77/z y UC-NRLF liil I III I |ii rrrtr IVIAR 22 3 YOUNG VIRGIL'S POETRY By Edward Kbnnard Rand e^K*'^-**^ ■^iii'' m^ Printed from the HARVARD STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY Vol. XXX, igig m iii ill 1 j/ or rnvi \ 'i.lF');A. ii X ' YOUNG VIRGIL'S POETRY By Edwaso Eennasd Rand VIRGIL was bom a poet but he was also made. As with most writers whose works have lasted, his genius found expression in a thoroughly harmonious form only after varied experiments in aUen fields. Epic was his goal. His temperament as revealed in his mature productions is imperial and Augustan. But Virgil started, naturally, with the literary fashions which prevailed when he began to write. Catullus and Calvus were the popular poets of the day. Their themes were largely those of their Greek masters of the Alexandrian age, who had practised mainly the smaller literary varieties — mime, pastoral, elegy, and epigram. They had maintained drama in a new and im- portant species of comedy, but tragedy had virtually disappeared. Epic either had dwindled into short narrative poems, " epyllia," or else, if it retained its length, had submitted in spirit to the pervasive influence of erotic elegy. The genius of Catullus lifted his work high above his models; however we technically class him, for sheer lyric intensity he is the peer of Sappho or of Bums. But his craftmanship is Alexandrian. In the earlier Republican period, national desires had found expression, however imperfectly, in epic and tragedy, the forms which were best suited to the Roman temperament, and which the writers of the day, Ermius, Naevius, Pacuvius, foimd lacking in con- temporary Greek literature. They turned to the older authors for their vital needs. Nothing could better show, however much they de- pended on Greek forms, the individuaUty and sincerity of their effort to create a national and Roman literature. Virgil's ambition, develop- ing slowly at first in an aUen atmosphere, was eventually the same. The record of our poet's progress from Alexandrian to Augustan, — a more pleasurable history to follow than Milton's transformation from Elizabethan to Puritan — is partly displayed in the ascent from Bucolics to Georgics to Aeneid. It may be more minutely traced if we may regard as genuine certain of the minor poems attributed to him. 103 41612C ifei"' ''' y '-''.' *.' : ..:-^^%w?v/ Kennard Rand The question of their genuineness has of late been hotly argued. Once generally accepted — though arousing occasional doubt even in medi- aeval minds — they fell easy prey to the higher critics of the nineteenth century; the little poems were unworthy of the author of the Bucolics, the Georgics, and the Aeneid, and were therefore not his. Gudeman, in his Latin Literature of the Empire,'^ declares that their " spurious- ness is estabUshed by incontrovertible proofs." Munro, speaking of the Aetna, ^ remarks, "As it has manifestly no claim whatever, less even than the culex or ciris to be his work, I need not controvert what none will now maintain." These were typical utterances of the last century. As the new century came in, Franz Skutsch published a little work entitled Aus Vergils Friihzeit (1901), as a result of which the sup- posedly dead issue became very much alive. Skutsch maintained, — uncontrovertibly, I believe, — that the Ciris, which is full of the phrasings of Virgil's Aeneid, is not a later imitation of that poem, but a precursor. It belongs in type and atmosphere with the epyllia of Catullus's day. It is Virgil who imitates the author of the Ciris. That author, Skutsch reasoned, — this time, I believe, not incontro- vertibly — was Virgil's intimate friend and brother poet, Cornelius Gallus. Skutsch also argued for the early date, if not for the genuine- ness of the Culex. He was vigorously attacked, particularly by Leo,' but whether or no all details of his argument were accepted, the num- ber of those who would admit some, at least, of the disputed works into the Virgilian canon has constantly been on the increase. We may measure the change in sentiment by comparing the opinion of Schanz,* who regards as Virgilian only four or five of the short poems of the Catalepton, with that of Vollmer, the editor of the minor works in his revision of Baehrens' Poetae Latini Minor es,^ who finds no reason for doubting the genuineness of any of the poems included in the ancient account of Virgil's writings. A compromise between the two ex- treme views is offered by Mackail, who, as an eminent literary critic 1 II (1899), I. 2 H. A. J. Munro, Aetna, revised, etc., Cambridge, Eng., 1867, p. 32. * Hermes, xxxvii, 14 ff.; xlii, 35 ff. * Geschichte der rotnischen Litteratur (1899 ^), pp. 62 ff. * I (1910); also Sitzungsber. der bayer. Akad. (1907), 335 ff.; Heft 11 (1908). Young Virgil's Poetry 105 and admirer of Virgil, does not desire to have inferior matter palmed off on his poet, yet who, as a reasonable man cannot resist the evi- dence recently adduced for the genuineness of the Appendix Vergili- ana. Mackail, agreeing heartily with the feeling of the last century that the poems in general cannot be ascribed to Virgil, puts them in the realm of Virgilianism.^ Virgil was one of a group of brother-poets, who like Sidney and Spenser, Wordsworth and Coleridge, collabo- rated. This convenient explanation allows us to claim for Virgil as many and as much of the minor poems as we can stand. Now this long debate is nothing new. One can breathe a truly modern air of controversy if one turns to a work published in the year of the Independence of America by that excellent Dutch scholar, Johannes Schrader.* Skutsch's theory of the authorship of the Ciris was going the rounds even then. But even then it was no new thing. Hubert van Gififen (Gifanius) in the sixteenth century had first, it seems,' tracked Gallus to his lair, and Caspar Barth and Friedrich Taubmann in the seventeenth, Fontanini in the eighteenth, had passed on the torch of his discovery, which Johann Friedrich Voss caught up not long after Schrader wrote. Schrader says pithily of Fontanini: equidetn doleo virum dodum magno conatu magnas nugas dixisse. He gives an excellent review of the problem of the Ciris, bringing up nearly all the points that are made nowadays, except for * Class. Rev., xxii (1908), 65 ff.; Lectures on Poetry, London (191 1), pp. 48 ff. * Liber Emendationum, Leouardiae (1776), pp. 31 ff. * Schrader quotes the words of Barth: Obertus Gifanius odoratus est ex sexta Ecloga Maronis poetnation, quod Ceiris nomine Virgilio adscribilur, ad Cornelium Galium pertinere posse. Skutsch, pp. 62, 136 ff., after much search, could not find any expression of the new idea in the works of Gifanius. In his famous edition of Lucretius, 1566, Gifanius attributes Ciris to Virgil, nor is any change made in the second edition of this work in 1595. Skutsch concluded, therefore, that Gifanius came^pon the idea late in life, and that it was orally transmitted to his pupils. Batm {Advers. 3, 21) and Taubmann {Virgilii Opera, 1618, on Eel. 6, 74) seem to be independent witnesses. Fontanini, the main source for Schrader, evidently had not read any statement in Gifanius, for his words are (Justus Fontaninus, Historia Lileraria Aquilejensis, 1742, p. 32): Fredericus Taubmannus ad Eclogam X {sic!) inter summi poetae opera ab se illustrata, & edita ... & Barthius . . . testes mihi sunt Obertum Gifanium primum omnium olfecisse etc. Fontanini, writing the history of Aquileia, claims Gallus for Friaul rather than Fr^jus, devotes a plump chapter to him, and is only too glad to add Ciris to the string of his achievements. io6 Edward Kennard Rand scientific statistics on metrical and stylistic matters and the minute accounts of the tradition of the manuscripts that we owe to the school of Traube. I cannot pretend to offer a startling array of new facts in the present paper; my desire, like Schrader's, is to return to a once generally accepted tradition. The starting-point of investigation should be the ancient external evidence on the question. Too often it has been the critic's reverence for Virgil, or rather for of his own definition of what Virgil's poetry must have been. This external evidence is furnished in the life of the poet. Donatus, who, as is generally agreed,^ is drawing from Sueto- nius, thus describes young Virgil's earliest work.^ Poeticam puer adhuc auspicatus in Ballistam ludi magistrum ob infamiam latrociniorum coopertum lapidibus distichon fecit: monte sub hoc lapidum tegitur Ballista sepultus; nocte die tutum carpe viator iter. deinde catalepton (catalecton codd.) et priapea et epigrammata et diras, item cirim et culicem, cum esset annorum XVI (XXVI Scaliger, Brummer). cuius materia tahs est: (there follows a brief summary of the Culex, ending with the final distich of the poem preserved to us), scripsit etiam de qua ambigitur Aetnam. Mox cum res Romanas incohasset, offensus materia ad bucoUca transiit. Servius makes substantially the same statement.' After giving the distich on Ballista, he adds: Scripsit etiam septem sive octo libros hos: Cirin Aetnam Culicem Priapeia Catalecton {sic codd.) Epigrammata Copam Diras. The only other important notice in the material pubUshed by Brummer is in the vita compiled by Philargyrius,* who, according to the best manuscript, has the correct form Catalepton. There are two items of difference in the lists of Donatus and Ser- vius. The first is that whereas the former expresses a doubt about ^ See Sommer, De P. Vergilii Maronis Catalepton Carminibus, Halle, 1910, p. 19. He refers to Koortge, Dissert. Philolog. Halens. xiv, (1901), 189 ff. * Vitae Vergilianae. Recensuit lacobus Biaunmer, Leipzig (191 2), p. 4. * Ibid., p. 69. * Ibid., p. 42. Young VirgWs Poetry 107 the Aetna, Servius puts it near the head of the list. Yet we must observe that the doubt is not directly stated as that of Donatus him- self; otherwise he would have said something like dicitur autem etiam Aetnam scripsisse de quo tamen carmine amhigendum est. Further, the words etiam de qua ambigitur are omitted in the San- gallensis 862 s. X (= G), one of the most important codices of the Vita, while in the Bemensis 172 5. IX-X (= B), the clause de qua ambigitur follows Aetnam (aetham B), with marks for transposition inserted, and in the Parisinus 7930 5. XI ( = E) the clause has been shifted to the same place, without the addition of the signs of trans- position. As Brummer has made clear,* the manuscripts of the Vita spring from one ancestral codex ^ (I will call it X) in two Unes of succession (Y and Z). G is the only ancient representative of Z; E and B are on different offshoots of the Y branch. It looks, therefore, as if the clause de qua ambigitur were written above the line in X, omitted in G and inserted now before and now after Aetnam in the Y manuscripts. We now may note that both Y and Z show in various places the presence of interpolations and substitutions.' These show the char- ^ Philologus, kxii (1913), 278 ff. See also his edition of Vitat VergUianae (1912). ' The error ut for oc in 1. 96 suggests that this archet}T)e, X, was copied from a , minuscule manuscript in which the open a appeared. The interchange of v and b (Cartili 1. 180) and that of r and s (Vipranius 1. 180) occur. The first of these errors is frequent in copies of Spanish script, and both are characteristic of the Insular variety. These data, however, are in themselves insufficient to warrant a conclusion as to the locality in which the parent manuscript was written. There are various indications of another kind that the Minor Poems came into France from Ireland, where the study of Virgil flourished in the period preceding the Carolingian epoch. We need a si>ecial treatment of the part played by Insular scholars in the transmission and interpretation of the text of Virgil from the seventh through the ninth centuries. Brummer shows {Philologus, loc. cit. p. 289) that the Vita Gudiana I is connected with the school of John the Scot, who is cited in the Vita. I would add that the kind of introduction that John the Scot might himself have written is shown in Monacensis 18059 ^- ^ (see Thilo and Hagen's edition of Servius, p. Ixxxv note). Lindsay has opened up a new field in his recent investi- gations of mediaeval glossaries. Following his clues, N. F. G. Dall {Class. Quart., xii (1918), 171 ff.) finds in the Afatim and Second Amplonian Glossaries evidence of an annotated edition of Virgil compiled in England in the seventh century. * For Y, see 16, 22, 165. Z, as represented by G, shows in general a more sober and reliable text. The errors of G, though often serious, are due to scribal blimders lo8 Edward Kennard Rand acter of the annotations with which X was apparently provided. Some scholar who used the life of Virgil in his classes accompanied his instruction, in the mediaeval manner, with running comments, now suggesting a synonym, now paraphrasing a clause or sentence, now adding a bit of information, or misinformation, as in the remark on the genuineness of the Aetna. What his source was in the present case, we have no means of knowing. While I would not deny the possibility that the clause de qua ambigUur is part of the original text, that G independently omitted ^ and B and E independently transposed, it is more probable, I believe, that we can trace this doubting about Aetna no farther back than to the authority of an earUer scholiast. Hagen was justified, therefore, in bracketing the words.