Nocturnal activities, poems as trees.pdf

NOCTURNAL ACTIVITIES, POEMS AS TREES: VERGIL’S GEORGICS AND CINNA’S SMYRNA

INTRODUCTION 1. This paper is prompted, in part, by two excellent and important articles by John Henkel: ‘Nighttime labor: a metapoetic vignette alluding to Aratus at Geo. 1.291-296’ and ‘Vergil talks technique: metapoetic arboriculture in Georgics 2’1 . His analysis happens to coincide with areas of my own interest and I hope to add to the valuable insights contained in these articles. In short, the key point underlying both articles is to identify Vergil’s strategy in the Georgics of literalizing the metapoetic statements of his predecessors. This, I think, is both correct and a far-reaching proposition for Vergilian scholarship. As Henkel anticipates, much of the Georgics (and, indeed, much of Vergil’s works in general) can be fruitfully approached from this perspective. 2. The contribution which I hope to make is to argue that in two passages which are key to Henkel’s approach, Vergil was reacting to the most celebrated poem of his immedia te literary predecessors, namely Cinna’s Smyrna. The passages are (i) first, Geo. 1.291-296, the subject of Henkel’s first article; and (ii) second, Geo. 2.73-82 (on the grafting of trees) which is a key passage in Henkel’s second article 2 . The importance of Cinna’s Smyrna to the first passage will emerge in the discussion. As to the second passage, the detail will emerge in the discussion, but the headline point is obvious: Myrrha/Smyrna was all of (a) the main character; (b) a tree (in that, she was transformed into the myrrh tree); and (c) the poem ‘Smyrna’, itself. That is to say, the figuring of ‘poem as tree’ was natural, if not inevitable, in Cinna’s Smyrna to a far greater extent than for any of his successors. The suggested conclusion is that the strategy which Henkel suggests was, if not antipated by Cinna, at least substantially prompted by Cinna. 3. The final part of this paper looks at Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney) to re-examine the ubiquotous ly held belief that this epigram was intended to accompany a ‘presentation copy’ of Aratus’ Phaenomena. CINNA’S SMYRNA Literary importance 4. The literary importance of Cinna’s Smyrna should need no amplification. It was a poem presumably of a length comparable to e.g. Catullus 64 3 , but apparently composed over the 1

(Henkel 2011) and (Henkel 2014) which reproduce and develop his 2009 thesis, (Henkel 2009). The title to this paper has been chosen to reflect the titles to those two articles. The reasons for my differing formulations will become obvious. 2 (Henkel 2014 pp. 58–61) 3 Cf. (Hollis 2007 p. 35) referring to (i) Catullus 64 – 408 lines; (ii) the Ciris – 541 lines; and (iii) Serv. ad Ecl. 9.35 referring to the Smyrna as a libellus. The poem cannot have occupied more than a single papyrus roll (a proposition which is important for the proceeding discussion).

1

course of a decade4 . It attracted commentaries almost immediately, if not immediately, after its publication5 . Hollis is surely, judiciously, understating the position when he states ‘the poem has left a considerable afterglow’6 . To take a slight example, Vergil refers deferentially to Cinna at Ecl. 9.35-36 but nowhere refers to e.g. Catullus7 . 5. It is, perhaps, a curiosity of modern scholarship that, while the publication of the Qasr Ibrm fragment of Gallus has prompted reams of bibliography, the works of the ‘neoteric’ poets 8 – Cinna’s Smynra, Calvus’ Io, Valerius Cato’s Dictynna, to name but the most obvious ly important - have been, at least recently, comparatively neglected 9 . The prospects of ‘recovering’ Cinna’s Smyrna are, perhaps, greater than e.g. that of ‘recovering’ Gallus ’ Amores, given that one has, on the one hand, in Cinna’s Smyrna, a single poem of reasonably discernible subject matter10 , and, on the other hand, reasonably obvious places to look for its influence: not only, the Ciris and Ov. Met. 10, but also, e.g. the Byblis episode in Ov. Met. 9, Ov. Heroides 11 and other explicit mentions of the Myrrha story. This trend is ironically reflected in Henkel’s due attention to the topos of poems inscribed on trees, in all probability important in Gallus11 , while missing the fact that in Vergil’s immedia te literary context there had been a ‘poem’ which was a ‘tree’, sc. Cinna’s Smyrna. What did it look like? 6. The narrative plot of Cinna’s Smyrna can be stated with some confidence 12 : this is because (i) literary and mythographical treatments are reasonably consistent 13 ; (ii) it would be 4

Catullus 95; Serv. ad Ecl. 9.35; Quint. Inst. Or. 10.4.4. Crassicius apud Suet. De Gramm. et Rhet. 18.1-2. 6 (Hollis 2007 p. 30). It is instructive to compare Catullus 64, such a central text to our studies of Latin literature. If the text of Catullus 64 had not survived, we would be entirely ignorant of its importance: no poet or grammarian identifies Catullus 64 as of any importance. Yet, entire edifices of scholarship have been erected on the influence of this poem on, for example, Vergil and Ovid. 7 In saying ‘deferentially’, I do not ignore that these are not ‘Vergil’s’ lines but Lycidas’: but the fact remains that Cinna seems to have been of far more importance to Vergil than e.g. Catullus, to whom he nowhere refers. Cf. too Valgius Fr. 2 (Courtney). 8 Here and elsewhere, I refer to the ‘neoteric’ poets and ‘neoteric’ poems, conscious of the debate as to the extent to which these can be identified as a particular set of Latin poets and poems. I, myself, think that the analysis in (Lyne 1978a) is substantially correct: viz. that there was a loosely identifiable ‘school’ of poets and poetry, of which Cinna’s Smyrna, Calvus’ Io, Valerius Cato’s Dictynna and Catullus 64 were salient exemplars , characterised by the production of small-scale, highly literary ‘epyllions’. The ‘generic’ limits of this ‘school’ would hardly have been written in stone: thus, e.g. elegiac poems such as Calvus’ Quintilia, Valerius Cato’s Lydia and, even, Catullus 66 and 68 should probably be described as ‘neoteric’ in this context. However, I would posit that e.g. Gallus’ Amores and Vergil’s Eclogues would have been felt as distinct, even though arguably at a small remove, from this ‘school’. 9 In relation to Cinna, in particular, considerable progress was made before the publication of the Qasr Ibrm papyrus: e.g. (Ganzenmüller 1894), (Sudhaus 1907), (Munari 1944), (Lyne 1978b), particularly by examinatio n of the Ciris. Thereafter, there have been important contributions on points of detail: e.g. (Knox 1983, 1986a, 1986b, 1990, 1995; Thomas 1981) and also general surveys of fragmentary poets (Courtney 1993; Hollis 2007) but little in the way of sustained analysis. An unwelcome phenomenon is the numerous articles on the Myrrha episode of Ov. Met. 10 which seem unaware of or ignore the u nderlying influence of Cinna’s Smyrna. 10 This observation cannot, of course, be overstated, given the narrative techniques of the ‘neoteric’ poets: had, for example, Catullus 64 not survived, but one had some indication that it treated the Ariadne myth, co uld it ever have been discerned that the Argonauts’ expedition and Peleus and Thetis’ wedding were substantial elements of the poem? 11 (Henkel 2014 pp. 38–41) building upon the exteme likelihood that Gallus treated Callimachus’ Acontius and Cydippe passage, as Vergil in Ecl. 10 (and, indeed, Ecl. 2) alludes to: cf. e.g. (Rosen & Farrell 1986). 12 For the purposes of this paper, I only sketch arguments which merit and deserve much fuller treatment. 13 See Apollod. Bibl. 3.184; Ant. Lib. 34; Schol. In Theoc. 1.109; Hyg. Fab. 58; Lact. Plac. Narrat. 10.9; Ps. Oppian Hal. 3.402-8; Nonn. Dion. 13.456-60; Plut. Paral. Min. 310F-311A; Serv. ad Ecl. 8.37, Ecl. 10.18, Aen. 5

2

astounding if Ovid’s treatment at Metamorphoses 10 did not closely adapt Cinna’s Smyrna14 ; (iii) large parts of the Ciris reproduce Cinna’s Smyrna in a manner which is best described as cento-like15 ; (iv) juxtaposing Ovid Metamorphoses 10 with parts of the Ciris confirms points (ii) and (iii); (v) various other literary (and other) references to the Myrrha story, many, doubtless, specifically aimed at Cinna’s treatment serve to confirm and amplify various aspects16 ; and (vi) other literary treatments of related myths seem also to look to Cinna’s Smyrna and, again, confirm and amplify certain aspects of Cinna’s treatment17 . 7. I do not ignore the possibility, likelihood even, that Cinna’s Smyrna, like e.g. Catullus 64 and other ‘epyllions’, did not exclusively treat the Myrrha story. On the contrary, my own current thinking is that Cinna’s Smyrna (a) will have contained a substantial excursus or digression; and (b) probably, did not begin with the Myrrha story18 . 8. With that preamble, I offer the following summary of Myrrha episode as Cinna told it19 . Myrrha was pursued by many (Eastern) suitors20 . However, she had been struck by an arrow of Cupid’s and had fallen in love with her father. Perhaps, this was Venus’ vengeance (query, Myrrha, having been ‘worshipped’ as an earthly goddess and Venus’ altars having been neglected; or had Myrrha boasted of her beauty?)21 . Initially, Myrrha did not recognise her own affliction22 . She wasted away with her affliction23 . She vacillates24 . She attempted suicide by hanging25 . Her nurse prevented her from doing so. There was an extended

