Proceedings o f the Society 26 (2008) Copyright 2008

Achates: Faithful Friend or Poetic Fraud?

A paper given to the Virgil Society on 22 October 2005

[Halsey] became, in Weaver’s phrase, [Margaret Thatcher’s] fidus Achates - her faithful companion - accompanying her on visits to schools and conferences, trusted completely and with whom she could relax. John Campbell 1

chates’ reputation, as the quotation above suggests, has stood the test of time remarkably well. If a political biographer writing at the start of the third millennium can find a reference Ato Achates sufficiently meaningful to be worth mentioning to his readers, then the character might well be considered a success. Scholars too have succumbed to the charms of Achates. In his preface to The Cambridge Companion to Virgil, Martindale conceives of the book as a fidus Achates2 And yet on anything but the most superficial examination, there is a strong suspicion that Achates’ much vaunted reputation is undeserved. He is described as fidus, fortis and magnus, yet a survey of the evidence reveals that he does remarkably little, and says even less, to justify these epithets. He is presented as ’ friend and confidant, yet he takes very little part in the action, is spoken to by Aeneas only twice and himself speaks only once (a speech of four lines). We discover very little of what he is thinking, feeling or doing, and neither Aeneas nor any other character pays much attention to him. It is hard to avoid the thought that Achates amounts to a lot less than he is made out to be, that he is a literary impostor, a trick played on a trusting (and perhaps complacent) audience.

DOUBTS ABOUT ACHATES’ FIDELITAS

Critics have had their doubts. Williams calls Achates ‘a very colourless figure’ .3 Lee says he is “so dimly sketched by Virgil as almost to be Aeneas’ shadow”.4 For Weber, he is the least characterized figure for the number of appearances he makes in the whole poem. He has no separate destiny like Palinurus or Misenus, no independence like , no significance as a forefather like or .

66 S tephen M o o rby - A c h a t e s : Fa ith fu l F riend o r Po etic F r a u d ?

He has no past, no heredity. His social position remains unclear. We are not told what he looks like or how old he is. He has no personal history whatever.5 There is also a striking imbalance between his appearances in Book 1 and in the rest of the poem. This imbalance is heightened since his biggest scene (the arrival of Aeneas at ’s court), and the only one in which he speaks, takes place in Book 1. For the rest of the poem, he plays an entirely peripheral part. Even when he is wounded, it is only a light wound (10.344).

A brief inspection of a list of Achates’ appearances (see appendix) soon reveals how desperately thin his role is. He is mentioned 11 times in Book 1, and only nine times in the remaining 11 books (Book 3, once; Book 6, twice; Book 8, three times; Book 10, twice; and Book 12, twice). He is described as fidus five times, fortis once, and magnus once.6 He is spoken to, by Aeneas, twice (1.459-63 and 10.333-5), and he speaks once only, to Aeneas (1.582-5). He makes his entrance at 1.120 where, along with three fellow captains, Ilioneus, Abas and Aletes, his ship is being buffeted by ’s storm. He is given the epithet fortis but otherwise is not introduced. When the Trojans land on the Libyan shore 50 lines later, he lights a fire (1.174) and shortly after is on hand to provide Aeneas with a bow and arrows. When Aeneas sets out to explore the place, he takes Achates with him. They meet , who provides them with a protective cloud, and then proceed to , where they come across the Temple of Juno. Gazing at the story of the fall of depicted within the temple, Aeneas shares his sorrowful thoughts with Achates (1.459-63), the only time, apart from 10.333-5, that he is directly addressed. Dido then makes her entrance and Aeneas and Achates are overjoyed to see, from their cloud, their friends arrive at court (1.513). Seeing the warm welcome they receive, Achates, in the only speech (a mere four lines) Virgil gives him, urges Aeneas to quit the cloud and reveal himself (1.582-5). After an exchange of greetings, Aeneas sends Achates back to the ships to fetch and gifts for Dido (1.643-44) and he returns, 40 or so lines later, with in the guise of Ascanius (1.695). The next mention of Achates is at 3.523, when he is credited with being the first Trojan to sight Italy after their long wanderings. He then disappears until Book 6, where at 6.34 he arrives with the Sibyl as the Trojans admire the Temple of Apollo at Cumae. Then, at 6.158, he is shown leaving the cave of the Sibyl with Aeneas as they discuss who the dead comrade might be of whom the Sibyl has spoken. His next appearance is in Book 8 when he accompanies Aeneas on his visit to King Evander at Pallanteum. He is mentioned three times (8.466, 8.521 and 8.586). He then disappears again until re-surfacing by the side of Aeneas in the middle of the fighting in Book 10. At 10.332, Aeneas asks him to pile up javelins, and a few lines later, at 10.344, he is wounded when an arrow aimed at Aeneas misses its intended target. His next and final appearance is at 12.384, where he kills Epulo, a total unknown.

