorik. Das Bildungsideal des eu legein in seinem Verhältnis zur Philosophie des fünften Jahrhunderts, Leipzig.

G.B. Kerferd (1954-1955), „The relativism of Prodicus“, BRL 37, S. 249-256.

A. Kossatz-Deissmann (1994), „Paridis Iudicium“, in LIMC Bd. 7, Zürich, S. 176-188.

M. Kuntz (1993-1994) : „The Prodicean Choice of Herakles. A reshaping of myth“, CJ 89, S. 163-181.

J. Mesk (1934), „Dion und Themistios“, Philologische Wochenschrift 54, S. 556-558.

J. Moles (1990), „The kingship orations of Dio Chrysostomos“, in : F. Cairns und M. Heath (Hrsgg.), Papers on the Leeds International Latin Seminar Bd. 6, Leeds, S. 297-375.

D. Page (1978), The epigrams of Rufinus. Edited with an introduction and commentary, Cambridge.

E. Panofsky (1930), Hercules am Scheidewege und andere antike Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst. Leipzig/ Berlin.

E. Stafford (2005) : „Vice or virtue ? Heracles and the art of allegory“, in Bowden/Rawlings (Hrsgg.) : Herakles and Hercules. Exploring a Graeco-Roman divinity, Llandysul, S. 71-96.

T.C.W. Stinton (1965), Euripides and the judgement of Paris, London.

T. Whitmarsh (2001), Greek literature and the Roman empire. The politics of imitations. Oxford.

M. Zimmerman-de Graaf (1993) : „Narrative judgement and reader response in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 10.29-34 : the pantomime of the judgement of Paris“, Groningen colloquia on the novel 5, S. 143-161.

NOTES

1. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.59-83. 2. Zitiert wird Prodikos als Autor der Geschichte bei Xen. Mem. 2.1.21, Schol. ad. Arist. Nub. 361, Maxim. Tyr. 14.1, Philostr. VA 6.10, Athen. 510C, Themist. Or. 22 280a-282c. Identifiziert mit Xenophon nennt ihn auch Cic. Off. 1.118. 3. Xen. Mem. 2.1.21-40. Auf die Frage, inwiefern es sich dabei tatsächlich um eine getreue Wiedergabe von Prodikos‘ Version handelt, möchte ich an dieser Stelle nicht weiter eingehen, da sie für die hier betrachtete Frage nicht relevant ist 4. Gigon (1956) 64-65. 5. Gleason (1995) 55-81. 6. Max. Tyr. 14.1, negativ formuliert über ihre Gegnerin bei Philo De sacr. 21. 7. Gigon (1956) 64-65. 8. Siehe Alpers (1912), Panofsky (1930). 9. Cic. Off. 1.118, Max. Tyr. 14.1, Them. 280a, Rhet. Troil. VI p. 52 Walz, Rhet. ignot. herausg. bei Rabe (1909). 10. Tab. Ceb. 24-25, Ov. Am. 3.1, Philo De sacr. 20-45, Sil. Pun. 15.18-128, Dio Chrys. Or. 1.59-83, Lukian. 32.6-11, Philostr. VA 6.10-11, Themist. 280b-282c. 11. Philod. Ep. 38 Siders, Ov. Am. 3.1, Lukian. 35. 12. Gomperz (1912) 91. Siehe auch Kerferd (1954-55). 13. Dio Chrys. Or. 1.52-58. Vgl. Moles (1990) 318-319.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 82

14. Fitzgerald/White (1983) 141 Anm.22. Siehe außerdem Sil. Pun. 15.32,33 und 15.108. 15. Alexis frg. 140 PCG. 16. Whitmarsh (2001) 122. 17. Humble/Sidwell (2006) 219. 18. Humble/Sidwell (2006) 222. 19. Vgl. auch die Bevorzugung des „weiblichen“ Rhetoriklehrers gegenüber dem „männlichen“ in Lukian. 41.9 und 11. Siehe Cribiore (2007) 72. 20. Kuntz (1993-94), Davies (2003), Davies (2004). 21. Über den Zusammenhang bereits in Hom. Il. 24.28-29 siehe Davies (1981). 22. Buffière (1973) 330-331. 23. Apul. Met. 10.29-33. 24. Finkerpearl (1991) 222 und Zimmermann-de Graaf (1993) 151-152. 25. Apul. Met. 10.33. 26. Kossatz-Deissmann (1994) 186. 27. Zuerst in Kratinos’ Dionysalexandros (PCG IV frg. 39-51), dann Eur. Troad. 971-974, Isocr. Helena 41, Apollod. Ep. 3.2, Hygin. 92, Lukian. 35.11-13, Apul. Met. 30-32. 28. Ich danke Alexander Riddiford (Oxford) dafür, mir diesen Hinweis gegeben und mir seine englische Übersetzung des Originaltextes zur Verfügung gestellt zu haben. 29. Athen. 510C : ἐγὼ έ φημι καὶ τὴν τοῦ Πάριδος κρίσιν ὑπὸ τῶν παλαιοτέρων πεποιῆσθαι ἡδονῆς πρὸς ἀρετὴν οὖσαν σύγκρισιν· προκριθείσης γοῦν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης, αὕτη δ’ἐστὶνἡ ἡδονή, πάντα συνεταράχθη. καί οι δοκεῖ καὶ ὁ καλὸς ἡμῶν Ξενοφῶν τὸν περὶ τὸν Ἡρακλέα καὶ τὴν Ἀρετὴν μῦθον ἐντεῦθεν πεπλακέναι. 30. Vgl. Elsner (2007) 1. 31. Kossatz-Deissmann (1994) 186. 32. Lukian. 35.11, Apul. Met. 10.30-31, Anth. Graec. 9.633, 619, 637 ; 16.165, 169, 170, 178, 181, 182. Zur bildenden Kunst siehe Kossatz-Deissmann (1994) 176-177. 33. Rufin. Ep. 11 und 12 Page. 34. Hedreen (2001) 186 und 209-211. 35. Stinton (1965) 15. 36. Cratin. frg. 39-51 PCG , Eur. Troad. 971-974, Isocr. Helena 41, Apollod. Ep. 3.2, Hygin. 92, Lukian. 35.11-13, Apul. Met. 30-32. 37. Stafford (2005) 76.

RÉSUMÉS

In some versions of the story of Heracles at the crossroads, his decision is based exclusively on the visual aspects of the two options, incorporated in two female figures (most notably in Dio Chrysostom’s first Kingship Oration). The women do not explain in speeches what they represent ; it is only by their appearance that their moral significance is highlighted. This concentration on the visual aspects of the choice reflects the influence of the story of the judgement of Paris. Both myths have in common that the choice described does not reveal new insights into the different options on offer, but rather into the moral qualities of the one who chooses.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 83

INDEX

Mots-clés : Dio Chrysostomos, Lebenswahl, Herakles am Scheideweg, Parisurteil, Visualität

AUTEUR

ANDREA HARBACH Université de Genève [email protected]

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 84

Irony and Aequabilitas : Horace, Satires 1.31

Jerome Kemp

1 The third of Horace’s opening ‘diatribe’ satires is the most systematic in terms of the consequentiality of its argument.2 The argument runs, logically enough, as follows : after an opening section on consistency (aequabilitas)/inconsistency (a theme which runs throughout the satire), Horace turns to consistency in the appraisal of one’s own and one’s friends’ faults : there must be balance (aequabilitas) between the two, and this, practically, amounts to tolerance of friends’ faults (25-95). From 76 tolerance and fairness in appraising friends’ transgressions comes to include the judgment of crimes in society generally, and so introduces the section from 96 which deals with fairness (aequabilitas) in justice.3 The link between friendship and justice in Horace’s argument reflects the pre-existing link between these subjects in Hellenistic thought, both in Stoicism and Epicureanism. And the end of this last section (124-142) also acts as a conclusion to the whole satire, where Horace upholds tolerance and fairness in friendship and justice against Stoic rigidity and extremism.

2 Although the underlying philosophical concept that runs through Satire 1.3, aequabilitas, is (as we will see) mainly identifiable with the Stoics, in comparison with the other so-called ‘diatribe’ satires,1.3 is notable for its pronounced anti-Stoic stance.4 Horace’s ironic handling of this Stoic tenet, and of philosophical material throughout the satire has, as yet, been somewhat overlooked. This discussion concerns the particular way in which Horace links aequabilitas with moderation, to promote his own, mainly Epicurean view of friendship and tolerance ; the uncovering of irony introduced by the theme of aequabilitas ; and how Horace’s use of philosophical material throughout enhances the sentiment and structure of his argument.