5.72; Fulg. Mit. 3.8. Here, I have not set out Latin literary treatments or references which are likely specifically to refer to Cinna’s Symrna. Nor do I intend to ignore significant differences in mythographical treatments: is the narrative set in Cyprus or Asia? Was Myrrha’s father Cinyras or Theias? 14 Of course, we should not expect Ovid’s treatment to have faithfully reproduced Cinna’s Smyrna: quite the opposite. Compare the way in which Ovid adapts Vergil’s Aeneid. However, Ovid’s method is always to keep his model in focus (and to ensure that his narrative is essentially consistent with his source, while distorting the narrative emphasis). It is often where he seems to advertise a conscious departure from his source that one can be particularly confident about what that source contained. This is where, in particular, c omparison of Ovid Met. 10 with the Ciris is especially fruitful. 15 (Lyne 1978b p. 36) ‘I believe that if more Latin literature survived, we should see that the method of composition of the Ciris was approaching that of a cento’, with ample demonstration in his introduction and commentary; a proposition which subsequent scholarship has only served to confirm. 16 E.g. Catul. 95; Anon. ap. Suet. De Gramm. 18.2; Prop. 2.28.9-12; Ov. AA 1.283-8; Ov. Ib. 357-62; 539-40. 17 E.g., in particular, Ov. Her. 11 (Macareus and Canace); Ov. Met. 9 (Byblis and Caunus). 18 I have further thoughts about both points, not relevant to the present discussion. 19 In the succeeding footnotes, I sketch as briefly as possible the main evidence and arguments, largely avoiding reference to (i) mythographical sources; and (ii) possible other related passages not directly treating Myrrha. There is far more evidence and argument to be adduced, but for present purposes, the following suffices. 20 Cf. (Hollis 2007 pp. 37–8; Knox 1986b p. 55), the important texts being Anon. ap. Suet. De Gramm. 18.2 (Crassicius’ commentary); Ov. Met. 10.613 (Atalanta’s suitors); and Ant. Lib. 34.1. 21 Cf. (Knox 1983, 1986b pp. 55–6). The important texts being Ciris 158-62, Apollod. Bibl. 3.14, Schol. ad Theoc. 1.109 as compared to Ovid’s insistence to the contrary: Ov. Met. 10.311-14, also Ov. Met. 10.524-6. Possibly, Cupid had wounded Myrrha unwittingly (‘…inscius…’): cf. Ov. Met. 10.524-6, this being a justification for Cupid’s denial at Ov. Met. 10.311-14. 22 Contr. Ov. Met. 10.319. But cf. Ov. Met. 10.499-500 (Atalanta), Ov. Met. 9.457 (Byblis) and Ov. Rem. 99-100 (Myrrha). At Ov. Met. 10.319, Ovid seems to have consciously reversed his source to allow the following soliquuy, meditating (incongruously, hilariously?) on the moral arguments. 23 Cinna Fr. 8 (Courtney) ‘tabis’; also, probably, Cinna Fr. 6 (Courtney) (weeping from dusk until dawn). 24 Ov. Met. 10.369-76 cf. Ov. Met. 9.523-7 (Byblis). 25 Ov. Met. 10.378-388, compare Ov. Met. 9.606-7 (Byblis regrets not attempting suicide).

3

dialogue between the nurse and Myrrha, in which the nurse sought to discern the cause 26 of Myrrha’s affliction27 . Myrrha eventually reveals the cause28 . The nurse agrees to help Myrrha consummate her ‘love’. The nurse prepares some form of spell / aphrodisiac 29 . The nurse deceives Cinyras, suggesting that there is some Eastern princess who wishes to sleep with him. The nurse escorts Myrrha at night to her father’s bedchamber30 (her mother being absent). The scene is a perversion of a Roman wedding ritual31 . The ‘marriage’ is consummated and Adonis is conceived 32 , Myrrha’s identity being concealed by her clothing33 and the darkness. Cinyras later arranges for lamps to be brought into his bedchamber34 , in order to find out the identity of his consort. Myrrha’s identity is discovered. Cinyras is repulsed and seeks to kill Myrrha. She flees, pursued by Cinyras. Possibly, there was now an extensive geographical list of the places which she visited 35 . She appealed to the gods36 . She is transformed into the myrrh tree, the metamorphosis in all probabilty being described in an ‘Ovidian’ manner37 . Adonis is born from the metamorphosized Myrrha, possibly by ‘Caesarian section’ by the instrument of Cinyras’ sword38 . 9. The above is a sketch of the contents of Cinna’s Smyrna. But, I have chosen the heading of this section deliberately. In physical form, it would have been an attractively presented ‘liber’ or, better, ‘libellus’: etymologically, the inner bark of a tree 39 ; its contents hidden, Ciris 254, cf. Ov. Met. 10.388, 10.394. The line ending ‘exquirere causas’ vel. sim. is probably Cinna’s own diction: cf. (Lyne 1978b ad Ciris 254). Here and in the immediately surrounding (hypothesised) narrative, there seems to be some possible connection with Callimachus Acontius and Cydippe episode (‘causa’ ~ ‘αετιον’, the sickness of Myrrha, the role of the nurse etc.) which, if present, in all probability originated in Cinna. 27 Cf. Ov. Met. 10 and Ciris 206-385. Note in the Ciris, Scylla and the nurse’s speeches are exactly equivalent in length Ciris 224-49, 257-82. See (Lyne 1978b p. ad Ciris 224–49). It is at this point, or around this point, that I believe it is likely that there was an extended digressuion: either in the speech of the nurse (cf. Ciris 294-309, where Scylla’s nurse launches off on a digression which is the subject of a different neoteric poem: viz. Valeriu s Cato’s Dictynna) or conceivably by way of ecphrasis. Note esp ecially, Ov. Met. 10.387 ‘tum denique flere vacavit’ and Ov. Met. 10.426-7 ‘multaque, ut excuteret diros, si posset, amores addidit’, both phrases typical of Ovid’s method of conspicuously adverting to his compression of sources. 28 Cf. ibid. 29 Cf. Ciris 369-77, (Lyne 1978b ad loc.). Ov. Met. 10.397-99. 30 Cf. Ciris 209-220; Ov. Met. 10.446-466. 31 (O’Bryhim 2008). O’Bryhim only addresses Ovid, but the conceit is more likely to have originated in Cinna. It ties in with Anon. ap. Suet. De Gramm. 18.2. 32 Cinna Fr. 7 (Courtney). 33 Cf. Ant. Lib. 34 ‘η δε τροφος κατακρυψα τη εσθητι την Σμυρναν παρηγαγε’ with Ciris 250-1. 34 Ov. Met. 10.469-475. ‘inlato lumine’ (Ov. Met. 10.473) may represent Cinna’s own diction: see Lact. Plac. Narrat. 10.9 ‘lumen inferri iussit’ (noting that Lact. Plac.’s narrative contains elements not present in Ov.); cf. Serv. ad Ecl. 10.18 ‘lumen inferri iussit’; Apul. Met. 2.19 ‘inlatis luminibus’. 35 Ov. Met. 10.476-81. Cf. Ov. Met. 9.638-651 (Byblis); Nemes. Cyn. 26-29; Lact. Plac. Narrat. 10.9; Anth. Lat. 923.1-6. 36 Ov. Met. 10.481-489 cf. Ciris 404-6; Ant. Lib. 34, Apoll. Bibl. 3.184. 37 (Hollis 2007 pp. 32–3) referring to Ov. Met. 10.489-502, Prop. 3.19.16, AA 1.286, Rem. 100 and Lucr. 2.7023 (also highlighting that there is likely to have been a similar metamorphosis scene in Calvus’ Io). I return to the metamorphosis scene below. 38 I stop here, in that it is uncertain the extent to which Cinna continue d: perhaps, like Ovid, he proceeded to describe Venus and Adonis, and Adonis’ death, gored by a boar. Whether he did so, I consider it certain that Cinna described both the transformation of Myrrha and the birth of Adonis. 39 LALE s.v. ‘liber (1)(ii)’: ‘Serv. Aen. 11.554 liber dicitur interior corticis pars …; unde et liber dicitur in quo scribimus, quia ante usum chartae vel membranae de libris arborum volumina … quia ante usum chartae vel membranae de libris arborum volumina … compaginabantur (= Isid. Orig . 6.13.3). Cassiod. Inst. 2 praef. 4 ‘liber … dictus est libro, id est arboris cortice dempto atque liberato. Cassiod. Var. 11.38.4 priscorum opuscula libros appellavit antiquitas: quoque librum virentis libri vocitamus exuvias. Cf. Lyd. Mens. 1.28 p. 14, 17. W. thes goss vide delubrum, librarius.’. The etymology, that is to say, seems to reflect the original use of the inner bark of trees 26

4

but ready to yield its ‘intima’ to the reader40 . The reference to ‘malvae’ virtually forces the reader to have in mind the etymology of ‘libellus’, as indeed does ‘aridula’, an epithet which is taken to be literary, but is surely chosen for its appropriateness to describe the bark of a tree41 . Such a ‘libellus’, a single roll, would likely have had its own cylindrica l container 42 : the container could be made of any material: e.g. leather, metal or wood. Even without prompting43 , the imaginative reader could conceive – with a certain frisson – that in his hands he held the transformed Smyrna. THE CIRIS 10. The Ciris remains a mystery. Despite enormous critical attention and the monumenta l works of e.g. Ganzenmuller44 and Lyne45 , its date of composition and authorship remain intractable. What has, however, become increasingly clear is that (i) the Ciris-poet has access to and plunders, mechanically, extensively from ‘neoteric poetry’; and (ii) the predominant aim of the Ciris-poet seems to be locate himself within the milieu of ‘neoteric’ poetry. The extent to which the Ciris-poet does so has been obviously obscured by the almost total loss of ‘neoteric’ poetry46 . Cinna’s Smyrna seems to have been a key, perhaps the most extensive, source for the Ciris-poet (cf. the discussion above, with, at least, Ciris 206-385, all being heavily derivative of Cinna’s Smyrna). Calvus’ Io seems to make its appearance47 as does Valerius Cato’s Dictynna48 . Possibly, too Cicero’s Aratea49 . Interesting too, is the obvious relationship between the Ciris and Catullus, particular ly Catullus 64: here we have the surviving ‘source’ and the derivative aspect of the Ciris is remarkably extensive50 , yet Catullus 64 seems to be among the least important of the Ciris poet’s neoteric sources from the point of view of plot, extended adaptations and selfadvertisement51 .

as writing material, perhaps then too in roll form. The physical form of a papyrus roll would help to keep the original etymology alive, resembling in cross -section, the rings of a tree trunk. 40 Tendentiously phrased to evoke Anon. ap. Suet. De Gramm. 18.2.4 ‘intima cui soli nota sua extiterint’. 41 Discussed further below. 42 It seems that papyrus rolls were stored either without containers (for example, in libraries, on shelves or in cupboards) or in containers which could either contain multiple rolls or be a single container for a single roll. One would imagine that a presentation copy of a choice poem like the Smyrna would come with its own container. 43 Of which more, below. 44 (Ganzenmüller 1894) 45 (Lyne 1971, 1978a). 46 Cf. again, (Lyne 1978b p. 36) ‘I believe that if more Latin literature survived, we should see that the method of composition of the Ciris was approaching that of a cento’. 47 Ciris 129-62. Cf. (Lyne 1978b p. 45 and commentary ad loc. Thomas 1981). 48 (Lyne 1978b p. 45 and commentary to the passages there referred to). 49 (Lyne 1978b pp. 46–47 and commentary to passages there referred to.). 50 (Bellinger 1922). Bellinger identifies no less than 64 lines of the Ciris which seem to reproduce the diction of Catullus, concluding (the ratio he refers to seems to understate, if anything, the extent of the reminisc ences) ‘there is a reminiscence of Catullus on an average of 1 to every 11 lines of the Ciris… Further… 35 of the 46 passages cited above are from [Catullus 64] .’. A possible, and in my view, attractive explanation is that some, at least, of the observed reminiscences of Catullus may be passages from e.g. Cinna, Calvus or Valerius Cato which have influenced Catullus. 51 Whereas whole scenes seem to have been lifted from Cinna’s Smynra, Calvus’ Io and, to a lesser extent, Valerius Cato’s Dictynna, there is nothing comparable in the Ciris -poet’s use of Catullus 64, extensive though it seems to have been. Note too that the Ciris -poet seems self-consciously to allude to his use of Cinna’s Smyrna by Ciris 238 ‘ille Arabae Myrrhae quondam qui cepit ocellos’ and, similarly, to Valerius Cato’s Dictynna, at 294305, mentioning Britomartis by name (Ciris 295, 296) and ‘Dictyna’ at Ciris 305.

