THE FIGURE OF CORNELIUS GALLUS IN PROPERTIUS' MONOBIBLOS

by

Joel Violette

BA History, St. Thomas Aquinas College, 2006

A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Arts

in the Graduate Academic Unit of Classics

Supervisor: John Geyssen, Ph.D, Classics

Examining Board: William Kerr, Ph.D, Classics, Chair Demetres Tryphonopoulos, Ph.D, English

This report is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK

April, 2011

© Joel Violette, 2011 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada

Published Heritage Direction du 1+1 Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-91831-9

Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-91831-9

NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT

Long has the identity of Gallus in poems 5,10,13, 20, and 21 of Propertius' Monobiblos been disputed and long have scholars hesitated to connect this figure to the elegiac

poet Cornelius Gallus. With the exception of 1.20, there has been little agreement over whether these Galluses should be seen as the poet. Various arguments regarding individual poems have been advanced to deny a reference to Cornelius Gallus, and very few have been willing to see the poet as having an important role in theMonobiblos.

However, this general misunderstanding of Propertius' handling of Gallus has resulted in a misreading of much of Propertius' first book. This report will examine the figure of

Gallus as he is presented in the first book of Propertius' poetry. After surveying the life and what can be said of Gallus' poetry by looking at the individual poems in which

Gallus is addressed, we will establish that the Gallus addressed in the Monobiblos is indeed the poet. And finally, with the poet Gallus thus understood as a major figure in

Propertius' book, we will explore Gallus' function within the book. TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS...... iii

INTRODUCTION...... 1

GAIUS CORNELIUS GALLUS: LIFE AND W O R K ...... 2

THE TWO GALLUSES OF PROPERTIUS' MONOBIBLOS...... 17

PROPERTIUS 1 .5 ...... 18

PROPERTIUS 1.10 & 1.13...... 23

PROPERTIUS 1 .2 0 ...... 27

PROPERTIUS 1.21 & 1.22...... 32

GALLUS' POETIC PERSONA...... 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 44

CURRICULUM VITAE The Figure of Cornelius Gallus in Propertius' Monobiblos

Introduction

The fragmentary state of Latin poetry naturally leads to speculation. This will be espe­ cially true when confronting a figure such as Gaius Cornelius Gallus, universally regard­

ed among the ancients as both a poet of distinction and as the inventor of Latin Elegy.

Quintilian ranks him as a poet of the calibre of Tibullus and Propertius, though describ­

ing his style as durior, rather harsher, than that of either.1 Ovid mentions Gallus sever­ al times throughout his works and also esteems him among Vergil, Tibullus, and Prop­

ertius.2 Gallus is rightly viewed as having had a major influence on the group of poets writing around the time of Augustus, most notably Vergil in his Eclogues, and Properti­

us in the first book of his elegies, known as the Monobiblos.

Because his poetry survives in only the scantiest of remains, one certain frag­

ment of one line and one recently-found and highly-debated fragment consisting of

nine lines, modern scholars have been unable to evaluate properly Gallus' contribu­ tions to Latin poetry. However, despite the paucity of remains, Gallus is still a figure who intrigues scholars of Augustan elegy. He is referenced by many of his contempo­

rary and near-contemporary poets and portrayed as a character in the works of both

Vergil and Propertius.

1 Quint. 10.1.93 2 Ov., Tristia 4.10.51-54 1 This report will examine the figure of Gallus as he is presented in the first book of Propertius' poetry. After surveying the life and what can be said of Gallus' poetry, we will establish that the Gallus addressed in the Monobiblos is indeed the poet. And finally, with the poet Gallus thus understood as a major figure in Propertius' book, we will explore Gallus' function within the book.

Gaius Cornelius Gallus: Life and Work

The Chronicle of St. Jerome provides a synopsis of Gallus' life: "Cornelius Gallus

Foroiuliensis poeta, a quo primum Aegyptum rectam supra diximus, XUII aetatis suae anno propria se manu interficit ."3 St. Jerome indicates Gallus' birthplace with

Foroiuliensis, which simply means "born in a location called Forum lulii." But there are a few problems with this. First, not only are there several places named Forum lulii, but there are too few clues to help us select conclusively any of them. Second, places called "Forum lulii" generally had not been called that in the time of Gallus' birth.

Third, an epigraphic inscription discovered in 1963 revealed that Cornelius Gallus him­ self established a "Forum lulii" in Egypt while prefect there. Since this both suggests confusion in St. Jerome's information and provides a plausible reason for that confu­ sion, it cannot be considered valid information on Gallus' birthplace.4 Cairns and Man-

3 Chron., 188 ol., p. 164 H. (188th Olympiad = 28-25 BC.), following Syme, p.39. Translation: "Cornelius Gallus, a Forum lulii-born poet, by whom Egypt was first governed, as mentioned above, killed himself by his own hand in the 43rd year of his life." 4 Cairns (2006), 72. 2 zoni, two of the most prolific recent contributors to Gallan scholarship, suggest he

came from Gallia Cisalpina.5

In 43 BC Gallus appeared in Rome as the mutual acquaintance of Asinius Pollio

and Cicero.6 In 30 BC aspraefectus fabrum he participated in Augustus' Egyptian cam­

paign. According to Cairns, Gallus played a much more important role in Octavian's

triumph over Antony and Cleopatra than is generally credited to him; he believes that

Gallus' role in the conquest of Egypt has been victim of a "deliberate down-grading."

Having landed in Cyrenaica in 30 BC, Gallus secured the western flank of Egypt first by

winning over the four legions Antony had posted there, then by capturing Paraetoni-

um, foiling Antony's attempt to cause his four legions to re-defect, and finally trapping

and destroying Antony's fleet in the harbour of Paraetonium. With the western flank

secured, Augustus was able to invade the eastern flank. Gallus captured Alexandria and

contrived the capture of Cleopatra.7 Because of this display of military prowess and

loyalty to Augustus, Gallus became first praefectus of Egypt. Following several

achievements in this office, such as suppressing a rebellion in the Thebaid and estab­

lishing a Roman protectorate over the Ethiopian kingdom, he erected a rather self-

aggrandizing inscription at Philae, dated 15 April 29,8 and inscribed a list of his

achievements upon the Pyramids. He also set up statues of himself all over Egypt. This

clear attempt at self-promotion caused his apparent sacking from his post, and an in­

terdiction from the house and provinces of Augustus. In Suetonius' account of Gallus'

5 Cairns (2006), 72, following Manzoni (1995), 12-15. 6 OCD, s.v. "Cornelius Gallus, Gaius." 7 Cairns (2006), 73. 8 CIL 3. 14147 = ILS 8995. 3 decline, the historian attributes the sacking not to Gallus' self-aggrandizing inscriptions, but rather to an ingratitude toward Augustus:"ob ingratum et malivolum animum do- mo et provinciis suis interdixit"9, "[Caesar] forbade his house and the privilege of resi­ dence in the imperial provinces, because of [Gallus'] ungrateful and envious spirit."

According to Cairns, the cause of the dissolution of Gallus' friendship with Au­ gustus was that Gallus felt he was not rewarded or honoured sufficiently for his part in the defeat of Antony and the conquest of Egypt: "His definitive role in its conquest af­ ter Actium, together with his suppression of a major revolt and his conduct of a suc­ cessful frontier war during his tenure of offices could have swelled his expectations. It seems, however, that Augustus was in these years hyper-sensitive to anything which might detract from his own image as the victor of the Civil Wars."10 For Gallus to have voiced complaint about Augustus' ingratitude would certainly have achieved aliena­ tion. But whatever the cause, Gallus was disgraced and he committed suicide in 27/26

BC.11

Gallus was active as a poet in the 40s and early 30s, writing four books of

"Amores." Thus Gallus was a rough contemporary of Vergil, who composed his Ec­ logues between 42-38 BC,12 and had likely finished writing poetry by the time of Prop­

9 Suet., Aug. 66. 10 Cairns (2006), 74. 11OCD, 'Cornelius Gallus, Gaius'. 12 For the dates, see Coleman (1977), 14-21. Clausen (1994), xxii, suggesting that the campaign against the Parthians inEclogue 8 refers to Octavian rather than Pollio, argues that the finished book of Eclogues dates to 35. 4 ertius, who published his Monobiblos around 30.13 Gallus, then, is likely to have been

influenced by the Neoterics, Roman poets of the 60s-40s who took their cue from Cal-

limachean aesthetics.14 And if Gallus did in fact come from Cisalpina, his connections to the Neoterics may be even stronger as many of them - Catullus, Calvus, Cinna - hailed from that region.

Until 1978, there survived only one single but remarkable line of Gallus' poetry; this line is found in the 5th century AD geographical dictionary of Vibius Sequester

(1.74), referring to the river Hypanis: uno tellures diuidit amne duas, "it divides two

lands with one river." Three things make this pentameter so remarkable; first is the

balance of the sentence: number—noun—verb— noun—number; second, the nouns

contrast (amnis, river; andtellus, earth, ground); and third, the worddiuidit, "it di­ vides", actually divides the sentence in half, and also divides noun from modifier;uno

agrees with amne and tellures with duas. It is the work of a master craftsman.