ACHATES DEFENDED

Faced with this sort of difficulty, various critics have rallied to the cause of defending Achates. While conceding that his role may be limited, Eubanks argues that he is nevertheless an important character who plays the sympathetic companion to a rather lonely Aeneas and who elicits our sympathy for the hero. Where Aeneas is pius, Achates is fidus: “His actions are minor. But he is the faithful companion who is with his friend at important moments.”7 Speranza claims that he is an inseparable companion/ confidant who always appears at decisive moments.8 Lossau sees Achates as a symbolic companion figure, a complement to Palinurus. Palinurus is the Odyssean element, drifting, representing the sea. Achates is Iliadic, representing land - he conquers and stays.9 Revesz suggests that Achates may stand for Agrippa and that his role may have been limited at Augustus’ request.10 Lee, while conceding the shadowiness of the character, speculates that

67 T he Pr o c eed in g s o f th e V irgil S o ciety V o lum e xxvi 2 0 0 8

The mysterious Achates may be Virgil’s equivalent to that companion given heroes in stories the world over, always dutiful (Patroclus), often silent (Pylades), usually of inferior social standing (Sancho Panza) or intelligence (Dr Watson).. .Though in almost every case the companion is of little practical help to the hero, his traits are complementary.11 Weber makes the most extensive defence of Achates. He argues that Aeneas and Achates are an archetype of the ‘pair’. Roman history is not the history of one leader but of a pair. Aeneas and Achates prefigure the duality of the consulship. They are older than Romulus and Remus and their harmony, unlike the disharmony of Romulus and Remus, makes them the archetype of a true duality. The Res Romana started peacefully, and recalling that original harmony validates the Augustan set-up. It is no coincidence thatfides is a significant Augustan term for restoring old values. Achates is a sympathetic figure and that sympathy rubs off on Aeneas. He is everyman and so the reader identifies with him. As a witness of events, the reader becomes the companion of Aeneas. He educates the reader through his actions. He is a good example, who stands by his leader during the painful and difficult exercise of leadership. In turn, for the leader, he represents the led and the interests of the led.12 Achates can also be seen to stand in for Virgil himself, as faithful servant and witness.13

PROBLEMS FOR THE DEFENCE

The argument that Achates is present at important moments fails on two counts. First, he is in fact absent at many important moments. He is given no role in the story of the Fall of Troy in Book 2,14 he is not turned to for advice or support when Aeneas is struggling with his destiny in Book 4, and he takes no part in the funeral games of Book 5. Second, when he is present, in the Dido scenes in Book 1, for instance, or in the embassy to Evander in Book 8, or in the battle scenes in Books 10 and 12, his presence is a tenuous one. Throughout the poem, he does and says nothing of any significance and nothing of any significance happens to him. Indeed, he is barely present at all. Arguments for his roles as elicitor of sympathy for Aeneas, witness of the action, and stand-in for audience or poet fall before the same objection. How can he be said to fulfil these roles given his absence as a character? Lossau’s suggestion of a symbolic role alongside Palinurus also fails to convince. It is not clear how Lossau reconciles the notion that Palinurus represents the Odyssean companion and Achates the Iliadic with the fact that Achates makes his biggest impact in Book 1, which lies within the Odyssean half of the story. And the question remains - even if the symbolism is intended, is it achieved? The argument that the Aeneas/Achates partnership prefigures the new harmony of the Augustan settlement suffers from the drawback that if that is what was intended, it would only serve to highlight the fact that this harmony was based on the complete self-abnegation of one half of the partnership. This was indeed the nature of the arrangement, but Augustus went to great lengths to preserve the appearances of constitutional decency and it is unlikely that he would have encouraged Virgil to draw attention to the deceit. Nor, if Achates was meant to be Agrippa, would one expect Agrippa to have been flattered by the comparison. Similarly, arguments for Achates’ role as stand-in for the Trojan band, the reader, or the poet himself are compromised by the thinness of Achates’ actual presence. In fact, these arguments for a larger role for Achates only serve to point up the discrepancy between the role mapped out for him in Book 1 and the role he actually plays in the rest of the poem.

