Vergil and the Sibyl of Cumae by Jh Waszink
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VERGIL AND THE SIBYL OF CUMAE BY J. H. WASZINK - - . --.-- .--.--- It is nowadays almost generally assumed that Vergil founa a visit by Aeneas to the Sibyl of Cumae recorded in the legend of his hero 1). However, if we seek for evidence, we soon discover that the rightness of this supposition is usually taken for granted. As far as I know, an elaborate argument for this assertion is only given by Norden in his famous commentary which is the base of all stu- dies devoted to the sixth book of the Aeneid. So it seems appro- priate first to .examine this scho'lar's discussion of the question. On p. 350 of his commentary Norden writes: "Was Vergil dar- uber (i.e., about the time spent by the Trojans on the coast of Compania) in der Legende vorfand, war nicht viel: die Begegnung des Aeneas mit der Sibylle (s. den Kommentar S. 148 f.) sowie Tod und Bestattung des Misenus". On pp. 148/149 this assertion is supported by an argument which may be summed up in the fol- lowing way: "In vss. 83/97 which contain the Sibyl's prophecy to Aeneas, several details may be observed which have parallels in the Oracula Sibyllina or similar texts. This leads us to the assumption that for the contents of this prophecy Vergil drew upon on existing oraculum Sibyllinum; this supposition i.s supported by the fact that cor- responding details occur in the prophecy of the Cumaean Sibyl !) An exception is to be made for H. E. Butler, who in his commentary (The Sixth Book of the Aeneid, Oxford 1920) writes (pp. 85J86): "Vergil, in view of the important part played by the Sibylline books at Rome, may have been tlie first to introduce the Sibyl of Cumae into the Aeneas legend, one of his many devices for introducing national colour into his epic". Unfor- tunately he does not give any argument. J. Perret (Les Origines de la Légende troyenne de Rome, thesis Paris 1942, 101/104), with whom I agree in several respects, only remarks (op. cit., 103; cf. below p. 55): "Il n'existe aucun indice que cette localisation d'Enee a Cumes et sur l'Averne ait pr6exist6 a Naevius" without even mentioning Norden's commentary in this context. 44 to Aeneas in Tibullus II, 5, 39/64, among which details the announ- cement of Aeneas' death in the waves of the Numicus 2) is particu- larly remarkable. Now Tibullu.s for this prophecy cannot have drawn upon Vergil, since he mentions .several facts omitted by the latter poet, e.g., the foundation of Rome; so we may conclude that the prophecy as given by Tibullus derives from the same oraculum Sibyllinum. On account of resemblances in the most important details it seems probable that eventually this oracle drew its material from Lycophron Alexandra 1226,/1282, in which passage Cassandra prophesies Aeneas' rescue from Troy, his wanderings, and his settle- ment in Italy; both Roman poets may have become acquainted with the oracle through the intermediary of a common authority, perhaps Alexander Polyhistor". At the end of this argument Norden adds that it is based on the a.ssumption defended by Friedrich Leo 3) that by the anonymous Sibyl who delivered a prophecy to Aeneas Tibullus meant the Sibyl of Cumae. Let us begin by examining whether the base of the argument is sound. According to Leo, Tibullus in the passage under discussion cannot have thought of the Sibyl of Troy, since immediately after the prophecy (v.ss. 67!68) the latter's name (Marpessia HeropITile) occurs in an enumeration of four Sibyls who are opposed to the first-mentioned. A further argument is found by him in vss. 4142 (iam tibi Laurentes adsignat Jupiter iam vocat errantes hospita terra lares), which he takes to imply that at the moment of the prophecy Aeneas' wanderings had come to an end. Finally, the circumstance that Tibullus does not furni.sh any indication of the place in which the Sibyl delivers her prophecy, induces him to assume that only such a place could be meant which in Augustus' time would occur to every Roman at once, viz., Cumae. This interpretation has two consequences which do not tend to increase our faith in its probability. Firstly, in vss. 21/22 (Nec fore cre.debat (viz., Aeneas) Romam, cum maestus ab alto I/ Ilion ar- dentes respiceretque deos) the reading Roman can not be main- tained : if the prophecy was delivered at Cumae, then Aeneas im- mediately after leaving Troy (cum ... deos) could not yet know 2) Verg. vs. 88 (Simois, cf. Servius ad loc.), ?'ib. vss. 43/44. 3) Zu Allgllsteisehen Dichteriz (Philol. Unters., 2. Heft, Berlin t88t), 9/12. .