Based on this single pentameter and on the opinions of the ancients, scholars

counted Gallus among the great poets, and were desperate to unearth even the small­

est bit of his poetry. Said Tenney Frank: "What would we not barter of all the sesqui­

pedalian epics of the Empire for a few pages written by Cornelius Gallus, a thousand

for each!"15 The value of the single existing Gallan line to the classical world is illustrat­

ed in Boucher's 1966 monograph devoted singly to Cornelius Gallus. In 1978 classical

scholarship was granted its wish when the Gallus fragment was unearthed in Qasr

13 For Propertius’ dates of composition, see Camps (1961), 7. For dates of Gallus1 poetic career, see Cairns (2006), 73. 14 Cairns (2006), 71,109. For a full treatment of the Neoterics, see Thomson (1998) 11-22. 15 Frank (1922), 66. 5 Ibrim, Egypt. Unfortunately, at first glance, the poetry seems less than spectacular, and does not approach Franks' expectations.

The pieces were part of the remains of a Roman book dated by Anderson, Par­ sons, and Nisbet to 50BC-20BC. Five fragments of papyrus contain the writing, and join to make one piece. They form the upper part of a column of Latin elegiacs, of which much is missing. According to Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet, the fragment must have arrived at Qasr Ibrim during the period of Roman occupation betweencirca 25 and 20

BC.16

The column begins with a broken pentameter of a final elegiac line (a):

tristia nequit[ia.... ]a Lycori tua.

It is followed by two complete elegiac couplets (b):

Fata mihi, Caesar, turn erunt mea dulcia, quom tu maxima Romanae pars eri historiae postque tuum reditum multorum templa deorum fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis.

And then two fragmentary elegiac couplets (c):

] tandem fecerunt c[ar]mina Musae quae possum domina deicere digna mea. jatur idem tibi, non ego, Visce ..] I. Kato, iudice te vereor.

Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet translate thus:

(a) .... sad, Lycoris, by your misbehaviour

(b) My fate will then be sweet to me, Caesar, when you are the most important part of Roman history, and when I read of many gods' temples the richer after your return for being hung with your trophies.

16 Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979), 127. 6 (c) At last the . . . Muses have made poems that I could not utter as worthy of my mistress ...... the same to you, I do not, Viscus, I do not, Cato, fe a r , even if you are the arbiter.

The authenticity of this fragment has been disputed. Because of the mystery and hype surrounding Gallus' work, many scholars wish to attribute the fragment to him;17 yet at the same time, some scholars are of the opinion that the poetry on the fragment is below the standard to which the ancients held Gallus' poetry, and deny that it is Gallus1, wishing to preserve his status as an elite poet.18 According to Somer­ ville, "the metrical solecisms, syntactical awkwardness, archaizing features, and bland contents of the New Gallus even led Franz Brunholzl to question the authenticity of the papyrus fragment, [but] his arguments have been largely dismantled . . . thecommunis opinio accepts the attribution of the lines to C. Cornelius Gallus."19

Brunholzl objects to the hiatus in line 1 of (b). In "Fata mihi, Caesar, turn erunt mea dulcia, quom tu", the "turn erunt" must remain unelided to allow correct scan­ sion.20 While hiatus is generally avoided in this period, it was certainly not forbidden.

Vergil employs it a few times, so Brunholzl's objection does not hold much weight.21

This hiatus in the Gallus fragment is only attested in two other authors, Lucretius and

Horace, who use it a total of four times. And, according to Nisbet, this peculiarity points to Gallan authorship: "The crucial point is this: anybody who was competent

17 These include Anderson, Parsons, Nisbet, Somerville, Cairns. 18 These include Brunholzl, Giangrande. 19 Somerville (2009), 107. 20 Merriam (1987), 16. 21 For Vergil's use of hiatus in the Eclogues, see, e.g., 2.53, 3.6, 3.79. 7 enough to forge the thing at all (and it would require a high degree of competence), would have made it look more like what we expected of Gallus."22

There is a second alleged metrical solecism in line 1(b), where the hexameter is completed with "quom tu," two monosyllables.23 While Brunholzl dismisses this as a metrical awkwardness, Somerville demonstrates that the words were chosen with pur­ pose. They are a reference to an epigram of CallimachusEpig (. 14 Pfeiffer)24:

Saipova 8'e u ol8e xov aupiov; avucaKai. a £ Xappi, xov 6

eI 8 e naxrip Aiov xPhP aviapoxEpov.

Indeed there is an outstanding similarity here between"quom tu" and "Kaia t" Not only do they end hexameter lines in two short syllables, but the first syllable begins with a "k" sound and the final syllable is a second person singular pronoun. Further, the line from Callimachus begins a four-line poem, and considering that the subject matter differs so greatly between stanzas in the Gallus fragment, it could also be sug­ gested that the Gallus poem was also a standalone four-line poem, itself an epigram to

Caesar.

For syntactical awkwardness, Brunholzl cites the first couplet of (b). Theeri was found on the papyrus aserit, but Anderson, Parsons, and Nesbit corrected it since it makes no sense in its original form.

22 In a letter dated 15 June 1987, which was in response to an enquiry regarding the papyrus and Brunholzl's article, following Merriam (1987), 17. 23 This is actually a feature employed by Gallus' predecessor, Catullus (67.9, 89.5,111.3, 68.41, 67.43, 83.5,107.7, 112.1), as well as poets known to have been heavily influenced by Gallus, such as Propertius in 2.18.19. For Catullus, see West (1957), 99. For Propertius, see Somerville (2009), 107. 24 Following Somerville (2009), 108. 8 For archaizing features, first Brunholzl finds fault in the pleonasm ofmihi—mea

in line 2, which he believes sounds old-fashioned. But this is indeed further evidence of

Gallus' poetic prowess. The words mihi and mea in line 2 are actually part of an alter­

nation of words between narrator and addressee—Gallus and Caesar{mihi—Caesar—

mea—tu). According to Putnam, "this intertwining postulates an interconnection be­

tween the speaker and his addressee."25 Further, according to Somerville, it is "an ad­

vanced poetic technique that is a far cry from the kind of naive pleonasm we find in the

archaic Latin poets."26 These crafted lines are therefore far from subpar and, instead,

demonstrate Gallus' capability for subtle allusions.

It is clear that these lines should not be rejected straightaway as the work of

Gallus simply because some would like them to be better and more refined. Much evi­

dence points to Gallus as a clear candidate for authorship of this fragment. First, the

name Lycori in (a): that Gallus addressed his elegies to Lycoris is clearly inferred from

Vergil's Eclogue 10.22-23, a fact also corroborated in other Augustan and later poets.27

The fragment could not be the work of another poet employing the same name, Lyco­

ris, because it is the pseudonym Gallus created for his lover, Cytheris.28 A rival poet would not have used a name created and made famous by Gallus.

Somerville points out a third highlight in the Gallus fragment, which draws comparison to the other line of Gallus in existence: noun-adjective pairs split on either side of a pentameter. Says he: "Of the five preserved pentameters in the papyrus, four

25 Putnam (1980), 50. 26 Somerville (2009), 109. 27 See Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979), 148 n.113, and Clausen (1995), 300. 28 Anderson, Parsons, and Nisbet (1979), 148. 9 show noun-adjective pairs distracted in such a way as to adjoin the central caesura and the line end." These lines are what this report has labelled (al), (b2,4) and (c2); the

labels below are Somerville's:

a B 11 A b tristia nequit[ia.... ]a Lycori tua. a b 11A B maxima Romanae pars eri historiae a B 11 A b fixa legam spolieis deivitiora tueis. A B || a b quae possum domina deicere digna mea.

As Somerville notes, these lines begin with a word that agrees with another following the caesura, a phenomenon that represents an advance over Catullus' epigrams, closer to the elegiacs of both Catullus and the Augustans. Concludes Somerville: "The poetry contained in the New Gallus, so far from being a stylistic disaster, is in fact a virtuoso performance of the kind that clearly impressed Tibullus, Propertius, and Ovid, and that defined elegiac style for them."29

Another feature of Gallan style is internal rhyming in pentameters. In five of the six Gallan pentameters, there is internal rhyming. This is a strikingly higher percentage than Luck's statistic which reveals that "only one Latin pentameter in five shows it."30

This oddity illustrates Gallus' connection to and influence from Hellenistic poetry, of which this is a common feature. Luck demonstrates this through Ovid's elegy on the death of Tibullus, which also includes internal rhyme throughout:

29 Somerville (2009), 110-111. 30 Luck (1959), 29. 10 Quid pater Ismario, quid mater profuit Orpheo? carmine quid victas obstipuisse feras? Et linon in silvis idem pater 'aelinon!' altis dicitur invita concinuisse lyra.

