THE USE AND ABUSE OF VIRGIL IN MEDIEVAL LATIN EPIC A lecture to the Virgil Society, November 1976 by A.K. Bate “ The Middle Ages have left us absolutely nothing (o f Virgil) we can recognise; only the name remains. So complete a metamorphosis. half excuses the neglect which so long attached to medieval society.” 1 Thus wrote a Professor o f Latin at the University o f Oxford, one Robinson Ellis. My paper this afternoon will suggest that the learned professor was not really looking in the right way. He wanted a carbon copy o f the Roman Virgil. What he ought to have done was to listen to a ninth-century humanist, Lupus Servatus, who spent his time working on Cicero, not so that he could write like Cicero, but so that he could adapt Cicero’s style and improve his own. If Ellis had done that he would have seen the positive use to which Virgil was put by medieval writers. The whole o f medieval Latin epic is too big a subject to treat in one hour, and because much o f it is of a pretty banal nature, the effort would be tiresome, not to say soporific. It is my intention to single out two epics in which one can see Virgil being used positively and abused positively, and a third in which he is abused negatively. The epics concerned are the tenth-century Waltharius by Gaeraldus, the eleventh- century anonymous Ruodlieb, and the twelfth-century Bellum Troianum by Joseph o f Exeter. That Virgil should be treated in varying and even contradictory ways will not o f course surprise classicists. At the beginning o f the first century AD the Aeneid was being both praised and reviled, sometimes at the same time. Its use as a school text brought Virgil’s qualities to the attention o f the students but also a degree of odium in that he was compulsory. This dual effect can be seen in Lucan, for example, who can parody Virgil in the description o f Caesar’s visit to Troy and yet follow his practice o f an opening statement o f . theme. As the Aeneid was compulsory reading in the Middle Ages it is only natural that he should arouse the same feelings then, and it must be remembered that as Lucan was read too his example would be present. And if this were not enough, there was also Prudentius’ Psychomachia, a terrible warning o f what was likely to happen if one did try to write Virgilian epic. To an intelligent writer o f the late tenth century, it must have been obvious that a straightforward- attempt at writing a Latin epic was out o f the question. Virgil had successfully put an end to the allegorical epic for the time being. Prudentius had proved that one could not Christianize Virgilian epic by using Virgilian language and motifs. Lucan had shown that historical epic was a non-starter, though some later mediocre poets were to emulate him in their treatment o f Carolingian history. Statius had shown that using other people’s legendary past was not successful. As far as the legendary past o f the Germanic tribes was concerned this was being adequately catered for by epics in the Germanic languages.The only path open at that time, the tenth century, was to write a burlesque epic. This is what a Frankish monk called Gaeraldus from the monastery o f St Evre in Toul decided on. His epic, as he tells his episcopal patron in the prologue, Ludendum magis est dominum quam sit rogitandum 2 “ It is for pleasure rather than for religious purposes” We should not, therefore, expect the work to be serious. lik e Lucan, Gaeraldus was ready to parody his school texts, but his choice o f material was more eclectic. He had been brought up on Virgil as the number o f echoes testifies. (In his edition o f the 1456-line poem Karl Strecker lists over 450 Virgilian echoes, though some o f his examples are ludicrous, e.g. Waltharius vocor is an echo o f sum pius Aeneas!). As a good Christian Gaeraldus had been exposed to Prudentius’ Psychomachia and o f course to the Bible. As a German he was steeped in the national epic legend o f the Nibelungs. So, he decided to poke fun in Latin at this Germanic legend while parodying Virgil, Prudentius and the Bible. In order to achieve this he placed three set-pieces into the story line. The central part o f the Waltharius is an elaborate send-up o f the battles in Prudentius. The conclusion o f the fighting between Walther and his opponents Gunther and Hagen is a parody o f Christ’s teaching to his disciples after the Beatitudes. But it is the first set-piece that I want to discuss today, the escape o f the hero Walther and his fiancee