5

11. The issues as to the author and date of authorship of the Ciris are of incidental importance for present purposes. However, it seems to me that the current consensus that the Ciris postdates, for example, Ovid is far from secure. It has been convincingly established by e.g. Munari and Lyne52 that where there are parallels in diction between the Ciris and, for example, Vergil and Ovid, the Ciris-poet’s formulation is not original to the Ciris and, correspondingly, Vergil and Ovid did not imitate the Ciris. But no more than that. 12. With the growing recognition of extensive imitation of poets whose works have been lost should have come greater recognition of the possibility that the signs of the influence of e.g. Ovid and Vergil on the Ciris are rather signs of common influence: e.g. that what is seen to be an imitation of Ovid is, in fact, the effect of both Ovid and the Ciris poet imitating a neoteric source53 . The Myrrha episode of Ovid Metamorphoses 10 puts this point into sharp relief: where diction seems to correspond between the Ciris and Ovid, here, the obvious conclusion is that both the Ciris and Ovid are echoing Cinna. This is particular ly clear in Scylla’s approach to her father’s bedchamber, which seems to have been lifted almost directly from Cinna’s Smyrna. In this instance, while, other things being equal, one might have concluded that the Ciris poet is influenced by Ovid’s account of Myrrha, it should be abundantly clear that such a view would be mistaken. The Ciris poet imita ted closely and particularly neoteric poetry; it is to neoteric poetry that the Ciris poet has the closest stylistic and metrical affinity; the Ciris poet imitated Cinna specifically (and Cinna’s Smyrna may have been his most important model); of itself, the Myrrha story was not an obvious model for the Ciris poet: it was Cinna’s treatment not the story itself which was the attraction for the Ciris poet; Ovid undoubtedly plundered Cinna for his own treatment. Thus, it is perverse to suggest that the Ciris-poet went to Ovid Metamorphoses 10 for elements and diction which seem to be related thereto: he had Cinna’s poem. 13. Yet, the relationship between the Ciris and Vergil seems to be a special case: Vergil Ecl. 6.75-7 and Geo. 1.404-9 are repeated verbatim in the Ciris; that is to say, every line which Vergil devotes to (this) Scylla54 is repeated in the Ciris; moreover, the Ciris poet prima facie seems to intend some particular point vis-à-vis Vergil, in that (i) he (apparently) is at 52

(Munari 1944), (Lyne 1978b). It is interesting that Lyne seems to have perceived this as the direction which his researches were taking him. His work on the Ciris prior to the publication of his commentary probably covered the best part of a decade (a dissertation published in 1970, followed by about five more years of serious work on the commentary (see his preface), which was published in 1978). By 1971, Lyne had committed to a post -Statian date for the Ciris (Lyne 1971), but he candidly recognised that his further work in identifying lost sources impacted upon those conclusions ‘In my paper… I argued for a post-Statian date for the Ciris. I should now phrase the conclusions of that paper more tentatively (especially in view of my belief in the Ciris’ use of lost neoteric epyllions ).’(Lyne 1978b p. 48). Even in 1971, Lyne had recognised that his conclusions were potentially vulnerable to the hypothesis that parallels discovered between extant texts should be explained by postulating lost common sources: ‘Of course in each individual case that I discuss there exists (to a greater or lesser degree) the possibility that both poems are independently drawing on a common source now lost. This is true for all the parallels adduced in this paper; it must be remembered each time, and I shall not bother to repeat it. But as the number of parallels mounts up, the continual postulation of this theory begins to wear a bit thin. I think I adduce enough evidence to make it very unlikely that all the parallels can be explained in this way.’ (p. 239 of (Lyne 1971)). Cf. (Thomas 1979a p. 181), review of (Lyne 1978b) ‘For on the basis of Lyne’s own commentary his previous stand must be radically modified: of the fourteen or so Statian parallels he had presented from the Ciris some nine are now said (and I believe correctly so) to occur in passages derived from a common source (Cicero’s Aratea, Cinna’s Zmyrna, Calvus’ Io etc.). Considering the eclectic nature of the poem, and in light of what we have lost of neoteric epyllion, no safe conjecture can be made about any of the passages, which would place the ultimate source as late as Lyne would wish.’ (Thomas goes on to say ‘…the poem must be post-Ovidian; about that there should be little disagreement’). 54 It is worth mentioning that the Ciris -poet does not reproduce in the same way e.g. Aen. 3.420-432. 53

6

pains to criticise Vergil’s conflation of the two Scyllas at Ecl. 6.55-57 and (ii) the Ciris finishes with four lines apparently taken verbatim from Georgics 1.406-9 almost in the nature of a pseudo-sphragis (cf. Lyne on Ciris 538-541). 14. The whole Scylla issue is curious: it is relatively clear that Ovid’s account of the Megaran Scylla is not an imitation of the Ciris55 , yet the evidence appears to show that there had been some lost influential account of the Scylla story56 before Ovid. Parthenius, who undoubtedly treated the Megaran Scylla episode is a possibility (certainly, he was an author to whom Ovid would undoubtedly have paid close attention). However, to suggest Parthenius was the main source of the Ciris seems at odds with the Ciris-poet’s technique : his interest is in rearranging (words like ‘counters’) Latin poetry. Yet, conversely, had there already been an influential Latin neoteric poem on Scylla, why did the Ciris-poet feel the need to force in Cinna’s Smyrna, Calvus’ Io and Valerius Cato’s Dictynna; what achievement would it have been to re-juggle the posited neoteric poem, if he had that poem in front of him? 15. There are also other close parallels between the Ciris and Vergil’s poetry. Many such imitations are very close. However, it seems to me, in relation to a number of the closest of these, the Ciris-poet seems to be imitating Vergil exactly where we may expect Vergil to have a neoteric source. 16. In short, it seems to me that the possibility remains very much open that the Ciris was composed in the Republican era and that the Messalla to whom it is dedicated is, indeed, Valerius Messalla Corvinus57 . Conceivably, even, it is an early work of Vergil’s 58 . The main other compelling possibility is that it is a conscious, industrious and well-infor med late (but not too late) ‘fake’, but at the same time remarkably and conspicuously amateur in execution59 . 55

Cf. (Munari 1944); (Lyne 1978b pp. 9–14 and comm.). However, the evidence seems to indicate that there had been some lost influential account of the Scylla story. 56 (Hollis 1983 p. ad Ov. Met. 8.1–151; Lyne 1978b pp. 9–14) 57 Again, this is not the place to set out the arguments in full. But Lyne’s conclusion that the Ciris is ‘post -Statian’ is undermined by Lyne’s own findings and has little otherwise to commend it. Thomas’ conclusion that the Ciris is certainly ‘post-Ovidian’ seems to be a product of (i) a reaction to Lyne’s late dating; and (ii) a broadbrush impression that the Ciris-poet imitates Ovid, in places, without detailed attention to the possibility of common sources. I should also mention (Gall 1999), who argues that the author of the Ciris is Cornelius Gallus, reviving Skutsch’s proposal: her work is valuable in identifying further correspondences between the Ciris and Vergil and Propertius’ works, but the conclusion seems to me to be the unlikeliest of all possibilities, without anything in particular to commend it (nothing connects Gallus with the Ciris; nothin g connects Gallus with Messalla – quite the opposite, nothing suggests that Gallus would write such a clearly mechanical, in the sense of ‘cento -like’ work, she ignores all the problems associated with a post-Republican date (e.g. apparent reminiscences of Vergil’s Aeneid) etc. etc.). 58 One should not ignore: (i) that its transmission seems to reflect this provenance; and (ii) DServ. ad Ecl. 6.3 ‘…alii Scyllam eum [sc. Vergilium] scribere coepisse dicunt, in quo libro Nisi et Minois, regis Cretensium, bellu m describebat’. And, purely as a matter of subjective impression, the technique of the Ciris -poet, ‘cento-like’ as it is, seems to me to be not vastly dissimilar to Vergil’s poetic technique, albeit in a jejune and undeveloped form. There is a cluster of apparent reminiscences of Vergil’s Aeneid 3 at Ciris 459-477, but who is to say that there is not a common neoteric source here as well – Cinna’s Propemptikon Pollionis, which surely was the occasion for a learned geographical discursus, is a possible candidate? 59 ‘fake’ in the sense of consciously passing itself of as an early composition of Vergil’s. (Peirano 2012 pp. 173– 204) is a decent exposition of this position, although she, first, comes close to assuming as a premise that the Ciris is a ‘fake’ and, second, does not attempt to explain why the result seems so amateur. One migh t, of course, suggest that the motivation of the ‘faker’ was to produce a work which was conspicuously jejune; however, the shortcomings of the composition of the Ciris seem to me to be of a different kind: the ‘stitching’ is all too visible;

7

GEORGICS 1.287-299 Multa adeo gelida melius se nocte dedere aut cum sole nouo terras inrorat Eous. nocte leues melius stipulae, nocte arida prata tondentur, noctes lentus non deficit umor. 290 et quidam seros hiberni ad luminis ignis peruigilat ferroque faces inspicat acuto. interea longum cantu solata laborem arguto coniunx percurrit pectine telas, aut dulcis musti Volcano decoquit umorem 295 et foliis undam trepidi despumat aëni. at rubicunda Ceres medio succiditur aestu et medio tostas aestu terit area fruges. nudus ara, sere nudus. (Geo. 1.287-299) 17. Since the discussion below will be wholly literary, I should preface it with the acknowledgment that this passage is, of course, ‘agronomically’ quite correct: hay is better cut when damp with dew; torches can conveniently be prepared in winter; it is eminently plausible that the repetitive work of weaving might be alleviated by singing; and full clothing is not conducive to the hot work of summer ploughing (each propostion having ample sources in Vergil’s probable ‘agronomical’ models)60 . 18. The contribution of Henkel, however, is to establish convincingly the metapoetic aspect of this passage (concentrating only on Geo. 1.291-6). He adduces the epigrams of Call. Ep. 27, Leonidas of Tarentum (Anth. Pal. 9.25) and Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney)61 , together with Luc. 1.140-5, to posit that in this passage Vergil ‘literalizes’ literary comments on Aratus Phaenomena: his conclusion, for relevant purposes, being ‘the fascinating complexity of Virgil’s metaphorical allusion to Aratus suggests that the latter was no second-class model for Georgics 1’. This is an attractive conclusion given e.g. Vergil’s extended adaptation of Aratus at Geo. 1.424-63 and the singular popularity of Aratus’ Phaenomena in Republica n and what ‘faker’ would re-use passages from the Aeneid, Ovid (not to mention e.g. Statius) - to adopt the current consensus - in attempting to pass themselves off as a young Vergil? 60 (Mynors 1990) is, of course, excellent on these details (better, even, than Vergil, one might say). (Thomas 1987) and (Thomas 1988 pp. 10–11 and, in a qualified sense, passim) pay due attention to Vergil’s agronomical research (and/or knowledge?); cf. too judicious reference to agronomical sources in (Horsfall 2000 pp. 63–92). On Geo. 1.299 ‘nudus ara, sere nudus’, Mynors provides the solid and decorous, but mildly hilarious, comment ‘Hes. Op. 3191f. γυμνον σπειρειν, γυμνον δε βοωτειν / γυμνον δ’αμαιεν. nudus is not ‘naked’ but ‘stripped’ wearingly only a cinctus, possibly a tunica, like Cincinnatus: H. Le Bonniec in Melanges P. Wuillereumier (Paris, 1980) 215-20…’. A post-Vergilian wag apparently coined the line ‘nudus ara, sere nudus: habebis frigore febrem’. Possibly, Vergil would have been amused by both. The important point, however, is that ‘agronomical’ accuracy, supported no doubt by careful research, was a given for Vergil (‘… ουδεν αμαρτυρον αειδω…’) just as no-one could accuse Vergil’s Eclogues of not being thoroughly Theocritean or the Aeneid of not being thoroughly Homeric. But in each instance, that is only the starting point: cf. Sen. Epist. 86.15 ‘nec agricolas d ocere, sed legentes delectare’ (Sen. Epist. 86.15). 61 Cinna Fr. 11 is mentioned – too briefly – in (Henkel 2011) to support the argument that Vergil is referring to Callimachus and Leonidas’ epigrams on Aratus; his dissertation (Henkel 2009 pp. 16–18) is marginally more expansive; his comment ‘Cinna’s epigram plainly alludes both to the Phaenomena and to Callimachus’s epigram praising it’ (Henkel 2009 p. 16) is indisputable.