Says Luck, "The rhymes on -o, -as, -is, -a, together with strange, exotic names, Orpheus,

Ismarus, Linos, are almost certainly intentional. They seem to convey the sound of lux­ uriant, half-oriental dirges. Ovid must have remembered a famous Alexandrian poem when he wrote these lines; I think one could translate them back into Greek almost word by word, without missing much of the original."31

That Gallus may have been fond of such internal rhyme might find proof in Ver­ gil's "Gallus, quod insanis? Inquit tua cura Lycoris," from Eclogue 10.22. Vergil here uses internal rhyme in a line specifically addressed to Gallus, strongly suggesting that he is emulating a known feature of Gallus’ style. With this in consideration, the heavy use of internal rhyme in the Qasr Ibrim fragment certainly fits Gallan style.32

Janet Fairweather, however, postulates a hypothesis that "will account for all peculiarities" of this Gallus fragment, and even "suggest important new lines of enquiry into the questions of its authorship, dating, and significance."33 Her hypothesis relies on the yet-unidentified markings that exist on the papyrus separating (b) and (c). Con­ sidering the fact that another similar sign seems to have marked a separation between

31 Luck (1959), 29. 32 We also find internal rhyme in Catullus. In poem 58: exustos...agros (62), clausum...campum (67), innixa...solea (73), pium...crurorem (79). In poem 65 there are five examples of internal pentameter rhyme: tantis...malis (4), nostris...oculis (8), absumpti...ltyli (14), meo...animo (18), casto...gremio (20). In poem 66, we find nine examples of internal pentameter rhyme: or- tus...obitus (2), gyro...aereo (6), virgineis...exuiis (14), falsis.-.lacrimulis (16), novo...viro (20), novo...dissoluo (38), casto...gremio (56), sero...Oceano (68), and impuro.-.adulterio (84). 33 Fairweather (1984), 167. 11 groups of lines on the following column of the papyrus, they must be dividing marks.

They have been thought to mark off separate epigrams, or excerpts from longer po­

ems, since each poem deals with separate, and quite different, topics. Fairweather's

hypothesis is that they are markers signifying a change of singer in an amoebaean song

contest.34

Although amoebaean song has its roots in bucolic poetry, the fact that the po­

etry on the Gallus papyrus is elegy does not preclude its classification as amoebaean

song. There is precedent for the use of elegiacs in a singing-match in Theocritus, Idyll

8.33-60.35 Fairweather lays out the common themes between the two Gallan stanzas

and traces a feasible amoebaean procession. She argues that the assumed quatrain

ending in line 1 (a) and the first full quatrain (b) were a matched pair, with "the former taking as its theme 'happiness destroyed by misfortune in love', the latter answering it with 'happiness brought about by good fortune in war.'"

She goes on to support this by pointing out the antithesis here between love and war, and the fact that this is a major theme of Latin love-elegy. In the Gallan frag­

ment, we find tristia in (a) anddulcia in (b), just as triste is used as the opposite of dul- ce in the amoebaean singing from Vergil'sEclogue 3.80-4. Further, she points out that

"tua and tueis represent a type of formal correspondence between corresponding lines

34 Fairweather (1984), 167. 35 On the Theocritus papyri, speaker changes are either denoted not at all, or by interlinear horizontal dashes. Although none of the marks found on the Gallus papyrus are found in the Theocritus papyri, none of the Theocritus papyri are as early as the Gallus papyrus. For more, see Fairweather (1984), 168, n.7. 12 which one expects in a pair of amoebaean quatrains."36 This argument can then pro­ vide another explanation for the ungainliness of (b)l-4, namely the unelided"turn erunt," and the dry word choice: it is because, as inEclogue 7 with Thyrsis, Gallus is making this singer the loser of the two, and demonstrates in him how not to write ele­ giacs.

Though one could argue that this would remove supporting evidence from Gal­

lan authorship, since as amoebaean song it would lack the personal connection to Cae­ sar and Lycoris, Fairweather finds the evidence for Gallan authorship in this case to be just as strong if not stronger.37 With Gallan authorship, this bucolic-style amoebaean song contest written in elegiacs must turn a reader to Vergil's Eclogues, and Fairweath­ er makes this connection, saying, "if interpreted as a hybrid between bucolic and love- elegy, [the Gallus papyrus] bears out expectations about Gallan poetry to which earlier critics, working from testimonia alone, have been led by a consideration of allusions to

Gallus in later poetry, particularly those in Vergil's tenthEclogue"38

Finally, while Gallus was famous for writing elegy, there is also just as much evi­ dence that he wrote short, epic-style poems called epyllia.39 Parthenius, a Greek grammarian and poet who prospered in Rome in the first century BC, addressed the preface of his 'EpotiKct naBqpaxa to Cornelius Gallus. In it he explicitly states that Gal­ lus wrote "epics and elegies":

36 Fairweather (1984), 168. 37 For the full discussion, see Fairweather (1984), 169-73. 38 Fairweather (1984), 171. 39 Merriam (1987), 42. 13 I thought, my dear Cornelius Gallus, that to you above all men there would be something particularly agreeable in this collection of romances of love, and I have put them together and set them out in the shortest possible form. The sto­ ries, as they are found in the poets who treat this class of subject, are not usual­ ly related with sufficient simplicity; I hope that, in the way I have treated them, you will have the summary of each: and you will thus have at hand a storehouse from which to draw material, as may seem best to you, for either epic or elegiac verse. I am sure that you will not think the worse of them because they have not that polish of which you are yourself such a master: I have only put them to­ gether as aids to memory, and that is the sole purpose for which they are meant to be of service to you.40

This is strong evidence that Gallus wrote epyllia,41 but is this all there is to know about

Gallan epyllia? What subject matter, how many, of what quality, whom did it influence, and what impact it had on contemporary and future poetry are only a few questions to be answered. Some of them can in fact be answered through examining the subject matter of Parthenius' book. The stories in it which Parthenius presents to Gallus as a

"storehouse from which to draw material" are of rather eccentric taste. Nine of the stories involve unnatural love, while there are six incidences of murder, and eight of suicide. Crump calls the subject matter "highly sensational and frequently likely to ap­ peal to a morbid taste."42 Though it could be argued that these were only the rare sto­ ries with which Gallus was not familiar, and that Parthenius purposed only to fill in the gaps of Gallus' mythological knowledge, the subject matter is consistently perverse, and must at the very least hint that Gallus himself dealt with these themes.

40 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe. Parthenius, Love Romances. Translated by Edmonds, J M and Gaselee, S. Loeb Classical Library Volume 69. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. 1916. 41 Crump (1978), 177, explains why Gallus' epyllia do not survive: "Hampered by so many artifi­ cial restrictions [for full list, see pp.176-177], the epyllion of this period seems to have had little appeal outside its own age. Gallus, the chief poet of the school, was remembered not for his epyllia but for his elegies. A form so much restricted must necessarily disappear, as soon as the fashion changed." 42 Crump (1978), 108. 14 Further, Ovid mentions that Gallus wrote rather licentious poetry Tr ( . 5.1.15-

18):

Delicias siquis lascivaque carmina quaerit praemoneo, non est scripta quod ista legat. Aptior huic Gallus blandique Propertius oris, aptior, ingenium come, Tibullus erit.

"If anyone seeks delights and lascivious verses, I forewarn him, for that is not what drives these writings. Gallus and smooth-tongued Propertius will be more suita­ ble to him, or the affable genius of Tibullus." In Tristia 2.445-446, Ovid names Gallus among a particular list of authors. According to Merriam, "it is certainly interesting to find Gallus mentioned in company with this group of neoteric poets, who were so en­ chanted with the weird and wonderful stories from Greek myth. This is not enough ev­ idence on which to convict Gallus of writing the same type of poetry as they, but it does make it a reasonable assumption."43

The Ciris, an epyllion of unknown authorship, is full of potential information on

Gallan epyllia. It is presented by Crump as either of Gallan authorship or, if this is not the case, the Ciris at worst "represents the epyllion of the school of Gallus."44 While the Culex can be safely attributed as an early attempt by Vergil, owing to its metrical similarity to the Eclogues,45 the Ciris cannot, since it is closer to the Georgies andAene- id, and any work published by Vergil after theEclogues would have been surely at­ tributed to him. Further, Crump argues that the poet of theCiris has a "fine imagina-

43 Merriam (1987), 46. 44 Crump (1978), 157. 45 Crump (1978), 156, who notes that the Culex is "not unlike Vergil's work in conception." 15 tion, but it is not Vergil's imagination; he feels for his heroine but not with her . . . moreover, the author has not Vergil's close observation and intimacy with nature."46

As a poem at least of the Gallan school, if not indeed Gallan, it can be illuminat­ ed by Vergil's sixth Eclogue. According to Skutsch, Silenos' song represents a catalogue of Gallus' epyllia 47 This would make it an important passage, since it would provide a great deal of otherwise undocumented information. According to Crump, "we have, then, two obvious summaries of epyllia; there can be no doubt that Vergil had the form in mind."48 Since Vergil either was drawing from actual epyllia or from epyllia planned in his imagination, Skutsch concludes necessarily that these are the epyllia of Gallus himself.49

Gallus, then, like Catullus, was adept at a number of genres and employed a wide range of themes, and his place as an important influence on Augustan poetry is secured. His influence on Vergil is clear, especially in the 2nd half of theEclogues. But his influence on Propertius will be even more profound. While it will be primarily Gal­ lus' elegiacs that influenced Propertius, we will see that the Augustan poet also drew from Gallan epyllia. And even more than Vergil, Propertius was interested in Gallus as both poet and poetic persona. We will turn in the next section to Gallus' presence in

Propertius' Monobiblos.