^ Further, it has been observed ' that Servius in commenting on Vir- gil's description of the volcano in the \h\x6. Aeneid,^ gives an admirable little sketch of the argument of our poem, citing Virgil without ques- tion as its author; secundum Aetnam Virgilii are his words. Now, if it is true, as I have recently suggested,^ that Servius took his and not unfortunate attempts at improvement; cf. 124, 134, 137. Nevertheless, interpolations have crept in, as in 88, 148, 159. * E. Diehl, Die Vitae Vergilianae und Ihre antiken Quellen (191 1), p. 12, remarks that the omission of etiam de qua ambigUur in G is due to the similar endings {scrip- sit .. . ambigiiur) ; if so, the latter word was written with the symbol for ur above the final t. This is not a certain case of such error. If, as I have assumed, the original text was scripsit etiam Aetnam, with de qua ambigitur as gloss, G, which has etnam for aetnam, could readily have omitted etiam before it. ' Besides Hagen, B. Kruczkiewicz, Rosprawy i Sprawozdania (Univ. of Cracow), X (1884), 147, regards the clause as an interpolation. * See J. Vessereau, Aetna (1905), p. xxxii. * Aen. 3, 578. Thilo and Hagen, Servius, i, 438 * In Class. Quart., X (1916), 158 ff. I had arrived at my results independently of Wessner, in the revision of Teuffel's Romische Litteraturgeschichte (19 13), to whom I gave the credit for prior discovery. Since then, my attention was called by my friend and former colleague. Professor A. S. Pease, to the fact that F. Lanunert, in working on Donatus and St. Jerome, had come to the same conclusion {Commenta- tiones Philologicae lenenses, ix,i (1912), 41 ff.); he had found Barwick's investiga- tions a good halfway mark (p. 421), just as I had. H. Philipp, Die historisch-geo- graphischen Quellen in den Eiymologiae des Isidorus von Sevilla (in W. Sieglin's Quellen und Forschungen zur alien Geschichte und Geographic, Heft xxv (191 2), 42 fif.) also working independently and also taking the same attitude to Barwick, arrived at the same result. The new view is approved and further corroborated by G. Ho Young Virgirs Poetry 109 comment almost bodily from Donatus, we may say that the latter no less than Servius spoke without qualification of Virgil's Aetna in his note on this passage. The complete note, in its opening part, nms thus: * 571. ToNAT Aetna Ruinis sensus est: partus quidem secures nos faciebat, deest enim ^quidem' sed Aetna terrebat. et causa huius in- cendii secundum Aetnam Vergilii haec est: simt terrae desudantes sulpur . . . The entire note, if I am right, belongs to Donatus. Servius excerpted the most important part, beginning with causa huius. Do- natus, therefore, in this place at least, refers to the Aetna as an un- doubted work of Virgil's. * The other point of difference between the two lists is that Donatus makes no mention of Copa. Baehrens did not hesitate to supply et copam between cirim and et culicem; ' in a critical position like this, with similar syllables both preceding and following, the words might easily have fallen out in the archetype from which all our manuscripts are proved to have descended. Similarly, one of the Y manuscripts, M, omitted et diras item cirim. One curious reading of all the other man- uscripts of the Y group seems not without significance in the present matter. They have cirimus for cirim. I would suggest that in X the words et copam, at first omitted by the scribe, were written by him in the margin, with a reference sign to them placed above the m in cirim. This sign, which Z neglected along with the marginal addition, seemed to the scribe of Y — or that of Y^ — to be the compendium for us, a suprascript apostrophe, which various of the reference- sym- bols common in early minuscule manuscripts might well have sug- gested. He accordingly wrote out the supposed word, cirimus, which appears in the manuscripts that derive from his copy. meyer, De Scholiis Vergilianis Isidori Fontibus (1913), p. 84. G. Funaioli, one of the foremost experts on Virgilian scholia, refers (in Studi Italiani di FUologia Classica, xxi (1915), 41) to Lammert's conclusion as " una Use novissima, che in se nulla impedisce di accetiare e per cui invece tnilitano parecchi argotnenti." Later (p. 81) he speaks a bit more doubtfully. The question will be settled, I hope, in the disserta- tion to which I referred in my article and which, held up by the war, will not be much longer delayed. ^ Thilo and Hagen, op. cit., i, 438. * Poetae Latini Minores, ii (1880), 4. See Sommer, op. cit., p. 18. no Edward Kennard Rand Finally, if we may again appeal to the view that Donatus is the immediate source of Servius, the inclusion of Copa in the latter's list makes it probable that it existed in the former. Another peculiarity of Servius is that he is uncertain of the exact number of the minor poems; ''septem sive octo" he says. Some schol- ars see in this remark an allusion to the disputed authorship of the Aetna,^ others to that of the Copa. It is most probable, however, that Servius was puzzled by the title Epigrammata. According to Voll- mer,^ Virgil wrote a collection of epigrammata, which now is lost. Other scholars have with better reason regarded the term as merely another title for Catalepton, or better still, the title of one of the com- ponent parts of the Catalepton. Donatus' s phrase should thus be punctuated, " deinde catalepton {et priapeia et epigrammata)." This is accurate enough description of the poems in the Catalepton outside the Priapea; indeed one of them, (4, 9) is cited by the grammarian Marius Victorinus' as Vergilius iambico epigrammate. Quintihan, after quoting Catalepton 2, adds: Nee minus noto Sallustius epigram- mate incessitur, from which it is reasonable to infer that Quintihan thought of the poem from the Catalepton also as an epigram.* Do- natus, therefore, makes a correct statement, which we need only to punctuate to understand. Servius, not understanding, and rearrang- ing the titles in the wrong order, foimd eight, with two of them, Cata- lepton and Epigrammata, fitting the same collection of short poems. He evidently concluded that either these were alternative titles (there being seven works in all) or one of the works was lost (there being eight in all). We may be reasonably sure, therefore, that in Suetonius's time there was current a collection of six minor poems ascribed to Virgil — Culex, Ciris, Copa, Aetna, Dirae, Catalepton {Priapea and Epigram- mata). In the case of Culex, Copa, and some of the pieces of Catalep- ton, there is other external testimony in the shape of citations in Martial, Lucan, Statins, and other writers of the empire.^ The Vir- ^ For a r6sum6 of opinions see de Gubematis in Rivista difilologia e di istruzione, sxxviii (1910), 205. To this add Sommer's remarks, op. cit. p. 19. ' See Sitzungsherichte, etc. (1907), p. 340. * Gratnmatici Latini, 6, 137 (K). « Inst. Or. 8, 3, 29. * Teuffel, op. cit., § 230, i, 4, Young Virgil's Poetry iii gilian authorship is further attested by the manuscripts of all the poems on the list. The titles Priapea and Epigrammata do not appear, but the title Catakpton precedes the Priapea as it naturally would if meant to include both it and the epigrams.^ Not all the poems have come down by the same line of tradition. The text is sadly corrupted in many places, especially in Ciris and Aetna. But the facts of the manuscript tradition, so Vollmer, who of all men has studied it most thoroughly ,2 declares, point to the existence of an ancient codex of Virgil, in which Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid were preceded by the six minor poems; Aetna was among them, whether or not it was desig- nated as doubtful. A few works of other poets were also included, not necessarily because the compiler ascribed them to Virgil, but be- cause he found their contents appropriate. Thus Lydia was added to Dirae inasmuch as the name of the shepherdess is the same; the More- turn gives a description of country-life somewhat like that in the Georgics; the Elegiae in Maecenaiem commemorate Virgil's great pa- tron. In the course of time, scribes naturally put Virgilian titles on all these works. Thus a manuscript, now lost, but mentioned in a cata- logue of the books at Murbach compiled c. 850, formed one of four volumes, the others containing Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid, while it included Dirae, Culex, Aetna, Copa, Maecenas, CiriSy Catalepton, Priapea and Moretum? Other spurious affairs then gathered about the collection, particularly the poems De Viro Bono, Est et Non and De Rosis Nascentibus, of which the first two certainly and the third prob- ably were written by Ausonius in the fourth century.* Mediaeval ' Vollmer has to support his theory by arbitrarily assuming, as Ellis in his edi- tion also does, that the title Catalepton, originally standing before the second part of the collection, "casu migravit ante Priapea." See his edition, pp. 127, 130. Brit, Jugendverse und Heimnipoesie Vergils (1910), pp. 2 fif., has an excellent discussion of this matter. So Sommer, op. cit., p. 34 f . He well disposes of Leo's view that the Epigrammata are the miscellaneous verselets quoted and attributed to Virgil in the enlarged form of the Vita . . . Nocte pluU tola, etc. (Riese, Anthol. Lat. Nos. 256-263). ^ For a summary statement, see his edition, pp. 3 f. See also below, p. 155. ' Ibid., p. 4. H. Bloch, Strassburger Festschrift zur 46en Versammlung der Philo- logen und Schtdmdnner (1901), 257 ff. * Teuffel, op. cit., § 229,2. The latest addition to this list is an epitaph of four verses on Julius Caesar, published by Hieronjonus Geist from a Cambrai manu- script in Berliner Philohgische Wochenscrift (1914), 1107. 112 Edward Kennard Rand anthologies exist, with extracts from various of the poems, and a special collection was made in Carolingian — or pre-Carolingian — times, containing Culex, Dirae, Lydia, Copa, De Est et Non, De Institutione Viri Boni, De Rosis Nascentibus, and Moretum. According to Voll- mer,^ the title preceding it, P. Virgilii luvenalis Ludi Libdlus, pertains rather to the Culex than to the whole collection. He thinks that a monk of Fnlda may have been the editor. We should also, I beUeve, consider the possibility of an earUer origin in England or Ireland. The starting-point for the higher criticism of the Minor Poems should be the ancient list transmitted in Suetonius's biography of Virgil and backed up by statements of ancient authors and by the testimony of the manuscripts. This testimony, naturally, is not so strong as it is for Virgil's mature works. Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneidy which formed one of the staples of education in the later empire. But the line of tradition of the Minor Poems is quite as bright as is that of Catullus or of TibuUus or of Propertius. Instead, then, of creating from Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid a definition of what Virgil at all times must have been, and by that definition excluding the minor poems as unworthy of him, we should accept the ancient statement and in the light of it enlarge our imderstanding of Virgilian quaUties, thankful for the opportimity of seeing his genius mount from stage to stage. This, at any rate, is my mode of approach, and had been, I may say, even before the appearance of Skutsch's article.^ In the present paper, I shall not reckon much with minute analyses of Virgil's style and metre, though I shall not consciously neglect any recent article that offers apparent evidence against the genuineness of the Minor Poems. Such studies are useful, nay indispensable; but they must be used with exceeding caution in determining questions of author- ship. Works of short compass that by hypothesis come from the unformed period of youth when the poet was consciously assuming dif- ferent attitudes and cultivating different styles ought not always to 1 P. L. M. i, p. 13. 2 At that time, it seemed to me that Culex. Copa and most of the Catakpton were Virgil's. Vollmer's articles induced me to add Ciris, Dirae, without the Lydia, and the rest of the Catahpton. On subsequent reflection, I could find no valid argu- ment against admitting Aetna. I doubt not that many a scholar has gone through a similar experience. 1 Young VirgiVs Poetry 113 conform to habits later established.^ Some similarity we have a right to demand, but the presence of diversities is no certain proof of spuri- ousness. At what point the element of diversity becomes a decid- ing factor is a difficult matter to determine. My method is frankly deductive. Accepting the ancient testimony as true, and throwing on the adversary the burden of proof, I seek to interpret in a general and cursory way, the significance of the minor poems in what I take to be their chronological sequence. Unless we arrive at results against which good taste and common sense — our ultimate court of appeal — instinctively rebel, we may regard the external testimony as fur- ther supported by the contents of the poems. Once more, this attitude is nothing new. It was taken long before the present controversy by one of the most competent critics of the period of Latin literature into which Virgil was born, August Ferdinand Naeke.* And though Naeke is led to divergent results, his starting-point is that of Schrader. II Two of Virgil's poems are school-boy afifairs. One is an epigram, in the form of an epitaph, on the robber BaUista, the keeper of a school, presumably of gladiators, whom his pupils stoned to death. Monte sub hoc lapidum tegitur Ballista sepultus; nocte die tutum carpe viator iter. This distich offers the higher critic small matter for argimient. Virgil's reputation is not damaged if we accept the verses as genuine. ^ I agree thoroughly with de Gubematis, loc. cit. (above, p. no), p. 220: Prima di dichiarare apocrifi car mi come Ciri, Copa, Catalepton (Epigrammata), Dirae, Moretum, un fdologo deve portare ragioni sicure e convincenti e non basarsi su imf pressioni soggeUive o statistiche grammaticali e melriche interpretate arbUrariamente. * Carmina Valerii Catonis. Cum Augusti Ferdinandi Naekii Annotationibus. Accedunt eiusdem Naekii . . . Dissertationes IV. Cura Ludovici Schopeni. Bonnae 1847, P- 221: Virgilium praeter tria opera maiora . . . alia scripsisse, minora, tam per se probabile est, ut nihil ei, qui ita factum esse contenderit, sed contrarium ei, qui factum esse neget, probandum sit. . . . Inter minora carmina, quae tribuuntur Vergilio, unum et alterum tam bona auctoritate tribuuntur, et ab idoneis testibus comprobantur, ut etiam alia, cum illis edi solita, nisi per se Virgilio sint indigna, pro VirgUianis haberi possint. Naeke's ideas on the minor poems in general and Dirae in particular had taken shape at least as early as 1828. See Schopen's preface, p. v. 1 14 Edward Kennard Rand The other school-boy poem is CULEX The ascription of Culex to Virgil occurs in manuscripts as early as the ninth century,^ and the existence of a poem called Culex and at- tributed to Virgil is attested by Lucan, Statins, and Martial in the first century and by the grammarian Nonius Marcellus, who is using some earher authority, in the fourth.^ Indeed, there is ground for believing that Ovid, who apparently imitates the poem preserved to us, regarded it as Virgil's.' In recent years, the tendency to accept the genuineness of the present poem has gathered strength.