OTHER MINOR CHARACTERS

A look at other minor characters in the does nothing to improve Achates’ situation. Lossau’s comparison of Achates with Palinurus only draws attention to how beautifully Palinurus’ character

68 S tephen M o o rby - A c h a t e s : Fa ith fu l F riend o r Po etic F r a u d ? is realised. Achates, as Aeneas’ right-hand man and confidant, making appearances throughout the poem, is on the face of it a much more important character than Palinurus. But Palinurus has the better part by far. He is the subject of an interesting, significant and touching story (5.827-71); the narrator addresses him directly (Somnus...aera dimouit...te Palinure petens 5.838-40); and Aeneas himself, in the last lines of Book 5, with all the powerful emphasis this positioning bestows, bemoans his fate (5.870-1):

‘o nimium caelo et pelago confise sereno nudus in ignota Palinure iacebis harena.’

The only time Aeneas addresses Achates in direct speech, it is to reflect generally on the sadness of life (1.459-463):

‘quis iam locus ’inquit ‘Achate, quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris? en Priamus. sunt hic etiam sua praemia laudi, sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt. solue metus; feret haec aliquam tibi fama salutem.’

We learn nothing from this speech about Achates, who remains invisible (though he does perhaps have the consolation of being the recipient of one of the most famous lines in the poem). In Book 6, Palinurus is the first shade Aeneas meets in the Underworld (6.337-83), and is thus the subject of an important allusion to Odyssey Book 11, where Odysseus, while journeying to consult Tiresias, meets Elpenor - an allusion that serves to connect Aeneas with Odysseus. And so, although a minor character, Palinurus is part of a story that is both sad and beautiful, and that has a significant part to play in the overall design of the Aeneid.

Anna is another minor character who positively sparkles when compared with Achates. As companion and character, Anna is everything Achates is not. At 4.9-29 we actually see, or rather hear, Dido confiding in Anna about her love for Aeneas. Anna responds, playing a crucial part in the unfolding drama (4.31-53):

his dictis impenso animum flammauit amore spemque dedit dubiae menti soluitque pudorem.

She is sent by Dido to plead with Aeneas not to leave (4.424). She is persuaded to build the fateful pyre (4.478-98). When she discovers that she has been tricked, she is given a moving speech, pronouncing the final words over Dido before climbing the pyre to cradle her dying sister in her arms (4.675-85). Anna plays a real and dramatic part in the story. She interacts with Dido. They talk to each other. Their fates are intertwined. Unlike with Achates, there is no gap between her intended and actual role in the poem. Her character is fully realised.15 Even Acca, companion to the warrior queen , while obviously the most minor of minor characters, is nevertheless well done in comparison to Achates. She appears twice, very briefly - at 11.821-2 where, described as fida ante alias quae sola Camillae / quicum partiri curas, she receives Camilla’s dying words, and at 11.897 where she is the bearer of Camilla’s last message to . Her part is drawn in exact proportion to her importance, a tiny but well-executed brush stroke.