46 Crump (1978), 156. 47 Crump (1978), 175. 48 Crump (1978), 176. 49 For more, see Lyne (1978), and Crump (1978). 16 The Two Galluses of Propertius' Monobiblos

Long has the identity of Gallus in poems 5 ,1 0 ,1 3 , 20, and 21 of Propertius' Monobiblos

been disputed and long have scholars hesitated to connect this figure to the elegiac

poet Cornelius Gallus. Each of these poems on its own has been denied reference to

Cornelius Gallus for various reasons, none of which bear any connection to any other

poem. While many of these individual cases have dismissed the poet Cornelius Gallus

in their own single-poem scopes, all have discouraged an overall connection of the character Gallus throughout theMonobiblos. And this general misunderstanding of

Propertius' handling of Gallus has resulted in a misreading of much of Propertius' first

book.

Though it is generally agreed that the Gallus of 1.20 refers to the poet, it is ar­ gued that there exists an incompatibility between this Gallus and the Galluses of Prop­

ertius 1.5 and 1.21. The Galluses of 1.10 and 1.13 have generally been included in this group of incompatible Galluses. However, previous scholars, in their attempts at identi­ fying Gallus, have adopted readings of the poems that are too superficial, particularly

regarding 1.5 and 1.10, and have thus missed important connections between the Gal­

lus poems of the Monobiblos, as well as possible connections to the poetry of Gallus.

While it is correct to assume that 1.21 is not Cornelius Gallus, several indications in each of 1.5, 1.10, and 1.13 point strongly to him. They point so strongly, in fact, that not only does each of those poems positively identify Gallus in its own scope, but, fur­ ther strengthened by their combined intertextual weight, a unity of the Galluses be­

17 comes evident in the Monobiblos. This part of the study will therefore examine Proper­ tius' depiction of Gallus in the Monobiblos by looking at each of the poems in which he appears,.

Propertius 1.5

This poem, like many in Augustan elegy, constitutes a rebuke to a rival for the poet's love, and is certainly meant to be read together with the preceding poem in the collec­ tion, addressed to the iambic poet Bassus (1.4.1). In fact, the reader is led to think that

1.5, with its shared theme, is simply a continuation of the warning to Bassus because of the lack of an initial address. It is not until the end of 1.5 that we find that the poem admonishes a certain Gallus (1.5.31-32:quare, quid posse mea Cynthia, desine, Galle,/ quaerere: non impune ilia rogata venit). The Gallus of poem 1.5 has been dismissed as the poet solely because of two particular lines, 23-24, which, if interpreted literally, certainly rule him out. But in fact, with simple analysis, these lines point to the poet.

Along with this evidence, the poem has two other aspects that can positively identify

Gallus as the poet: its ties to the preceding poem, and the recurring theme ofnosse.

After having listed at length Cynthia's defects and their effects on a would-be lover, Propertius writes (23-24):

nec tibi nobilitas poteritsuccurrere amanti: nescit Amor priscis cedere imaginibus.

Propertius is telling Gallus that nobility won't help him as a lover, nor will Love yield to the busts of his ancestors. Camps takes nobilitas to mean "noble ancestry," andimagi- 18 nes to mean "the images of his (noble) ancestors," and, because Cornelius Gallus was

not of noble ancestry nor had heimagines, he argues that this precludes identifying the

Gallus of 1.5 as Cornelius Gallus.50 It is true that Gallus was merely a provincialeques, and therefore did not possess familial nobilitas, and that he did not belong to the class

of Romans who had curule ancestors.51 So, taken at face value, the lines cannot refer to the poet Gallus. But the problem here is not the status of Gallus' birth; it is the literal

reading that Camps,et al., provide. Cairns, on the other hand, persuasively argues that the words should not be taken so literally:

"If imagines in 24 were being attributed to the addressee, as nobili­ tas is attributed to Gallus in 23, then the two terms would be identi­ cal in meaning and that would be the end of the matter: Gallus could not be the poet. But the link between hexameter and pentameter is in fact much looser; althoughnobilitas is attributed to Gallus in 23, imagines in 24 are not; on a literal reading they are only implied to belong to Gallus."52

Certainly, nobilitas and imagines share particular facets of their meanings, which are amplified when the two words are near one another.53 But if they are not as closely linked as they immediately seem, and if each word can be applied separately and plausibly to Gallus, it can be argued that they are only linked at all by the immedi­ ate impression that is produced upon the reader by the close juxtaposition of the two words. In the Oxford Latin Dictionary, nobilitas has five definitions:

50 Camps (1961), p.57: "[H]e is not Cornelius Gallus or Aelius Gallus, for neither of them was of noble ancestry." We will see, however, that Camps too strictly limits the possibilities of Prop­ ertius' language. 51 Syme (1978), 100. 52 Cairns (1983), 85. 53 According to the OLD, imagines has a range of meanings, including likeness, image, appear­ ance; statue; idea; echo; ghost, phantom. 19 1. Renown, celebrity. 2. Distinction, illustriousness. 3. Nobility of rank or birth; the aristocracy. 4. Loftiness of character, nobility, heroism. 5. Superior quality (of things), nobility, excellence.54

Any of definitions 1, 2, and 4 can be applied to Cornelius Gallus. He certainly possesses nobilitas in the realm of poetry, whether it merely represents renown, or if it refers to

Gallus' title as the father of elegy,55 since he, having sired all following elegists, would sit atop a regal family tree of poets. Furthermore,nobilitas could represent the lofti­ ness of his character in the eyes of Propertius, or it could even represent Gallus' ac­ quaintance with the likes of Augustus and Pollio. Further, as Cairns suggests, it may even be used tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps, he ventures, one of Gallus' eulogists "had put about a story which Gallus had not absolutely denied."56 But whether it refers to any or all of these, the fact is thatnobilitas certainly can be applied to Gallus.

Furthermore, many scholars, such as Cairns, Trankle, and Ross, argue that line

24 is either a quotation or an adaptation from Gallus' own poetry. According to Cairns,

"the similarity between Propertius 1.5.24 and 1.14.8 has long been remarked on, and both lines have been identified as Gallan in inspiration:"57

nescit Amor priscis cedere imaginibus (1.5.24)

nescit Amor magnis cedere divitiis (1.14.8)

This not only confirms its attribution to Cornelius Gallus, but also separates the two lines even further. The nobilitas in line 23 belongs to Gallus, but the imagines are only implied in the poem to belong to him. Cairns' new reading of the couplet reads thus:

54 OLD, s.v. "Nobilitas ss OCD, s.v. "Cornelius Gallus, Gaius." 56 Cairns (1983), 87. 57 Cairns (2006), 79. For his full account of this argument, see ibid., n.50. 20 "Your nobilitas won't help you as a lover / [and, after all, it was you yourself who said]

'Love does not defer to distinguished pedigrees.'"58

Further support for the identification of Gallus the poet in 1.5 is provided by both the poem's similarity to 1.4 and what this similarity suggests. As is generally agreed, the addressee in 1.4 is the iambic poet Bassus, and therefore, for symmetry of the pair, the character in 1.5 must also be a poet.59 Indeed, the many similarities be­ tween these poems connect the two inextricably as sister-poems and thus support

Cairns' argument. Not only does the proximity of the poems in the collection suggest a strong connection, but the poems are also similar in length, at 28 and 32 lines each.

Textually, the two poems share a great many terms:collata, 1.4.9 and 1.5.7; impune,

1.4.17 and 1.5.32; amore, 1.4.26 and 1.5.29; fletibus, 1.4.23 and 1.5.15; puellas, 1.4.1 and puellis, 1.5.7; cogis, 1.4.2 and cogemur, 1.5.29 furoris, 1.4.11 and furores, 1.5.3; insana 1.4.17, and insane, 1.5.3; servitio, 1.4.4 and servitium, 1.5.19; quaeret, 1.4.20 and quaerere, 1.5.32; gravius, 1.4.25 and grave, 1.5.19; limine, 1.4.22 and limina,

1.5.13; nomen, 1.4.8 and nomine, 1.5.26; formam, 1.4.5 and informem, 1.5.16. Themat­ ically, both poems contain invective toward an assumed competitor against Gallus for

Cynthia, and each includes a section on the negative aspects of Cynthia. They read so similarly, in fact, that the reader does not know that the addressee,invide, is not the same Bassus from 1.4 until Gallus is addressed in 1.5.31. With the two poems so closely

58 Cairns (1983), 85. 59 Cairns (1983), 79. For the identification of Bassus, cf. Ovid, Tr. 4.10.47-48: Ponticus heroo, Bassus quoque clarus iambis,/ dulcia convictus membra fuere mei. 21 connected, the identification of the addressee as a poet in one must suggest the same in the addressee of the other.

If the identification of this particular Gallus as a poet is not sufficient to estab­ lish him as Cornelius Gallus, there are clues in 1.5 that refer to Cornelius Gallus' own elegies. These clues lie in Propertius' use of the theme of nosse. King lays out this ety­ mological play on words: "Here the word play on 'to know’,nosse (4), ignotos (5), no­ tom (16), nosse (18), nobilitas (23), and nomine (26) is an important unifying motif in the poem."60 This recurring theme of nosse could suggest that Propertius is alluding to the work of another poet, and to what poet rather than the one explicitly named in the poem? This is supported by the following passage from Ovid's Amores, 1.15.29-30, which, as Cairns points out, not only features the same nosse motif as Propertius 1.5, but even names Gallus as well:61

Gallus et Hesperiis et Gallus notus Eois, et sua cum Gallo nota Lycoris erit.