8

(and post-Republican) poetry. However, I wish to explore the possibility that the main focus here is not Aratus but Cinna – or rather, the references to Aratus (perfectly apposite to Vergil’s subject matter and, what is more, a ‘Hellenistic Hesiod’62 ) provided Vergil with the opportunity to engage with Cinna (not at all obviously apposite to Vergil’s subject matter, yet a far more proximate literary target). 19. I think it is certain, as Henkel has demonstrated, that Vergil very much had in mind Call. Ep. 27 and Leonidas’ Anth. Pal. 9.25, two epigrams referring to Aratus’ Phaenomena. Ἡσιόδου τό τ’ ἄεισμα καὶ ὁ τρόπος· οὐ τὸν ἀοιδῶν    ἔσχατον, ἀλλ’ ὀκνέω μὴ τὸ μελιχρότατον τῶν ἐπέων ὁ Σολεὺς ἀπεμάξατο. Χαίρετε, λεπταὶ    ῥήσιες, Ἀρήτου σύμβολον ἀγρυπνίης. (Call. Ep. 27) γράμμα τόδ᾽ Ἀρήτοιο δαήμονος, ὅς ποτε λεπτῇ φροντίδι δηναιοὺς ἀστέρας ἐφράσατο, ἀπλανέας τ᾽ ἄμφω καὶ ἀλήμονας, οἷσιν ἐναργὴς ἰλλόμενος κύκλοις οὐρανὸς ἐνδέδεται. αἰνείσθω δὲ καμὼν ἔργον μέγα, καὶ Διὸς εἶναι δεύτερος, ὅστις ἔθηκ᾽ ἄστρα φαεινότερα. (Leonidas, Anth. Pal. 9.25) 20. Henkel has seen, where Mynors and, especially, Thomas63 , that Vergil is undoubtedly referring, at least, to Call. Ep. 27. Conclusive, in relation to Call. Ep. 27, is his rendering of ‘τὸ μελιχρότατον / τῶν ἐπέων ὁ Σολεὺς ἀπεμάξατο’ with aut ‘dulcis musti Volcano decoquit umorem, et foliis undam trepidi despumat aëni.’ where the apparent coinage ‘despumat’ clinches the argument64 . Vergil has also clearly rendered Call. Ep. 27’s ‘ἀγρυπνίης’, superbly judged to evoke not only Aratus’ literary exertions but the nocturna l activities of the astronomer. Also, reasonably convincing, is Henkel’s argument that Vergil also has in mind Leonidas’ epigram, although his analysis seems to me to be distorted by reagrding ‘labor’ / ‘ἔργον’ as exclusively referring to ‘poetic toil’, where the primary reference is surely to the title of Hesiod’s poem ‘εργα και ημερα’. 21. Henkel is also right, surely, to see Lucr. 1.140-5 as directly (or indirectly related) to Aratus’ Phaenomena and Callimachus Ep. 27: ed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem suadet et inducit noctes vigilare serenas quaerentem dictis quibus et quo carmine demum clara tuae possim praepandere lumina menti, res quibus occultas penitus convisere possis. (Lucr. DRN 1.140-145)

140

I say ‘directly (or indirectly) related’ since this post-dates the epigram, Cinna Fr. 11: already, Cinna had rendered the Callimachean ‘αγρυπνια’ of Aratus’ work with ‘vigilata ’ 62

Cf. Call. Ep. 27.1 (text below). (Mynors 1990; Thomas 1988) – Thomas ‘especially’ because of his acute sensitivity to Hellenistic poetry. 64 The intent of the apparent coinage ‘despumat’ escaped (Thomas 1988) who comments ‘ 63

9

in Cinna Fr. 11. The final line ‘res quibus occultas penitus convisere possis’ also has the flavour of Cinna (rather than Aratus Phenomena, or Callimachus and Leonidas’ epigrams thereon): compare ‘Smyrna sacras Satrachi penitus mittetur ad undas’ (Cat. 95.1); ‘et ualidum penitus concepit in ossa furorem’ (Ciris 164); ‘ut penitus nostris—hoc te / celavimus unum visceribus crescens excuteretur onus!’ (Ov. Her. 11.41-2)65 . One can, tentatively, conclude that Luretius is, naturally, engaging with the reception of Aratus, but he is conscious of Cinna’s place in that reception66 . 22. Finally, Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney) haec tibi Arateis multum vigilata lucernis carmina, quis ignis novimus aerios, levis in aridulo maluae descripta libello Prusiaca vexi munera navicula. Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney) 23. Cinna’s epigram is undoubtedly part of the series to which Vergil pays attention. One can obviously see that Cinna had Call. Ep. 27 in mind: an epigram on Aratus, rendering the theme of ‘ἀγρυπνίης’ with ‘vigilata’; possibly too, Cinna’s (prosaic?) ‘descripta’ looks to Callimachus’ (again, prosaic?) ‘τῶν ἐπέων’ and ‘ῥήσιες’; possibly, even, but yet more intangible, as Aratus concealed ‘λεπτη’ in the Phaenomena, a conceit which was recognised by both Callimachus and Leonidas, there is possibly a complementary conceit in Cinna Fr. 11, where ‘quis ignis novimus aerios’ conceals the title of Aratus poem, the Phaenomena, or, to render it in Latin, ‘signa … aeria’. 24. The key point, however, is that Vergil’s picture of a man working by torchlight, ‘quidam seros hiberni ad luminis ignis / peruigilat’ (Geo. 1.291-2) derives only from Cinna Fr. 11 ‘multum vigilata lucernis’ (Cinna Fr. 11.1)67 : it is not an image used either by Callimachus or Leonidas. Thus, it is quite clear that Vergil has Cinna in mind in this passage. Moreover, other elements of Geo. 1.287-90 relate to Cinna Fr. 11. Thus ‘arida’ evokes ‘aridulo’ (even the striking diminutive appears to be evoked by ‘stipulae’); ‘leves’ evokes ‘levis’. 25. That Vergil refers to Cinna’s epigram on Aratus is significant, but not, in itself, particular ly surprising. It would be entirely in the manner of Vergil to combine a series of texts to reinforce an allusive evocation of Aratus68 . However, this is not the end of the story. 26. Geo. 1.287-288 appears to relate to Cinna Fr. 6 (Courtney) Multa adeo gelida melius se nocte dedere (Canace and Macareus, where Cinna Fr. 7 (Courtney) also seems to be in play). Cf. too Sen. Phaedr. ‘sed uorat tectas penitus medullas’ (both connected with Cinna by the incest theme and particularly close to Lucr. DRN 1.145). The topos of concealment was, I intuit, central to Cinna’s Smyrna, reflected in the difficulty with which the nurse diagnosed the source of her affliction; the deception of Cinyras (Myrrha visiting him hidden by clothing and night) and, after exposure, Myrrha’s burying herself in ‘silva’, her metamorphosis prompted by shame. Again, consonant is Anon. ap. Suet. De Gramm. 18.2. 66 Lucretius may have acknowledged Cinna elsewhere: (Hollis 2007 p. 33) makes the persuasive suggestion that ‘et altos / interdum ramos egigni corpore vivo’ (Lucr. 2.702-3) may be a reference to Cinna’s Smyrna, comparing Ov. Met. 10.493 ‘in magnos bracchia ramos’. I also suspect that Lucr. 4.1073-1130 may also relate to Cinna’s Smyrna: see especially ‘nec reperire malum id possunt quae machina vincat. usque adeo incerti tabescunt vulnere caeco.’ (Lucr. 4.1119-20) and the neoteric feel of Lucr. 4.1121-1130. 67 Note that Vergil has reproduced exactly Cinna’s ‘-s ignis’. 68 A ‘window reference’ or ‘multiple reference’ in the nomenclature of (Thomas 1986). 65