* Accord- ^ One of the certain proofs that all the manuscripts of Culex descend from a common ancestor is conspicuous in v. 27, where the scribe of the ancient codex, after writing ponitque, carelessly caught at namque in the line above, and finished with the rest of that line, which he had just written, instead of giving us the last half of V. 27; hence the lacuna in all the MSS. * Teuffel, op. cit., § 230, i. ' See C. Pl^sent, Le Culex. &tude sur VAlexandrinisme latin. (1910), pp. 33, 119 ff. * It is accepted, e. g., by VoUmer in the work mentioned above, p. 2, also by J. G. Phillimore, Class. Phil, v (1910), 418 ff.; E. S. Jackson, Class. Quarterly, v (1911), 163 ff.; G. D. Butcher, /6«/., viii (1914), 128 ff.; R. S. Conway, in The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (1915), pp. 4, 11. J. W. Mackail, who in his Latin Literature (1895), p. 104, said that the Culex is the work of a clever imitator of Virgil, now {Lectures on Poetry, pp. 68 ff .) declares that Virgil wrote it in the period of his Georgics, though it lacks the finishing touches, — I fear that our present poem needs more than finishing touches to transform it to the art of the Georgics. The Culex, if Virgil's, was written at an earlier stage. Schrader, op. cit., p. 16 ff., and Naeke, op. cit., pp. 227 ff., present good reasons for accepting the work as genuine. The latter quotes remarks in the same vein by Johannes Andreas de Buxis, the editor of the prince ps in 1469. On the other side, the most important discussions that I have seen are: C. Plesent, op. cit.; also Le Culex. Poeme pseudo^Virgilien. Ed. critique et explicative, Paris, 1910. P16sent believes that Virgil wrote a poem on the same subject as that of our poem, that it was lost and the present affair forged (" une falsification prS- meditie," p. 37 of the latter work) and substituted in the corpus of Virgil's works before the time of Ovid; the date of the poem on this theory is c. 19 B.C. Needless to say, the assumption of "falsifications prSmeditees " is not the most commendable method of solving literary problems. Birt, in his Jugendverse und Heimatpoesie Vergils (Erklctrung des Catalepton), p. 9, declares against the genuineness of the poem on metrical and stylistic groimds and because of its " general silliness." One of Birt's pupils pronoimced on the metre Young Virgil's Poetry 115 ing to the ancient biographer, Culex is the work of a boy of sixteen; we do not need with Scahger and some modern scholars to change " sixteen " to " twenty-six," just because Statius extravagantly com- pliments Lucan, who died at twenty-six, for achieving great things in poetry " before the age of Virgil's Cidex." ^ The poet dedicates his work to a certain Octavius,' whom we shall perhaps meet in later poems, and apologizes for offering him a jeu d'esprit; there will come a time when he will write of his friend in a loftier strain. This prophetic note, with its commingling of modesty (O. Braum, De monosyllabis ante caes., Marburg, 1906) and another on the style (W. Holtschmidt, De Culicis Carminis Sermone et de Tempore quo scriptum sit, Marburg, 1913). ^ The " emendation " is accepted by Teuffel, op. cit., § 230, i, and by Brummer in his text of the Vita. I will not deny that the archetype of all the manuscripts might have contained the easy error of XVI for XXVI; similar errors are com- mitted by M {XVII) and Z {XV). But the supF>osition is unnecessary, and is dealt a coup de grace by W. B. Anderson in Class. Quarterly, x (1916), 225 fif. An- derson interprets the words of Statius {Silvae, 2, 7, 74) to mean: " Thou shalt be singing of these themes (the events of the Civil War) even at the dawn of thy young manhood, before the age at which Maro wrote the Culex." He adds; " It is possible that the Wunderkind composed some parts of the poem about the age of fifteen, and it is possible also that when he made the famous reference to the Culex he believed that Virgil had written that work at the age of sixteen." * I cannot believe that the Octavius addressed is the later Octavianus Caiesar. There is no external evidence that Virgil and Octavius were acquainted at the time. However, various scholars identify Octavius of the poem with the later Octavian. So Skutsch (who cannot quite ascribe the poem to Virgil), Aus Vergils Frilhzeit, 131 ff.; Vollmer, Sitzungsberichte, etc. (1907), 351. Ward Fowler {Classical Review, xxviii (1914), 119) is further disposed to believe that the lads met in the year 50 when Julius Caesar was in Cisalpine Gaul, and that the dedication to the poem was composed in this year. Conway, The Youth of Virgil (1915), 20 ff., en- thusiastically seconding this suggestion, paints a pretty picture of " the big boy Virgil taking the little boy Octavius round the Mantuan farm." Now there is no evidence whatever either that Octavius joined his imcle Caesar in 50, or that Virgil's father was in a position to invite the nephew of the great general to his house. If we suppose, as we are bound to do until other evidence appears, that the dedication is of a piece with the rest of the poem, it was written, according to the statement of the ancient biographer, in 54 B.C. But there is no likelihood that yoimg Octa- vius, aged nine, joined Caesar near Mantua in that year. After the second invasion of Britain, Caesar was kept the entire time in Transalpine Gaul, owing to uprisings among the tribes. Those who regard the Culex as a forgery can readily say that its author, writing vmder the spell of Virgil's later works and the later career of Ii6 Edward Kennard Rand and confidence, is familiar to readers of Virgil; it appears again at the beginning of the eighth Eclogue and the third Georgic. Octavius is still very youthful, though his youth inspires respect; " worshipful Octavius," " holy lad," the poet calls him. Phoebus and Pales, pas- toral deities, are invoked, for though the spirit of the little poem is mock-epic, its contents are largely pastoral. The verse shall not tell of gods and giants or battles of Persians and Greeks. Like Virgil in the Georgics, our author turns from high themes to something nearer at hand.^ He will tell the story of shepherd who drives his flocks afield at dawn and while the goats are cropping the grass, hanging from cUffs and selecting, with a certain Epicurean discrimination, the younger and tenderer bramble-shoots, soliloquizes, in a fashion recall- ing the second Georgic, on the pleasures of rural simphcity. At noon he retires with his herd to the shelter of a grove — some little grove about Mantua, which nevertheless is the home of the rustic gods and as awesome as the abode of Diana herself. The youthful, Uke the mature, Virgil, saw sacred presences in common scenes. Fortunatus et ille decs qui novit agrestes Panaque Silvanumque senem Nymphasque sorores.^ The grove was full of goodly trees; there were plane and lotus, alder and almond, oak, pine, cypress, beech, poplar, with clinging vines of ivy and myrtle. The songs of birds, mingUng with the plashing of a little stream, made agreeable music for those who bathed in its waters. This is purely VirgiHan scenery, not painted from life, with regard for the appropriate fauna and flora, but including, besides real details, literary reminiscence and anything that the poet can use in creating an Arcadian fairyland. The incongruous elements are combined in the Eclogues by the magic of illusion into a pleasant harmony. Here they lack the touch of magic and remain extravagant. With the men- Augustus, betrays himself by a clumsy anachronism. We are driven, I believe, to this alternative: either the poem is a forgery, or the Octavius mentioned is not Octavianus Caesar. There are three contemporary Octavii — or possibly, three different references to the same Octavius. For a discussion of these passages, see below, pp. 136 ff. ^ Cf . Georg. 3 init. On this t&k gilian. B Note that in one of the two places in which Ovid uses letare {Met. 3, 55: leUk- toque corpora), there is obvious imitation of the Cuiex in the immediate context. See above, p. 117, Note i; and also cf. Culex 42 with Met. 3, 50. 124 Edward Kennard Rand that these words were first used by young Virgil and later fancied by his admirers Horace and Ovid, though not repeated by Virgil himself. Indeed, I should expect just such evidence as this to prove the gen- uineness of the piece. Virgil kept his vocabulary alive, as Dryden found,^ by constant variation. A very easy form to invent, especially under urgence of the metre or the desire for assonance, is a new com- pound verb; three of our instances are of this kind. It is further true that Virgil sometimes never used again a word or form appearing in one of his earlier works. Looking merely at verbs compounded with con, we find commaculare in the Bucolics, but not elsewhere; cogitare, collocare, colludere, compescere, comprendere, concidere, conflare, con- fluere in the Georgics but not elsewhere. This list would offer excellent material for proving the Georgics spurious on the basis of the vocabu- lary of the Bucolics and the Aeneid. Holtschmidt's data, which I have tested with some care, are not more significant elsewhere than in the present specimen. In brief, I find them of interest in proving the exact opposite of what he infers that they prove. But to illustrate now what excellencies young Virgil had attained, and what lay before him still, I would invite the reader's attention to one of the best passages in the poem, the beginning of the shepherd's soliloquy on the joys of the country Ufe.^ The model for these lines is the famous passage at the beginning of the second book of Lucretius.' Young Virgil indicates his source clearly enough by a few touches, but there is no palpable borrowing. He replaces specific description by typical examples.* He recasts the whole passage in a more peri- odic style. The period is too long and inflated, but the construction as a whole is more stately and less casual than Lucretius's sentence. He has not, however, avoided the tautology which his great model had permitted. ^ " Virgil, above all poets, had a stock, which I may call almost inexhaustible, of figurative, elegant, and sounding words. — (He) call'd upon me in every line for some new word, and I paid so long, that I was almost bankrupt; so that the latter end must needs be more burdensome than the beginning or the middle; and consequently, the Twelfth Aeneid cost me double the time of the First and Second." Dedication of the Aeneis, Cambridge edition, ed. G. R. Noyes, 1908, p. 518. * Vv. 57 £f. Discussed by Miss E. S. Jackson, op. cit., C. Q., v (191 1), p. 167. * 2, 14-39: o miseras hominum mentes, etc. * Cf . Lucr. 2, 24 f. and Culex 62, 67. Young Virgil's Poetry 125 The passage is worked into its final form in the Georgics} Here, as in the Culex, Virgil begins with an accusative of exclamation, to which is attached a dependent clause. The ensuing conditional clauses {si non . . . nee . . . neque . . . nee) are followed, just as in the Culex, by at,^ the period ending, after the effective repetition of at, with absunt. In the earlier poem, there is similar anaphora of si in the protasis. As anaphora cannot well occur in both protasis and apodosis, Virgil restricts it, in the later passage, to the apodosis, thereby giving the end of the sentence greater emphasis. In the Culex, the period tapers off into a cum clause, in the manner of Lu- cretius. Both passages end with an impressive series of details, ar- ranged in two sentences with anaphora of the demonstrative pronoun or pronominal adjective, illic . . . per illos in the Georgics; atque Ulum . . . illi in the Culex. In the Georgics, a full-fledged period caps the cUmax. But young Virgil has his eye on climax, too, and ends, if not periodi- cally, yet with a swinging series of adjectives, participles, and nouns, distinguished by rich assonance and rapid movement. In a way, the Culex marks a progress beyond the hexameters of Lucretius and the structure of his sentences. One notes — not every- where, but here and there — a conscious effort to tighten the loose, to drop the superfluous, to arrange the Imsymmetrical. The easy grace of Lucretius's verse propter aquae rivum sub ramis arboris altae • in which the words drip on pleasantly to the end, is refashioned com- pactly into rivum propter aquae viridi sub fronde latentem.* ^ 2, 458 ff : o fortunatos nimium, etc. * Vollmer should not spoil the Georgic effect by reading a pectore for at pectore in Ctilex 68. He is doubtless right in thinking o pectore the reading of the ancestor of all the manuscripts extant, but at pectore is an inevitable emendation. It was made by the author of the Excerpta in the eleventh century and later by the Italian humanists. Incidently, I think that Vollmer places too high a value on the £»• cerpta as a first-hand source. Its good readings not found elsewhere might easily have been emendarions, and it contains a number of violent changes such as are not infrequent in compilations of extracts. The compiler means not to produce a scholar's text of Virgil but to provide the reader with an easily intelligible an- thology of maxims and purple patches. ' 2, 30. * V. 390. The Lucretian model makes it certain that laUnkm agrees with rivum 1 26 Edward Kennard Rand Here the first word and the last lock the verse into a well-organized unit, in which the sense is kept in suspense. When Virgil repeated Lucretius's phrase — of which he was obviously fond — for a second time, in the Bucolics^ he Ukewise arranged the elements in cUmax, though of a different kind. Where did young Virgil find a model for this orderly compactness ? Possibly he had read Cicero's attempts at verse, which, however lack- ing in poetical intensity, could not help reflecting the sense of careful arrangement ingrained in the master of formal oratorical style. We do not need, however, to look for a pattern outside of Lucretius him- self, outside of the passages in which he condescended to art. Aenaedum genetrix, hominum divumque voluptas, alma Venus, caeli subter labentia signa quae mare navigerum, quae terras frugiferentis concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum concipitur visitque exortum lumina soils: te, dea, te fugiunt venti, te nubila caeli adventumque tuum, tibi sua vis daedala tellus summittit Acres, tibi rident aequora ponti placatumque nitet diffuse lumine caelum. What could be more Virgilian than these lines, with their conscious suspense and careful cUmax ? * Cicero's comment on Lucretius is pro- foundly true (if left unemended) — multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis? Lucretius did not care about the rules. He was a poet malgri lui. He wished to drive home the true gospel in the most telling way, using poetry as a sugar-coating for the wholesome pill. But intense convic- tion, imagination at white heat, is bound to express itself at times with utter clarity and simpUcity, with the effect of great art at which the poet had not primarily aimed — all of which Cicero says in " tamen." " (so Sillig, Forbiger and apparently Leo and VoUmer) and not with locum (Heyne, Ellis). ^ Eel. 8, 87: propter aquae rivum viridi procumbit in ulva. * There is one detail that Virgil would not ordinarily have allowed — the elision in the fifth foot in v. 4. ^ Ad Q. Fr. 2, 9, 3. Orelli with multae etiam artis and Bergk with non multae tamen artis do their best to make Cicero banal or egregiously wrong. For a careful discussion of this passage, see Litchfield in H. S. C. P., xxiv (1913), 147 2- Young Virgil's Poetry 127 It was, then, to these passages of great and simple art to which young Virgil instinctively turned and which helped the development of his innate tendencies into a style. That the passages from the Culex and the Georgics just discussed are related as model and imitation nobody would deny.^ It is difficult to believe that the talented author of the Culex could have had before him the perfected reserve of Virgil's Georgics, to say nothing of the Aeneid, and yet kept on with the crude tautologies and participial con- structions that we have noted. This poem precedes, not follows, the admitted works of Virgil. He turned to this, just as he always turned to his earlier works, sometimes to improve a first attempt, sometimes to borrow what he had done well enough the first time.