Since these separate references to Gallus both contain multiple uses of the verb nosco, they suggest a similar point of reference, whether a particular Gallan poem, a quip on Gallan style, or perhaps even a popular Gallan phrase. But whether thesenos­ co motifs are indeed referencing the poetry of Cornelius Gallus, or merely referencing a reference to his poetry, they still confirm beyond a doubt the identity ofGalle in line 31 as Cornelius Gallus, the poet.

60 King (1980), 213. 61 Cairns (1983), 86. 22 Propertius 1.10 & 1.13

Poem 1.10 demonstrates even more fully that a literal reading of Propertius fails to grasp the complexities of his references and the wittiness of settings. In the poem,

Propertius watches a man named Gallus in a romantic encounter with a girl. The al­ leged problem with identification here is that Cornelius Gallus was a full generation older than Propertius. The generally agreed upon dates for Propertius' birth, between

54-47 B.C., 62 provide an age gap of around twenty years between him and Gallus, and would have precluded a close friendship between the two men.63 Scholars have argued that this is sound evidence against the identification of this Gallus as Cornelius Gallus. If the poem is taken literally as a voyeuristic encounter, this is a solid argument, since no one but a close friend would likely have been allowed to sit in and watch a session such as this.

There is, of course, another way to interpret this poem, one which not only demonstrates the identity of Gallus as Cornelius Gallus, but also involves Gallus’ own poetry. In addition, it also bestows sense and clarity upon some rather awkward lines, making the poem more intelligible overall. When read as an allegory, many clues sug­ gest that Propertius is not voyeuristically watching Gallus make love, butreading is one of Gallus’ elegies. Many lines offer a number of clear double-meanings that, once the poem is analyzed in this manner, positively leap off the page at the reader. Lines 7-10 are rich with examples:

62 While Cairns (2006, 25), provides a date of birth of 58-55 B.C, and Camps (1961, 5) believes it no earlier than 57 B.C., theOCD (s.v. "Sextus Propertius") and Sullivan (1976, 1) say it could have been as late as 48 or 47 B.C. 63 King (1980), 212. 23 quamvis labentis premeret mihi somnus ocellos et mediis caelo Luna ruberet equis non tamen a vestro potui secedere lusu: tantus in alternis vocibus ardor erat.

"Although sleep began to press down my drooping eyelids, and the Moon reddened with her horses mid-sky, I was nevertheless unable to pull away from your play: for so great was the passion in the alternating voices." The phraselabentis " premeret mihi somnus ocellos" describes a commonplace characteristic of a late-night reader: sleep is hauling down his tired eyelids. Propertius is up late reading, and although his eyes are drooping, he cannot stop reading Gallus' poetry. Further, if this line is taken literally, with Propertius as a voyeur to a sexual act, it makes little sense: a character in the nar­ rator's position would surely be in some manner of excited state, not drowsing off.

The most significant part of the poem for the identification of the allegory, and thus the establishment of Gallus' identity, is the couplet 9-10. In line 9, the literal defi­ nition of "vestro lusu" is "your play," but this is vague. Does Propertius mean Gallus1 sexual play? Or could Propertius mean Gallus'word play, i.e. his poetry? Propertius means both, as Gallus’ sexual play is containedwithin his poetry. This means that

Propertius is unable to pull away from Gallus' word play, his poetry. Further, Propertius is not the only one to use lusus in this manner. As O'Hara points out, Catullus uses it similarly: "the use of the word lusus resembles that of the verb ludere in Catullus 50

(hesterno Licini, die otiosi/ multum lusimus...), where amatory language is used of po­ etry writing."64

64 O'Hara (1989), 562. 24 Next, in line 10, the rather awkward phrase,"in alternis vocibus," literally "in al­ ternating voices," gains clarity and even elegance in the new reading. Quite a mechani­ cal phrase to describe the murmurings of lovers, it can be absolved of this poetic short­ coming when it is found to allude to the alternae voces of elegiac couplets. Thus the line suggests not an awkward scenario wherein, taken literally, Propertius the voyeur is unable to leave because of the "alternating voices" of the two lovers, but rather a wonderful allegory of Gallus1 poetry wherein Propertius is rapt in the elegiac couplets.

Another line that gains just as much clarity is line 2:“vestris conscius in lacrimis." Ra­ ther than the literal reading in which the reader envisions a man gawking at two lovers weeping, the figurative reading allows one to imagine a rather different scene, one in which Propertius is reading Gallus' poetry and is moved to tears by it. While a literal reading of the poem can be sustained, it is clear that the allegorical reading imbues the poem with a charm and wit more consonant with Propertius' style.

With the allegory discovered, is this all the poem has to offer? Is it merely thir­ ty lines about Propertius sitting down and reading a Gallus poem? Absolutely not. It is also paying homage to the author's influences and inspiration. As Pasco-Pranger notes,

"Perhaps we are particularly to imagine Propertius reading Gallus' first book,primus his amor (1.10.1); here, in a poem nearly at the centre of his own first book, Propertius reflects on the sources of his (poetic) passion."65 It is a poem about Propertius’ discov­ ery of Gallus' work. The poem no longer depicts Propertius as a voyeur in a room with two lovers, or even merely Propertius reading. It becomes Propertius enjoying a work

65 Pasco-Pranger(2009), 142. 25 of his mentor's art. It is easy to imagine Propertius recalling memories of himself as a young man and aspiring poet, rapt in the love elegies of Gallus with"primo cum testis amori," referring to when Propertius was first witness to Gallus' love. Moreover, if this understanding is permitted, it is also likely thatamori is a clear allusion to Gallus' own poems, his Amores.661.10 is thus about Propertius' first reading of Gallus' poems and his discovery of their beauty.

In a purely literal reading, the poem does not make any mention or allusion to

Gallus' craft as an elegiac poet. The Gallus mentioned could very well any be Gallus; there are no distinguishing signs of his identity. But once the allegory is revealed, this poem without a doubt refers to the elegiac poet Cornelius Gallus. Furthermore, it would be unlikely for a poet of Propertius' skill to mention a character who is unidenti­ fiable and unimportant, but he would have severy reason to mention the man who is

Propertius' influence and mentor, and a famous poet in his very genre.

With the Gallus of 1.10 having been identified, the Gallus of 1.13 is identified easily. In this poem Propertius not only references particular events of poem 1.10, but also addresses a Gallus. He addresses Gallus and admits his activities from poem 1.10

(1.13-20):

haec ego non rumore malo, non augure doctus; vidi ego: me quaeso teste negare potes? vidi ego te toto vinctum languescere collo et flere iniectis, Galle, diu manibus, et cupere optatis animam deponere verbis, et quae deine meus celat, amice, pudor. non ego complexus potui diducere vestros: tantus erat demens inter utrosque furor.

66 As they are probably called, accordingOCD, to s.v. "Cornelius Gallus, Gaius." 26 "It was not from evil rumor, nor augury, that I learned these things; I saw them: can you deny it, with me as a witness? I saw you languish, Gallus, your neck fas­ tened in her embrace, and with your arms thrown around her, weep for a long while, and I saw you desire to breathe out your soul with desirous words, and my modesty hides what happened next, my friend. Not I could have parted your embrace, so great was the frenzied passion between you both."

Line 15 refers to 1.10.5-6, "cum te complexa morientem, Galle, puella / vidimus..."; line

16 to 1.10.2, "affueram vestris conscius in lacrimis"; line 17 to 1.10. 6, "tonga ducere verba mora"; and lines 19-20 to 1.10.9-10, "non tamen a vestro potui secedere lusu / tantus in alternis vocibus ardor erat." The references are clear and irrefutable. Poems

1.10 and 1.13 address the same Gallus: Cornelius Gallus.

Before moving on to the final Cornelius Gallus poem, let Cairns sum up the Gal­ luses of 1.5,1.10, and 1.13: "...on the internal evidence of 1.5 it is highly probably that

Gallus is a love-elegist; and this presumption is confirmed by 1.10 and 1.13; and if the

Gallus of these elegies is indeed a love-elegist, then those wishing to deny that he is to be identified as C. Cornelius Gallus would have to adopt the unlikely position that there was a second, quite distinct, Augustan love-elegist also called 'Gallus'".67

Propertius 1.20

The Gallus of 1.20 is the most straightforward reference to Cornelius Gallus. According to Cairns, the Gallus of 1.20 "has long been identified by the majority of scholars as the elegiac poet C. Cornelius Gallus, an older contemporary of Propertius, a friend of Vergil

67 Cairns (1983), 84 27 and of Asinius Pollio, a successful general . . . particularly in view of the copious pres­ ence in Propertius 1.20 of those very characteristics."68

A number of references to the Eclogues in 1.20 exhibit these characteristics.

One such reference is, "pro continuo amore" in line 1, which, when taken together with

"pariter miseri socio ... amore" of 1.5.29, calls to mind the brotherly love exhibited by the poet to Gallus in Vergil's Eclogue 10.73: "Gallo, quoius amortantum mihi crescit in horns."69 The poem itself also features much idyllic language: line 4,"crudelis ... Asca- nius"; line 13, "duros montes et frigida saxa"; line 22 "mollia composita litora fronde tegit"; line 26, "sub arboribus"-, line 41, "et modo formosis incumbens nescius undis"; line 52, "formosum." This type of language certainly refers both directly and indirectly to the Eclogues, in which Cornelius Gallus is also portrayed.70 While the Gallus of 1.20 has been the surest and longest-standing identification of Gallus in theMonobiblos, its external references to Vergil's poetryare what have facilitated this. In contrast, the other poems in the Monobiblos containing Gallus are met with more difficulty because they are self-contained with respect to Gallus and are restricted to references only within the Monobiblos.