69 T he Pr o c eed in g s o f th e V irgil S o ciety V o lum e xxvi 2 0 0 8

REALISM AND EPIC

Heinze, in Virgil’s Epic Technique, detects a widely felt difficulty with characterisation in the Aeneid:16 Not a single person is depicted with a unique set of characteristics as a man who once walked on this earth, once and once only; nor is any of them drawn from real life. There is a preponderance of generalised figures with an absence of individual traits and this, he says, is a weakness. But Heinze’s conception of realism is distinctly modern. It is heavily based on the emphasis placed on the individual in the modern value system and the importance this has given to a certain approach to realism in literature. In fact, all characters in any kind of literature are in some sense types, for it is this typing that allows the reader to make sense of them. With the rise of the novel in the nineteenth century, conventions of characterisation became bound up with realism and, as a result, certain expectations were generated. In ancient epic, it is reasonable to suppose that a different set of conventions and expectations is operating, conventions that have their own rationale, and which make possible a different kind of literature. It is the blurring of the boundary between what a modern reader would consider the realistic and the mythical characteristics of the hero that makes the epic hero heroic. The mixture of the heroic and the flawed is a common characteristic of literature because it allows the reader, who experiences himself as flawed, to identify with the heroic deeds of the characters and so become involved in the story. And it is this involvement that provides a lot of the pleasure in literature, since it allows the reader to escape from his time-bound, limited, contingent, mundane world into a world of imaginative possibility. Art does imitate life, but in a highly stylised way. Epic heroes, while they are ordinary men in their vices, are heroes in their virtues. They are often demi-gods and are always larger than life. In fact they are more real than real men, in the way that Plato’s ideal forms are more real than the imperfect instances we experience in our day-to-day lives. And it is by this largeness-of-life that characters in epic are to be judged. Are they inspiring? Do they say and do the things we expect and want heroes to say and do? But if these larger-than-life characters have to be judged as inspirational figures, they also have jobs to do within the story. Weber argues that to understand the characters in the Aeneid, we need to look at the part they play in the overall scheme of things.17 Clearly, within the Homeric tradition, Aeneas as hero needs a special friend, a Patroclus figure. But Virgil is re-working the tradition, not merely copying it. Where the Iliad is the story of many heroes, the Aeneid is the story of one hero, and like Aeneas himself in his unflinching devotion to his destiny, Virgil is not to be distracted from keeping his hero at the centre of that story, is not to be lured into make it anyone else’s story (not even Dido’s, and certainly not Achates’). is another major/minor character who, like Achates, is ruthlessly made to submit to her role in the story. Doomed (or destined) to share Achates’ non-character state, she remains a shadowy and indistinct figure. Like Achates, her name is mentioned repeatedly but, like Achates, she says and does nothing. We don’t even know if she is beautiful. Two things happen to her. In Book 7, we are told that during a religious ceremony her hair caught fire, which was taken as a portent of great things to come for her, but also of war. And at 12.605, having learned that her mother, , has hanged herself, she gets two lines (605-6) in which she tears her hair and scratches her cheeks. If the comparison with her mother, who is spirited and given plenty to say, is painful, the contrast with Dido couldn’t be more devastating.18 But it is Dido’s very success that makes a bigger role for Lavinia impossible. Once Dido has taken the stage, no other female character can compete in the love-interest department and Virgil wisely refrains from trying to create another Dido figure in the second half of the book. So Lavinia is sacrificed to the requirements of the story (and, one might think, accepts her fate with exemplary meekness).

70 S tephen M o o rby - A c h a t e s : Fa ith fu l F riend o r Po etic F r a u d ?

A SUCCESSFUL FRAUD?

Commenting on the scene in Book 1 where Aeneas weeps as he gazes at the story of the Fall of Troy depicted on the walls of the Temple of Juno (1.453-63), Johnson points to the ornamental aspect of Achates’ role: The ubiquitous and insubstantial Achates presumably witnesses these tears; indeed, perhaps he adds some tears of his own. We don’t know. He exists in this scene only by virtue of a vocative...in this scene, as in others, he is a heavily stylized, almost ironic epical ornament. In a sense, then, Aeneas, saeptus nebula, is alone as he gazes on the images of the desolation of his native city.19

‘Ornament’ often carries pejorative overtones, suggesting something false, or superfluous, and Johnson seems to be suggesting something similar here. But ornament, in a certain kind of literature, and especially epic, might be thought to occupy a useful and honourable role in the poet’s armoury. Concerning Virgil’s use of epithet, Moskalew writes: It is evident.. .that Vergil wishes to appear rather than be Homeric. His aim is not to reproduce the traditional epic style, but to suggest an affinity with such a style.20