Hiltgund from the court o f Attila the Hun. The passage is contained between lines 215 and 401. Walther comes into the palace to find Hiltgund there alone. They are both hostages and they were betrothed to each other when children. He asks her for a drink, and ilia mero tallum complevit mox pretiosum (224) One recalls Dido at Aeneid I, 728-9 hie regina gravem gemmis auroque poposcit implevitque mero pateram. Walther holds her hand, and there follows a very odd description o f a sort o f wedding ceremony with Walther making a very un-Christian suggestion that they consummate the marriage there and then Walthariusque bibens vacuum vas porrigit olli - ambo etenim norantde se sponsalia facta - (the vas vacuum being a sexual symbol). Her reply shows that Gaeraldus is thinking o f Dido and Aeneas in a way that goes beyond the verbal parallels. She refuses to accept this unorthodox private wedding ceremony as a valid reason for losing her virginity. (In fact, she stays a virgin until after the public wedding at the end of the epic.) Walther replies that he was only joking Absit quod memoras Noris me nihilum simulata mente locutum (241-2) Two quotes from Aeneid IV, quod memoras (109) and sensit enim simulata mente locutam (105), both from the passage in which Venus replies to Juno about the wedding o f Dido and Aeneas, show how well Gaeraldus has adapted Virgilian language to differentiate between two weddings. And to clinch the point, it is only when Walther has assured her that he was only joking that Hiltgund answers Ad quaecumque vocas, m i domne, sequar studiose an echo o f the same Virgilian passage (114) perge : sequar. Walther explains his plan for the actual escape. He will throw a party for Attila and his courtiers and get them blind drunk. At that point the two fiance's will be able to slip away unnoticed. The banquet starts with Attila downing his drink in one E t simul in verbo nappam dedit arte peractam ordine sculpturae referentem gesta priorum, quam rex accipiens haustu vacuaverat uno, confestimque iubet reliquos imitarier omnes (308-11) The language is that o f Dido’s banquet for Aeneas ingens argentum mensis, caelataque in auro fortia facta patrum, series longissima rerum (I 640-1) ille impiger hausit spumantem pateram et pleno se proluit auro; post aliiproceres. (I 738-40) At this point Gaeraldus leaves behind the serious use o f Virgil and turns to pure parody. The party is a roaring success. In verbal echoes o f Aeneid V, VI, V II, and IX the drunken revelry is humourously described. Walther and Hiltgund set out as unheroically as Aeneas from Troy. Aeneas had his father on his shoulders, his son by his side and his wife walking behind. Walther is armed to the teeth, with one two-edged sword, one one-edged sword, javelin and shield. He has helmet, breastplate three layers thick and wicket-keeper size shinpads. His horse Leo, stat sonipes acfrenaferox spumantia mandit (328) is in fact a packhorse carrying two middle- sized boxes, led by Hiltgund who has the reins in one hand and a loaded fishing rod in the other. Meanwhile, back in the palace next morning, everyone is coming to with a glorious hangover, and looking for Walther to thank him for the great party. Attila’s queen, Ospirin, realises that Walther and Hiltgund have flown. She berates her husband like Mercuty berates Aeneas, IV, 265 ff. Attila, like Aeneas, nunc hue animum tristem, nunc dividit illuc (IV , 285, with celerem for tristem j. In a series o f Virgilian lines, drawn from various books, but with a preponderance from IV, the description o f Dido’s mind, angry at her jilting by Aeneas, is used to describe Attila’s queasy stomach. Ac velut Aeolicis turbatur arena procellis sic intestinis rex fluctuat undique euris etc. (384-5) Like Dido, nec placidam membris potuit dare cura quietem decidit in lectum, verum nec lumina clausit, nunc latus in dextrum fultus nunc inque sinistrum, et veluti iaculo pectus tranfixus acuto palpitat atque caput hue et max iactitat illuc, et modo subrectus fulcro consederat amens. Nec iuvat hoc, demem surgens discurrit in urbe, atque thorum veniens simul attigit atque reliquit. Taliter insomnem consumpserat Attila noctem. (392-9) The parallel with Dido is sustained. In the whole of the passage discussed, I hope I have shown that Gaeraldus was capable o f using Virgil positively (in respect of the wedding that wasn’t) and abusing him positively (in using Dido’s anger and love­ sickness to describe Attila the morning after the night before).