According to Cairns, 1.20 is replete with Hellenizing language, content, ethos, which must be attributed to Gallan influence. It is unique from the rest of theMono­ biblos in its absence of any of Propertius' personal concerns, and in its concentration on a single myth. It says nothing of Propertius' love life, nor of Cynthia, but instead

68 Cairns (1983), 84. 69 King (1980), 229. 70 Cf. Verg., Eel. 6,10. 28 highlights his relationship with Gallus. As the addressee, Gallus must obviously play an

enormous role in this poem; but even so, the sheer amount of connections to Gallus

and potential Gallan themes and style that Propertius has included here is staggering.

As examples of stylistic evidence linking Propertius to Gallus in this poem, Ross,

in his analysis of the poem, has identified a number of features which he considers Gal­

lan due to their archaic or neoteric nature:71

1. 1-6: the neoteric placement of attributive and substantive in 1-3, the similar placement of two proper names in 4, the two-and-a-half-footTheiodaman- teo in 6, and the elaborate periphrasis in 5-6; 2. the geographical periphrases in 1.20.7-10, and the anaphorasive of (76); 3. allowingHelle (1.20.19) only her patronymic (77); 4. the archaic use (18) of the genitive (77); 5. the words which introduce the exemplum, namque ferunt olim (17) (77-78); 6. in lines 23-24 the infinitive is used with a verb of motion to express purpose . . . this is a pure archaism (78); 7. the dative formnullae, must be archaic-poetic (78-79).

According to Cairns, a number of words in 1.20 point clearly to Gallan refer­ ences. And because a number of these references are found not only in Propertian but also in Vergilian passages, he concludes that many must have a common origin in a Gal­

lan phrase. The first is amore in line 1. This has similar "metrical, verbal, and sound

patterns"72 to the first line of Vergil's address to Gallus in Eclogue 10:

hoc pro continuo te, Galle, monemus amore (Propertius 1.20.1)

incipe: sollicitos Galli dicemus amores (Eclogue 10.6)

The similarity between the second halves of the lines is striking: Gallus' name is fol­

lowed by a 1st person plural verb and the wordamore. Yet the first half is not totally

71 Following Cairns, (2006), 223. 72 Cairns (2006), 224. 29 dissimilar, continuo and sollicitos both begin and end with "o" sounds, and there are

"c" and "p" sounds, in the same order. He concludes that one of Gallus' own lines must lie behind them both.

Next is animo, from the first couplet of 1.20:

hoc pro continuo te, Galle, monemus amore id tibi ne vacuo defluat ex animo

According to Cairns, "the terms animus and anima are common enough in Latin poetry, especially in Lucretius, but they seem to have been associated in a special way with

Gallus."73 Two further passages from the Monobiblos addressed to "Gallus" support this association:

ilia feros animis alligat una viros 1.5.12

vidi ego te toto vinctum languescere collo 1.13.15-17 et flere iniectis, Galle, diu manibus, et cupere optatis animam deponere labris

What is convincing is the fact that there are only two cases animusof and two ofanima in all of the Monobiblos. Three of them are found in addresses to Gallus and refer to

Gallus' own animus or anima. The fourth is found in 1.6.26 in an address to Tullus, and it concerns Propertius' own anima. According to Cairns, "Ovid offers further indications that the terms were associated with Gallus: in thepropemptikon for Gaius Caesar inArs

Amatoria 1, where Gallan influence seems certain, there is notable interest in

73 Cairns (2006), 224-225. 30 'animi'."7* It is therefore likely that Gallus used similar plays with hisanimus and anima in his own work.

The next word Cairns points out is nomen. It is found in lines 5 and 50 in poem

20. As discussed above, in poem 5, this belongs to what Cairns calls, "an important group of terms related etymologically by Romans, viz.nomen, notus, nota, noscere, and nobilis."7S Propertius' two uses of nomen are both in sentences adjacent to ad­ dresses of Gallus:

Hoc pro continuo te, Galle, monemus amore (1.20.1) est tibi non infra specie, non nomine dispar (1.20.5)

nomen ab extremis montibus aura refert. (1.20.50) his, o Galle, tuos monitus servabis amores, (1.20.51)

Finally, we should note Propertius' use of imaginibus at 1.20.41-42:

nescius undis errorem blandis tardatimaginibus.

We will recall the poet's use of the word at 1.5.24, and its appearance here, in another poem addressed to Gallus, will enhance the argument that 1.5 does indeed refer to the poet Gallus and that the line itself likely recalls a line of Gallus. According to Cairns, here, "Gallan imitation seems virtually certain, and, as suggested above, Propertius

1.5.24 is probably a direct or close quotation from Cornelius Gallus."76

There is also evidence that 1.20 as a whole is modeled on, or at least heavily in­ fluenced by, one of Gallus’ poems. As discussed before, Vergil mentions Gallus in his

74 For the full argument, see Cairns (2006), 424-425. 75 Cairns (2006), 226. 76 Cairns (2006), 230. 31 sixth Eclogue but, as Skutsch notes, it is more than a mere mention: through Silenos' song in Eclogue 6, Vergil provides a catalogue of Gallus' epyllia.77 ConsiderEclogue

6.43-44, which is part of Silenus' song, and thus Gallus' catalogue of epyllia:

his adiungit, Hylan nautae quo fonte relictum clamassent, ut litus ’Hyla, Hyla1 omne sonaret;

"He joins to these (stories) (the story of) the sailors, how they shouted from which spring Hylas had been left, and how the whole shore resounded, 'Hylas, Hylas!’" If

Skutsch is correct in his assumption about Silenus’ song, then Gallus wrote a Hylas epyl- lion, the same Hylas myth Propertius writes in 1.20. If this is true, then not only is

Propertius addressing Cornelius Gallus the poet, but also paying tribute to one of Gal­ lus' own poems.78

Propertius 1.21 & 1.22

With Cornelius Gallus thus positively identified in 1.5, 1.10, 1.13, and 1.20, what func­ tion does this unity of Galluses serve for the book? Of the five Gallus poems, these four directly address Gallus and serve as recognition of Gallus' role in influencing Propertius, while the final poemindirectly addresses Gallus and warns Gallus against his departure from elegy and against his military career. Though the Gallus of 1.21 cannot be identi­ fied as the elegiac poet Cornelius Gallus, he is perhaps a relative of his, who has fol­ lowed the path of war and has died because of it, so he is still connected: he serves in fact as a personal warning to the poet Gallus.

77 Crump (1978), 157. 78 Below it is addressed how Propertius as a newcomer can get away with addressing such an established and respected character as Gallus in the chastising manner he does in poem 1.13. 32 The Gallus of 1.21 has been long assumed to have nothing to do with any Gallus of 5, 10,13, or 20. This is a result of a reading of these four earlier poems that does not provide a connection between the Galluses but, instead, treats them as separate char­ acters. But now, having established the unity of these first four Galluses, it would be absurd to believe that the fifth Gallus is completely unconnected. Propertius would surely not have done such a thing as refer by name to the same person in four poems only to use the name a fifth time, but with no connection to the first four.

It is true that the Gallus from 1.21 cannot refer to Cornelius Gallus as the first four Galluses do, for there is a firm date to be inferred from this poem, the date of Gal­ lus of 1.21's death. It definitively precludes his identification as Cornelius Gallus. The poem does not explicitly indicate this date, but several clues point to the manner, loca­ tion, and the event of the death, from which evidence the date can be gleaned. Lines 1-

2, tu, qui consortem properas evadere casum / miles ab Etruscis saucius aggeribus,79 mark the location as Etruria, and lines 7-8,Galium " per medios ereptum Caesaris enses

/ effugere ignotas non potuisse manus,"80 provide enough information to point to the event. This Gallus has died at Octavian's Siege of Perusia, which happened in B.C41 .81

The problem, of course, is that Cornelius Gallus did not die until 26 B.C. The Gal­ lus of 1.21 therefore must be a kinsman of the poet.82 There is no other information in the poem, so the exact identity of this Gallus can only be conjecture; there can be no

79 "You, soldier, wounded on Etruscan ramparts, who hasten to evade your comrade's fate..." 80 "That Gallus escaped through Caesar's swords, but was not able to flee the unknown hand [that killed him]." 81 Nicholson (1999), 146. 82 Hutchinson (1984), 105, believes that the Roman reader would have automatically assumed Gallus of 1.21 to be the father of Cornelius Gallus. 33 certainty. But this matters not, for the certainty lies in the fact that Propertius calls this man Gallus to connect him to the other four Galluses. It does not matterwho among the Galli the character of 1.21 is, only that he shares a name with Gallus. Propertius could have named the character of 1.21 Bassus, Tullus, any of a thousand other names, or not at all, but he named him Gallus. He did so to achieve a twin purpose: Propertius desired not only to connect him to the first four Galluses by likeness in name but also, at the same time, to separate him from the Cornelius Gallus of 1.1-20 by difference in identity. Sense can be made of this dual connection-separation only after establishing two things: first, the connection between 1.21 and 1.22 and their existence as an iso­ lated section, and second, the contrast Propertius makes between the sections of 1.1-

20 and 1.21-22.