Moderation and Consistency

3 In so far as consistency (aequabilitas) is represented in 1.3, it is closely connected to moderation. There are in fact obvious connective similarities with the previous satire – 1.2, which explicitly concerned moderation in the conduct of one’s sex life – in the

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 85

opening section of 1.3 ; and indeed 1.3 generally has been seen as a continuation of the moderation theme which runs through this first triad of ‘diatribe’ satires.5 For example, in 1.2 (1-4) Horace uses the death of Tigellius Sardus to introduce the theme of moderation ; in 1.3, from 3 to 19 Tigellius is described as someone who exemplified inconsistency. At 1.3.9 Horace defines Tigellius in the statement, nil aequale homini fuit illi, (reminiscent of nil medium est at 1.2.28) and then gives further examples of the man’s absurd inconsistency, which is summed up, or rather parenthesised, by the further statement : nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi (19) ; and this can be compared with the similarly parenthetical 1.2.24/1.2.28, in the opening preamble on moderation/excess in 1.2. The fact that Horace deliberately treats consistency as similar to moderation in this opening section – bearing in mind 1.2 – is significant when we come to view his inter- relation of philosophical ideas as the satire progresses.

4 Importantly, and, as we will see, somewhat ironically in a poem which is largely an attack on Stoic extremism, aequabilitas was particularly upheld by the Stoics (e.g. Cicero De officiis 1.90 and 111 ; De amicitia 65 and 92) ; 6 its implication not merely being adherence to the same behaviour pattern, but to behaviour that is consistently rational and controlled and therefore reliable, and unaffected by vicissitude. On aequabilitas as a Stoic tenet Dyck remarks, with reference to De officiis (a work which represents, particularly in books 1 and 2, the views of the Stoic Panaetius) : “The Stoics held that all the sage’s individual actions were correct and thus self-consistent (SVF 1. 52.27-29)… the self-consistency that Panaetius [in De officiis] recommends is thus modelled on that of the sage.”7 Also, the original Zenonian definition of the τέλος : ὁμολογουμένως ζῆν (to live in agreement) strongly suggests consistency, as does the later ὁμολογουμένως τῇ φύσει ζῆν – also referring to internal consistency in one’s life, and the Stoic notion of the well-flowing life, εὔροια βίου (LS 63A-B). 5 This self-consistency is very much a part of – in some respects practically indistinguishable from – moderation as part of temperate living ; and indeed Tigellius’ inconsistencies up to 19 could also be regarded as excesses. For example, his tendency was to walk too quickly or too slowly (9-11)8 or, at 15-17 : …...... …decies centena dedisses huic parco, paucis contento, quinque diebus nil erat in loculis. Suppose you’d given a million to this frugal, easily satisfied individual : within five days his pockets were sure to be empty.9

6 The connection with the Stoics – and in particular Panaetius – as being upholders of consistency is perhaps specifically suggested in Tigellius’ inconsistent walking, since this is advised against in De officiis, at 1.131, where Cicero also refers to an excessively slow walk as looking like walking in a procession.10 Indeed, the references to consistency given above from De officiis and De amicitia uphold this relationship between consistency and moderation : consistency being regarded in a practical – one could feasibly say, Panaetian11 – light, rather than as strict, inflexible adherence to particular modes of thought and behaviour, as would be expected in the Stoic sage,12 even if the Stoic sage is the ideal model for aequabilitas ; indeed it is notable that the Panaetian De officiis 1 is where we find particular emphasis on the qualities of aequabilitas and constantia (consistency – in many contexts practically a synonym of aequabilitas).13 In this more practical context Horace would appear at first (1.3.1-24) to be supporting Panaetian Stoicism, but, as will become apparent, in 1.3 Horace takes on certain Stoic ideas discussed in the first book of De officiis, on consistency, reason (ratio),

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 86

and the nature of human society and justice, and ironically uses them to attack Stoic extremism ; and in so doing Horace aligns these virtues, in particular that of consistency, with Epicurean moderation. It must also be noted that both moderation – the mean – and philia were central to Aristotelian ethics,14 and indeed the Aristotelian influence in the first three diatribe satires, which all deal with moderation and the mean to some extent, has been extensively covered,15 though here I focus on Horace’s particular concentration on the more recognisably Stoic idea of consistency, and his consequent alignment of it with Epicurean moderation.

7 This alignment first becomes apparent when Horace moves on to discuss the subject of friendship at 25-53. In connection with the opening section on consistency, friendship is at first related to the inconsistent way in which men regard their friends’ faults as disproportionately greater than their own. This inconsistency is also immoderate, and in highlighting this point Horace alludes to Lucretius, comparing this tendency with that of lovers who go to the other extreme, by indulging or even praising their beloved’s shortcomings : 1.3.38-40 : illuc praevertamur, amatorem quod amicae turpia decipiunt caecum vitia, aut etiam ipsa haec delectant, veluti Balbinum polypus Hagnae. Let’s turn our attention to this point, that the unsightly defects of a girlfriend escape her lover, in his blindness, or even actually delight him, as Hagna’s wen did Balbinus.

8 The allusion is to DRN 4.1153-54, and it is also reminiscent of Sat. 1.2.90ff where Horace says that one should not be too fussy, on the one hand, nor be too blind to a woman’s blemishes, on the other : the context in both involves the common sense of moderate detachment, and (in Sat. 1.2 in particular)16 of being satisfied with what is natural and necessary – according to the Epicurean view of moderation.17 Again, Horace also alludes to Lucretius at 43-49, in describing the indulgent way a father would regard his son’s faults : at pater ut gnati, sic nos debemus amici si quod sit vitium non fastidire : strabonem appellat paetum pater, et pullum, male parvus si cui filius est, ut abortivus fuit olim Sisyphus… (43-47) But, supposing a friend has some defect, we ought, just like a father with his son, not to feel disgust at it ; a father talks of a cross-eyed son as ‘having a cast’, and calls him ‘wee chick’ if he’s woefully stunted like the midget Sisyphus…

9 Here Horace inverts Lucretius’ list of the unctuous euphemisms which men attribute to their objects of desire at DRN 4.1160-69 (the comparison which Horace himself makes at 38-40)18 so as to support indulgence of faults rather than criticism. 19 It may seem, in fact, that in suggesting that men indulge their friends’ faults he is suggesting a somewhat immoderate course of action. However, the point is clearly that such indulgence is necessary to counter the more excessive tendency for men to overlook their own faults and exaggerate those of their friends : indeed in a sense Horace is here advising an application of aequabilitas, as balance, from a detached, moderate Epicurean perspective.20

10 Balance is thus apparent in Horace’s view that criticism of oneself should be consistent with criticism of one’s friends : i.e. do not be over-critical of friends and under-critical of oneself. To counteract such a tendency and so restore aequabilitas Horace suggests indulgence of friends’ faults. Horace’s advocacy of balance is in this respect ironically

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 87

tempered by his use of philosophical material. Horace is using an Epicurean source (Lucretius) to back up the notion of aequabilitas (most identifiable with the Stoics) through the Epicurean view of moderate detachment in order to save oneself from an excessive tendency (one based on false/empty opinion), while in turn implicitly attacking Stoic inflexibility and extremism ; though the fact that the Stoics are the target of attack only becomes explicit from 96 with reference to the Stoic paradox, that all sins are equal.

11 The reasoning behind Horace’s views on balance as tolerance can be seen to derive in other ways from Epicurean moderation. Between 68 and 75 he concludes that one should aim at fairness in regarding the faults of one’s friends, which is suggestive of moderation. At 68, nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur ; ‘for no one is born without faults’, seems to complement the Epicurean view expressed at 76-7, that faults cannot be eradicated : denique, quatenus excidi penitus vitium irae cetera item nequeunt stultis haerentia… Again, since the fault of anger, and the others likewise which have a grip on the victims of folly, can’t be completely cut out….

12 As Lucretius DRN 3.307-322 : 310 : nec radicitus evelli mala posse putandumst.21

13 The idea that one is born with faults and that they cannot be completely cut out suggests that for Horace one’s own faults can only, realistically, be moderated.22

14 Horace’s personal interpretation of ratio at 78 is another ironic jibe against the Stoics.23 Having made the point that one’s faults cannot be completely removed, Horace suggests that ratio be used in implementing a sense of balance and fairness in judging misdemeanours ; ratio – a quality particularly prized by the Stoics, and indeed by Cicero/ Panaetius in De officiis 124 – is thus brought in to uphold the Epicurean view of moderation and fairness against Stoic extremism, and the view, (irrational, in Horace’s opinion) at 96, that all sins are equal.