Sale argues that in adopting a Homeric manner, Virgil wants to co-opt the authority of Homer to validate his subject-matter, which is mostly different from Homer’s.21 Taking up this thought, it might be said that Virgil wants to suggest the Patroclus role for Achates without actually giving it to him. And, viewed from this angle, Achates plays his part perfectly. He appears at 1.120 in the midst of the storm without any introduction beyond the epithet fidus, a character without history, quem epici graeci non commemorant (TLL)22 He enters with Ilioneus, Abas and Aletes, three other made-up characters with dubious or non-existent literary pasts who are destined to play even more minor roles than Achates.23 And yet we never feel that these characters are strangers, nor, unless we look too closely, do we ever doubt their importance. As Weber points out, Achates’ matter-of-fact appearances throughout the poem make him a basic, though illusive, character.24 The audience is made to feel as if they are on familiar territory, among stories and characters they know well.

It is possible to imagine many ways in which Virgil might have developed the Achates character. The Iliad is full of heroic companions of all stripes, from the archetypal Achilles/Patroclus relationship, and the Agamemnon/Menelaus, Odysseus/ partnerships, to the drivers of chariots and weapons carriers who follow the great. The Aeneas/Achates relationship involves an inevitable reference to Achilles and Patroclus, which only emphasises the difference. Patroclus is anything but ornamental. Although the role played by Patroclus in the Iliad is unavailable, since it reserved for , Virgil might have developed him in other ways. He might have given him more dialogue, shown him discussing the Dido situation with Aeneas, given him a bigger part in the embassy to Evander, or a bigger role in the fighting. Above all, he might have placed him at Aeneas’ side when he kills Turnus. But Virgil takes up none of these opportunities not, I would suggest, because he was a bad workman, but because he was a very good one. Jenkyns argues that Virgil learned two things from Lucretius: how to write a long poem, and how to write a long poem without characters.25 The Aeneid, he argues, unlike the Iliad, has hardly any characters with individuated personalities, but This absence.. .is related to some of Virgil’s best and most original effects. It assists his subjectivity: the concern not so much to let us see Aeneas plain as to see with him, to enter into his thoughts and feelings.

71 T he Pr o c eed in g s o f th e V irgil S o ciety V o lum e xxvi 2 0 0 8

Achates may be “a mere cipher, Ascanius mostly lifeless, and.. .Turnus not quite interesting enough to bear the emotional weight placed upon him.” But that weakness, says Jenkyns, becomes a strength in that it allows Virgil to do something new. For in the Aeneid, Virgil creates a new kind of hero - alone, above, set apart from the action. And this new kind of hero needs a new kind of friend, one who will not distract attention from his chief, a friend, one might think, truly in tune with Augustus’ new political and social arrangements. It is not that Virgil does not do minor characters well, it is that he does them in his own way, and that he knows how to keep them minor. The story of the Aeneid is the story of Rome viewed through the thoughts and feelings of Aeneas and of no one else. The job of Achates is to reflect glory on Aeneas, not to draw attention to himself. When they emerge from the cloud at 1.580, Achates is immediately forgotten as Aeneas appears resplendent os umerosque deo similis (1.589). Having served his purpose, he is of no further interest. Achates is a sort of trompe I ’oeil effect, a trick played on the reader in the interests of telling the story. He is there to add lustre to Aeneas, a semi-precious stone that Virgil polishes up until it glitters like something much more valuable. And if there is an element of deception in this, the fraud is truly poetic.

POSTSCRIPT

When the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae points out that Achates is not mentioned in the Greek epic tradition, it also notes, 'semper in fine hexametri’. And so it is. In all 21 occurrences of Achates, the name is always the last word of the line. On closer examination, Achates shares this distinctive feature with several other characters in the Aeneid. Achilles, who is mentioned 22 times, is always last. Similarly Ulixes (14), (27), and Metiscus (5). Iulus is mentioned 35 times, all but once at the line-end; Sychaeus eight times, six at the line-end. Various forms of appear 101 times, all but three at the line-end. The metrical reason for this was not immediately obvious. The natural syllable quantities are short-long-long - Achates, “which seemed to mean that it would fit almost anywhere in the line. Here was yet another mystery enveloping the elusive Achates. However, this mystery itself turns out to be an illusion. Raven points out that, in the fully developed type of hexameter used for epic and serious poetry by Cicero, Catullus, Virgil, Ovid and the post-Augustans, the false illusion of a line ending created by the " _ _ pattern (a Bacchius) was frowned on and is particularly rare.26 I am indebted to Professor Roland Mayer for pointing out the solution to this 'mystery’: uix ea fatus erat cum circumfusa repente scindit se nubes et in aethera purgat apertum. Aen. 1.586-7