* Virgil's goal was epic. He had to struggle through a hostile literary environment before reaching it, but the signs of an epic temperament are apparent even in this his earliest work, A lad who spends his fancy on a mock-heroic may one day attempt the heroic; indeed he promises so to do.' Moreover, certain passages, if they chanced to have come to us as fragments, might well seem portions of some lost poem of a seriously epic character. There is a description of a storm at sea, for instance, which for boyish workmanship is not unworthy of the vastly more epic storms in the Aeneid* All in all, the Culex gives us what we should expect to find in what the ancient biographer says it is, a poem composed by Virgil at the age of sixteen. It has the crudities of a first attempt and reflects the Alexandrian environment into which Virgil was born. The new im- pulses stirring in the poem are Lucretian moral earnestness and the promise of genius in the young poet himself. ^ For another example of Virgil's later refashioning of motives less well executed in the Culex cf. w. 294 S. and Georg. 4, 489. * See Miss Jackson's article and E. Albrecht, WiederholU Verse und Verstheile bet Vergil in Hermes, xvi (1881), 393 ff. » Vv. 8 ff . * Vv. 344-52: comes erat . . . ac mere in terras caeli fragor. Virgil uses the bucolic diaeresis with similar effect in his description of the thunder storm in Georg. I, 331, save that it comes not at the end of the passage, as here, but with far greater appropriateness, several removes from the end. The pause marks a lightning-stroke, but one in the thick of the shower and not the final stroke. 128 Edward Kennard Rand m Catalepton If the Ctdex was written under the spell of Lucretius, the Catalepton attests a vigorously Catullan period in Virgil's career. His schooling, the ancient biographer informs us, took place first at Cremona, then, after he had assumed the toga virilis in his fifteenth year, at Milan, shortly after which time he came to Rome.^ If the Culex was written in his sixteenth year, 54 B.C., he may well have come to the city in 52.* There he found himself in the world of Catullus. He may have already known, at Milan or at Mantua, something of the works of the poet who had made North Italy famous,^ but now he entered the inner circle of admirers, nil praeter Calvum at doctus cantare CatuUum.* The title Kara Aeirrov, used by Alexandrian writers,^ means ' In Trifling Vein ' or ' Trifles.' The collection comprises the Priapea and the Epigrammata.^ The pieces are not all of the same period, but most of them date from Virgil's youth, and immediately suggest Catullus. Indeed, Catullus had borrowed the same title, translating it Nugae for one of his volumes of verse. Manuscripts of the collection are far less abundant than those of the Culex. The tradition is divided into two main branches, one repre- sented by the Bruxellensis, s. XII, and the other by two varieties of fifteenth century manuscripts.^ On the other hand, there are excellent bits of external testimony, including Quintilian's.* * Vita Donatiana, ed. Brummer, p. 2, 20 ff. * See Theodor Birt, Jugendverse und Heimatpoesie Vergils. Erkldrung des Cata- lepton, 1910, p. 17. This excellent work marks a notable advance in the interpre- tation of the Catalepton. * On the Catullan elements in the Catalepton see Birt, op. cit., p. 14, Sommer, op. cit. (above p. 3), pp. 71 ff., 99 ff., and the writer's article on Catullus and the Augus- tans, in H. S. C. P., xvii (1906), 17 f. Also see above, p. 12, note i. * Horace Sertn. i, 10, 19. * Birt op. cit. pp. 6 f. * See above, p. 7. ^ See Vollmer in his edition, p. 126. 8 Inst. Or. 8, 3, 27 f. Young Virgil's Poetry 129 Priapea The Priapea are graceful and sprightly soliloquies of the scarecrow- god, who figures also in the Georgics and the Bucolics} Like the other specimens preserved, they are inscriptional in form. This does not mean that they are carved each on some statue of the god. They have not such dignity as that. They stand one stage higher in the literary scale than latrine graffiti? They are scribbled on the walls of the god's rustic shrine,^ or brought as offerings to his likeness,'' or hung on a nearby tree, sometimes with a blasting effect.^ The god expects a bountiful supply of these metrical tributes, and threatens his usual punishment if the poet shghts him.^ Along with indecency, we find delightful touches of wit and pastoral charm and rustic piety. Ancient religion penetrated life in regions from which it is debarred in our colder and more proper times. Virgil's Priapea are, according to Birt,' the earUest complete speci- mens of the kind extant in Latin Uterature. Virgil of course did not invent such a literary type. It is Hellenistic and Catullan.' Virgil took up with this tradition as he did with all, or almost all, the topics that were going the rounds among the successors of Catullus whom he knew in Rome. He shied at the grossly offensive matter and made good poetry of the rest. I am not so sure that the Priapea of the extant collection are all of a later date.' This collection is obviously a com- bination of two different sets of Priapea] the first two poems are both introductions. The former is in elegiacs; Schanz rightly calls it the later of the two.* The other, in hendecasyllabics, is in imitation of ' Georg. 4, no f. Eel. 7, 33 ff. In the latter passage, Priapus is custos pauperis horii just as in Virgil's Priapea 2, 4 and 3, 6. * See Priapea 48 (Baehrens, P. L. M. i, 73) : Tu, quicumque vides circa tectoria nostra ( Non nimium casti carmina plena ioci, | Versibus obscenis ofifendi desine: non est | Mentula subducti nostra supercilii. * Ibid., 2, gf.: Ergo quidquid id est, quod otiosus | Templi parietibus tui notavi, | In partem accipias bonam, rogamus. * Birt, op. cit., p. aa. * Priapea, 61. * Ibid., 41 and 47. ' Op. cit., p. 47, ' Ibid. See also Schanz, op. cit., §320. » Ibid., and Teuffel, op. cit., § 254, 5. 130 Edward Kennard Rand Catullus's preface to his Nugae} Various echoes of Catullus appear in the following pieces; most of them occur in those written in hendec- asyllabics and choliambics.'^ Ovidian and Horatian reminiscences most frequently occur in the elegiac poems.^ No hard and fast line can be drawn, and none can gainsay the possibihty that all the pieces are late Augustan. But there is also no compelling argument against the supposition that the collection is made up of an earher set, Catul- lan in character, in which elegiacs are rare, and a later Ovidian set, in which elegiacs predominate. Whether or not we have before us various pieces that contemporaries or predecessors of young Virgil wrote, we may be tolerably sure that the Priapea that served him as models are well enough represented by those that have come down to us. The first of Virgil's Priapea is in elegiacs. The idea of the poem is, so far as we know, his own.* Priapus complains that though he is heaped with rustic bounties in the other seasons, winter gives him a chilling fear that despite his divinity, some lazy rustic may turn the ligneous god into igneous fuel. There is quiet humour in the piece, a touch of Horace's satire on the godhood of scarecrows ^, and a neat play on Lucre tius's remarks on the similarity of lignum and ignis. ^ Priapus, who frequently comments on the woodenness of his nature,' fears that he may be subjected to an uncomfortable kind of atomistic transformation: Nam frigus metuo at vereor ne ligneus ignem Hie deus ignavis praebeat agricolis. ^ Cf. the close of the poem (quoted in Note 3 above) with that of Catullus i. Cf. also V. 3 with Cat. i, 7. * Cf. 8, 3 with Cat. 5, 3; 52, 11 with Cat. 5, 12; 77, 10 with Cat. 7, 2. ' Cf. 10, 4 and 73, 3; with Hor. Serm. i, 8, i; 16, 5 with Ovid, EpisL 21 and Ars. Am. I, 457; 21, 3 with Ovid. Ars. Am. 2, 265; 67, 33 with Ovid. Am. 1, 8, 47. The whole coloring of Priap. 67 is Ovidian; (cf. 80, i with Ovid. Am. 3, 7, iff.). It should be further noted that Horace, Serm. i, 8, is only a longer specimen of the type of Priap. 12, 32 and 46, while Priap. 3 is ascribed to Ovid by the elder Seneca, Contr. I, 2, 22. See Schanz, loc. cit. * Birt, op. cit. p. 22. ' Serm. i, 8. * This point has escaped Birt and other editors, so far as I can discover. Lucian Miiller wished to " emend" ligneus into lentus in. "> Priapea 6, i: Qui sum ligneus, ut uides, Priapus. Cf. 10, 4; 73, 3, etc. Young VirgiVs Poetry 131 This, then is a pleasant variation on a famihar theme by a poet ac- quainted Avith Epicurean science. In the second poem, which is a longer affair in iambics, a better favored Priapus speaks. He has offerings throughout the year, his winter reUsh being " olives cooked with cold." ^ He goes on to boast of the goats raised in his pastures — as though he were responsible for the process — of the lambs that enable their owner, with better luck than the shepherd in the Bucolics ^ to come back from town laden with coin, and of the heifers that despite their dam's laments, pour out their blood at the shrines of the gods; this verse, like that in the preceding poem, shows that the writer has not forgotten his Lucretius.' Then comes a touch of the traditional coarseness, handled delicately, and in fact with a moral lesson attached. The passer-by, perhaps induced by Priapus's vaunting of his attractions, attempts an insult. He is warned that the bailiff, who opportunely appears, can convert the wooden mentula of the god into an effective club.* The third piece is in the beautiful and impetuous Priapean metre that Catullus had employed with great skill.^ The god, in charge of a swampy sort of garden that suggests Mantua,' boasts of the pretty offerings that he receives from the farmer's household: Florida mihi ponitur picta vera corolla, primitus tenera virens spica mollis arista, luteae violae mihi lacteumque papaver pallentesque cucurbitae et suave olentia mala, uva pampinea rubens educata sub umbra. 1 I think that we should read as the archetype of our manuscripts evidently did: Mihi glauca oliva duro cocia frigore. Glauca is a traditional epithet of the olive; that it applies strictly to the leaf rather than to the fruit is not a matter worth quibbling about. Coda frigore refers to the ripening of the olive in the late autimm or early winter, as Voss saw (Birt, op. cit., p. 30). ' V. 13: gravem domum remittit acre dexteram. Cf. Ed. i, 35; Mordum, 80. » Cf. V. 15 and Lucretius, 2, 352 ff. * The correct explanation of the dosing verses b given, I believe, by K. Prinz, Berliner Philol. Wochenschrift, 1914, 1020 flF. Some genius invented Priapus and his organ, which at once affected the yokel with religious awe, cheered him with ribald jests and provided him with a weapon for whacking the transgressor. Priapus is also moral — for once — in a poem of the collection (No. 64). ' Poem 17; Frag. 2. • Birt, op. cit., pp. 38 f. 132 Edward Kennard Rand These verses have the lusciousness of CatuUus's quoi cum sit viridissimo nupta flora puella et puella tenellulo delicatior haedo,i and the richness of the description of pastoral tributes in the second Eclogue. Our poet has also learned restraint since he composed that prolix array of floral offerings in the Culex? Faithful to his charge, the god suggests that the youthful marauders will find a wealthier and less vigilant Priapus at the next-door neighbour's, to which he kindly points the nearest way.^ Virgil would not have been ashamed of this perfect little poem, or of its companion-pieces, in any period of his career. It is useless to guess how long they were written before the Bucolics, or how long after.* We must not divide Virgil's activity into water-tight compartments as though he could not turn aside from writing Bucolics or Georgics or Aeneid to pleasant Utile jeux d' esprit as a relief from the larger task. At the same time, it is most natural to associate these pieces with the rest of the Catalepton and Virgil's apprenticeship to Catullus. Epigrammata The Epigrammata include fourteen pieces in various CatuUan metres, elegiac, iambic, and choliambic; the familiar hendecasyllabic, Virgil did not try — at least there are no specimens of this metre in the present collection. The elegiacs are of the CatuUan and not of the Ovidian type; the later practice of invariably ending the pentameter with a dissyllable is not observed here. Most of the poems are early, and in character, very CatuUan,^ Some show us the youthful Virgil among the poets of love — nothing to wonder at when we consider the second Eclogue and the tenth, with its tribute to Gallus and his school. Virgil is one of a group of young writers, Tucca and Varius among their number, who continue the vein of Calvus and Catullus. 1 17, 14 f. For direct echoes of Catullus, for the CatuUan character of the metre, and for refinements introduced by Virgil, see Birt, op. cit., pp. 45 f. But Birt should not call CatuUus's humorously jolting verse (22) " imgeschickt." * See above, p. 120. * The same idea appears in Priapea 51, 23 f. * Not long before, according to Birt, pp. 16 ff. * On the CatuUan character of the metre, see Sommer, op. cU. (pp. 86ff.). Young Virgil's Poetry 133 To Tucca, Virgil complains that his lady-love has returned from a visit, but is not the more accessible to him for that reason, as her jealous husband keeps her under lock and key.^ To Varius, he con- fesses his desperate love of a lad — he first refers to his beloved as TTodos, and then realizing how shocked the critics would be to find a Greek word in a Latin verse, calls him in plain Latin iste puer. A good bit of passion lies beneath this mock compHance with the purists' rules.' Also in the manner of Catullus are certain boisterous invectives, which lack, however, the inexpressible filth from which Catullus did not refrain. In 'one of these, Poem No. 2, he satirizes the rhetorician Annius Cimber, archaistic and Atticistic in tendency, who poisoned his brother with a mess of his own style. We should not know the name of the rhetorician, did not Quintilian quote the epigram, which he considered admirable.^ Ausonius knew it too, and either had a fuller text of it than we have or sadly bungled our present text.* I shall make no fresh attempt to analyze the ingredients of Cimber's deadly concoction,^ but a word may be said as to the date of the epi- gram. The murder took place before 43 B.C., as Cicero refers to it in the Philippics,^ but how much before, we do not know. Cicero's language does not imply that it was specially recent. If it had occurred as far back as 52, Cicero's remarks would still have point — he simply finds a man of Cimber's character a useful example of the kind of com- pany that Antony was wont to keep. The epigram, on the other hand, should probably be dated not very long after the event; the satire of ^ This poem has at last been satisfactorily explained; see Birt, pp. 48 ff. * This, I take it, is the spirit of this piece (No. 7), slightly differing from that of Priapea 3, with which it may well be compared. There the intent is to ridicule elegant circumlocutions of the imvamished vernacular. » Inst. Or. 8, 3, 27 ff. * Gratnmaticomast. 5-9. I should imagine that just as v. 2 is lacking, whether through accident or intent, in Quintilian's quotation, the archetype of our manu- scripts may have omitted after v. 3 another line which contained the al Celtarum and the sil that puzzled Ausonius. * According to H. W. Garrod, C. Q., iv (1910), 123 ff., the satirized forms are Latin. W. Schmid, Philologus, Ixxii (1913), 148, finds a great deal more Greek than anybody had suspected before. H. R. Fairclough, T. A. P. A., xlvii (1916), 43 ff., suggests that the lyr annus Atticae febris may refer to Thucydides as the masterful describer of the plague at Athens. * II, 6, 14; 13, 12, 26. 