15 So, in taking on the Stoic theme of consistency Horace aligns this with Epicurean moderation. And, as we will see, the ironic nature of this alignment of philosophical views, as well as his handling of the theme of consistency in other respects – in connection with friendship and tolerance, and in his subsequent use of philosophical sources – enhances this anti-Stoic position.

Friendship : Consistency and Irony ; Tolerance and Criticism

16 Horace’s use of philosophical material, sometimes tinged with humour, and the unstable, casual nature of the satire form has led some to doubt whether the philosophical content in these satires should be taken seriously at all.25 However, this view could come close to regarding the humour (which still relies on a knowledge of the philosophical material : the satirist as shoddy moralist), and instability of the form as essentially contradicting what Horace regards as a particular characteristic of satire at 1.24-25 (quamquam ridentem dicere verum/ quid vetat) :26 the mixture of the serious and the humorous ; indeed the underlying message, the truth (verum) is the important, moral purpose of Horatian satire.27

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 88

17 Certainly, to some extent we should be amused at the rather glib use of philosophical ideas to back up arguments involving how to conduct a (reasonably) contented sex life in 1.2, for example, as Turpin notes ;28 but this does not mean that the satirist should be seen wholly as an incompetent moralist, even if Horace does present the satirist persona as at times rather careless in his formulation of argument, and rather easy with certain philosophical dicta.29 As we will see in Satire 1.3, the association of philosophical ideas, Horace’s deliberate manipulation of them – even if sometimes so as to appear casual – in the end serves to put forward an underlying philosophical position ; if anything Horace’s apparently casual use of ethical doctrine, his humour, in fact, demonstrates a satirist who is very much in control of the moral content in his work, and who uses the instability and humour of satire to strengthen particular philosophical arguments and the underlying moral seriousness of the poems. Because of the casual, almost apparently ramshackle nature of the satires, ethics is put in a recognisable, practical context, as it was in the street sermon diatribes, from which Horace draws.30 The irony in the moralising should not be regarded as undermining the moral content or making it practically worthless – if that were the case the irony would lose much of its effect.31

18 In Satire 1.3 Horace’s position with regard to aequabilitas is ironic, and this is first implied in the introductory section : Horace’s criticisms of the singer Tigellius (for his inconsistency) seem somewhat hypocritical set against his main argument from 25, which is tolerance of faults.32 More specifically, at 19-20 Horace imagines someone taking him to task about his criticisms of Tigellius : …...... nunc aliquis dicat mihi “quid tu ? nullane habes vitia ? “immo alia et fortasse minora. At this point someone may say to me “What about you ? Haven’t you any faults ?’ Yes, but others, and perhaps they’re smaller.

19 The irony here is that, after having said this Horace actually goes on to criticise men who regard their own faults as less serious than those of the friends they criticise (25-37). Indirectly Horace is thus criticising himself : Horace himself, it seems, is being somewhat inconsistent. Also, a source of irony lies in the subject matter – criticism of intolerance of others’ faults (coupled with a disregard for one’s own faults) – since this would appear to be an odd subject for a satirist to attack : a primary function of the satirist being to be critical of others’ faults. In deftly, and ironically, showing how easy it is to fall prey to inconsistency, Horace actually exemplifies the seriousness – the truth – of the philosophical subject that runs through the poem : a good example of quamquam ridentem dicere verum/ quid vetat.

20 It may also be noted that Horace’s satire is not particularly severe, and perhaps this pro-tolerance argument in 1.3 further suggests this. In Sat.1.4 too Horace maintains that his criticisms are reasonable : he is not writing satire simply to get cheap laughs (34-5), and will only criticise those who deserve it (65-70) – and this is further qualified by the fact that Horace rarely criticises contemporary individuals anyway. Indeed Horace’s argument for tolerance – however touched by irony – taken together with his proclaimed stance as a satirist in 1.4 suggests that he intends his satire to be regarded not so much as aggressive, outspoken (and funny) criticism, but as something gentler – his methods of persuasion, indeed, his irony, as more subtle. But Horace still sees himself as outspoken critic to some extent, as is shown by his wish to be seen in the literary tradition of Lucilius going back to Old Greek comedy.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 89

21 In any case, Horace’s stance in 1.3 in particular seems, ironically, somewhat inconsistent ; and this is very much dependent on his use of philosophical dogma : he apparently recommends Stoic aequabilitas, while subtly presenting himself as a poor practitioner of this virtue, and this is largely why he goes on to recommend tolerance of faults (which, as we will see, can be regarded as essentially anti-Stoic) : human beings are not perfect : nam vitiis nemo sine nascitur…68. Or, to put it another way, Horace’s interpretation of aequabilitas leads him towards Epicurean moderation and tolerance, rather than to Stoic extremism and inflexibility. The irony in Horace’s position as tolerant satirist, his inconsistency, and his general non-seriousness seem to act as a foil against the inflexible seriousness of the Stoic ideal of consistency, referred to explicitly from 96 to the end. So Horace’s irony in fact serves to strengthen a philosophical position.

22 The thrust of the argument in favour of tolerance in friendship, indirectly introduced through the theme of aequabilitas, can be regarded as Epicurean. To begin with, it could be that such tolerance would in practice not be too demanding anyway, since perhaps for Horace friendships should only be formed with people of good character, as is suggested at Sat.1.6. 69-70 : …...... purus et insons (ut me collaudem) si et vivo carus amicis… If (to sing my own praises) I live a life which is pure and innocent and endears me to my friends…

23 This would in fact be in line with the view that one should choose one’s friends after consideration, recommended by Epicurus (Sent. Vat. 28),33 as well as Laelius in Cicero’s De amicitia (78).34 However, although this idea would also find favour with the Stoics, the Stoic view that only the wise can have friendships (Diog. Laert. 7.124, LS 67B= Diog. Laert. 7.32-3) would be too extreme : Friendship, they declare, exists only between the wise and good, by reason of their likeness to one another… (Diog. Laert. 7.124).

24 Given that the Stoic qualification for wisdom was, practically speaking, unattainable, there would be no room for tolerance, as is implied in the polemical stance of Horace’s argument from 96.35 However, Fraisse (1974 : 348-373) has looked at the Stoic view of friendship in detail, making the point that the position that friendship only existed between the wise was an ideal and that moral progress towards such an ideal was also important. Also, it has been argued by Steinmetz (1967 : 191, 199) that the Stoic Panaetius was a source for Cicero’s De amicitia.36 Whether this is so or not, it seems likely that friendship could well have been treated in a more practical context by Panaetius, given his more practical approach to ethics generally (see note 12).37 But for Horace the extreme nature of the Stoic position that only the wise can enjoy friendship clearly calls for satirical criticism, and, indeed, the question of the possible Panaetian approach would still only be a later interpretation ; the extreme nature of the Stoic position, as it stands, is unequivocal.38

25 But how Horace’s views on tolerance in friendship can be regarded as specifically Epicurean needs further explanation ; indeed it requires some discussion of the Epicurean view of friendship. For the Epicureans, friendship was an intrinsic virtue (Sent. Vat. 23)39 and living without friends a source of pain. This seems to originate in the idea that friendship promotes security (and a sense of security)40 through the mutual benefit of the parties involved : indeed it is said to originate from benefiting

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 90

(Sent. Vat. 23). Thus one had to choose friendship to avoid a source of pain (and to avoid pain is to achieve pleasure). Such pain could, indeed, come both from the possible poverty, or injury (or fear of such), which could result from friendlessness, as well as from the lack of friendship as companionship, which is also a human need. Also, the Epicureans were aware that friendship can carry risks (Sent. Vat. 28). Clearly, if a friend were to meet with serious misfortune one should not abandon him (Diog. Laert. 10.120), but one should also remain in the friendship if the friend were committing some kind of injustice, provided the friend still behaved decently to oneself.41 Rist emphasises the Epicureans’ regard for pistis, trust, in friendship (Sent. Vat. 34),42 and that this was one of friendship’s particularly pleasurable qualities : the existence of this trust, in spite of the risks, is what makes the friendship genuine and, indeed, pleasurable.