APPENDIX: ACHATES’ APPEARANCES

◊ 1. 120-2 In the eye of the storm iam validam Ilionei navem, iam fortis Achatae, ...vicit hiems

◊ 1.174-5 First landing on the Libyan shore after the storm ac primum silici scintillam excudit Achates succepitque ignem foliis

◊ 1.187-8 Achates as weapons bearer constitit [Aeneas] hic arcumque manu celerisque sagittas corripuit fidus quae tela gerebat Achates

72 S tephen M o o rby - A c h a t e s : Fa ith fu l F riend o r Po etic F r a u d ?

◊ 1.312 Aeneas and Achates set out to explore - and run into Venus in disguise ipse [Aeneas] uno graditur comitatus Achate

◊ 1.459-60 They gaze at the story of the fall of Troy on the temple walls et lacrimans ‘quis iam locus’ inquit [Aeneas] ‘Achate, quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?’

◊ 1.513-5 Aeneas and Achates, watching Dido from their protective cloud, see their friends arrive at court obstipuit simul ipse [Aeneas] simul perculsus Achates laetitiaque metuque; auidi coniungere dextras ardebant sed res animos incognita turbat.

◊ 1.579-85 Aeneas and Achates, still hidden in the cloud, long to reveal themselves to Dido his animum arrecti dictis et fortis Achates et pater Aeneas iamdudum erumpere nubem ardebant. prior Aenean compellat Achates ‘nate dea, quae nunc animo sententia surgit? omnia tuta uides classem sociosque receptos. unus abest medio in fluctu quem uidimus ipsi submersum. dictis respondent cetera matris.’

◊ 1.643-56 Aeneas sends Achates back to the ships to fetch Ascanius and gifts for Dido Aeneas (neque enim patrius consistere mentem passus amor) rapidum ad navis praemittit Achaten

haec celerans iter ad naves tendebat Achates.

◊ 1.695-6 Achates returns with Cupid/Ascanius iamque ibat dicto parens et dona Cupido regia portabat Tyriis, duce laetus Achate.

◊ 3.523 They sight Italy Italiam primus conclamat Achates

◊ 6.33-5 Achates brings the Sibyl quin protinus omnia perlegerent oculis, ni iam praemissus Achates adforet atque una Phoebi Triuiaeque sacerdos

◊ 6.158-9 Aeneas and Achates leave the Sibyl’s cave and find the body of Misenus cui [Aeneas] fidus Achates it comes etparibus curis uestigia figit.

◊ 8.466 Evander and Pallas meet Aeneas and Achates filius huic Pallas, illi comes ibat Achates.

73 T he Pr o c eed in g s o f th e V irgil S o ciety V o lum e xxvi 2 0 0 8

◊ 8.520-1 Aeneas and Achates not convinced by Evander’s offer - but Venus sends a sign defixique ora tenebant Aeneas Anchisiades et fidus Achates

◊ 8.585-6 Aeneas and Achates, with Pallas in tow, leave Evander Iamque adeo exierat portis equitatus apertis Aeneas inter primos et fidus Achates

◊ 10.332-5 Aeneas and Achates in the thick of the fighting fidum Aeneas adfatur Achaten: ‘suggere tela mihi,non ullum dextera frustra torserit in Rutulos steterunt quae in corpore Graium Iliacis campis.’