10

aut cum sole nouo terras inrorat Eous. (Geo. 1.287-8) te matutinus flentem conspexit Eous et flentem paulo vidit post Hesperus idem (Cinna Fr. 6 Courtney) Cinna Fr. 6 is, in fact, only preserved through a comment on Geo. 1.288 in the Vergilia n commentary tradition ‘INRORAT EOUS: id est Lucifer, de quo etiam Cinna in Smyrna sic ait ‘te matutinus [etc.]’ (DServ. ad Geo. 1.289). These two passages are the only passages in which the exact form ‘Eous’ appears at hexameter end; the ‘E’ of ‘Eous’ is usually long (cf. Greek ηωος), but Vergil and Cinna treat it as short69 . Thomas ad Geo. 1.288 notes ‘the slight personification of the morning-star may owe something to [Cinna Fr. 6]’. This is surely correct. Further again, the contrast ‘nocte… sole’ (Geo. 1.287-8) seems intended to reflect Cinna’s contrast of ‘Eous… Hesperus’. Yet further, Cinna’s unusual repetitio n ‘flentem… flentem’ is reflected by Vergil’s anaphora of ‘nocte’ (again, unusual in Vergil) 70 : Multa adeo gelida melius se nocte dedere aut cum sole nouo terras inrorat Eous. nocte leues melius stipulae, nocte arida prata tondentur, noctes lentus non deficit umor. 290 Geo. 1.287-90 Cinna Fr. 6 likely describes Myrrha as she wastes away with her affliction71 , but doubtless the reference to Myrrha’s tears anticipates her transformation into the myrrh tree (whose ‘tears’ are myrrh), which would facilitate Vergil using the line to describe the dew on corn. It is also worth dwelling on Vergil’s ‘inrorat’ (Geo. 1.288): at Ov. Met. 10.360, Myrrha’s tears are described as follows ‘tepido suffundit lumina rore’; at Ciris 253, Scylla is described as crying, ‘dulcia deinde genis rorantibus oscula figens’. Lyne ad Ciris 253 connects these two passages, suggesting a common source in Cinna 72 . Such an image – tears as dew – would be particularly apposite in Cinna’s Smyrna, again anticipating her transformation into a tree. If Cinna so described Myrrha’s tears, Vergil’s ‘inrorat’ here would be particularly well-judged to reinforce the allusion to the weeping Myrrha of Cinna Fr. 6. 27. Next, Geo. 1.293-4 interea longum cantu solata laborem arguto coniunx percurrit pectine telas, Cf. Serv. ad Aen. 2.417 ‘notandum sane, quod, cum 'Eous' 'e' naturaliter longum habeat, metri necessitate correptum est propter sequentem vocalem’. 70 This passage escapes the attention of (Wills 1996), perhaps because it falls between categories. Relevant, however, may be (Wills 1996 pp. 357–361) suggesting that passages such as Geo. 4.465-6 and Geo. 4.525-7 may look to Gallus and/or Cinna: ‘although the form of Virgil’s threefold and fourfold repetitions may best be attributed to Theocritus and Gallus, other neoteric works are likely to have played a rol e in the tradition’. 71 (Hollis 2007 p. 40) also sees the reference to the myrrh tree’s ‘tears’, suggesting that the line may have come closely before Myrrha’s transformation. 72 (Lyne 1978b ad Ciris 253) collecting a number of other parallels in Latin for ‘ros’ as ‘tears’, noting that the image does not appear in Greek. The Latin parallels may well all originate with Cinna. 69

11

These lines have a particularly neoteric flavour. Thomas notes the parallel with Circe’s weaving at Aen. 7.11-4, with Geo. 1.294 exactly repeated at Aen. 7.14, save for the replacement of ‘coniunx’ by ‘tenues’, ‘making Circe’s weaving sound very much like a metaphor for poetic composition’73 . Geo. 1.293-4, as Thomas again notes74 , seems to relate to Geo. 4.464 ‘ipse cava solans aegrum testudine amorem’ – ‘… coniunx appears in 4.465, in the same position as in 1.294, these being the only two instances of the nom. in the Georgics; cf. 145-6n. on the parallelism of amor and labor for Virgil.’. Geo. 1.294 and Aen. 7.14, moreover, seems somehow to relate to Ciris 178-975 : non arguta sonant tenui psalteria chorda, non Libyco molles plauduntur pectine telae; Ciris 178-9 All of these points are consistent with the possibility that behind Geo. 1.293-4 (and Ciris 178-9 and Aen. 7.14) lies a neoteric source, viz. Cinna’s Smyrna. Particularly interesting is Apul. Met. 2.9.1-3 ‘quid cum capillis gratus… vel cum guttis Arabicis obunctus et pectinis arguti dente tenui discriminatus et pone versum coactus’ which has both an obvious connection to the Smyrna (‘… guttis Arabicis obunctus…’ being, no doubt, myrrh) and an obvious connection to the diction of Geo. 1.293-4 and Ciris 178-9: perhaps, the lines which Vergil and the Ciris-poet imitate concerned the combing of Myrrha’s hair, not weaving at a loom, which would explain the Ciris-poet’s ‘Libyco… dente’ and Vergil’ s apparent inaccuracy in using ‘pectine’ of a shuttle76 . 28. The above makes a circumstantial case for the possibility that Geo. 1.293-4 also have a model in Cinna’s Smyrna, but it is a case which is speculative. The clinching point, however, I suggest, is a comparison between Geo. 1.287-294 and Geo. 4.464-6: Multa adeo gelida melius se nocte dedere aut cum sole nouo terras inrorat Eous. nocte leues melius stipulae, nocte arida prata tondentur, noctes lentus non deficit umor. et quidam seros hiberni ad luminis ignis peruigilat ferroque faces inspicat acuto. interea longum cantu solata laborem arguto coniunx percurrit pectine telas Geo. 1.287-294 ipse caua solans aegrum testudine amorem te, dulcis coniunx, te solo in litore secum, te ueniente die, te decedente canebat. Geo. 4.464-6

73

290

465

(Thomas 1988 ad Geo. 1.293-4) and cf. (Thomas 1985 pp. 65–6). The similarity to Ecl. 6.46 is again suggestive of a neoteric source. 74 (Thomas 1988 ad Geo. 1.293-4). 75 These lines, and their relationship to Geo. 1.294 and Aen. 7.14, are discussed at length in (Lyne 1978b pp. 37– 8), although Lyne’s conclusion is that the Ciris poet has conflated a number of references to Vergil. 76 Cf. (Mynors 1990 ad loc.).

12

In both passages one has a distinctly recognisable allusion to Cinna Fr. 6 77 in very close proximity to related lines – viz. Geo. 1.293 and Geo. 4.464 - describing the alleviation of ‘labor / amor’ by music. The natural conclusion is surely that the source of Geo. 1.293-4 is also Cinna’s Smyrna78 . 29. To take stock: in the passage examined, there appear to be no less than three references to Cinna: (1) Geo. 1.291-2 seems to refer, not only to Callimachus and Leonidas’ epigrams on Aratus, but also to Cinna Fr. 11, again concerning Aratus. It is clear that Vergil has Cinna specifically in mind given that the image of a man working by torchlight only appears in Cinna. (2) Geo. 1.287-90 seems to refer to Cinna Fr. 6, as is suggested by the fact that this fragment of Cinna is preserved by the Vergilian commentary tradition on these lines. (3) There is a compelling argument that Geo. 1.293-4 too alludes to Cinna, these lines being neoteric in flavour and, most significantly, Geo. 1.287-294 and Geo. 4.464-6 both seem to combine references to Cinna Fr. 6 with a line referring to the consolation of amor/labor by music. 30. With this stated, one can speculate as to whether other aspects of this passage allude to Cinna. There appears to be a concealed reference to Venus in Geo. 1.295-6: aut dulcis musti Volcano decoquit umorem et foliis undam trepidi despumat aëni. Geo. 1.295-6

295

This is suggested by three points: (i) the striking metonymy ‘Volcani’ for ‘fire’ brings to mind Vulcan, Venus’ husband; (ii) the coinage ‘despumat’ suggests the etymolo gy Aphrodite from ‘αφρος’; and (iii) the use of ‘undam’ for water, reinforces the last point, again suggesting Aphrodite as being born from the waves. Such a reference has no immediate relationship to Vergil’s passage; however, Venus was a key figure in Cinna’s Smyrna79 . GEORGICS 2.73-82 Nec modus inserere atque oculos imponere simplex. nam qua se medio trudunt de cortice gemmae et tenuis rumpunt tunicas, angustus in ipso 75 fit nodo sinus; huc aliena ex arbore germen includunt udoque docent inolescere libro. aut rursum enodes trunci resecantur, et alte 77

Geo. 4.465-6 is easily recognisable as an allusion to Cinna Fr. 6: see (Mynors 1990 ad loc. Thomas 1988 ad loc.). 78 Such a conclusion fits well with the connection between Aen. 7.14 and Geo. 1.294. If the line derives from Cinna, the likelihood is that it describes the nurse either combing Myrrha’s hair or weaving. It seems clear from Ciris 369-77 with Ovid Met. 10.397-99 (cf. (Lyne 1978b ad Ciris 369-77) that Myrrha’s nurse was also a sorceress. Thus, it would have been natural for Vergil (having referred to Aeneas’ nurse at Aen. 7.1-4) should have alluded to Myrrha’s nurse at Aen. 7.14, given the parallel between Cinna’s nurse and Circe. 79 Cf. above.

13

finditur in solidum cuneis uia, deinde feraces plantae immittuntur: nec longum tempus, et ingens 80 exiit ad caelum ramis felicibus arbos, miratastque nouas frondes et non sua poma. 31. Henkel discusses this passage to suggest that Vergil uses the metaphor of grafting as a trope for Vergil’s intertextual method of composition80 , making valuable and convincing points. Yet, again, I suggest there is more going on here. Henkel, has, I believe, alighted upon another passage where the main influence is Cinna’s Smyrna. Henkel’s points and my observations are not mutually exclusive: on the contrary, through the imagery of grafting, I would suggest that Vergil self-consciously describing his metapoetic technique while at the same time showing it in action by closely adapting a famous passage of the most illustrious of his nearest predecessors, namely Myrrha’s metamorphosis in Cinna’s Smynra. 32. With the premise stated – viz. that behind this passage lies Myrrha’s metamorphosis, the argument is obvious. Two aspects of this passage are particularly striking: 32.1.

First, Vergil’s striking selection of vocabulary which likens the trees under discussion to a female human: (i) ‘gemmae’ (74) is obviously capable of evoking the finery of an Eastern princess, particularly in conjunction with ‘tenuis… tunicas’; (ii) ‘tenuis… tunicas’ (75) more readily describes fine clothing, only transfiguratively is it applied to the bark of a tree; (iii) ‘sinus’ (76) could readily be understood as ‘bosom’; and (iv) ‘plantae’ can be understood as ‘feet’ (a point which Henkel deploys).

32.2.