26 However, Mitsis and Annas43 regard the Epicurean position on friendship as incompatible with Epicurean hedonism.44 For Annas the risks of friendship (in essence, the threat of pain) are at odds with the goal of pleasure. Mitsis is of the view that Epicurus in fact recognises an end in friendship completely separate from pleasure.45

27 In response to Mitsis, and largely compatible with Rist, O’Connor claims that Epicurean friendship is in accordance with a hedonistic ethical system. By O’Connor’s reckoning, the kinds of risks in friendship that trouble Annas would barely exist in genuine Epicurean friendship (as Epicurus envisaged it). Epicurean friendship should be regarded rather as “friendly fellowship,”46 based on a mutual understanding of shared philosophical values : values which denounce greed, ambition, the fear of death, and even physical pain.

28 Horace’s view of friendship is probably not quite the purist Epicurean kind described by O’Connor, although in the perhaps less ideal Epicurean friendship practised in 1st Century B.C. Rome, a sort of fellowship of the wise is implied in the idea of there being an agreement – foedus – as mentioned by Torquatus in Cicero, Fin. 1.66ff : the friendship is on Epicurean terms. This idea of such an agreement – for which Epicurus felt no need because within an Epicurean community the implications of such a contract would already be understood – is also in keeping with the importance of pistis (trust), emphasised by Rist. This trust would be strengthened by such an agreement, and in turn strengthen the friendship against risks. This sense of loyalty, of pistis,seems also to be at the heart of Horace’s views on the importance of tolerance in friendship in Satire 1.3, particularly in its diametric opposition to Stoic perfectionism and intolerance. It is certainly in keeping with Horace’s readiness to forgive minor misdemeanours (83-95), and to indulge friends’ faults on the basis that one is a friend, and that one is obliged to such loyalty, as at 33-35 : …...... at est bonus, ut melior vir non alius quisquam, at tibi amicus… But he’s a good man – there’s none better – he’s your friend…

29 Indeed, in effect the only instances where one would question the nature of a friendship are when this trust, this agreement in friendship, is brought into question : ….....quid faciam si furtum fecerit, aut si prodiderit commissa fide sponsumve negarii ? (94-95) What am I to do if he commits theft, or betrays a trust or disowns his pledge ?

30 Clearly, this is why it is important to judge wisely before entering a friendship : that such an outcome does not arise. If one has trust based on an agreement between like- minded people, the risks of friendship are worth taking.47

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 91

31 However, Horace’s essentially unequivocal position of favouring tolerance, which is most compatible with Epicureanism, is also not entirely without irony. At 63-67, when referring to his friendship with Maecenas, he depicts himself as being potentially subject to criticism : simplicior quis et est, qualem me saepe libenter obtulerim tibi, Maecenas, ut forte legentem aut tacitum impellat quovis sermone molestus : ‘communi sensu plane caret’ inquimus. eheu, quam temere in nosmet legem sancimus iniquam ! Or someone’s rather direct, which is how I may have often blithely shown myself to you, Maecenas – so as to interrupt a person who is reading or quietly reflecting, and to pester him with some chatter or other : ‘he’s quite devoid of consideration’ we pronounce. How blindly, alas, are we sanctioning an unkind precedent against ourselves !

32 Even here there is a sense in which although harsh criticism of such behaviour might be excessive, Horace still recognises that this behaviour is irritating. Certainly we can agree with Horace that there is nothing wrong with being rather direct (simplicior), but his explanation of what this entails perhaps leaves us less sure. In fact, the pest, or ‘bore’ in 1.9 is momentarily brought to mind ; clearly Horace does not want to represent himself in that bad a light, but it would seem that his position is again tinged with irony. In fact sermone molestus may be a subtle, self-deprecating reference to the irritating nature of his own satire.48

33 Again, at 80ff Horace compares the possible extreme reaction of a master to a slave’s minor transgression of helping himself to left-overs (which is to have him crucified), with someone over-reacting to the minor offence of a friend by hating and avoiding him ;49 at 90ff Horace gives a few examples of the kinds of trivial offences he means : comminxit lectum potus mensave catillum Evandri manibus tritum deiecit ; ob hanc rem, aut positum ante mea quia pullum in parte catini sustulit esuriens, minus hoc iucundus amicus sit mihi ? He’s wet the couch while drunk, or knocked a bowl worn thin by the hands of Evander off the table : is this, or his having, in his hunger, helped himself to a chicken served up on my side of the dish, any reason why I should find him a less agreeable friend ?

34 Although we should take Horace’s point at face value in the run of the argument – that one should forgive trivial faults, indeed overlook them (85) – there is again some irony here in that the misdemeanours mentioned would certainly cause most hosts considerable annoyance : esuriens can certainly be seen as somewhat tongue-in-cheek.50 Indeed, the behaviour here described takes place within the setting of the convivium, which is where we find uncouth behaviour elsewhere in the Satires (at 1.4.86ff and 2.8), and in these instances it is clearly presented as being objectionable. That said, the misdemeanours Horace describes in this passage (90ff) are presented either as accidental or at least not deliberately offensive, which is not the case in the behaviour of the boor-cum-satirist in 1.4 or Nasidienus in 2.8.

35 Horace’s advocacy of tolerance of friends’ faults, couched within the Stoic notion of aequabilitas, would surely oppose the Stoic view that only the virtuous can have friends which to all intents and purposes means no one at all, given that the truly wise or virtuous man for the Stoics is as rare as the Phoenix.51 As we have seen, Horace

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 92

presents his position somewhat ironically, and this is reflected in his use of philosophical material. The use of a Lucretian rhetorical device at 1.3.44-54 does not of itself indicate that Horace is promoting an Epicurean view, but the explicitly anti-Stoic stance which follows from 96, the importance of trust, and thus tolerance, in Epicurean friendship – even though even here there is a dash of irony – as well as these Lucretian echoes and the Epicurean enthusiasm for friendship generally, show that the preceding argument on tolerance of friends’ faults is Epicurean in spirit.

The Link between Friendship and Justice

36 An important aspect of the satire’s progression is the link in Hellenistic thought between friendship and justice, and in the context of 1.3 one can perhaps regard Horace’s awareness and use of this link as somewhat ironic – though its aim is unambiguous enough : to enhance an anti-Stoic position.52 The satire’s argument, after the introductory preamble, consists of three sections – on tolerance in friendship (25-95), fairness in justice (96-123), and a final section in which Horace concludes his views on tolerance and fairness in friendship and justice against Stoic inflexibility and intolerance. The discussion of tolerance of friends’ faults effectively turns to one of justice at 96 and in so doing becomes explicitly anti-Stoic. This change is marked by the introduction of and consequent attack against the Stoic tenet that all transgressions are equal : quis paria esse fere placuit peccata (96).53 The progression from friendship to justice reflects the inter-relationship between these sociological subjects in Hellenistic thought, particularly in Stoicism, a point which has been overlooked by commentators.

37 For the Stoics friendship and justice were connected through oikeiosis :54 the natural impulse of human beings to identify with other human beings.55 But perhaps more relevant to Horace’s discussion of friendship and justice – particularly in connection with aequabilitas – is what Cicero/Panaetius says about justice and oikeiosis in De officiis 1. Panaetius, as Schofield notes, takes a somewhat different approach from the traditional orthodox Stoic view.56 Rather than justice being a result of oikeiosis, due to altruism – people’s natural concern for others57 – Panaetius sees justice rather as a practical means by which one should protect the bonds in society which oikeiosis encourages, rather than as being a natural consequence of oikeiosis, as at Off.1.20 : sed iustitiae primum munus est, ut ne cui quis noceat nisi lacessitus iniuria. Of Justice, the first office is that no man should harm another unless he has been provoked by injustice. (tr. Atkins, Griffin 1991)

38 And this comes directly after the statement that kindness and generosity (clearly associated with friendship) are very much connected with justice :58 thus the link between friendship and justice through oikeiosis is also clear in this Panaetian context. In fact, at Off. 1.12, 1.14, Cicero/Panaetius remarks that the important factor in arriving at justice in order to protect human society is ratio, which, as we have seen, is the very notion which Horace himself uses to oppose the Stoic view (connected with justice) that all faults are equal. Indeed Panaetius’ stress on ratio in this respect is notable given Horace’s use of the term at 78,59 as is the fact that the quality of constantia is also referred to in this section (Off. 1.11-20,) i.e. at 1.12, 1.14, 1.17 : it seems likely that Horace had this discussion in De Officiis in mind when he came to write Sat. 1.3.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 93

39 In fact, Panaetius’ view of oikeiosis and its connection with justice – justice as a practical means to protect human society – is not dissimilar to Lucretius’ sentiments on the practical reason for justice60 at DRN 5.1019 : tunc et amicitiem coeperunt iungere aventes finitimi inter se nec laedere nec violari. Then also neighbours began to join friendship amongst themselves in their eagerness to neither harm nor suffer violence.