◊ 10.344 Achates is wounded magnique femur perstrinxit Achatae

◊ 12.384-5 Achates and others take the wounded Aeneas back to camp interea Aenean Mnestheus et fidus Achates Ascaniusque comes castris statuere cruentum

◊ 12.459 Achates kills one of the enemy Epulonem obtruncat Achates

REFERENCES

Eubanks, L. E. (1982) “The Role of Achates: Comes fidus Achates”, Vergilius 28, 59-61. Harrison, S. J. (1991). Aeneid 10. Oxford. Heinze, R. (1999) Virgil’s Epic Technique. London. Jenkyns, R. (1998). Virgil’s Experience: Nature and History, Times, Names, and Places. Oxford. Johnson, W. R. (1976) Darkness Visible: A Study of Vergil’s Aeneid. Los Angeles. Lee, M. Owen (1979) Fathers and Sons in Virgil’s Aeneid. Albany, N.Y. Lossau, M. (1987). “Symbolfigur der Aeneis”, Hermes 115 89-99. Martindale, C. (1997) The Cambridge Companion to Virgil. Cambridge. Moskalew, W. (1982) “Formular Language and Poetic Design in the Aeneid”, in Mnemosyne Suppl. 73. Paschalis, M. (1997) Virgil’s Aeneid: Semantic Relations and Proper Names. Oxford. Raven, D. S. (1965) Latin Metre: An Introduction. London. Revesz M. (1972) “Fidus Achates”, AUB (Class), 53-58. Sale M. (1999) Virgil’s Formularity and Pius Aeneas, in Signs of Orality: the Oral Tradition and its Influence in the Greek and Roman World, ed. E. Anne Mackay. Brill. Speranza, F. (1984) “Art. Acate”, Enciclopedia Virgiliana. Rome. Weber, Thomas (1988). Fidus Achates. Frankfurt. Williams, R. D., ed. (1972) The Aeneid of Virgil Books 1-6. London.

74 S tephen M o o rby - A c h a t e s : Fa ith fu l F riend o r Po etic F r a u d ?

NoTES

1 John Campbell, Margaret Thatcher Vol. 1: The Grocer’s Daughter (London, 2001) 220. 2 Martindale (1997) xvii. 3 Williams (1972) note on 1.120. 4 Lee (1979) 105. 5 Weber (1988) 27-29. 6 Also rapidus at 1.644, but the adjective seems to be used adverbially. 7 Eubanks (1982) 59-61. 8 Speranza (1984) article on Acate. 9 Lossau (1987) 92. 10 Revesz (1972) 53-8. 11 Lee (1979) 107. 12 Weber (1988) 162-9. 13 Weber (1988) 173-9. 14 There is, of course, no Achates character in the tradition of the Troy story and, for this reason, Virgil may have felt unable to insert him. 15 As if to rub it in, Ovid, in the Fasti, has Achates walking along the beach with Aeneas when they meet Anna. "Anna est! ” exclamat Achates (3.607). Achates’ brief and insubstantial appearance contrasts with the long story of how Anna is turned into a river nymph. 16 Heinze (1999) 227-8. 17 Weber (1988) 28. 18 One can imagine that even the stiffest Roman might consider that , in requiring Aeneas to give up Dido for Lavinia, was taking the call of duty to extremes. 19 Johnson (1976) 101. 20 Moskalew (1982) 81. 21 Sale (1999) 210. 22 The name is conveniently obscure. Servius suggests αχάτης (agate) (1.174) or άχος (grief) (1.312) as the source of the name, but Harrison believes it is more likely to derive from the River Achates in Sicily, ‘a region rich in the Aeneas legend’ (cf. Harrison (1991) note on 10.332). 23 Ilioneus and Abas appear in the Iliad (14.489 and 5.148) but both are killed, so they are clearly different persons. Abas appears four times in the Aeneid as three different persons (1.121, 3.286, 10.170, 10.427). Ilioneus addresses Dido 1.522-58 and Latinus 7.213-48. Aletes (another made-up name, apparently, perhaps from αλήτης ‘wanderer’ cf. Paschalis [1997] 59) encourages Nisus and in their fatal expedition (9.247-50). 24 Weber (1988) 29. 25 Jenkyns (1998) 284-5. 26 Raven (1965) 97. He cites as an exception mersatur missusque secundo defluit amni (Virgil Georg. 3.447), wheresecwwdo creates just such a false illusion.

75