Second, Geo. 2.82 is conspicuously phrased in the manner of a metamorphosis 81 . Particularly close to the phrasing of Geo. 2.82 is Ciris 81-2 of Scylla’s metamorphosis ‘heu quotiens mirata novos expalluit artus / ipsa suos’ 82 . The conjunction of the two surely suggests an underlying neoteric source treating a metamorphosis (since the Ciris-poet is describing a metamorphosis, Vergil only suggesting such). On Ciris 81-2, Lyne adduces, inter alia, Ov. Met. 1.635-641 (Io) convincingly suggesting that the Ciris poet is looking to Calvus’ Io, but this does not preclude the possibility that the Ciris poet has conflated references to metamorphoses scenes in Calvus’ Io and Cinna’s Smyrna: that is characteristic of the Ciris-poet’s technique; demonstrably, both poems are among the foremost of the texts which he plundered; and the transformation scenes in Cinna’s Smyrna and Calvus’ Io were no doubt of similar type 83 . Ovid’s account of Myrrha’s transformation is no doubt indebted to Cinna and is worth setting out in full: numen confessis aliquod patet: ultima certe vota suos habuere deos. nam crura loquentis terra supervenit, ruptosque obliqua per ungues porrigitur radix, longi firmamina trunci,

80

490

(Henkel 2014 pp. 58–61) Cf. (Thomas 1988 ad loc.) 82 Noted by (Thomas 1988 ad loc.). In (Thomas 1981 p. 374 note 14), Richard Thomas also noted Geo. 2.82 while arguing that Ciris 81-2, 399 was indebted to Calvus’ Io. 83 Cf. (Hollis 2007 pp. 32–33) 81

14

ossaque robur agunt, mediaque manente medulla sanguis it in sucos, in magnos bracchia ramos, in parvos digiti, duratur cortice pellis. Ov. Met. 10.488-494 Compare too, Geo. 2.81-2 ‘arbos / miratastque nouas frondes et non sua poma.’ with ‘… tanti nova non fuit arbor’ (Ov. Met. 10.310 – of the myrrh tree, ‘arbor’ in the same sedes and ‘non fuit’ in the same sedes as ‘non sua’). 33. In relation to the second point, it is worth further reinforcing the point that Cinna’s Smyrna likely had an account of Myrrha’s metamorphosis which ‘which we would call Ovidian… but may have been standard in neoteric epyllia’84 . Hollis rightly draws attention to the resemblance between Prop. 3.19.16, Ov. AA. 1.286, Rem. 100 and Met. 10.498 85 . I set the relevant passages out below: crimen et illa fuit, patria succensa senecta 15 arboris in frondes condita Myrrha novae. Prop. 3.19.15-16 Si cito sensisses, quantum peccare parares, Non tegeres vultus cortice, Myrrha, tuos. Ov. Rem. 99-100 Myrrha patrem, sed non qua filia debet Et nunc obducto cortice pressa latet: Ov. AA 1.285-6 non tulit illa moram venientique obvia ligno subsedit mersitque suos in cortice vultus. Ov. Met. 10.488-9 These passages together, particularly the pre-Ovidian Prop. 3.19.15-6, surely suggest that this motif appeared in Cinna’s description of Myrrha’s metamorphosis. To this observation should be added the importance of concealment in the earlier narrative of the Myrrha story: her passion was consummated only through the device of concealment, this being a traditional part of the myth which pre-dated Cinna: see especially, ‘η δε τροφος κατακρυψα τη εσθητι την Σμυρναν παρηγαγε’ (Ant. Lib. 34). Cinna’s treatment of that part of the story is most likely reflected in Ciris 250-252 and Ciris 34286 . Haec loquitur mollique ut se velavit amictu frigidulam iniecta circumdat veste puellam, quae prius in tenui steterat succincta crocota. Ciris 250-2 paulatim tremebunda genis obducere vestem 84

The phraseology is from (Hollis 2007 p. 32) (Hollis 2007 pp. 32–33) 86 In relation to both passages, see (Lyne 1978b ad locc.) for argument that the passages derive directly from Cinna. In relation to Ciris 342, Lyne comments ‘”genis obducere vestem” is Cinna’s…’. The motif is picked up by Ov. Met. 10.421-2 ‘pudibunda vestibus ora / texit’. 85

15

Ciris 34287 . The overwhelming likelihood is that the motif of Myrrha covering her face was used by Cinna both in his description of her metamorphosis and the earlier narrative (just as the motif of Myrrha weeping at Cinna Fr. 6 likely anticipated the ‘weeping’ of the myrrh tree). Such a conceit is replicated time and time again in Ovid’s Metamorphosis, but the likelihood is that it reflected a techinique already present in Cinna and the other neoteric poets. 34. Thus, where Ovid describes Myrrha’s transformation at Ov. Met. 10.489-502, the likelihood is that he adapts elements which were already present in Cinna. One has been identified (the concealment of her face). Another element which likely derives from Cinna is the transformation of her arms into branches – cf. Lucr. 2.702-3 ‘et altos / interdum ramos egigni corpore vivo’ as adduced by Hollis88 . Doubtless, Ovid adapted and changed Cinna’s metamorphosis scene, but equally doubtless he retained sufficient to indicate his departures. Below is Ovid’s metamorphosis scene (with the two elements which seem to derive from Cinna highlighted): nam crura loquentis terra supervenit, ruptosque obliqua per ungues porrigitur radix, longi firmamina trunci, ossaque robur agunt, mediaque manente medulla sanguis it in sucos, in magnos bracchia ramos, in parvos digiti, duratur cortice pellis. iamque gravem crescens uterum perstrinxerat arbor pectoraque obruerat collumque operire parabat: non tulit illa moram venientique obvia ligno subsedit mersitque suos in cortice vultus. quae quamquam amisit veteres cum corpore sensus, flet tamen, et tepidae manant ex arbore guttae. 500 est honor et lacrimis, stillataque cortice murra nomen erile tenet nulloque tacebitur aevo. Ov. Met. 10.489-502

490

495

35. The two points referred to in paragraph 32 (above) are the obvious headline points. They can be supplemented by a number of points of detail: 35.1.

The line beginning ‘nam qua se’ at Geo. 2.74 ‘nam qua se medio trudunt de cortice gemmae’89 is uniquely paralleled by Ciris 216 ‘nam qua se ad patrium tendebat semita limen’ in a passage of the Ciris which is demonstrably indebted to Cinna’s Smyrna90 . An even closer parallel is offered by Ciris 499 ‘tum, qua se medium capitis discrimen agebat’ which describes Nisus’ metamorphosis 91 . The economical explanation is that all of Ciris 216, 499 and Geo. 2.74 respond

Here note especially both ‘paulatim’, not entirely apposite to the context (why should the nurse do this slowly?), but typical to descriptions of the process of metamorphosis and ‘obducere’ being the verb used by Ovid at Ov. AA. 1.286. 88 (Hollis 2007 p. 33) 89 The three spondaic monosyllables at hexameter beginning are notable in themselves. 90 (Lyne 1978b ad Ciris 206-385). 91 The parallel is noted by (Lyne 1978b ad loc.) 87

16

to a line of Cinna’s beginning ‘nam qua se medi- ’ in the context of Myrrha’s metamorphosis. Note that in Ovid, Myrrha’s metamorphosis is introduced by ‘nam…’ (Ov. Met. 10.489); and note too ‘quaerebatque viam, qua se genetrice relicta / exsereret; media gravidus tumet arbore venter.’ (Ov. Met. 10.504-5). 35.2.

The ‘nodo’ of Geo. 1.75-6 ‘angustus in ipso / fit nodo sinus’ is capable of evoking Myrrha’s suicide attempt by hanging: note ‘nodis’ at Ciris 450, ‘internodia’ at Ciris 491 and, particularly, ‘seque ferit scinditque sinus ereptaque collo / vincula dilaniat’ Ov. Met. 10.386-7 (of the nurse rescuing Myrrha – with ‘scinditque sinus’ cf. Geo. 1.75-6 ‘et tenuis rumpunt tunicas, angustus in ipso / fit nodo sinus’.

35.3.

The notion of a hidden seed at Geo. 2.76-7 ‘huc aliena ex arbore germen / includunt’ is redolent of Cinna Fr. 9 ‘At scelus incesto Smyrnae crescebat in alvo.’.

35.4.

‘ingens’ can be seen as a pun ‘in-gens’ alluding to the subject matter of Cinna’s Smyrna, Myrrha’s relationship with her father92 .

35.5.

‘nec longum tempus’ at Geo. 1.80 is a detail which is idle in its context. However, it accords exactly with Ovid’s description of Myrrha’s transformatio n: ‘non tulit illa moram venientique obvia ligno’93 .

35.6.

The ‘ad caelum’ of Geo. 1.81 may well look to the moment of Myrrha’s transformation in Cinna. In Ovid, Myrrha is transformed just as she completes her prayer to the gods: numen confessis aliquod patet: ultima certe vota suos habuere deos. nam crura loquentis terra supervenit… [etc.] Ov. Met. 10.488-90 This is not original to Ovid, since a similar prayer appears in both Apoll. Bibl. 3.14 and Ant. Lib. 34.5; thus, the same scene may well have appeared in Cinna . Ovid does not describe Myrrha stretching her arms to the heavens in supplication, but this is the natural pose for such a supplication and offers an covenient opportunity for the transformation of Myrrha’s outstretched arms into the branches of a tree94 . Moreover, there is a line in the Ciris which may reflect Cinna’s own diction in such a scene: ‘ad caelum infelix [ardentia lumina] tendens’ (Ciris 402), comparing also Ov. Met. 10.58 ‘bracchiaque intendens’

92

Cf. (Keith 1991) for the etymology and other instances of such a pun. Perhaps, the conceit naturally originated in Cinna. 93 Contrast ‘paulatim tremebunda genis obducere vestem’ Ciris 342. Note too that the phrase ‘longo post tempore’ appears at Ciris 74, Ov. Met. 9.570 (the Byblis episode) and Ov. Met. 10.180 suggesting that this may also be a phrase of Cinna’s. Cf. too ‘paulo… post’ in Cinna Fr. 6. One might faintly detect that an opposition between things which occur quickly and slowly was a recurrent motif in Cinna’s Smyrna. 94 As described in Ov. Met. 10.493. If (Hollis 2007 pp. 32–33) is correct that Lucr. 2.702-3 ‘et altos / interdum ramos egigni corpore vivo’ is a reference to Cinna’s Smyrna, we can be confident that Cinna, himself, had the ‘arms into branches’ conceit.

17

(and e.g. also ‘a quibus ad caelum liventia bracchia tollens’ Ov. Met. 6.279, noting Ciris 450 ‘marmorea adductis liuescunt bracchia nodis.’). 35.7.

The image of splitting a trunk ‘et alte / finditur in solidum cuneis uia’ is evocative of the parturition of Adonis, the transformed Myrrha being split open by Cinyras’ sword, as reported by Serv. ad Aen. 5.72 ‘percussa, ut quidam volunt, a patris gladio…’. Compare, for the diction, Ov. Met. 10.504-5 ‘quaerebatque viam, qua se genetrice relicta / exsereret’.

35.8.