40 Or again for Epicurus (cf. RS 31) : the agreement between people not to harm each other – though the connection with friendship is also clear ; indeed Long regards the above passage as describing the “imagined origins” of friendship.61

41 It would seem, in fact, that Horace has Lucretius, and in particular the passage quoted above (5. 926ff) in mind in the narrative from 96-124, in its didactic style, language and imagery. Denique (76), used as in Lucretius to begin a new section in the argument,62 foreshadows the Lucretian-style polemic to come from 96, as does the aforementioned Lucretian idea that faults cannot be completely eradicated (76-77). At 109-111 the depiction of human beings, pre-justice, as snatching random love (Venerem incertam) echoes DRN 5.962 ; more ferarum (109) directly echoes Lucretius 5.932. 63 Horace’s description of the arrival of language as being the starting point for civilised society (104-6) may also derive from what Lucretius says at greater length at 5.1011-91.64 At 107, the mention of Helen’s adultery with Paris, which is linked with Horace’s view of the possible violent repercussions from Venerem incertam, before the introduction of conventional law, may also be connected with Lucretius’ depiction of Paris’ love for Helen (which led to the Trojan War) at DRN 1.473-477.65 Although the use of the obscenity cunnus is clearly an obscene, satirical touch,66 it is also possible that cunnus is a pun on kunos (bitch) as rendered twice in the Iliad 6.344/356, where Helen is describing herself in such pejorative terms, as being the cause of war. Thus, this obscenity itself is linked to Homer, and in turn Lucretius.67

42 But the fact that Horace is also likely to be aware of the connection between friendship and justice in Stoic, and more particularly Panaetian (as dictated by ratio) oikeiosis here is perhaps partly indicated by the fact that he begins this passage as an explicit attack against a Stoic position, as well as by the way in which Horace himself ironically uses ratio – as if from an Epicurean perspective – to make this attack. Horace’s critical response to the Stoic tenet that all sins are equal is that common sense is the best guide to justice, at 97-98 : …...... sensus moresque repugnant atque ipsa utilitas, iusti prope mater et aequi. Instinct and tradition are ranged against them [i.e. the Stoics], and so is expediency, which is in essence the mother of justice and fairness.

43 Indeed the Epicurean view is that it is natural for justice (essentially an agreement not to harm or be harmed : RS 31) to develop in order to meet the needs of a given society.68 The Stoics, on the other hand, regarded law as divine reason,69 and thus inflexible. Thismakes what Horace says at 113-114 appear to be a reaction against Stoicism, and an affirmation of Epicureanism :70 nec natura potest iusto secernere iniquum dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis ; nature cannot tell the unjust from the just as she marks off good things from bad, what is to be sought and what avoided.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 94

44 And this also lends weight to the thrust of Horace’s anti-Stoic, anti-inflexibility argument throughout the poem. That his position on friendship is anti-Stoic (i.e. before 96) is also suggested by the way in which the Stoic view that all faults are equal is initially brought in to conflict with his view on friendship : indeed this is effectively how Horace introduces the theme of justice. At any rate it would seem that a Stoic should regard a minor misdemeanour of a friend as tantamount to a serious offence, which is in keeping with the view that only the wise can enjoy true friendship and thus would not need to concern themselves with the business of forgiving or condemning a friend’s misdemeanours anyway. Thus, given the demonstrably anti-Stoic stance of his argument, it seems likely that Horace’s progression from friendship to justice shows an ironic awareness of the connection between friendship and justice found in Panaetius, through oikeiosis and the implementation of ratio, as rendered in Off. 1.11-20.

45 The connection between friendship and justice through the common theme of tolerance is made explicit in the poem’s conclusion (124b-142). In fact, the link between this last section and the preceding polemic is incidentally made at 123-4a (si tibi regnum/ permittant homines ; ‘if men were to grant you regal power’). This is then picked up by an attack on the Stoic paradoxes that the wise man alone is rich, handsome and king. Then, at 137-142, Horace asserts that the Stoic wise man, because of his inflexible views on justice (and therefore friendship), and indeed his views of himself (as at 124b-133), will in fact be quite friendless, whereas Horace, in his relative Epicurean tolerance, will never be short of friends : ne longum faciam : dum tu quadrante lavatum rex ibis neque te quisquam stipator ineptum praeter Crispinum sectabitur, et mihi dulces ignoscent, si quid peccaro stultus, amici, inque vicem illorum patiar delicta libenter, privatusque magis vivam te rege beatus. (137-142) To put it briefly : while you, king that you are, go to bathe for your farthing with no escort to attend you save the absurd Crispinus, my kindly friends will pardon me if I, in my folly, commit some transgression, and I in turn will gladly put up with their offences, and in my private station I shall live a happier life than Your Royal Highness.

Conclusion

46 Horace’s ironic use of philosophical material – his interpretation of a Stoic tenet, which he apparently upholds from an Epicurean perspective in order to attack Stoic inflexibility – detracts from any sense of the poet taking himself too seriously, in antithesis to the Stoic sage ; and supports a pro-tolerance, pro-moderation Epicurean view. This Epicurean interpretation of aequabilitas is at odds with the extreme Stoic view : to the Stoics, Horace’s application of aequabilitas would be illogical, since to them aequabilitas would in fact be compatible with intolerance : there is no room for human fallibility, for inconsistent behaviour.

47 But Horace wants to champion aequabilitas – as consistency, balance, moderation and tolerance – and in so doing he takes an aspect of Stoic doctrine to enrich his own essentially Epicurean views of moderation, tolerance and trust. Although this position would seem illogical to a Stoic, Horace shows how this Stoic view of aequabilitas is itself extreme and absurd. Through the marriage of Stoic aequabilitas and Epicurean

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 95

tolerance and pistis, Horace steers a path which is most sympathetic to the Epicureans. In his discussion of tolerance there is still a touch of irony, though this does not detract from the unequivocal, Epicurean thrust of his argument. The explicit attack against Stoicism from 96 suggests that at a re-reading of the satire, his apparent upholding of the Stoic tenet of aequabilitas at the outset ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. And this anti-Stoicism, from 96 to the end, also suggests an ironic awareness of the Panaetian link between friendship and justice through oikeiosis, as dictated by ratio : again, in his argument, Horace sides with the link between friendship and justice as indicated in Lucretian, Epicurean terms, and ratio is used by Horace to undermine the unreasonable Stoic position that all sins are equal. Horace’s anti-Stoic agenda is founded on an ironic awareness – and use – of Stoic thought, which is in turn interpreted from an Epicurean perspective. He uses the tenet of aequabilitas to lend irony to his own position, but also to define it as a distinctly personal, anti-Stoic one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, J.N. 1982. The Latin Sexual Vocabulary. London.

Annas, J. 1993. The Morality of Happiness. Oxford.

Armstrong, D. 1964. “Horace, Satires 1.1-3 : A Structural Study,” Arion 3.2 : 86-96.

Armstrong, D. 1989. Horace. New Haven.

E.M. Atkins, M.T. Griffin, eds. Cicero : On Duties (Cambridge 1991)

Brown, P.M. 1993. Horace, Satires I . Warminster.

Brown, R.D. 1987. Lucretius on Love and Sex : DRN IV. 1030-1247. Leiden.

Campbell, G. L. 2003. Lucretius on Creation and Evolution. Oxford.

Dufallo, B. 2000. “Satis/Satura : Reconsidering the Programmatic Intent of Horace’s Satires 1.1,” CW 93 : 579-90.

Du Quesnay, I.M Le M. 1984. “Horace and Meacenas : the Propaganda Value of Sermones I,” in T. Woodman and D. West (eds.), Poetry and Politics in the Age of Augustus. Cambridge : 19-58.

Dyck, A.R. 1996. Cicero : De Officiis. Ann Arbor.

Fowler, D. 2008, ‘Lectures on Horace’s Epistles,’ PCPS : 80-114.

Fraenkel, E. 1957. Horace. Oxford.

Fraisse, J-C. 1974. Philia. Paris.

Freudenburg, K. 2001. Satires of Rome : Threatening poses from Lucilius to Juvenal. Cambridge.

Gill, C. 1994. “Peace of Mind and Being Yourself : Panaetius to Plutarch,” ANRW 36.7 : 4599-4640.

P.G.W. Glare, ed. 1968-1982. The Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford.

Gowers, E. 2003. “Fragments of Autobiography in Horace Satires 1.” ClAnt : 55-91.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 96

Griffin, M. 1997. “Cicero and Matius on Friendship,” in M. Griffin and J. Barnes (eds.), Philosophia TogataII. Oxford. 86-109.