Poems 1.21 and 1.22 are completely different from poems 1.1-20, and the con­ trast is a profound one. Poems 1.21-22 are set in the real world, whereas 1.1-20 take place in poetic, literary settings. Just as Propertius creates a distinction between the four Galluses of 1.1-20 and the Gallus of 1.21, he creates a distinction between the type of reality of poems 1.1-20 and poems 1.21-22. Three major things create this po­ larity. First, whereas poems 1.1-20 mention stories from mythology, 1.21-22 mention only historical events. Second, while 1.1-20 mentions locations from mythology or places where Cynthia has gone,e.g. Baiae83 Propertius never takes the reader to these places; instead, he keeps the reader in the literary world of his narrative. Poems 1.21-

83 l.ll.l. 34 22, however, not only mention real places,e.g. Etruria ,M but are also set there; and the concrete imagery of the setting—discussed below—brings the reader back to this world, the real world. Third, whereas 1.1-20 include only characters implicated in the story of each poem, 1.21-22 mention Caesar, who is a character that has no stake in the poetry itself, meaning he hasn't been implicated in the plot or story. This, again, brings the reader away from Propertius' narrative world of poems 1.1-20 and back to the real world, in which Caesar does indeed have a stake.

With 1.21-22 shown to exist as a separate section, the sheer polarity of the dis­ tinction between 1.1-20 and 1.21-22 must be illustrated. An excellent example that emphasizes this is the juxtaposition of the high level of mythological content in 1.1-20 and the concrete imagery of 1.21-22."Etruscis aggeribus" and “Caesaris ensis" in 1.21, and “Perusina", "Italiae", and “pulvis Etrusca" in 1.22 bring the reader back to the real world, away from Propertius’ world of lovers and mythological characters. And this dis­ tinction is emphasized by the high level of mythological content in 1.20: Propertius ends section 1.1-20 with the poem that is the most immersed in mythology of all the poems of the Monobiblos, and then snaps back to reality in 1.21-22. As Hutchinson states, "Gallus is suddenly abstracted from reality, and then as suddenly located in a reality more concrete than before.,,8S Propertius does so to create as much of an effect of contrast as possible between the literary world and the real world. And this, in turn, emphasizes the distinction between the literary world of 1.1-20 and the reality of 1.21-

22.

841.21.7. 85 Hutchinson (1984), 104. 35 With the distinction thus made, it remains to explore the motive for this distinc­

tion. Propertius needs this dichotomy in order to illustrate his major theme surround­

ing Gallus. He uses the contrast between literary and real settings to create a distinc­

tion between two types of death: poetic and actual.

Death is a recurring theme in Propertius' first book. And just as reality differs

between poetic in poems 1.1-20 and actual in poems 1.21-22, so does death differ be­

tween poetic and actual. In poems 1.1-20 Propertius uses the verbs pereo and morior,

as well as the noun mors, in six poems: one addressing Bassus, three referring to him­

self, and two referring to Gallus. The four instances which do not concern Gallus are as

follows: 1.4.12, sunt maiora, quibus, Basse, perire iuvat, "there are greater things, Bas­

sus, for which it is pleasing to die"; 1.6.27, multi longinquo periere in amore libenter,

"many have gladly perished in long-endured love"; 1.14.14,quae maneant, dum me fata perire volenti, "my joys (with Cynthia) will abide with me till the fates decree me

dead!"; and in 1.19.20,turn mihi non ullo mors sit amara loco, "whenever death might

find me, in no place will it be bitter",i.e. because of Cynthia. All of these refer to "dy­

ing" in a poetic sense, but whether it refers to dying in love, to lover's skills which are

"to die for," or to dying happy because of love, none refers to actual death. Propertius

has created a connection between a literary dying and dying of love: they are both re­

moved from reality. Death here from love is not actual death.

The instances referring specifically to Gallus in 1.1-20 are no different; he is de­

scribed as "dying in love" in both passages. In 1.10.5, "cum te complexa morientem,

Galle, puella / vidimus...", and in 1.13.33, "tu vero quoniam semel es periturus

36 amore."66 Further, if one looks to the poetry of Vergil, another instance crops up of

Gallus in a poetic landscape dying of love:Quae " nemora, aut qui vos saltus habuere,

puella / Naides, indigno cum Gallus amore peribat?"67 Gallus' traditional type of death

in Augustan poetry is to be "dying in love."

In contrast to this, poems 1.21-22 are set in the harsh real world, and death

here carries no pleasantness of poetic landscapes, only the finality of war. This second

type of death is death in war, actual death. As discussed above, the strong distance

from reality of poem 1.20 created by the long mythological story only serves to empha­

size the sharp return to reality in 1.21. Thus, when the final two poems transport the

reader back to a real life setting, all the notions of death must make this transition too.

They then lack the association with the literary world and its notion of "dying from

love." Thus, it is real death that is referenced in 1.21.

This is a profound transition, and Propertius uses the sudden gravitas he has

created here to send a message to Gallus. He is showing him the type of death that is

characteristic of the career Gallus has now chosen. To provide the context for this, it is

important to note that when Propertius is writing theMonobiblos, which was "as most

scholars believe, in the thirties,"88 Gallus has either recently embarked on a military

career, or is preparing to do so. With the Monobiblos Propertius sends him a warning

of the impending death that awaits Gallus if he continues his military career. This

86 This may even hint at a passage of Gallus' writing. Not only in Propertius, but also Ecloguein 10, Gallus is depicted as 'dying Gallus'. 1.13.33 is either a reference to theEclogues or to Gallus' own work. 87 Ed. 10.9-10. 88 Cairns (1983), 88. 37 warning is part of an appeal Propertius is making to Gallus. Considering Cairns' sugges­ tion that "since Gallus' Egyptian successes are not hinted at in these elegies, [theMon­ obiblos was] written before Gallus went to Egypt,"89 perhaps Propertius was warning— and admittedly wisely to a modern reader—Gallus against taking the prefecture in

Egypt-

Whatever appeal Propertius made, poems 1.21-22 provide the consequence should Gallus not heed. In 1.21-22, by illustrating death in war contrasted against Gal­ lus' usual death in love, Propertius shows Cornelius Gallus the harsh reality of the mili­ tary path. In the Gallus of 1.21 he shows Gallus a potential image of himself, a Proper- tian "Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come," as it were.

Before continuing, it is necessary first to address the chronology of the omen.

Though this alleged omen of the future does indeed reside in the past, 41 B .C ., this placement in the past is a boon instead of an impediment. Upon examination of the

Monobiblos with respect to the contrasted nature of sections 1.1-20 and 1.21-22, this omen must be set in the past. It must be latching to a historical event, or else it would only exist in Propertius' literary world, and thus lose its gravitas. And further, looking at the plot of the Monobiblos rather than historical chronology, the omen does indeed come "in the future," as it placed last, following all the poems that address the living

Cornelius Gallus.

Having established the warning and its chronology, it is of course necessary to explore Propertius' reason behind the warning. While it is clear that it is a warning to

89 Cairns (1989), 89. 38 dissuade Gallus from his military career, the reason why Propertius would wish to do

so is not as clear. But some possibilities do exist. According to King, "by the time Ver­

gil's Eclogues were written, Gallus was wealthy and a man of political stature, to be

mentioned along with Pollio{Eel. 3,4) and Varus {Eel. 6,9)."90 And considering that the

Eclogues, which refer to Gallus' work, were written in 43 B .C ., one could posit that Gal­

lus, with his new political stature, had stopped writing poetry anytime after 43B.C. and

had decided instead to focus on his political career. Perhaps with theMonobiblos

Propertius is persuading him back to elegy. According to King, "looking at [theMono­ biblos] as a whole, we realize that Propertius is trying to make an appeal for an entirely different and new way of life—making love not war."91 This can be taken as a direct

metaphor to Cornelius Gallus: "write love poetry, don't fight wars," as if the two are

mutually exclusive. Perhaps to Gallus, they were.

Poem 1.13 provides the most telling clues to this particular appeal. When read metaphorically, as Propertius referring to his own reading of Gallus’ elegiac poetry,

1.13 provides the essence of it. In this poem, Propertius urges Gallus to follow that pursuit, to follow that particular path of love. The exhortation is clear in lines 33-34,tu vero quoniam semel es periturus amore , / utere, which, according to Butler's transla­ tion means, "since then in truth thou art doomed once and for all to die from love; use thy chance."92 The thrust it is that he is urging Gallus to die inthat manner, the literary death, from love, and to be satisfied with that. After all, to be "dying in love" is the

90 King (1980), n.5. 91 King (1980), 230. 92 Butler (1929), 37. 39 stuff of Gallus' poetry. And considering all the references to "dying Gallus" in Properti­ us and Vergil, it may very well be an explicit reference to Gallus' poetry. Propertius tells

Gallus to follow elegy with the inference that by following that path he willnot follow the military path that would cause him actuallyto die. That is his appeal.

Gallus' Poetic Persona

However, this appeal raises an important question: how can the foundling poet Proper­ tius make a direct appeal, let alone give reproach and advice, to the poetic giant Gal­ lus? He dared to do so in order to employ the rivalry motif he has used, and he gets away with it because he does not address Gallus himself in this rivalry but, rather, his poetic persona.