Given the undoubtedly ‘cento-like’ technique of the Ciris-poet and the fact that Vergil and Ovid, while obviously far more sophisticated, often signal their allusions by reproducing the same vocabulary, sometimes in the same sedes, it is worth enumerating a number of coincidences in diction between Geo. 2.7382, the Ciris and Ov. Met. 1095 : ‘aliena’ (Geo. 2.75) ‘alte’ (Geo. 2.77) ‘angustus’ (Geo. 2.75) ‘arbore’ (Geo. 2.75) ‘arbos’ (Geo. 2.) ‘ad caelum’ (Geo. 2.80) ‘cortice’ (Geo. 2.73) ‘trudunt de cortice gemmae’ (Geo. 2.73) ‘docent inolescere’ (Geo. 2.76) ‘ex arbore germen’ (Geo. 2.75) ‘felicibus’ (Geo. 2.80) ‘includunt’ (Geo. 2.76) ‘medio’ (Geo. 2.73) ‘novas’ (Geo. 2.81) ‘plantae’ (Geo. 2.79) ‘poma’ (Geo. 2.81) ‘ramis’ (Geo. 2.80) ‘via’ (Geo. 2.78)

‘aliena’ (!) Ov. Met. 10.340 ‘frondibus… altis’ (!) Ov. Met. 10.91 ‘angustis’ Ciris 463 ‘arbore’ (!) (Ov. Met. 10.262, 500, 505, 521) Cf. ‘arbor’ (!) Ov. Met. 10.90, 310, 495 ‘ad caelum’ Ciris 402, 515; cf. Ov. Met. 10.140. ‘cortice’ (!) Ov. Met. 10.494, 498, 501, 512, 736. Cf. ‘fugiunt de corpore vires’ (!) Ciris 448 Cf. ‘docuit… mansuescere’ Ciris 136 ‘ex arbore guttae’ (!) Ov. Met. 10.500 Ov. Met. 10.5, 299, 329, 422, 633; Ciris 27-8 Ov. Met. 10.76, Ciris 463 Ov. Met. 10.505; Ciris 122, 264, 401, 499. Ov. Met. 10.206, 310; Ciris 49, 81, 100, 130, 204, 357, 389, 492, 506 Ov. Met. 10.591 Ov. Met. 10.101, 650, 666, 671 Ov. Met. 10.493, 510, 648 Ov. Met. 10.504

I do not suggest than any of these parallels are necessarily significant in themselves. However, if it is correct that Vergil is here alluding to Cinna’s Smyrna, any of these correspondences may point too Cinna’s original diction, given, in particular, the Ciris-poet and Ovid’s methods of composition. 36. The cumulative effect of these observations, I suggest, presents a very compelling case that Vergil’s main model in these lines is Cinna’s Smyrna. This conclusion should be 95

I include not only the Myrrha episode, but the entirety of Ovid Met. 10, given that it seems clear that Ovid may allude to Cinna’s Smyrna outside the Myrrha episode (cf. (Hollis 2007 pp. 37–38)). In fact, it would be entirely consonant with Ovid’s technique to find the elements closest to the diction of Cinna outside his narrative of the Myrrha episode. I have adopted Lyne’s marking of words in the same sedes by ‘(!)’. The parallels I have collated are not exhaustive, but rather select the most salient.

18

unsurprising: the mere description of a tree in the manner of a metamorphosis would likely be sufficient, of itself, to bring to mind Cinna’s Smyrna; and Cinna’s Smyrna is an obvious target for Vergilian aemulatio. CINNA FR. 11 37. I return to Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney): haec tibi Arateis multum vigilata lucernis carmina, quis ignis novimus aerios, levis in aridulo maluae descripta libello Prusiaca vexi munera navicula. Cinna Fr. 11 (Courtney) 38. The epigram has invariably been understood as referring to the gift of a presentation copy of Aratus’ Phaenomena, unusually – indeed, uniquely – written on mallow leaves or bark96 . Is this interpretation inevitable or justified? 39. The periphrasis in lines 1-2 ‘haec tibi Arateis multum vigilata lucernis / carmina’ do not directly state that the present (‘munera’ (4)) is a copy of Aratus’ Phaenomena: rather these lines describe a poem which is the product of Aratean lucubration. The epithet ‘Arateis’ could identify Aratean style rather than specifically Aratus’ own work: cf. e.g. ‘ora Philitea nostra rigavit aqua’ (Prop. 3.3.52). More proximately, the closest parallel to the present poem is Catullus 65, in which Catullus states ‘… Hortale, mitto / haec expressa tibi carmina Battiadae’ (Catul. 65.15-6) but what seems to be referred to is not Callimachus’ poetry itself, but rather Catullus adaptation97 of the Berenice episode of Callimachus Aetia 4, that is to say, Catullus 66. 40. Further, notably absent from the poem is the identification of the recipient: not so with Catullus 65.15-6, where the recipient, Hortalus, is named (and cf. similarly e.g. Catullus 1.1-4 ‘Corneli, tibi’; Anth. Pal. 9.545.6, a gift of Callimachus’ Hecale, ‘Μαρκελλε’). It is possible that Isidorus, who preserves the poem in a comment upon unusual writing material, has not preserved the whole of Cinna’s poem, yet the poem otherwise seems complete in itself. 41. For a poem which seemingly has an intended circulation of one person, this poem had a remarkable influence. Not only did it remain available for Isidorus to quote, in circumstances where no more than 20 complete lines of Cinna have survived, but clear imitations can be found in the Ciris, Cicero, Ovid and Statius: 41.1.

‘Accipies igitur hoc parvum opusculum lucubratum his iam contractioribus noctibus quoniam illud maiorum vigiliarum munus in tuo nomine apparuit’ (Cic. Para. Praef. 5.1-4), the introduction to Cicero’s ‘Paradoxa Stoicorum’.

41.2.

‘accipe dona meo multum uigilata labore’

‘The poet has returned from Bithynia… and has brought as a present for a friend a copy of Aratus written on mallow-bark…’ (Courtney 1993 p. 224); ‘Cinna dedicates to his friend a presentation copy of Aratus’ Phaenomena, which he has brought back with him by ship from Bithynia’ (Hollis 2007 p. 42). 97 The adaptation is, of course, close but it is more than a translation. 96

19

(Ciris 46) 41.3.

‘His ergo aut illis vigilatum carmen in ipsas 285 Forsitan exigui muneris instar erit. (Ov. AA 2.285-6)

41.4.

primus amans carmen vigilatum nocte negata dicitur ad clausas concinuisse fores, 110 (Ov. Fast. 4.109-110)

41.5.

durabisne procul dominoque legere superstes, o mihi bissenos multum uigilata per annos Thebai? (Stat. Theb. 12.810-2)

42. It is worth pausing on this last imitation, first. This is a highly prominent passage, being the conclusion of Statius’ Thebaid. There is no obvious reason why Statius should wish to evoke Cinna: yet, not only is there a clear echo of Cinna Fr. 11 in ‘multum vigilata’, but the emphasis on the length of composition seems strongly evocative of the emphasis which was placed on the length of composition of the Smyrna: see Cat. 95.1-2 ‘Smyrna mei Cinnae post denique messem / quam coepta est nonamque edita post hiemem’; Quint. Inst. Or. 10.4.4 ‘nam quod Cinnae Smyrnam novem annis accepimus scriptam’; Serv. ad Verg. Ecl. 9.35: ‘etiam Cinna poeta optimus fuit, qui scripsit Smyrnam; quem libellum decem annis elimavit’; the fact that this feature of the Smyrna has so prominently survived must imply that it was something which was felt strongly by contemporaries. Further again, Statius’ wish that his Thebaid long outlives him is strongly evocative of Cat. 95.6 ‘Smyrna cana diu saecula pervolvent’ and, indeed, Cinna’s line on Cato’s Dictynna ‘saecula permaneat nostri Dictynna Catonis’ (Cinna Fr. 14). One must conclude that Statius firmly has Cinna in mind. The interesting point for present purposes is that Statius alludes to Cinna Fr. 11 to conclude his own key opus and does so in terms which reflect the appreciation of Cinna’s Smyrna. 43. A second line of enquiry is also thought-provoking: Richard Thomas carefully elucidated how the theme of αγρυπνια arose as an erotic theme in the paraclausithyron topos98 ; Callimachus then used it of the lucubrations of the poet-scholar (Call. Ep. 27 Pf. discussed above); Cinna Fr. 11 apparently followed Callimachus in adapting Callimachus’ epigram where ‘multum invigilata’ seems again to be a reference to the lucubrations of the poetscholar; then in Catullus 50, the theme of αγρυπνια combines the erotic and scholarly connotations, in a poem addressed to another neoteric poet, Calvus. Thomas, however, acutely observed that ‘lucernis’ in Cinna Fr. 11 seems to recognise the original erotic associations of the theme of αγρυπνια ‘We noted above that αγρυπνια and λυχνος appeared together in epigram as conventional components of erotic imagery. Not so in Callimachus ’ epigram on Aratus, however. Cinna, in drawing from that epigram, clearly intended ‘invigilata’ to have the same poetic significance as Callimachus’ συμβολον αγρυπνιης. It may be significant that Cinna has introduced lamps (‘lucernis’) which are so prominent in Greek epigram in the context of amatory αγρυπνια. [footnote: This point can only be on the level of suggestion, since some mention of lamps would not be out of place in the context of literary wakefulness]’99 . For present purposes, the key point is the faint suggestion of an 98 99

(Thomas 1979b). (Thomas 1979b pp. 200–201)

20

erotic context for Cinna Fr. 11. And, to anticipate the further argument, the appearance of ‘lamps’ was a key part of Cinna’s Smyrna: Cinyras identified Myrrha by arranging for lamps to be brought into his bedchamber (see above). Then, again to anticipate the further argument, one can bring in Ov. Fast. 4.109-110 where there is an imitation of Cinna Fr. 11 precisely in the context of a reference to the paraclausithyron topos: primus amans carmen vigilatum nocte negata dicitur ad clausas concinuisse fores, 110 (Ov. Fast. 4.109-110) This is highly remarkable since it seems to confirm independently the faint suggestion that Thomas made in relation to Cinna Fr. 11. Ov. AA. 2.285-6 too, another clear imitation of Cinna Fr. 11, comes in the context of gifts to charm the lover, with a clear reference to the paraclausithyron topos at Ov. AA. 2.25960. 44. Another aspect of Cinna Fr. 11. ‘aridulo … libello’ is a striking phrase: first, as observed above, it, together with ‘malvae’ virtually forces the reader to have in mind the etymolo gy of ‘libellus’ from ‘liber’, the bark of a tree. While it is taken to be intended to be primarily a metaliterary metaphor, its life as a literary metaphor seems to originate with Cinna Fr. 11 and it is not one which, with a striking exception, had a great impact on subsequent poetry100 . The striking exception is Catullus 1.1-2 ‘libellum / arida modo pumice expolitum’ (which is followed by the topos associated with Cinna mentioned above of literary longevity ‘plus uno maneat perenne saeclo’). Catullus has changed the metaphor – it is not the bark of the tree ‘libellus’ which is dry but the pumice with which it is polished, but the key point is surely that Cinna Fr. 11 and Catullus 1 are more or less the sole examples of ‘aridus’ being used as a poetical literary metaphor. For present purposes, the further key point is that Catullus uses this metaphor in the poem which introduces his poetic ouevre101 . It is not until Martial 8.72.1-3 that the metaphor reappears102 (that is to say, it is a metaphor is conspicuously ignored by all the Augustan poets): nondum murice cultus asperoque morsu pumicis aridi politus arcanum properas sequi, libelle (Mart. 8.72.1-3) Martial is clearly referencing Catullus 1, but – having seen that the metaphor origina ted with Cinna Fr. 11 – one might suspect that Martial’s ‘murice’ – not present in Catullus 1 – could be intended to evoke Cinna’s Smyrna: i.e. ‘murice’ approximating to ‘Myrrha’.