Henderson, J. 2004. Morals and Villas in Seneca’s Letters : Places to Dwell. Cambridge.

Hunter, R.L. 1985. “Horace on Friendship and Free Speech,” Hermes 113 : 480-490.

Inwood, B and Gerson, L.P. (eds.) 1994. The Epicurus Reader. Indianapolis.

Keane, C. 2006. Figuring Genre in Roman Satire. Oxford.

Kenney, E.J. 1971. Lucretius : De Rerum Natura, Book III. Cambridge.

Konstan, D. 1997. Friendship in the Classical World. Cambridge.

Lewis, C.T and Short, C. 1879. A Latin Dictionary : founded on Andrews’ edition of Freund’s Latin Dictionary. Oxford.

Long, A.A. and Sedley, D.N. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge.

Long, A.A. 1986. “Pleasure and Social Utility – the virtues of being an Epicurean,” in H. Flashar and O. Gigon (eds.), Aspects de la philosophie hellenistique. Geneva : 283-325.

Lyne, R.O.A.M. 1980. The Latin Love Poets (from Catullus to Horace). Oxford.

Macleod, C.W. 1979. “The Poetry of Ethics : Horace Epsitles 1,” JRS : 16-27.

Mayer, R.G. 1986. “Horace’s Epistles 1 and Philosophy,” AJP : 55-73.

Mayer, R.G. 2005. “Sleeping with the enemy : Philosophy and Satire,” in K. Freudenburg (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. Cambridge. 146-159.

Mitsis, P. 1988. Epicurus’ Ethical Theory. Ithaca.

Moles, J. 2003. “Diatribe,” The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford. 46-4.

Moles, J. 2007. “Philosophy and Ethics” in S. Harrison (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Horace. Cambridge : 165-180.

Muecke, F. 1993. Horace,Satires II. Warminster.

O’Connor, D. 1989. “The invulnerable pleasures of Epicurean friendship,” GRBS 30 : 165-186.

Oliensis, E. 1998. “The Erotics of Patronage : Readings in Tibullus, Propertius, and Horace,” in J.P. Hallett and M.B. Skinner M.B. (eds.). Roman Sexualities. Princeton : 151-171.

Oltramare, A. 1926. Les Origines de la Diatribe Romaine. Geneva.

Page, T.E. 1894. The Aeneid of Virgil, Books I-VI.London.

Powell, J.G.F. 1990. Cicero : Laelius de amicitia. Warminster.

Praechter, K. 1897. “Krantor and Ps. Archytas,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 10 : 186-190, reprinted in 1973. Kleine Schriften. New York : 33-37.

Rist, J.M. 1980. “Epicurus on Friendship,” CP 75 : pp 121-129.

Ruch, M. 1970. “Horace, Satires 1.3,” EtCl 38 : 517-527.

Rudd, N. 1966. The Satires of Horace. Cambridge.

Schofield, M. 1995. “Two approaches to justice,” in A. Laks and M. Schofield, Justice and Generosity. Cambridge. 191-212.

Schofield, M. 1999. “Social and Political Thought,” in K. Algra et. al. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge. 760-768.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 97

Shackleton Bailey, D.R. 1982. AProfile of Horace. London.

Steinmetz, F-A. 1967. Die Fruendschaftslehre des Panaitios nach einer Analyse von Ciceros “Laelius de amicitia.” Wiesbaden.

Turpin, W. 1998. “The Epicurean Parasite : Horace, Satires 1.1-3,” Ramus 27.2 : 127-40.

Wachsmuth, C and Hense, O. 1884. Stobaeus Johannes : Anthologium. Berlin.

NOTES

1. Particular thanks to Bob Sharples, Emily Gowers and Kirk Freudenburg for their helpful comments. 2. Cf. Brown 1993 : 115. 3. Uniformity of behaviour, equity, fairness and equability are listed as definitions of aequabilitas in OLD ; law justice, impartiality (Lewis and Short). 4. Fraenkel 1957 : 86 ; Brown 1993 : 123. At 1.1.14, 120 and 1.2.134 Horace rather incidentally criticises the Stoics Fabius and Crispinus, but 1.3 comprises a more explicitly anti-Stoic argument. On the possible political implications of Horace’s anti-Stoicism : Du Quesnay 1984 : 19-58. 5. Rudd 1966 : 1-35 ; Brown 1993 : 89-99 ; Armstrong 1964 : 86-96 ; 1989 ; 26-41. 6. Rudd 1966 : 277-8, n.46. On the Stoic tenor of much of De amicitia, see Powell 1990 : 18-19. As a commonplace in Greek (and, later, Roman) thought, the virtue of consistency is mentioned by Plato, quoting a proverb in Lysis 214c (Rudd 1966 : 27). The advisability of balance and harmony (more generally) is also found in the Republic 4.443d and Philebus 31c-32b, 64d-65d (Rudd 1966 : 276 n.34). Consistency of character is also promoted by Aristotle (e.g. NE 1166a10-1166b29) : Rudd 1966 : 277-8, n.45. With respect to Satire 1.3, however, it is important that the most obvious proponents of consistency were the Stoics (cf. Fraenkel 1957 : 86 n.4) since from 96 to the end they comprise the target of Horace’s criticism. 7. Dyck 1996 : 281. 8. cf. the stately pace of Aristotle’s megalopsuchos (NE 1125a10-17), and Virgil Aeneid 1.46, where incedit suggests the dignity of Juno’s movements (Page [1964, first ed. 1894] : 146) ; I owe these references to Aristotle and Virgil to R.W. Sharples. Also, cf. Seneca De ira 1.1.3, on the hurried step – citatus gradus – of the angry man. 9. Translations of Satires 1 are from Brown 1993, with adaptations. 10. ... ut pomparum ferculis similes esse videamur, aut in festinationibus suscipiamus nimias celeritates (Rudd, 1966, 28). Also, cf. Sallust Catiline 15.5: citus modo modo tardus incessus. 11. See below, p. 16 on De amicitia. 12. Horace saw that the Stoics’ extreme position regarding the perfect kind of wisdom required to be a sage – or, indeed, to avoid being mad and a slave (as in the Stoic paradoxes satirised in 2.3 and 2.7) – was an easy target for satire. However, it appears that by this time Stoic ethical theory had in fact tended towards a more practical approach (though it is still some time before Seneca). From Cicero’s De officiis it is clear that Panaetius put more emphasis on the process of becoming wise, or as wise as one could be, rather than the goal of absolute wisdom itself. Clearly, the possible practical applications of Stoic idealism would still not deter critics of Stoicism from lampooning these apparently pompous statements. Indeed some Stoics certainly were austere and sanctimonious, and thus no doubt perceived as unreasonable, steadfastly standing by these ideals (as far as they could), such as Cato (Cicero : Murena 61-2, 74, Att. 1.18.7) and, one could suppose, the Stoics Horace himself