134 Edward Kennard Rand it, somewhat tame at the best, would have completely lost its sting four or five years after the event. The situation, I think, is as follows. Young Virgil has come to Rome and is studying rhetoric. Although, as we have just inferred, not wholly a purist, he is disposed, like Horace later, to ridicule fads of style. Cimber, who was faddish in style, and most reprehensible in morals, kills his brother. Out comes the epigram at once — Cimber must have served his brother with a dose of his own vocabulary. The date of the poem, then, is virtually that of the mur- der itself; this, as we see from Cicero, must have taken place before 43 B.C. From what we have learned of Virgil's early career, we may infer that both events occurred round about the year 52. Poems 6 and 12 are companion-pieces in honor of a certain "Owl- eyes," Noctuinus, who, of low class himself, has married the daughter of Atilius, one of the landed gentry — the name is common in North Italy. But Owl-eyes does not see that he has incidentally married another daughter of Atilius, to wit, the bottle. The old gentleman is pater poiationis, and his example infects his son-in-law. There is a dreadful mix-up, in which both son-in-law and father-in-law play the part of husband. The poet well remarks, in a verse that parodies Catullus,^ — gener socerque, perdidistis omnia. Both poems show something of the hot blood of Catullus. The setting of the twelfth is the wedding-day; it is a fine specimen of Fescennina iocatio and ends boisterously with the marriage cry — thalassio, thalassio, thalassio. Parody of Catullus on a more elaborate scale appears in No. 10. The parody is at the expense not of Catullus but of the subject of the poem, a former mule-driver, now a provincial magistrate, who has dedicated a portrait or statue of himself in a temple of Castor and Pollux. Catullus's poem on the yacht (No. 4), is the model; it is cleverly adapted to the new theme by surprisingly few verbal changes. Only two verses are made up entirely of new material, and only two of the original are passed.^ It is an extraordinary metrical tour of force, 1 Catal. 6, 6; Catullus 29, 24. * I do not find it necessary to assume with Birt and others that our manuscripts have omitted a line after v. 19, or even to emend utrumque to tUrimque with Heinsius. Young Virgil's Poetry 135 and the invective is neat and pungent. The upstart is beyond doubt a local magnate of Cremona or some other place near Virgil's home town, and not as scholars have supposed tiU lately, Ventidius Bassus.^ Thereby disappears the only clue to an exact dating of the poem. I am inclined to put it with the other Catullan pieces, in the early years of Virgil's sojourn in Rome. It shows that Horace, who chose a very similar theme for his fourth Epode, was helped by Virgil as well as by Catullus in shooting Archilochian iambi at the targets of his satire. Another seemingly early piece is No. 3. It commemorates the downfall of some mighty monarch of men, who had subdued the kings and nations of Asia, and after levelling all other obstacles with his spear, was aiming at Rome herself. But in the very midst of the struggle, he fell headlong, driven from his fatherland to exile. In a rather boyish and obvious fashion, that recalls a passage in the Cidex* the poet ends with moralizings on the arbitrary sway of Fortune. There have been many candidates proposed for the hero of this piece. Birt makes out a strong case for Alexander ' — a subject that might have been assigned as a rhetorical theme of the kind with which Roman schoolboys were famiUar. But one detail is not explained by Birt; Alexander's later career may be described as an " exile from home," but he was hardly driven to it. We are rather inclined to look about for a contemporary hero. Phraates has been suggested,* but Virgil would have written something more powerful than the present piece in 32 B.C. or the years immediately following, we should imagine, granting that Phraates deserves to be set on so exalted a bad eminence as he is here assigned. One also thinks of Pompey, but his end was more than exile, his station was hardly that of a king, and his purpose would scarcely be described even by a Caesarian as that of imposing grave servUium on the Roman people. Antony is another selection.^ The opening Unes are not too extravagant a description of the oriental pomp that Antony had assumed, and he surely threatened ^ See Birt's excellent remarks, pp. 116 f., and E. T. Merrill. Classical Philology, viii (1913), 389 ff. Sommer, op. cit., p. 77 still adheres to Ventidius. * Vv. 339 fiE. » Pp. 61 flF. So Sommer, p. 78. * See Nettleship in The Works 0} Vtrgil, Conington and Nettleship, revised by Haverfield, 1898, 1, p. xxi. ' See especially, N. De Witt, American Journal of Philology, zxxiii (1912), 317 fif. 136 Edward Kennard Rand Rome with slavery; but his fall was to death, not exile. He lived for about a year after Actium, but life in Alexandria was anything but an exile for him. We are, therefore, left with Mithradates, whom every detail in the poem does fit at the moment when he fled from Pompey into the wilds of the Cimmerian Bosporus.^ This was in 66. The king recovered sufficiently to plan reprisals and even a new attack on Italy, but finally succumbed to the conspiracy organized by his son Phar- naces and ended his life by poison and the sword in 63. We are not told that Virgil, seven or eight years old at the time, was writing poems at that tender age, but this piece might well have been done about the time of the Culex, when he was still a school-boy at Milan. The career of Mithradates, whom Cicero in 45 called the greatest king after Alexander,^ would have impressed itself on the imagination of school-boys and school-teachers for some time after that monarch's death. The subject prescribed, or chosen, is not the death of Mith- radates but his downfall. It is a better moment to select than the death, which did not immediately follow, to illustrate the point set forth in the closing lines. We now come to a pair of poems of considerable biographical im- portance. The fourth is addressed to a certain Musa, a learned devo- tee of CUo ^ and all the choir of Phoebus. He is about to part from Virgil, who swears eternal affection to him, though scarcely hoping that it will be requited. This is the language of respect appropriate in accosting a patron or somebody of a higher station in life. The eleventh poem laments the death of Octavius, a writer of Roman history, who, rumor had it, died from excessive fondness of the bowl. Piecing together the two poems, we find them concerned with the same man, Octavius Musa, who was a member of the literary circle to which Horace, Virgil, and Macenas belonged,^ and one of the agents * Appian, Mithr. 102. 2 Acad. Pr. 2, i, 3; ille rex post Alexandrum maximus. * Birt tries to show (pp. 69 f., 131), I think without success, that Clio in this poem and historia in the Eleventh do not indicate that Octavius wrote history. I should rather infer that he was a versatile writer like PoUio, trying his hand both at history and various sorts of verse, epic perhaps included. * Hor. Serin, i, 10, 82. Horace's Octavius, whether Octavius Musa or not, is placed in exalted company — Plotius, Varius, Maecenas, Virgil, Valgius, Fuscus and the Visci. Young Virgil's Poetry 137 of Octavian during the disturbances at Cremona. He paid off an old grudge on the Mantuans by taking a slice from their territory too; ^ it looks as if he were, or had been, a resident of Cremona. It is now tolerably clear who the Octavius is in whose honor the boy Virgil wrote his Culex. He was a somewhat younger boy of higher station whom Virgil met in his school-days at Cremona or Milan. We get glimpses of his career down to 35 B.C., when Horace published the first book of his Satires and we find his death recorded in the eleventh poem of the Catalepton. Not long after the Culex, perhaps even be- fore Virgil had left Milan,^ occurred the parting between the two youths and Virgil's poem of farewell. It suggests in spirit several of Catullus's poems of friendship,' and perhaps, though this is a dubious point, contains reminiscences of Catullus.'* The last poem in the series is not very much later than 35, for Octavius is outHved by his father and goes before his contribution to historia Rotnana has been completed.^ Octavius is the first among the heroes of young Virgil, who was born with a passionate hero-worship, and successively transferred his worship, for good cause, to various heroes. We can imagine that Octavius's treatment of the Mantuans may have led to estrange- ment. Thepresenttribute, written after his death, is a trifle chilly; an ardent admirer would not have found it necessary to mention the fatal bottle, even though this is called the outward and secondary sign of an all- compelling fate.^ The evidence that Virgil could write a mediocre poem later in his career — at the time when the Georgics were well under way — may help us decide the case of No. 9. This is a panegyric of Messalla, in ^ See Servius on Ed. 9, 7. * Birt, p. 67, allows for this possibility. ' E. g. 9 and 46. This point is well made by Sommer, p. 84. * See Birt, pp. 67 ff. ' Ibid., -p. 132. * Birt makes the tone more cheerful still by discovering a Centaur in v. 2. Starting with an epigram of Callimachus, imitated here, which has the Centaur (Jipa t6 Kol Kkin-avpov; 6 hm irtrpwuipos (rrvot \ ^Xfley, 6 di rX'fifiup oIpos ixa Tp6cunv.), Birt gets dicunt Centaurum out of dicunt {dicuntur AR) animo {anitni B). This is a clever misuse of ingenuity, at which both Palaeography and Quellenforschung might be expected to nod approval. Birt is so fascinated with his centaur, that he thinks (pp. 127, 132) that Horace in Carm. i, 18 and Virgil elsewhere have the present passage in mind. However, I believe that the Urbinas has the right read- ing, whether or not by conjecture, a nitnio. 138 Edward Kennard Rand honor either of his triumph over the Aquitanians in 27 B.C., or of the general triumph of Octavian, in which Messalla shared, celebrated after the battle of Actium in 31. At the time, then, Virgil was either just finishing the Georgics or beginning the Aeneid. Messalla, as we shall later see,^ had been interested in Virgil's early work. Virgil, like Horace, though specially of the circle of Maecenas, was not thereby debarred from friendship with other patrons of Uterature. Horace made Messalla the fine gift of his best convivial ode, note mecum consule Manlio} Virgil contributed the present piece, a distinctly mediocre affair, such as great poets sometimes produce when writing from a sense of duty. And yet there are touches of the real Virgil in the poem, particularly in the neat compliment to MessaUa's Greek pastorals, which the poet describes with a reminiscence of his own.^ The poem begins with the acclamation of the victor and the praise of his literary achievements. There follows the praise of his heroine, who is likened to various mythological prototypes. Instead of re- coimting the victor's miUtary exploits, the poet passes them by in a tiresome series of rhetorical questions. Such deeds are too magnifi- cent for him to laud; they speak for themselves. Enough for the poet if he can shed adequate praise on the hero's poetical triumphs: Hoc satis est: pingui nil mihi cum populo. The piece ends thus abruptly, in a somewhat Pindaric manner.* It follows in general the rules laid down for encomia in the rhetorical treatise Ad Herennium.^ The poet evidently approached his task with about the amount of immediate inspiration that writers of Pin- daric odes in EngHsh poetry have possessed. Bows from the poet laureate to the victor laureate are apt to be formal. The reason that Virgil has written admirable carmina iussa in some of the Bucolics and the Georgics is that those really are not ordered but spring from the heart. No poet can write by compulsion. When he tries, we should not reUeve him of the responsibiUty for the result. Our verdict should be, " A pity that he had to do it," not " It is the work of » See below, pp. 147, 154. * Carm. 3, 21. ' V. 17: molliter hie viridi patulae sub tegmine quercus. Cf. Eel. 1,1. * Cf. the ending of 01. 3 and Pyth. 2. * Shown by Sommer, p. 51. Young Virgil's Poetry 139 somebody else." Scholars have not questioned, unless in the school of Peerlkamp, that Horace wrote the fourteenth ode of Book 4.^ A still harder poem to accept, on first reading, as Virgil's is No. 13.^^ In metre and matter, this is an epode. A certain Lucius has declared that our poet, enfeebled by dissipation, can no longer endure the toils of the sea or the camp. Virgil describes the vices of his critic in billingsgate so abusive that it suggests a literary exercise. We find in the Bucolics ribald pastoral invective quite as violent as that here and on the same theme.^ Virgil had not served in the army or the navy, so far as we had known, and his life had been singularly pure; even Suetonius could rake together only a few dubious items for the chapter of scandals with which he regularly equipped his biographies of illustrious men. But there is a certain liturgy of abuse, which Archilochus and Catullus and Filelfo and Milton well knew, and which reheves us of the necessity of taking invectives as historic truth.* There is also a Uturgy of the improper, a narrative told indecently and in order, authorized on the principle of nam castum esse decet pium poetam ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est.' * Birt, pp. 91 ff. and Sommer, pp. 37 ff. attempt an elaborate proof that the poem is not Virgil's. I agree vdth P. Jahn in his review of Sommer (Berl. Phil. Woch. 191 1, 1397 flf.) that if the rest of the Catalepton can be accepted, there is no good reason for leaving out No. IX. Sommer, indeed, has furnished (pp. 44 ff.) a useful list of coincidences between it and Catullus, Ctdex, Ciris and the undoubted works of Virgil. This evidence, some of which had already been collected by Naeke, op. cit., p. 233, helps to put the poem in the same literary setting as others of the CatakpUm, and also to cormect it with Virgil. Connections with Virgil, in the case of any of the disputed works are not proof of a later imitation. They may be in- stances of Virgil's constant habit of echoing his own phrases. Such coincidences occur, e. g., in the Priapea, which Sommer (p. 74) accepts as Virgilian. Indeed, if a work of any extent contained none of them, its genuineness would be subject to the gravest suspicions. Sommer (pp. 56 ff.) believes that the Laudaiio MessaUae included in the Corpus TibuUianutn imitates the present poem. This may well be so. * Rejected by Sommer (pp. 60 ff.) mainly becaiise it contradicts what we know of Virgil's life. Sommer si>ends most of his time in disproving Nemethy's thesis that the poem is the work of Horace. » Eel. 3, 7 ff. * See Birt, p. 142. ' Catullus, 16, 5 f. See Hack's discussion in H. S. C. P., xxv (1914), 107 ff. 140 Edward Kennard Rand Even the younger Pliny, the least libidinous of lovers, bows to the custom of the forefathers, cites a kind of apostolic succession of im- proper writers, Virgil, be it noted, among them, and with a splendid effort of conscience, writes a naughty, but not very convincing, poem himself.