See (Batstone 1998) for a careful and exhaustive analysis of ‘aridus’ as a literary metaphor. The key point for present purposes being its lack of real currency, particularly in poetry. While it can be taken as a literary metaphor (compare with Batstone ‘siccus’ particularly as a rhetorical literary metaphor), its poetic currency seems to start and more or less end with Cinna Fr. 11. 101 Whether or not our text of Catullus reflects the original arrangement, Catullus 1 is clearly an introductory poem. 102 (Batstone 1998 p. 128) 100

21

45. What is the point of ‘aridulo malvae … libello’ taken literally? From poetic usages of ‘aridus’ in conjunction with wood, the point is usually that dry wood (or corn103 ) catches fire easily: see e.g. Lucr. 2.881-2; Aen. 1.174-6; Ov. Met. 2.210-3; Ov. Met. 8.640-5; Ov. Met. 12.274-9. Here we see a connection with the ‘ignis … aerios’ of Cinna Fr. 11.2. And that, in turn, reinforces the point which was emphasised earlier: the fact that Cinna Fr. 11, while imitating Call. Ep. 27 Pf., seems to reintroduce an erotic element into the αγρυπνια theme: ‘ignis’ being a well-worn trope for the ‘fire’ of passion104 and possibly one which Cinna himself used in the Smyrna: see ‘virgo Cinyreia pervigil igni / carpitur’ (Ov. Met. 10.369-70)105 . 46. The point of this long excursus, as no doubt will have been anticipated, is the suggestio n that what one has in Cinna Fr. 11 is no less than an introductory elegiac quatrain to Cinna’s Smyrna. For the form, one has easy analogues in the elegiac quatrain which introduces Ovid’s Amores and the elegiac quatrain which became attached to Vergil’s Aeneid. It was this prominence which guarenteed its survival and wide influence. Hence, Catullus uses Cinna Fr. 11 to introduce his opus. Hence too, Statius concluded the Thebaid with a rich reference to Cinna Fr. 11 and the Smyrna. Cinna reignited the metaphor appropriated by Callimachus from an erotic context, to cast his poem as both erotic in content but polished by night-time lucubrations to the same extent as Aratus Phaenomena. Ovid, in his imitations of Cinna Fr. 11, obviously recognised the erotic context. With the introducto r y quatrain, Cinna demanded that the reader view the ‘libellus’ with which the reader was presented as a ‘tree’ about to catch fire (compare Myrrha). He duly referenced his main influence, Parthenius, ‘Prusiaca uexi munera navicula’ (Cinna Fr. 11.4)106 . There is no dedicatee because the ‘tibi’ (Cinna Fr. 11.1) is the reader and the ‘haec’ being the poem, itself. 47. On the one hand, the above has suggested various reasons why one might entertain the thought that Cinna Fr. 11 is, indeed, the preface to the Smyrna. On the other hand, however, if it were, one would have to account for the very elliptical nature of such a preface, although this would be entirely in the manner of a neoteric poet, following Hellenistic principles. The two main themes which emerge from Cinna Fr. 11 which are not immediately related to the subject matter of Cinna’s Smyrna are, first, the hints of the topos of the paraclausithyron which have been detected and, second, the prominent reference to Aratus. I treat these points below, although the arguments are, of course, highly speculative : 47.1.

At Ciris 216-8, in a passage which seems to derive from Cinna’s Smyrna, one finds the following: nam qua se ad patrium tendebat semita limen, vestibulo in thalami paulum remoratur et alte suspicit ad clari nictantia sidera mundi, non accepta piis promittens munera divis.

Cf. Geo. 1.289. A ‘stipula’ is a little ‘stipes’ – i.e. a little tree-trunk, a point which I cannot believe escaped Cinna, interested as he was in diminutives. 104 L&S s.v. ‘ignis’ II.A. (Pichon 1902 s.v. ‘ignis’). 105 Obviously related to Aen. 4.1-2 but that does not mean that Cinna did not use the metaphor. In fact, for other reasons, I would argue that Aen. 4.1-2 derives precisely from Cinna’s Smyrna. 106 Cinna had, of course, literally brought Parthenius back with him on a boat from Bithynia: Suda s.v. ‘Parthenius’. Cinna’s Smyrna was, in some way, indebted to Parthenius’ own poetry as is clear from the fact that Parthenius mentioned both ‘Αωος’ and the Satrachus (Parthenius Fr. 29 Lightfoot in a context which seems to be connected with Adonis) as has been well-recognised. 103

22

(Ciris 216-9) In Cinna’s Smyrna, this would aptly describe the moment at which Myrrha reaches Cinyras’ bedchamber. It suggests that she paused there and, in some manner, addressed the heavens. 47.2.

At Ov. Met. 10.446-51, as Myrrha is setting out for Cinyras’ bedchamber, there is a description of the night and various constellations 107 : Tempus erat, quo cuncta silent, interque triones flexerat obliquo plaustrum temone Bootes: ad facinus venit illa suum; fugit aurea caelo luna, tegunt nigrae latitantia sidera nubes; nox caret igne suo; primus tegis, Icare, vultus, 450 Erigoneque pio sacrata parentis amore. (Ov. Met. 10.446-51)

47.3.

Ov. Met. 10.456-7 describes Myrrha entering Cinyras’ bedchamber: thalami iam limina tangit, iamque fores aperit, iam ducitur intus (Ov. Met. 10.456-7) There is no pause here, but in the immediately preceding lines (Ov. Met. 10.4526), Myrrha halts three times, stubbing her toe while an owl gives a threefold nefarious omen.

47.4.

The moment at which Myrrha entered Cinyras’ bedchamber would surely have been the climactic moment of Cinna’s Smyrna.

47.5.

The moment would have been a highly opportune occasion for a perversion of the paraclausithyron topos, one conspicuous and traditional feature of which was an address to ‘the night’ and ‘the stars’ – see, in particular, Men. Misoum. A1-A3, Meleager AP 5.191-5 and Plaut. Merc. 3-5 and the further passages collected by Thomas108 . This, in fact, is precisely the suggestion which, in a later article, Thomas, himself, made109 .

47.6.

The possible conclusion is that, as Myrrha stood outside Cinyras’ bedchamber, she addressed the night and the stars, in a perversion of the conventio na l paraclausithyron, and her address to the stars was expansive (cf. Ov. Met. 10.446-51) in a manner which looked to or could evoke Aratus’ Phaenomena. Thus Cinna Fr. 11, as an introduction to the Smyrna, completes the circle suggested by Call. Ep. 27 Pf.: the erotic aspects of the paraclausithyron are reappropriated, but at the same time, encompassing the astronomical focus of Aratus.

(Lyne 1978b) ad Ciris 218 notices the parallel situations. Note especially, the correspondence between Ovid’s ‘latitantia sidera’ and the Ciris’ ‘nictantia sidera’ (in corresponding sedes). 108 (Thomas 1979b pp. 196, 198 with notes 57 and 64) 109 (Thomas 1981 pp. 371–2) 107

23

48. In this way, one can see how exctlay how Cinna Fr. 11 could be an extremely artful preface to the Smyrna: not only, in Cinna Fr. 11.3, in particular, is the reader virtually forced to recognise the conceit ‘poem’ as ‘tree’, but also, the quatrain could anticipate precisely the key moment of the Smyrna: namely, the moment at which Myrrha stands outside Cinyras’ bedchamber, a perversion of the paraclausithyron which lies behind Cinna’s immedia te model, Call. Ep. 27. Pf.

Adrian Pay 28 June 2016

24

Batstone, W. W. (1998). ‘Dry Pumice and the Programmatic Language of Catullus 1’, Classical Philology, 93/2: 125–35. Bellinger, A. R. (1922). ‘Catullus and the Ciris’, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 53: 73–82. Courtney, E. (1993). The fragmentary Latin poets, ed. with comm. Oxford. Gall, D. (1999). Zur Technik von Anspielung und Zitat in der römischen Dichtung: Vergil, Gallus und die Ciris., Vol. 100. CH Beck. Ganzenmüller, C. (1894). Beiträge zur Ciris. BG Teubner. Henkel, J. (2009). Writing poems on trees: Genre and metapoetics in Vergil’s. North Carolina. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from ——. (2011). ‘Nighttime Labor: A Metapoetic Vignette Alluding to Aratus at“ Georgics” 1.291—296’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 106: 179–98. ——. (2014). ‘Vergil Talks Technique: Metapoetic Arboriculture in Georgics 2’, Vergilius, 33–66. Hollis, A. (1983). Ovid Metamorphoses Book VIII. OUP Oxford. ——. (2007). Fragments of Roman Poetry c. 60BC to 20AD. Oxford University Press. Horsfall, N. (2000). A Companion to the Study of Virgil., Vol. 151. Brill. Keith, A. M. (1991). ‘Etymological Play on Ingens in Ovid, Vergil, and Octavia’, The American Journal of Philology, 112/1: 73–6. DOI: 10.2307/295013 Knox, P. E. (1983). ‘Cinna, the Ciris, and Ovid’, Classical Philology, 78/4: 309–11. ——. (1986a). ‘Three Naughty Girls (Prop. 2.28. 9-12)’, Phoenix, 40/2: 195–7. ——. (1986b). ‘Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the traditions of Augustan poetry’. Cambridge philological society. ——. (1990). ‘Scylla’s Nurse’, Mnemosyne, 43/1: 158. ——. (1995). Ovid: Heroides: select epistles. Cambridge University Press. Lyne, R. O. A. M. (1971). ‘The Dating of the Ciris’, The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 21/01: 233–53. ——. (1978a). ‘The neoteric poets’, The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 28/01: 167–87. ——. (1978b). Ciris: a poem attributed to Vergil., Vol. 20. Cambridge University Press. Munari, A. (1944). Studi sulla Ciris. Mynors, R. A. B. (1990). Georgics. Cambridge Univ Press. O’Bryhim, S. (2008). ‘Myrrha’s “Wedding” (Ov. “Met”. 10. 446-70)’, The Classical Quarterly, 58/1: 190–5. Peirano, I. (2012). The rhetoric of the Roman fake: Latin pseudepigrapha in context. Cambridge University Press. Pichon, R. (1902). De sermone amatorio apud Latinos elegiarum scriptores. Hachette. Rosen, R. M., & Farrell, J. (1986). ‘Acontius, Milanion, and Gallus: Vergil, Ecl. 10.52-61’, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), 116: 241–54. Sudhaus, S. (1907). ‘Die Ciris und das römische Epyllion’, Hermes, 42/H. 3: 469–504. Thomas, R. F. (1979a). ‘Review of Ciris: A Poem Attributed to Vergil’, Phoenix, 33/2: 180– 4. DOI: 10.2307/1087996 ——. (1979b). ‘New comedy, Callimachus, and Roman poetry’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 83: 179–206. ——. (1981). ‘Cinna, Calvus, and the Ciris’, The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 31/02: 371–4. ——. (1985). ‘From Recusatio to Commitment: The Evolution of the Virgilian Programme’, Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar (F. Cairns ed.), 5: 61–73.

25

——. (1986). ‘Virgil’s Georgics and the Art of Reference’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 90: 171–98. ——. (1987). ‘Prose into Poetry: Tradition and Meaning in Virgil’s Georgics’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 91: 229–60. DOI: 10.2307/311407 ——. (1988). ‘Virgil: Georgics. 2 vols’, Cambridge and New York. Wills, J. (1996). Repetition in Latin poetry: figures of allusion. Oxford University Press, USA.

26