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 98

satirises : Crispinus 1.1.120, 1.3.139, 1.4.14, 2.7.4 ; Fabius 1.1.14, 1.2.134), and in 2.3 Stertinius, and Crispinus (more indirectly), again, in 2.7. 13. Gill 1994 : 4608. 14. In books 8 and 9 of the Nicomachean Ethics ; cf. below, notes 20, 22, 34 and 35. 15. e.g. Rudd 1966 : 1-35 ; Armstrong 1989 : 26-41, Brown 1993 : 89-90, 98, 101. 16. In Sat. 1.2 Horace’s common sense advice on sexual behaviour involves a combination of the Aristotelian doctrine of the mean, as to kind of sexual partner, and the Epicurean view that one should be content with what is easily obtainable by nature, rather than pursuing empty desires : nonne, cupidinibus statuat natura modum quem,/ quid latura sibi quid sit dolitura negatum/ quaerere plus prodest et inane abscindere soldo ? (111-113) ; also cf. 1.2.73-6. He recommends women that are available (freedwomen, meretrices) rather than the unavailable matrona – the pursuit of whom would be, in Epicurean terms, empty. (cf. below, n. 70). 17. Ep. Men. 127ff : “One must reckon that of desires some are natural, some groundless ; and of the natural desires some are necessary and some merely natural ; and of the necessary, some are necessary for happiness and some for freeing the body from troubles and some for life itself.” RS 29 : “Of desires, some are natural and necessary, some natural and not necessary, and some neither natural nor necessary but occurring as a result of empty opinion.” (tr. Inwood/Gerson 1994, with adaptations). 18. Indeed, Horace’s explicit reference to this tendency in lovers, and his own comparison of father to son, reflects the wider connotation of amicitia generally, suggesting a similarity between these sorts of relationships ; cf. Catullus, who, in 75, seems in some way to have wrongly (to his own cost) regarded his relationship with Lesbia as a sort of amicitia : Lyne, 1980, 27-28. Also, on the relationship between amor and amicitia in Horace : Oliensis 1998 : 151-171. 19. cf. Plato, Republic 474d, Theocritus 10. 24-27 : R. Brown 1987 : 129. 20. As a factor in friendship and justice specifically, the idea of balance also has philosophical roots : most notably in Theophrastus and Aristotle. Theophrastus’ views are put by Cicero in De amicitia 61 thus (1.3 : 25) : cum vero amici utilitas nimio est amplior, honestatis autem nostrae in re non gravi levis iactura est, tunc, quod utile amico est, id prae illo, quod honestum nobis est, fit plenius, sicuti est magnum pondus aeris parva lamna auri pretiosus. ‘But when the advantage of a friend is far larger and the sacrifice of our reputation in a matter of no importance is trifling, then that which is advantageous for a friend becomes more important in comparison with that which is honourable for us, just as a great weight of bronze is more valuable than a small liver of gold.’ (tr. FHS &G) : Attic Nights 1.3 : 52 : Fortenbaugh, Huby, Sharples & Gutas, vol. 2 1992, fr.534, 358. This particular issue of conflicting interests seems to have certainly been developed by Theophrastus, having been brought up by Aristotle in the broader sense of weighing obligations of friendship against other obligations (NE 1160a2ff, 1165b22ff) : Griffin 1997 : 87. In NE 1158b20 Aristotle states that if the gap becomes too wide in respect of virtue and vice between friends, then such a friendship cannot persist. In all these instances some notion of proportion is important (as it is in Horace). 21. Brown 1993 : 21. 22. One may compare the Peripatetic notion, adopted by the Academics in opposition to the Stoics, that one should moderate one’s emotions (metriopatheia) rather than aim to be devoid of emotion altogether (apatheia) : the Academics having adopted the doctrine of the mean from the Peripatetics (Cicero Tusc. 3. 22/ 4. 38ff). On the Academic Crantor’s (335-275 B.C.) adoption of metriopatheia : Praechter, 1973 (first published 1897), 33-7. 23. Pseudo-acro commented that Horace’s use of the terms ratio and fors at Sat. 1.1.3 were references to Stoicism and Epicureanism (Dufallo 2000 : 81). 24. e.g., De officiis : 1.12, 14, 20, 50, 107. See below : The Link between Friendship and Justice.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 99

25. e.g., Freudenburg 2001 : 15-23 ; Turpin 1998 : 27-40 ; Dufallo (2000 : 79-90) notes the irony in Horace’s sometimes paradoxical position as a literary artist in Satire 1.1 ; But he rightly takes the view that this encourages the reader to question the notion of moderation, of what is satis, and what is satire (Dufallo notes the punning link between satis, satur, and satura), rather than simply rendering the satire’s moral and literary position as unserious. On the debate regarding philosophical content in Horace’s works, see, for example, Macleod (1979), who regards the role of philosophy in the Epistles as significant ; Mayer (1986), who plays down the philosophical content. See also Moles (2007), in particular the section on ‘Further Reading.’ 26. Indeed Dufallo (2000 ; 584) notes that this is itself a satirical allusion to Lucretius – Horace’s use of humour to make his ethical message more palatable being reminiscent of Lucretius’ use of the poetic form to impart serious philosophy (1.936 ff) – in that Horace apparently dismisses the allusion as a joke (1.1.27) : sed tamen amoto quaeramus seria ludo ; but still, let’s put jesting aside, and conduct a serious enquiry...’ 27. Fowler (2008 : 101) rightly maintains, in relation to Horace’s changeable philosophical stance in the Epistles (e.g. Ep.1.1.16-19), that his portrayals and criticisms of these positions, again sometimes humorous, do not detract from the Epistles’ philosophical seriousness ; rather, we should see Horace’s handling of, and enquiry into, different philosophical positions as Socratic, and further : “Horace’s famous irony is certainly very Socratic, in a Kierkegaardian sort of way : the irony of the moral philosopher who jokes to be serious (e.g. end of Epistle 1).” 28. Turpin (1998) thinks we should regard the satirist in 1.1-3 as an incompetent Epicurean moralist, deliberately displayed as such by Horace. Turpin (128-9) draws attention to the fact that the Epicureans were in part perceived as sexual fanatics and thus 1.2, with its Epicurean terminology alongside the sexually obsessive nature of the narrator, can all be taken as deliberately somewhat absurd. To an extent it can be taken as such, and is intentionally funny – e.g., the talking muto (1.2.68-72), the satirist’s own probable adultery (126-134) – but Turpin does not consider the subtleties involved in Horace’s use of philosophical material in terms of its bearing on the structure and argument of particular satires. Turpin misleadingly cites Epicurus Sent. Vat. 51 to stress his point about the perception of Epicureans as sexually permissive ; he does not take account of the entire saying. Sent. Vat. 51 is in fact Metrodorus – not Epicurus – and the suggestion made here that one can indulge in sexual intercourse provided it does you no harm in fact, in Epicurean terms, should rather be regarded as generally advising against sexual intercourse (on the basis that it often will do you harm – as Satire 1.2 illustrates) : “so long as you do not break the laws or disturb proper and established conventions or distress any of your neighbours or ravage your body or squander the necessities of life, act upon your inclination in any way you like. Yet it is impossible not to be constrained by at least one of these. For sex is never advantageous, and one should be content if it does no harm.” (tr. LS). 29. cf. Fowler on Epistles 1 (2008 : 99-102), who argues that Horace as it were tries on different philosophies, just as he tries on different personae, to see how they fit ; and so adopts a deliberately personal, ironic, but no less – in terms of its underlying purpose – serious approach to the main philosophical question of the Epistles : quid verum atque decens... (Ep. 1.1.11). 30. Whether or not the ‘diatribe’ was recognised as a literary genre at that time is irrelevant here : the important point is that there was a tradition of public street sermons, usually covering themes of popular philosophy (such as the folly of greed, adultery and ambition). The ‘diatribe’ was humorous, indeed satirical, employing the device of spoudaiogeloion (‘joking in earnest’) which is likely to have been derived from the Cynics (Oltramare 1926 : 15). From what has survived it seems that the diatribe was colloquial, avoiding systematic, logical argument and included devices such as fable, obscenity and parody (Brown 1993 ; 5 ; Kenney 1971 : 17-20). Thus a link between the diatribe and Roman satire, which shares all of these features, is clear.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 100