King, in her article, provides a number of reasons for Propertius to have chosen

Gallus as a rival, of which two are particularly relevant: "1) he was publicized by Vergil as a lover-poet in theEclogues; 2) he was Propertius' immediate predecessor in love elegy."93 Furthermore, this type of rivalry was common in Hellenistic poetry; as King notes, "there was plenty of poetic precedent for such motifs of the rivalry of poets, the most Callimachean being the rivalry between that poet and Apollonius."94 This is note­ worthy because of Callimachus' great influence on Propertius.95 While Propertius' Cal­ limachean principles do not come out fully until the opening poems of Book 3, Callima­ chus' influence on Propertius is evident in such places as poem 1.20, which King even

93 King (1980), 224-225. 94 King (1980), 244. 95 See King (1980), 217-219. 40 calls an "exemplum of Propertius' total commitment to Callimachean-style elegy on

love."96

It is important to reiterate that in theMonobiblos the rival-motif does not exist

between Propertius and Gallus himself. Propertius is addressing not Gallus the histori­

cal person, but Gallus' poetic persona. For example, in the second half of 1.10, it would

not have been proper for Propertius to give advice to Gallus himself, with no close friendship existing between the two. So Propertius here is giving advice to Gallus' poet­

ic persona, which is the character that Gallus created for himself in his own poetry.

Gallus the politician and victorious commander would not have been caught love-

stricken in the arms of his lover. Propertius' readers would have known this fact, and would have understood the necessity for Gallus to create a characterized poetic self;

Gallus could hardly have written elegy with any other persona. And this is whom Prop­

ertius addresses, admonishes, and communicates with in his poetry.

With the appeal identified, and the procedure and justification taken care of, the motive remains. Propertius gives advice because he wants to defeat Gallus' perso­

na as elegist. Propertius wants to take Gallus1 place. That in itself is the call to contest

Propertius presents to Gallus. Propertius is challenging Gallus with this by dominating over him in 1.10, by givinghim, the master of elegiac poetry, advice. The most im­

portant thing is that it is a challenge that can only be answered in poetry, in elegy.

And therein rests the motive: Propertius cannot lose in this situation. If Gallus

does not reply with elegy, then Propertius becomes the new master of elegy; if Gallus

96 King (1980), 229. She also adds (227): "1.20 is anadmonitio addressed to the rival-lover Gal­ lus in the rival-poet Gallus' own terms, epyllion incorporated into elegy." 41 does reply, then Gallus will have answered Propertius' call to contest, and will have returned to the world of poetry. At the same time, it is irrelevant whether Gallus re­ plies directly to Propertius' challenge; the point is not for Propertius to gain status through an elegiac battle with the master of the genre—though it would have been a welcome side-result for Propertius—the point was simply to rile up Gallus, to rouse him from his poetic slumber. The theme of the rival-lover/poet, especially in Properti­ us 1.10 and 1.20 was a call to contest for Gallus, a challenge to write better poetry in response, to goad Gallus into writing poetry again, to leave behind his dangerous mili­ tarycareer, in which Propertius illustrates only death can await him.

Gallus as a fictional rival-lover does not appear again in any of Propertius' work.

The Monobiblos was published before Gallus' death and much changed following its publication. We cannot be sure if Gallus' absence is due to Propertius moving away from this motif, or because Gallus died before the publication of later books. In addi­ tion, Propertius joined the circle of Maecenas, thereby aligning himself with the poetic circle closest to Augustus, no doubt at a time when Gallus, if not dead, was nonethe­ less persona non grata. Whether one of these reasons or a combination accounts for

Gallus' absence, it is clear that after the publication of his first book of poetry, Proper­ tius could no longer challenge his poetic inspiration.97

97 Another possibility of the lack of Gallus following theMonobiblos is that in the Monobiblos was a search for patrons. Propertius mentions two other important, influential, Romans: Bas- sus and Tullus. He addresses one poem to Bassus and four to Tullus. There is a possibility that he was "putting out feelers," or "covering all his bases," so to speak, by mentioning them. Af­ ter the Monobiblos, Propertius joins Maecenas' circle, and never again mentions Bassus or Tul­ lus. There is precedent for this in Vergil, who wrote the Eclogues patron-less, and included 42 When agreed to be separate, distinct figures, the Galluses of theMonobiblos

leave the reader in darkness with regard to their identities, and they bestow upon the

reader either vague questions or indifference, but never answers. Taken as Cornelius

Gallus, the unity not only reveals a major element of the book, Propertius' appeal to

Gallus, but also reveals traces of Gallus' own writing.

Understanding the elegiac appeal to Gallus, the father of Latin elegy, grants the

reader insight not only into Propertius' poetic motives and aspirations, but also his po­

etic beginnings and inspirations. And it is the rich array of intertextual connections en­

abled by the unity of Galluses that unveils motifs and themes of Gallan poetry for the

rather Gallus-less modern reader. When Propertius uses what is very likely Gallus' very

own "dying in love" motif, at the same time he preserves it for the modern reader;

when he employs the nosse wordplay, at the same time he supplies the modern reader

with what may be a glimpse of a common Gallan theme. To identify these Galluses as

anyone other than the elegiac poet is to squander this rare trove of information on the

most mysterious of all Latin poets.

Gallus as a major character. After they joined Maecenas' circle, neither Propertius nor Vergil mentioned Gallus again in any substantial way. 43 Bibliography

Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J., Nisbet, R.G.M. "Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrim," Journal of Roman Studies 69(1979): 125-155. Butler, H.E., Propertius. The Elegies of Propertius (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1929). Cairns, Francis. "Propertius 1.4 and 1.5. and the 'Gallus' of the Monobiblos," Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar 4(1983): 61-103. Cairns, Francis. "Some Problems in Propertius 1.6," American Journal o f Philology 95(1974): 150-163. Cairns, Francis. Sextus Propertius: The Augustan Elegist (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 2006). Camps, W.A. Propertius Elegies: Book 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961). Clausen, Wendell. A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues (New York: Oxford University, 1995). Coleman, Robert.Eclogues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977). Courtney, E. "Vergil's Sixth Eclogue," QUCC 43(1990): 99-112. Crump, M.M. The Epyllion from Theocritus to Ovid (New York: Garland Publishing, 1978). Elder, J.P. "Non Iniussa Cano: Virgil's Sixth Eclogue,"Harvard Studies in Classical Philol­ ogy 65(1961): 109-125. Fairweather, Janet. "The 'Gallus Papyrus': A New Interpretation,"Classical Quarterly. 34(1984): 167-174. Frank, T.Vergil: A Biography (New York, 1922). Haarhoff, T.J. "Vergil and Cornelius Gallus,"Classical Philology. 55 (1960): 101-108. Hutchinson, G. "Propertius and the Unity of the Book,"Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984): 99-106. King, J.K. "The Two Galluses of Propertius' Monobiblos," Philologus 124 (1980): 212- 227. Kyriakou, P."Pergite Periedes: Aemulatio in Vergil's Eel. 6 and 10," Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 52 (1996): 147-157. Luck, Georg. The Latin Love Elegy (London, 1959). Lyne, R.O.A.M. Ciris: A Poem Attributed to Vergil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Merriam, Carol U. "The Search for Gallus: An Investigation of the Poetical Works of Gaius Cornelius Gallus". (Unpublished thesis. Queen's University, Kingston, On­ tario: 1987) Nicholson, N. "Bodies without Names, Names without Bodies: Propertius 1.21-22," The Classical Journal 94 (1999): 143-161. O'Hara, J.J. "The New Gallus and the Alternae Voces of Propertius 1.10.10,"The Classi­ cal Quarterly 39 (1989): 561-562. Paschalis, Michael. "Virgil's Sixth Eclogue and the Lament for Bion,"American Journal of Philology 116 (1995): 617-621. 44 Pasco-Pranger, M. "Sustaining Desire: Catullus 50, Gallus and Propertius 1.10,"Classical Quarterly 59 (2009): 142-146. Perkell, Christine G. "The "Dying Gallus" and the Design of Eclogue 10,"Classical Philol­ ogy 91 (1996): 128-140. Pincus, M. "Propertius' Gallus and the Erotics of Influence," Arethusa 37 (2004): 165- 196. Putnam, M.CJ. "Propertius and the New Gallus Fragment,"Zeitschrift fu r Papyrologie und Epigraphik 39 (1980): 49-56. Rose, H.J. The Eclogues of Vergil (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1942). Ross, David 0., Jr. Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome (London: Cambridge University Press, 1975). Somerville, Ted. "The Literary Merit of the New Gallus,"Classical Philology, 104 (2009):106-113. Sullivan.Propertius: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) 1976. Syme, Ronald. "The Origin of Cornelius Gallus,"Classical Quarterly. 32 (1938): 39-44. Syme, Ronald.History in Ov/'d (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). West, D.A. "The Metre of Catullus' Elegiacs," Classical Quarterly 7 (1957): 98-102. Woodman, AJ. "The Position of Gallus in Eclogue 6,"Classical Quarterly 47 (1997): 593- 597.

45 CURRICULUM VITAE JOEL PATRICK VIOLETTE

S.U.N.Y. ULSTER Stone Ridge, NY Associate in Science, June 2006.

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS COLLEGE Sparkill, NY Bachelor of Arts, History, June 2008.