^ Horace in his Epodes uses similar autobiographical fiction with more effect, for the purpose of satirizing the third person in terms of the first. The present piece might have been prompted by the Epodes, which Virgil doubtless knew considerably before the volume appeared in 30 B.C.; or perhaps it occurred to him even earlier, in the storm and stress of youth, to turn into an Archilochian epode the material of a Catullan invective. Indeed he had paved the way to such an achievement in Poems 6, 10, and 12. He is thus a half- way mark between Catullus and Horace.^ We may thus credit Virgil with starting in Roman literature a form which Horace claimed as his creation, just as he called lyric poetry his own despite the few essays of Catullus with sapphics, and just as Ovid is the ultimate author of heroines' love-letters, though Propertius hit the idea first. Further, the poem may contain after all a certain amount of re- liable autobiography. It were nothing surprising for instance, if, Virgil, like any young Roman, served for a while, as long as his sickly constitution permitted, in the army.^ I hardly think that we can venture more definite conclusions. Birt would fix on the beginning of the Civil War as the time of Virgil's campaign, in which he fought on Caesar's side.'* A reference to Caesar, if the text is not corrupt,^ would indicate, what is most probable, that Virgil was favorably dis- posed towards Caesar; more we cannot say. Birt sees reasons ^ for placing the poem before No. 5, in which the poet seems to cry peccavi? for the indecency of just such a piece as the present. If all this is so, No. 5 would have been written rather late in Virgil's career.* » Epist. 4, 14; 5, 3; 7, 4- * Ibid., pp. 143 f. * Birt, pp. 115 f., 151. * Ibid., p. 148. * So Birt, p. 143. ' Ibid., pp. 141, 148. ^ Vv. 1 2 f . : et tamen meas chartas | revisitote, sed pudenier et raro. ' After V. 16 there suddenly appears in the inferior branch of the tradition an elegiac quatrain of uncertain text but obvious enough meaning. It is an epitaph on some genius for whose premature death the somewhat cold consolation is offered that none is exempt from fate. This piece is called by Vollmer (see his edition ad loc.) a humanistic composition on Virgil himself. Birt, however (pp. 178 ff.), who Young VirgiVs Poetry 141 If we are justified in accepting poems 1 1 and 13 as Virgil's and thereby assuming that the Catalepton contain certain pieces com- posed in poet's later periods when the Georgics or even the Aeneid was his immediate task, there is no antecedent reason for barring out No. 14. This is a prayer to Venus that she will grant the poet strength to finish his epic, so that Trojan Aeneas may ride in triumph through the streets of Rome: Troius Aeneas Romana j)er oppida digno iam tandem ut tecum carmine vectus eat.* The first of these verses is made up of phrases from the Aeneid and the Georgics, and other echoes of these poems occur.^ The votive offering will be not only incense and wreaths and a picture, but a homed ram, a mighty bull and a marble Cupid with irridescent wings.' These will be consecrated in the temple of Venus on the Surrentine shore. This gives a plausible reconstruction of the text, thinks that the writer lived not much later than Ovid, and Ribbeck even supposed that the verses are part of Catal. 1 1 ; see his edition. They stood, I should infer, in some manuscript from which the archetype of all our present copies are derived, at the head of a page that came after the epilogue to the Catalepton (No. 1 5) . The scribe turned a leaf or two too many, caught the quatrain at the top of the page, discovered his error, added a direction to omit or transpose, and proceeded with the copying of No. 13. The scribe of our archet)T)e, or of some ancestor, copied the misplaced passage without observing the signs of omission or transposition, and thus it is engrafted in the text of No. 13 in one branch of the tradition. The scribe of B, or some ancestor, either found the signs in the archetype and heeded them, or found them not, but noting the incon- gruity of the verses, boldly left them out. Thirty-nine lines remain between 13, 16, and the end of the Epilogue to the Catalepton; if we allow two lines for headings to Nos. 14 and 15, and a line for a subscription, we have forty-two, that is a leaf with twenty-one lines on the page. Possibly not one but two or more leaves were care- lessly turned by the scribe. The quatrain, at any rate, comes from some collection that followed the Catalepton. There is nothing to show that it is by Virgil or about him. There is no obvious indication of its date. It might, perhaps, have been part of a series of short poems put together in the fourth century, like the Carmina Vergiliana collected by Baehrens {P. L. N., iv, 156 ff.). But this is all guesswork. We may infer only that the lines are probably not by Virgil. ^ For an admirable translation of this poem, see Dr. T. H. Warren's The Death of Virgil, w. 756 S. This work is more than an agreeable exercise in dramatics. It contains many fine observations on Virgil's style and his temperament. * See Sommer, pp. 68 ff. * See Birt, p. 172. 142 Edward Kennard Rand is a fine place for an offering to Venus, and one to which Virgil would naturally turn from his favorite resort at Naples.^ Augustus, too, is pictured as joining in the prayer. This language is appropriate enough for the author of an epic which immortalizes, if not the historical career of Augustus, that which is more important still, the guiding ideals of his policy and of his times.^ We must remember, too, that Augustus had taken a special interest in the Aeneid, hearing Virgil read several books of it to him and begging him in a letter to expedite the work and send him a specimen.^ At the moment when Augustus wrote this letter, Virgil was feeling despondent about the success of his epic. He declares that he must have been out of his senses when he undertook it* — a remark that has led literal-minded critics to take warning from Virgil's "own confession" and refrain from "hys- terical admiration " of an inferior work.^ Ups and downs of a writer's sentiment are inevitable in the progress of a great poem like the Aeneid. The present piece gives a mood of hope, of that radiant aspiration towards some high achievement that appears often enough in Virgil.® A metrical detail is not without significance. Though the poem was written at a time ^ when TibuUus and Propertius had developed the style of pentameter, later perfected by Ovid, in which a word longer than a dissyllable regularly is not allowed at the end of the verse,^ this rule is not here observed; three of the six pentameters end in polysyl- lables. This is a mark of genuineness, not pace Sommer,' of spurious- ness. A later forger who possessed the inspiration that the present piece shows would have probably mastered the elegiac technique observed in his day. Virgil is of the old school. He wrote Catullan 1 Vita Donatiana, ed. Brummer, p. 3, 43; Georg. 4, 564. * Birt, p. 170. 3 Vita Donat. p. 7,105 S.; Serviuson^m. 4, 323; Macrobius^atom. i, 24, 11. * Macrob. loc. cit.: ut paene vitio mentis tantiun opus ingressus mihi videar. ^ Teuffel, op. cit., §228, 5. The remark of Teuffel is a bit toned down in the recent revision by Kroll and Skutsch. « E. g., Culex, 8 e. Eel. 8, 6 ff. Georg. 3, 8 S. ' Birt, p. 172, places it between the writing of Books i and 5 of the Aeneid. At any rate, a goodly portion of the poem has been finished. • See above, p. 132. • Pp. 69 ff. Young Virgil's Poetry 143 elegiacs in his youth, and clung to this manner when, for the nonce, he later turned to elegiacs again. Two poems remain, which give especially important clues to the development of Virgil's interests in the period of his youth. The first of these, beheved Virgilian by various scholars who do not accept the Catalepton as a whole,^ is a boyish farewell to rhetoric and poetry as the sterner training in philosophy under Siro is in prospect. Virgxl's rhe- torical studies are well attested. One of his masters was Epidius.^ He doubtless entered some rhetorical school when he came from Milan to Rome, round about the year 52.^ The vigor of this little poem suggests the bits of CatuUan invective in the Catalepton. It also ushers in an important period in Virgil's youthful career. It is the only poem in the series, with perhaps the exception of No. 13, on which Birts's notes throw more darkness than light. The Varro mentioned, we will admit, is hardly the great Varro or Tarquitius the Etruscan antiquary.* But surely they are the lad's teachers, not his companions, and surely his farewell to his beautiful mates is sincere, not ironical.' The poetry to which Virgil bids good-bye — only a partial good- bye — would include the Culex and whatever he had written primarily under the spell of Catullus. This need not have been a lengthy period ; a year would amply suffice to explain what we have seen in the Catalep- ton. Doubtless there were other pieces, dashed ofif at white heat, that early disappeared from view like the poetry of Calvus and Cinna; indeed it is by the merest chance that the immortal nugae of Catullus have come down to us. The word pudenter in the last line perhaps implies,* that Virgil soon repented of certain performances in the Ubid- inous vein scantioned by Catullus and other predecessors.* At all events, a turning-point in his intellectual career has come. We hear of Siro some years later, in a poem, or little prayer, ad- dressed to the humble villa, once Siro's, which now was to shelter Virgil, his father and others of his family, " If sadder news comes from 1 Teuffel, §230, 5. Schanz, op. cit., §241. * Sueton., De Gramm. 28. Birt, p. 72. * I agree with Sommer, who dates the present poem early (though perhaps a bit too early, 53 B.C.) rather than with Birt (pp. 18, 72), who thinks it shortly pre- ceded No. 8, which he assigns to the year 41. * See Birt, p. 73. • Above, p. 140, note 7. ' Ihid., p. 74. ^ Above, p. 139; Birt, p. 72. 144 Edward Kennard Rand my native town." The circumstances suggest either the year 43, after the battle of Mutina, or ^ 41, after Philippi. The poet writes presum- ably from Rome, at least from some place not Mantua.^ Wherever the little villa was,^ its philosophical owner had found it, as Horace found his Sabine farm, stocked with that abiding wealth which the young author of the Culex had praised.* Whether Virgil and his family actually had recourse to this villa, we do not know. At all events, this little poem gives us autobiographical facts concerning Virgil, quite different from the ideal presentation of a general situation which suits the art of the Bucolics. Various critics from Servius on have come to grief in the attempt to extract from the Bucolics by that dangerous in- strument, allegorical interpretation, a coherent account of Virgil's own experience during the unhappy period of demobilization at Mantua.^ The Catalepton closes with an epilogue which obviously is not by Virgil himself. Vate Syracosio qui dulcior Hesiodoque maior, Homereo non minor ore fuit, illius haec quoque sunt divini elementa poetae et rudis in vario carmine Calliope. If Varius or Tucca, Virgil's literary executors, did not write this envoy, some other expert did, who knew that * sweet ' was a favorite word with Theocritus,^ and that Virgil's temperament was epic. The four- teenth poem has the right ring, but otherwise there are no conspicu- ously epic notes in the Catalepton; this quatrain must have stood at the end of a collection that contained more than the Catalepton. We have detected the flavor of epic in the Culex here and there — it will appear again in others of the minor works.^ ^ So Birt, p. 86. Sommer, p. 29, calls the date 42. 2 Birt, p. 86. * Possibly Naples, or North Italy. Birt, p. 86. * Cf. V. 2 with Culex 58-97. See Birt, p. 88. * For excellent remarks on this subject, see Birt, pp. 86 £f. « So Aulus Gellius, Noct. Ait. 9, 9. Birt, p. 175. ^ Birt, pp. 8 f., believes that the quatrain was added by Varius and Tucca, and that as it applies only to the Catalepton, it shows that Virgil's literary executors did not think that he wrote the other minor poems ascribed to him. This conclusion is dangerous, not only because of the absence of the epic element in the Catalepton, but because the collection contains several pieces (at least 9, 11, and 14), which Young Virgil's Poetry 145 IV CiRTS It was the fame of Siro, we have seen, that decided young Virgil to renounce the Muses and to take up serious thinking. Siro came to Rome in 50 B.C./ a date that fits in well with the story of Virgil's early career as we have deduced it thus far. If the latter came down from Milan in 52, he would have had two years in which to study rhetoric and to run the gamut of Catullan emotions and themes; he would be quite ready to turn to something new. The Vita by Probus, which I think certain scholars are a bit too prone to set aside ,^ marks out a brief scientific or philosophic period in Virgil's development. Vixit pluribus annis, this document declares,^ liberali in otio, secutus Epicuri sectam, insigni concordia et familiaritate usus Quintili, Tuccae et Vari. His associates are Tucca and Varius as before, and likewise Quintilius — apparently Quintilius Varus, who on the testimony of Horace,* was one of the dearest of Virgil's friends. There is also a tantalizing frag- ment in one of the Herculaneum rolls, which makes it possible that Virgil with Quintihus and Varius were among the pupils of Philode- mus.^ Young Romans attended the lectures of both these authorities on Epicureanism. Cicero, though never won by that school, rever- enced these leaders, whom he calls his friends, as fine men and learned cannot be called youthful works. If, on the other hand, the quatrain was appended to a collection containing also Culex, Ciris, Aetna, Copa, and Dirae, the proportion of later p)oems becomes insignificantly small and the general designation of the pieces as elementa is justified. Vollmer (in his edition, p. 142) and Sommer (pp. i2flF.), regard the poem as late — fourth century, according to the latter — and as intended for a volume containing more than the Catalepton. The hypothesis might be entertained — I can contribute nothing new in its favor — that Varius and Tucca added the epilogue to the collection of minor poems named in the ancient Vita. If so, the Catalepton stood last in the series. Such an arrangement would be chronologically appropriate, since the Catalepton includes, besides very early pieces, the latest specimens of Virgil's occasional verse. 1 Birt, pp. 17, 72. ' For a list of discussions, see Teuffel, op. cit., §301, 6, 5. ' Brummer, Vitae Vergilianae, p. 73, 10. This statement is supported by Servius (Donatus) on Ed. 6, 3 : nam vidt exequi sectam Epicuream, quam didicerant tarn Vergilius quam Varus docente Sir one. See also on Aen. 6, 264. * Carm. i, 24. * Birt, p. 17. 