31. Hunter (1985) notes the ironic way in which Horace blurs friendship and flattery in Ep. 1.18 ; but the effect of this blurring is to demonstrate the difficulty – in practical terms a real and serious one – in judging the appropriate way to behave in the company of a social superior. 32. Brown 1993 : 16. Indeed Shackleton Bailey (1982 : 23) notes that Horace, at 21-25, is criticising Maenius for doing to Naevius what Horace himself (1-19) does to Tigellius (though Tigellius is dead and not a friend of Horace’s). 33. Sent. Vat. 28 : ‘One must not approve of those who are excessively eager for friendship, nor those who are reluctant. But one must be willing to run some risks for the sake of friendship.’ 34. cf. Theophrastus : ‘judge before making friends, not make friends before judging them’ as quoted by Plutarch De fraterno amore 482b, and referred to by Seneca Ep. 3.2. Aristotle advises judgment and caution in making friends (NE 8.3.1156b25ff). 35. Although Aristotle (NE 1165b23-36) and Cicero (Amic. 77) both state that if the corresponding levels of virtue between the two parties in a friendship become incompatible, then the friendship can be terminated, the Epicurean view was different : when forming a friendship one entered into a kind of contract (foedus : Cicero Fin. 1.69), and was thus obliged to stick by the friend – unless the friend actually behaved unjustly to oneself and thus effectively broke the contract. 36. That Panaetius was a source for De amicitia is based on the grounds that there are similarities between the latter and De officiis, and on the further assumption, as Powell comments (1990 : 18-19), that De officiis is entirely based on Panaetius : Powell sees no evidence for naming Panaetius as such an influence. But some influence, suggested by the link with De officiis, at least seems likely. 37. The fact that for the Stoics the achievement of wisdom was a process (Sen. Ep. 72.6) meant that they could follow the Peripatetic view of friendship as a possible means to self- improvement : i.e., through the example of one’s friends (NE 1169b28-1170a13, EE 1245b1-9, Cicero Deamicitia 83) ; this Peripatetic view is also compatible with the case of friendships between sapientes (for the Stoics : for Aristote : μακάριοι – the supremely happy/ σπουδαῖοι – the good), which would not so much involve self-improvement as the contemplation of one’s friend’s virtuous actions (and thus by comparison, one’s own actions) ; and, again on a practical level, for the Stoics friendship was a preferred indifferent (Fin. 3.70) : Griffin 1997 : 6. 38. Konstan 1997 : 113-114. 39. ‘All friendship is an intrinsic virtue, but it originates from benefiting.’ (tr. LS). 40. i.e., that what promotes safety is a natural good : RS 6, 7. 41. Rist (1980 : 28) argues this point from Sent. Vat. 15 – following Bailey’s text – where Epicurus says that one should value one’s neighbours’ characters if they are “decent” (epieikeis). Rist suggests that this implies approving of behaviour which is seemly as far as oneself might be affected by it ; it does not necessarily mean requiring that one’s friends behave justly. 42. Sent. Vat. 34 : ‘We do not need utility from our friends so much as we need confidence concerning that utility.’ 43. Mitsis 1987 : 78-128 ; Annas 1993 : 43-4. 44. Cicero was critical of the Epicurean view of friendship as derived from utility and the enhancement of one’s own pleasure, which he felt debased the idea of friendship (Fin. 1.66, 69, 2.80). But this may be partly due to a misunderstanding of what the Epicureans meant by utility and, indeed, pleasure. 45. This would be indicated by Sent. Vat. 23 (above) : δι’ ἑαυτήν αἱρετή ; friendship is ‘choiceworthy for its own sake’ : Mitsis 1987 : 104 – if we adopt the emended reading here of ‘choiceworthy’ : LS keep ἀρετή = virtue. However, Sent. Vat. 23 could also be interpreted as ‘ pleasant in itself’ : i.e., choiceworthy because it is intrinsically pleasant, rather than as something separate from pleasure. O’Connor (1989 : 65-86) raises this possible interpretation although prefers a reading where there is no implied concessive in Sent. Vat. 23 : every friendship is choiceworthy for its own sake, and (δε)– rather than though – it takes its origin from benefiting :

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 101

the second clause complements, rather than contrasts with, the first. Certainly, the idea of its being pleasant in itself seems most in keeping with Epicurus’ eulogies of friendship in general, and complements the importance of trust in friendship : this too is pleasant in itself, irrespective of the actual, tangible benefits on which such trust originally rests. 46. O’Connor 1989 : 176. 47. Adopting a position of tolerance in line with Epicureanism, and setting this against Stoic extremism is not dissimilar to what Seneca does in Epistle 3 ; seneca draws from Epicurus to question the Stoic ideal of autarkeia, which he then supports, highlighting its practical application and its compatibility with friendship. Horace uses Stoic aequabilitas (in a practical context) to then attack Stoicism and to support Epicurean moderation. Again, on friendship in Epistle 3 Seneca appeals to the avoidance of extremes, to balance, and, at the end of the letter, to nature ; Seneca also quotes Horace Satires 1 in order to strengthen his moral arguments (Ep. 86.13 = Sat. 1.2.27/ 4.92 ; Ep. 119.13-14 = Sat. 1.2.114-16 ; Ep. 120.20-21 = Sat. 1.3.11-17 (Henderson 2004 : 117-118). Notably, at Ep. 120.20-1, Seneca quotes Sat. 1.3 in order to conclude the letter on the wisdom of aequalitas. 48. Gowers 2003 : 73. 49. Although the general and important point is that one should not over-react to minor transgressions, it is possible that Horace, if only incidentally, is drawing attention to the fact that there is such an imbalance in the way in which people are judged for crimes simply because of their status. This seems possible, at least, bearing in mind Horace’s background and the fact that his father had been a slave. 50. cf. Turpin 1998 : 134. 51. See above, n. 12. 52. Cf. Satire 1.1 where the connection between mempsimoiria (unhappiness with one’s own lot, and envy of the lot of others) and greed appears to depend to some extent on the traditional inter-relation of these two subjects in popular philosophy (Fraenkel 1957 : 92-4). 53. Zeno, fr. 224, SVF i.54 ; Diog. Laert. 7.120. Ruch 1970 : 518-521, compartmentalises Horace’s argument into ‘moral’ (29-75) and ‘philosophique’ (76ff), and thus differentiates between the more everyday observations and advice as regards friendship, and the more specifically philosophical question of grading faults and propounding a practical view of justice as to some extent dependent on present social circumstances. 54. The concept that one’s natural concern for oneself spreads outwards, by degrees, to include (ultimately) all human beings is expressed by Hierocles in Stobaeus 4.617-673, 11 Wachsmuth = LS 57G. On the connection between oikeiosis and justice : Schofield, 1999 : 760-768. 55. Ibid. : Cicero De finibus 3.63. De officiis 1.55-6. 56. Schofield 1995 : 191-212. 57. As at Off. 3.27, which is likely to represent the view of the second century BC Stoic, Antipater : Schofield 1995 : 199-201. 58. De tribus autem reliquis latissime patet ea ratio, qua societas hominum inter ipsos et vitae quasi communitas continentur : cuius partes duae, iustitia, in qua virtutis est splendor maximus, ex qua viri boni nominantur, et huic coniuncta beneficentia, quam eandem vel benignitatem vel liberalitatem appellari licet. ‘Of the three that remain the most wide-reaching one is the reasoning (ratio) by which the fellowship of men with one another, and the life, are held together. There are two parts of this : justice, the most illustrious of the virtues, on account of which men are called good ; and the beneficence connected with it, which may be called either kindness or liberality.’ (tr. Atkins, Griffin 1991) 59. Panaetius stresses that reason (ratio) is what is distinctive about human society (Off. 1.11-12) : Schofield 1995 : 203. 60. Mitsis 1987 : 106.

Dictynna, 6 | 2009 102

61. Long 1983 : 310. 62. Brown 1993 : 121. 63. More purely stylistic similarities include Horace’s use at 1.3.111 ( fateare necessest) of a subjunctive form commonly found in Lucretius (e.g. 1.399 esse in rebus inane tamen fateare necessest), vincet 115 = ‘prove’, cf. Lucretius 5.735 (Brown 1993 : 124) ; cf. Sat. 1.2.134. 64. Brown 1993 : 124. 65. Ibid. 66. e.g., Mayer 2005 : 249. Though in fact the obscenity cunnus itself is not found in satire anywhere else other than in Horace’s Satires : Adams 1982 : 81. 67. On this passage as an analogy of the history of Satire – the progression from physical confrontation to verbal : Keane 2006 : 53 ; as an analogy of aspects of Horace’s life : Gowers 2003 : 75. Campbell (2003 : 218) notes that Horace’s take on the emergence of civilisation from animalistic origins is more violent than Lucretius’. This would seem to be in keeping with the satirical context and Horace’s references to violence in Satire 1.2. 68. For the Epicurean view of justice as conventional : RS 31, 32, 33 ; Lucretius DRN 5.1019-1027, 1143-1160 ; as mutable, depending on circumstances : RS 36, 37, 38 ; as a deterrent against would- be wrong-doers : RS 34, 35. 69. LS 67R, 67S. 70. cf. Sat. 1.2.75-6, ac non fugienda petendis/ immiscere, (Brown 1993 : 12). cf. also Sat.1.4.115-6 : ‘ sapiens, vitatu quidque petitu/ sit melius…’ Horace is differentiating, in an Epicurean context, between the empty and the solid, RS 29, what is naturally easy to obtain and what is naturally hard to obtain (ad Menoeceum 130), and thus what is to be sought and what avoided (ad Menoeceum 129ff, 132).

ABSTRACTS

In Satire 1.3 Horace upholds ‘Stoic’ aequabilitas, ironically aligning it with Epicurean moderation to attack Stoic inflexibility. His connection between friendship and justice shows an awareness of this link in Hellenistic thought. His ironic use of philosophical material serves a serious, anti- Stoic purpose (pace some recent scholarship).

INDEX

Mots-clés: Horace, Satire 1.3, irony, aequabilitas, friendship, tolerance, extremism, moderation, Epicureanism/Stoicism, justice, Lucretius, Panaetius, ratio, anti-Stoic position

AUTHOR

JEROME KEMP [email protected]

Dictynna, 6 | 2009