146 Edward Kennard Rand thinkers.^ But even without the help of Herculaneum or of the Vita by Probus, we are sure from the evidence of Catalepton 5 and the pro- found study of Lucretius which Culex, Bucolics and Georgics cumu- latively show, that Virgil had at some time steeped himself in Epicu- rean lore. We need no further proof, either, that he lived on intimate terms with Varius, Tucca and Quintilius. At first reading, the Ciris seems curiously unlike Virgil. It is hard to understand, particularly as the manuscript tradition is so bad. The text descends by the same line by which the Catalepton has reached us, save that the Bruxellensis, the main support of that work, fails us in the Ciris, except for eighty-eight verses at the end of the poem. For the rest of it, only the inferior branch is represented; what that loss means, we can see by noting certain errors of that branch that the Bruxellensis clears away in the small portion of text in which it is pre- served.2 Doubtless the whole poem would seem far more VirgiUan if we could establish its text as well as that of the Bucolics or even of the Culex. For external evidence, besides the statement in the Vita Dona-- tiana, a comment in the enlarged Servius (Donatus),^ vouches for the Virgilian authorship of the piece.* The difficulty of ascribing the poem to Virgil is further diminished if we assume that it was written at the beginning of the scientific period in the poet's career.* For the young author of this piece, though * De Fin. 2, 119: Familiares nostros, credo, Sironem dicis et Philodemum, cum optimos viros, turn homines doctissimos. Cf. Ad. Fam 6, 11, 2. 2 E. g., 470, 472, 481, 511, 530, 533. Both branches are of value, for B has its own errors and shows the presence of the gloss; cf. 522. ^ Eel. 6, 3. Servius interprets cum canerem reges et proelia as referring to the Aeneid or to gesta regum Albanorum. He omits the further suggestions of "Do- natus," of which the first is: alii Scyllatn eutn scribere coepisse dicunt, in quo libra Nisi et Minois, regis Cretensium, bellutn describebat. * Of recent writers, VoUmer, op. cit. (followed by de Gubematis, op. cit.), and A. B. Drachmann (in Nordisk Tidsskrift for Filologi, Tredie Raekke, xiii (1904), 65 ff.; also Hermes, xliii (1908), 405 ff.) accept the poem as Virgil's. Drachmann's studies strike me as the best yet written on the subject. P. Jahn (Rhein. Mus. Ixiii (1907), 79 ff.), who discusses more coincidences with other poets than anybody had thought worth collecting before, inclines to regard Virgil as the author. The literature of the controversy reopened by Skutsch is given in Teuffel, § 230, 2. Naeke, pp. 235 ff., agrees on the early character {antiqua simplicitas) of the poem, puts it before the Bucolics, but does not decide for either Gallus or Virgil as its author. On Schrader, see above, p. 105. Young VirgiVs Poetry 147 a stranger to the task of philosophic exposition/ is devoutly attached to the garden of Epicurus. He has already done some worshipping of the Muses, and would like to make the present work an ultimate fare- well to poetry.^ He scorns the prizes of the fickle mob and craves above all things the fame of a philosopher. He would look down on the passing show from a Lucretian ivory tower,* which rests in a more eclectic fashion than Lucretius would have approved, on the pillars of the four ancient schools.' Philosophy is a haven of refuge to him, as to the youth who wrote the fifth poem of the Catalepton* FeeUng, however, that his scientific powers need develop- ment, he will for the moment give his patron, the young and yet learned Messalla,* the best that he has : interdum ludere nobis et gracilem molli liceat pede claudere versum.' Perhaps a day will come when he can adorn a larger page with science — naturae rerum magnis intexere chartis? This is the same mood of hopeful prophecy that we have noted as characteristic of Virgil.' Meanwhile the humbler Muses have returned to him — pudenter — as he had anticipated. Now for the poem. It is no impromptu affair; it may not, like Cinna's Smyrna, be a nine-years' pondered lay, but it at least has cost much burning of the midnight oil." The theme is the story of Scylla's unhallowed passion for her country's enemy Minos, which led her to cut from her father's head the sacred purple lock on which the safety * Vv. 42 f. : sed quoniam ad tantas nxinc primum nasdmus artes, | nunc primum teneros firmamus robore nervos. Aries cannot refer to poetry; see w. 10 f. * We noted at the end of Catal. 9 the same philosophic despite of the vulgar herd. » Vv. 17 ff. * Vv. 8 flf., Birt should add to his note (p. 76) on philosophy as a haven, the eloquent passage in Cic. Tiisc. 5, 5. ' Vv. 36, 54. * V. 20. The phrasing runs pretty close to that of Culex 35 f.: mollia sed tenui pede currere cannina, versu | viribus apta suis Phoebo duce ludere gaudet. ^ Vv. 36 ff. ' See above, p. 142, note 6. * Vv. 46 f . 148 Edward Kennard Rand of the city depended. The young poet soberly rejects the legend of that other Scylla whom poets often declare Candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris Dulichias vexasse rates et gurgite in alto deprensos nautas canibus lacerasse marinis.^ These lines suddenly arouse a Virgilian feeling in the mind of the reader; they are either a copy or the model of a familiar passage in the Bucolics? The poet remarks, with a certain wit, that neither Horner^ who preserves the yarn, nor Ulysses who tells it, has the best reputa- tion for veracity.^ At most, it is a fable of vicious passion, which the author expounds in the manner of Lucretius and with Lucretius's interest in allegorical explanation,* lending a temporary reality to the myth which he would destroy.^ He likewise shows a Virgilian sym- pathy with the unhappy subject of the uncanny tale.^ Nor should we be surprised at finding here a peculiar estimate of the story of Scylla that Virgil does not give elsewhere; for his accounts elsewhere are not consistent. In the Culex, he had the Homeric version. In the Bucol- ics, he fuses the two legends, and declares that it is the very daughter of Nisus who became the sea-monster; the reason may be that having to tell of Philomel also,' he cannot twice describe how. a maiden was ^ Vv. 59-61. * Eel. 6, 75 ff. : Candida succinctam latrantibus inguina monstris | Dulichias vexasse rates et gurgite in alto, | a ! timidos nautas canibus lacerasse marinis. * Sed neque Maeoniae patiuntur credere chartae | nee malus istorum dubiis erroribus auctor. Surely malus auctor must refer to Ulysses and not to Neptune (so Sillig) or Homer himseK (so Forbiger ad loc, Skutsch, Aus Vergils FriihzeU, p. 88, and Linforth, Am. Journ. Philol., xxvii (1906), 440 f .). Istorum means " such tales as this," and dubiis erroribus is a paraphrase of iroXOirXayKTos, with the im- plication that most of Ulysses's travels took place in his imagination. Such criti- cism of Homer is as old as Pindar, Nem. 7, 20 ff. As a matter of fact, Homer has himself answered this particular criticism of Pindar in Od. 11, 543. * See his elaborate accoimt of the inner meanings of the rite of Cybele (2, 600 ff .) and of the punishments of noted villians in Hades (3, 977 ff.) ^ Lucretius's Phaethon (5, 396 ff.) is quite as real as Ovid's {Met. 2 ff.). Just so here, the scientifically impossible Scylla seems very much alive. ^ V. 71 : infelix virgo, quid enim commiserat ilia ? Also 81 f. Similarly Virgil of the unhappy Pasiphae {Ed. 6, 47, 52): a, virgo infelix, etc. ^ Vv. 78 ff. See Skutsch, i, 99. If as Skutsch thought (p. no), Virgil compliments Gallus in this passage by borrowing the latter's lines, why should he go out of his Young Virgil's Poetry 149 transformed into a bird. He therefore varies — artistic freedom is as natural in the Bucolics as scientific exactness is in the present poem.^ In the Georgics,^ Scylla is the bird once more, but in the Aeneid, the monster;' Virgil could alter his treatment of the legend to suit his varying purpose. So could Ovid. He, too, now merges the Scyllas into one, and now presents them separately.* We may not infer, there- fore, that the Ciris is not the work of Virgil because he here condemns the version of the myth that he elsewhere accepts. There is another reason besides scientific propriety that induces the writer to choose his Scylla with care. Indeed strict science, after all, cannot be his concern, for the metamorphosis of a maiden into a bird I is not more naturaUstic than her assimaption of a girdle of barking sea- dogs. The poet wants to be as scientific as he can — he also wants to throw his subject into high rehef . So he feels about for it, blocking out his terrain and designating the parts that he is not going to touch it; it is a sort of praeteritio, of which other poets, too, can furnish examples.* After a brief invocation of the Pierides, the poet is ready for the story, which he tells with a firm dignity and a certain mystic wonder, of which the exclamations over the metamorphosis of Scylla are typical,' and to which the sixty-fourth poem of Catullus presents the nearest parallel.^ Despite occasional roughness in verse and phrasing, the poem is a noteworthy success. Scylla deserves a place with the characters of tragedy. The moment when her old nurse overtakes her, in the act of stealing by night to her father's chamber in quest of the fatal lock, is full of tragic feeling.* Despite the horror of the deed, we •way to present a view of Scylla that his friend had branded as false ? It is more likely that Virgil treated thus cavalierly an earlier poem of his own. * Lucretius (s, 892) had scoffed at the canine Scylla as a scientific impossibility. * I, 404 ff. » 3, 420 ff. * In Am. 3, 1 2, 21 ff., the two Scyllas are combined exactly as in Eel. 6. The bird- story appears in Mel. 8, 91; Rem. 67; Trist. 2, 393. The monster-story appears in Her. 12,123; Am. 2, 11,18; Afc/. 13, 730, 967; 14,18; Ex Pont. $,1,122; 4,10,25. In A. A. 1, 331 the couplet of Am. 3, 12, 21 is repeated. • E. g., Horace Carm. 3, 11; 3, 27. Ovid. Met. 4, 43 ff. • Vv. 19s ff. ' Cf. Catullus's apostrophe of the age of heroes, vv. 22 ff, • Ovid appreciated the tragic element in the story, whether he found it in our poem or elsewhere. See Trist. 2, 393: Impia nee tragicos tetigisset Scylla co- thumos, I ni patrium crinem desecuisset amor. 150 Edward Kennard Rand have the sense of some uncanny destiny that overrules poor mortals and occasions part at least of their guilt — crudeles vos quoque superi. A touch of this idea, we saw, was present in the earUest of Virgil's works.^ As a whole, the epyllion of Ciris is in the manner of Catullus and his contemporaries. It also shows some of their minor traits of versifi- cation and language, such as spondaic lines and diminutive adjectives.'^ Some of its very crudities are explained by its Neo-Alexandrian char- acter,^ Taken with the Catalepton, it gives evidence of a thorough- going emulation of the two varieties of Catullus's work, the JSlugae and the longer poems.^ No touch of his wistful romanticism the yearning for a golden age, appears; its nearest approach is the sense of wonder and mystery. The laments of Scylla and Carme are inferior in pathos to that of Ariadne in Catullus, but the tragic element gives the Ciris a peculiar intensity which the latter wholly lacks. Virgil entered the lists against his master another time, when in his story of Dido he again transformed pathos into tragedy. A dim prophecy of this achievement is given in the present poem. ^ See above, p. 118, note 7. * Admirably shown by Skutsch, i, 64 ff., ii, 19 ff. The massing of adjectives and participles about a single noim still occurs. Cf. v. 3 with Catullus, 64, 87. ' For certain details, see VoUmer, Sitzungsherichte, etc. (1907), pp. 359 ff. One noticeable peculiarity is the frequent use of compound sentences, in which the cbordinate elements often form a lengthy chain. Thus in Catullus, 64, 19 ff., three lines begin with Turn, each containing a main verb near or at the end of the line. In a stretch of eleven verses (32-42), there are no less than fourteen main verbs, with no subordinate clauses. So in Ciris, w. 29-32, four main verbs follow one another in as many lines, the first three being in exactly the same position in the verse. In a passage of nine lines (459-467), there are seven main verbs. In vv. 387-390, there are three main verbs with Turn at the beginning of three of the lines, the whole passage being obviously modelled on Catullus, 64, 19 ff. When Virgil turned to this poem later, with a far different purpose in mind, it is not sur- prising that he should again exhibit this trait of style. The oracular character of the Fourth Eclogue makes short, coordinate sentences appropriate. * The most apparent reminiscences of Catullus are noted in Vollmer's edition. To specify one detail, the lament of Carme, vv. 283 ff., and that of Scylla, vv. 404 ff., represent a t6toj natural enough after Ariadne's lament in Catullus 64, 132 ff. For all that, the coloring of these passages is also a kind of prophecy of the pastoral lament in Virgil's eighth Eclogue. Cf. Ciris 302, and Buc. 8, 59. Young Virgil's Poetry 151 Another prophecy of the later Virgil consists in the identity of phrases, lines, and passages with portions of the Bucolics, the Georgics, and the Aeneid. These are so extensive that many believe the Ciris is a later imitation, in places ahnost a cento, from these works of Virgil.^ And yet the piece seems clearly of the school of Catullus. It is hardly conceivable that some belated admirer of the late Republican poets wrote it toward the end of the Augustan period, incidentally making large appropriations from poetry of a different sort.^ It is curious that he should plunder Virgil in this wholesale fashion, but borrow from Catullus and Lucretius in the skiKuUy allusive manner in which Virgil treated his predecessors.^ The perplexities raised by this hypothesis are cleared away by the testimony of tradition. The poem belongs to the earher period, — and it is by Virgil himself. To see how a later Augustan used the same material, we can turn to Ovid's story of Scylla, or of Byblis, or of Myrrha,* where dapper rhetoric and an expert mastery of pathological impossibilities replace the sober and somewhat archaic art of Catullus and the author of the Ciris; tech- nique has developed and grandeur disappeared as in Bernini's sculpture after that of Giovanni Pisano. Virgil could plunder the Ciris, for he was plundering his own, and in most cases improving what he took. We do not need the ingenious, but unsupported, theory revived by Skutsch ^ and favored by Mackail * that Ciris is wholly or in part the ^ The most important coincidences are noted in Vollmer's edition. See also Sitzungsberichte, etc (1907), p. 362. These coincidences are not confined to the Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid. For instance, cf. Culex, 385, and Ciris, 340; Cata- lepton, 3, 5, and Ciris, 291. On Ciris and Catalepton, see Sommer, op. cit., pp. 48 f, 104, 106; Drackmann, Hermes, xliii, 425; P. Jahn, Rhein. Mus., bdii, 100. On the use of the name " Hellespont," in the sense of " Aegean," see G. Jachmann, Rhein. Mus., bcs (1916), 640; it is found in both Culex and Ciris. * The priority of the Ciris, I believe, has been conclusively shown by Skutsch, i, 61 ff., 105 ff.; ii, 4 ff., and Drachmann in Nordisk Tidsskrift loc. cit., 65 flf. * A point admirably made by Drachmann, loc. cit. * Met. 8, I ; 9, 450; 10, 298. ' See above, pp. 104 f. The bit of external evidence with which Skutsch starts is Servius's remark on Eel. 10, 46: hi aulem omnes versus Galli sunt, de ipsins trans- lati carminibus. Obviously Virgil is quoting a certain amount from Gallus. How much is covered by hi omnes versus it is arbitrary to say. Callus's elegiacs would have to be refashioned in any case. Suggestive reminiscences there may be in all parts of Callus's speech, but the problem of this eclogue is not solved by calling 152 Edward Kennard Rand work of Gallus, to whom Virgil paid the compliment of constant bor- rowing. But Virgil also borrowed, with utter freedom, from his own works, from the Bucolics in the Georgics and from both of these poems in the Aeneid} The mystery of the Ciris vanishes if we recognize that it marks an ebullient and unsettled period in its author's career. Of course, then, its style and its very metre differ both from what he had previously done and from what he was later to do.^ He is passing consciously, or trying to pass into a new world of thought and feeling.' He would it a string of quotations. Its general meaning is clear, and the meaning of vv. 44- 45 is clear — it was long ago explained by Servius {ex affedu ibi se esse putat, ubi arnica est, ut 'me' sit ' meum animutn ') . The piece is a study of the shifting emotions of a poetic mind, which finally centres on its proper task. It is a tribute to the sincerity of Callus's elegies, and as noble a tribute as one poet ever paid another. It is far removed from the realm of " Catalogue Poetry." Skutsch, starting with Servius's comment, follows it like the flower in the crannied wall. He naturally finds Catalogue Poetry rampant in the sixth Eclogue — but there he is altogether on the broad sea of conjecture. Mackail's theory amounts to a modification of that of Skutsch. See his Lectures on Poetry, p. 68. 1 See above, p. 127, note 2, and Drachmann, Nordisk Tidsskrift, loc. cit., p. 67. 2 In a profitable dissertation, {Num Culex et Ciris Epyllia ab eodem poeta composita sint quaeritur, Giessen, 1914), Miss L. C. Eldridge comes to the con- clusion that owing to their differences in metrical usage, the Ciris and the Culex cannot be by the same author. But the divergences are by no means fatal to the theory that I am here presenting. In general, the Ciris shows greater sure- ness of touch, but less regularity. Thus there are more elisions allowed than in the Culex (p. 48). Hiatus appears (p. 49), though absent from the Culex; one variety of hiatus, be it noted, is especially Virgilian — that in which a Greek word is involved at the end of a verse (e. g., 474, repeated Aen. 3, 74: Neptuno Aegaeo). Spondaeic lines, not a feature of the Culex, are introduced in Ciris owing to the influence of Catullus, and later again disappear in Virgil (cf. Ciris 96: deponunt flores aut suave rubens narcissus with Eel. 3, 63: munera sunt lauri et suave rubens hyacinthus). The use of diaeresis in the two poems is virtually the same (pp. 50 ff.). They agree in occasionally permitting diaeresis in the second foot — a license that later became anathema to Virgil. Ciris is more like the later Virgil than is Culex in its use of the monosyllable at the end of the line (as may be gathered from the examples cited in pp. 55-57). On the style in general, the writer (p. 60) justly remarks, as Naeke (p. 237) had remarked before: sermonem Ciris elegantiorem quam Culicis esse neque tot locis rudibus atque malis abundare. TTiis is what we should expect if Culex is the earlier, Ciris the maturer, work. ' For this much of my argument — no more — I may appeal to Reitzenstein, Young VirgWs Poetry 153 like to have done once for all with poetry, to which he has been de- voted in the past. Giving it a final fling, he turns no longer to the models on which he had formed his style at the age of sixteen, but after an intense preoccupation with the ideals of Catullus, he deliberately adapts his poetic manner to that of his new master.^ Neo- Alexandrian dactyhc hexameter as practised by Catullus is a type in itself, as dis- tinct from the heroic verse of Lucretius and the author of the Culex as the conversational hexameter of Horace's satires is from the lyric hexameter of his odes and epodes. It is not more surprising that Virgil should have written both Ctdex and Ciris than that Horace proved adept in different t)^es of the same verse. And notwithstanding the strange atmosphere of dris, continual flashes of the later Virgil warn us that its manner wiU not last. These " VirgiUan " bits consist not merely in the lines and passages that Virgil incorporated, with or with- out modification, in his later poems; others, likewise, have the right swing,^ These, indeed, we should expect to occur in a genuine work of his; a mere imitator could not have invented them. In a word, the Ciris is the product of a pecuUar period in Virgil's development. It reflects his interest in science, which, strongest in his youth, colored his temperament throughout his life. It also shows how profoimdly Hermes, xlviii (1913), 250 ff., who detects in the poem the flavor of a vita nuova, a turning-point in a career (p. 255). 1 Lucretius is not altogether forgotten in the Ciris; his influence appears par- ticularly in the introduction, where the poet pledges his loyalty to science. ' For a preliminary survey, one may take the list given by Miss Eldridge, op. ciL, p. 60 to Ulustrate the elegantior sermo of the Ciris; it includes some of the verses repeated in Virgil's later works. Though every reader prefers his own selection, the verses here cited sufl&ce to prove that their author was master of his art. One blemish of the poem may also be noted here, on account of its very Virgilian character. In describing Scylla's unwitting act of sacrilege at the cermony in honor of Juno, the poet says, w. 142 f.: dum sacris operata deae lascivit et extra \ procedit longe tnatrum comitumque catervam. The reader is instantly and unpleasantly reminded of Lucre- tius's unapproachable lines (i, 72 f.) : ergo vivida vis animo pervicit, et extra \ processil longe flammantia moenia mundi. There is a striking parallel to this infelicity in the Aeneid. Aeneas greets Dido in the world below with the the words spoken by Berenice's lock in Catullus's poem (66, 39) : invita regina tuo de vertice cessi {invitus regina tuo de litore cessi: Aen. 6, 460) . The Verona scholiast on Aen. 10, 557 remarks that Virgil neque temporis neque loci habet curam in his imitations. It may be that the vice of intention obtains in neither case. My point is that they show a strikingly similar defect, whether of memory or of taste. 154 Edward Kennard Rand he had been imbued with the spirit of Catullus. And it prophesies the turn that his own genius was to take. The question of the date of the poem remains. As Virgil came to Rome about 52 b.c, we may plausibly assign the year 50 as the earliest appropriate date of the Ciris. Though the work was finished when science had taken possession of him, he may have spent part of his purely Catullan period on the body of the work. He may well have devoted some three or four years in all to its composition, emulating the careful method of Helvius Ciima and his nine years' pondered lay on a similar story of filial impiety.^ There is no reason why a poem could not have been dedicated to Messalla in or about 50 B.C. He was nearly of Virgil's age at the time,* and evidently had given promise of the eminence in oratory and letters that he later attained; in 43 B.C., Cicero lauds his eloquence to the skies.' It is not necessary to connect the poem with Messalla's later career, for instance with the triumph that he celebrated for his victory over the Aquitanians in 27 B.C.; indeed, there are grave objections to assuming that Virgil wrote a poem like the Ciris so late in life. That was not the time for a some- what youthful panegyric of science — after the full flung challenge to * The name of the nurse, Canne, is taken from Cinna's Smyrna, and there may well be a good bit of imitation of that poem elsewhere in the Ciris. See Heinze, Virgil's Epische Technik (1908''), p. 126, note. Virgil's admiration of the Smyrna, or at least of Cinna's work in general, is obvious from Ed. 9, 35 f. * According to St. Jerome, a notoriously slippery source on dates, Messalla was bom in 59 B.C. Teuffel, op. cit., § 222 gives the date, with a question-mark, as 64 B.C. Schanz, § 215 omits the question-mark. The date 64 B.C. is deduced mainly from St. Jerome's (likewise uncertain) statement of Messalla's age at the time of his death. Scaliger, in his note on St. Jerome, argues for 70 B.C. as the year of Messalla's birth. Drachmann {Nord. Tidssk., loc. cit. p. 71) would assign the poem to the year 45, on the assumption that Messella was bom in 64. But he also feels that the characteristics of the piece, especially in relation to the art of the Bucolics, demand a date nearer to 50 B.C. He therefore is inclined to infer that it is dedicated to some other Messalla. I should prefer to accept, with Scaliger, an earlier date for Messalla's birth. If that fell, let us say, halfway between that of his intimate friends Horace and Virgil, he would be seventeen or eighteen in 50 B.C. — not too young for the meed of praise given him in the Ciris. Lads were well educated in those days. Virgil wrote his Culex at sixteen. We can get a bit more leeway by assuming 48 B.C. as the date: I can see no argimaents against it. ' Ad Brutum, i, 15, i. Young Virgil's Poetry 155 Lucretius made in the Georgics} I doubt also whether at that time Virgil would have felt like refurbishing an earlier epyllion in his long- since discarded Catullan manner. V Aetna The philosophical achievement to which the poet of the Ciris looked forward perhaps Ues before us in the Aetna. The Virgilian authorship of this work was doubted in antiquity, or at least in the early Middle Ages, though possibly not by Donatus himself. Indeed, both Donatus and Servius may be cited as witnesses to the Virgilian authorship. Later in the Middle Ages, Vincent of Beauvais appears among the higher critics.^ The theme of the poem, the nature of vol- canoes, does not appeal to most modem readers of Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid as Virgilian. We can at least limit the date of the poem to the period between the year 55 B.C., the death of Lucretius, whose influence in the work is patent, and 79 a.d., when the great eruption of Vesuvius, not men- tioned in the poem, occurred. Almost everybody who wielded a pen between these dates has been cited as a possible author of the poem — Quintilius Varus, Cornelius Severus, Ovid, Augustus, Manilius, Seneca, Lucilius Junior, the elder Pliny, the younger Pliny,' and even beyond the bounds of this period, Claudian.* Present opinion inclines ^ Vollmer {Sitzungsberichte, etc. (1907), 364 flf.) would conclude, as I am tempted to conclude, that the body of the Ciris may have been written before the present form of the poem was finished. But he would place the Ciris between the Bucolics and the Georgics mamly because of the character of the coincidences. This is treacherous ground. Vollmer thinks that the introduction was written in 27 B.C. » Spec. Hist. 6, 62. * By A. Kraemer, Berl. Philol. Woch., 1913, 139. * For a review of the diverse opinions, see J. Vessereau, Aetna. Paris (1905), 3d S., XX S. The starting point for many suggestions is a letter of Seneca to his friend Lucilius {Epost. 79), to whom Seneca attributes the intention of writing a poem on Aetna. The tone of the exhortation is a bit jocose (cf. 7: aut ego te non novi aut Aetna tibi salivam movet). Lucilius has been going the rounds of Sicily, and is about to report his observations in a letter to Seneca. The latter is anxious to learn the truth about Charybdis (i), and calls likewise for an investigation of Aetna (2: Si haec mihi perscripseris, time tibi audebo mandare, ut in honorem 156 Edward Kennard Rand to an anonymous writer of the age of Nero. It is a daring act of heresy to suggest Virgil once more. And yet, though Virgil would hardly have devoted a poem to natural science at the time when he wrote his later works, it is precisely the subject that would appeal to him in the brief period when he had turned from the glamour of letters to sterner training under Siro the Epicurean. For Epicureans of the type of Lucretius and the young Virgil were more interested in the physical laboratory than in roses and wine.^ The text of the poem presents peculiar difficulties. It bristles with unsolved and perhaps unsolvable problems that have spurred great scholars like Scaliger, Munro and Ellis to heroic deeds of exegesis and emendation.^ Curiously, the manuscript sources are more abundant than those for the Ciris, which, on the whole, is an easier document to read. Besides the two groups of Z, the younger branch, we have the Cantabrigiensis, s. X, the Stabulensis, 5. X, the Excerpta, s. XI, and for lines 138-287, the readings of a lost manuscript used by Gyraldus. Most scholars regard this last-named source as the most important of all for the portion for which it is preserved; but Ellis, following Alzin- ger, raised certain doubts not easy to be downed.^ We are forced, I think, to the conclusion postulated by VoUmer,^ that the text of all the meum Aetnam quoque adscendas). I see no certain proof from this letter that Lucilius wrote anything on Aetna. He was apparently at work on some sort of a poem pertaining to Sicily, and Seneca hopes that he may bring in Aetna (5 : Aetnam describas in tuo carmine et hunc solemnem omnibus poetis locum adtingas: quem quo minus Ovidius tractaret, nihil obstitit, quod iam Vergilius impleverat. Ne Severum quidem Cornelium uterque deterruit) . 1 My idea is exactly expressed by B. Kruczkiewicz, Poema Vergilio auctor; po- tissimutn esse tribuendutn demonstrabat, in Rozprawy i S prawozdania (Univ. of Cracow), x (1884), 155: Ceterum cum etiam in dicendi genere Aetna auctor . . . medium quoddam tenet inter Lucretii atque maiora tria Vergilii carmina, facile adducor, ut credam ipsum Vergilium quondam recentis epicurae doctrinae materiam secutum fortius impugnasse fictas illas historias, priusquam aetas uitaeque usus impetum ilium iuuenilem retardassent nimiumque studium temperassent. * See Scaliger, Pub. Virgilii Maronis Appendix — In eandem Appendicem Casti- gationes, Leyden (ed. of 1595), p. 87: Nulli fere poemati magis nocuit, imo, ut ne quid dissimulem, nulli tantum nocuit vetustas. 3 Aetna, pp. Ixv ff. * See above, pp. iii f. On the verse of Aetna is cited in the Exempla Diversorum Auctorum, see Vollmer, Sitzungsberichte, etc. (1907), 349. Young Virgil's Poetry 157 minor poems comes from a single book, though different groupings of the works were later made. This single text, furthermore, whether it was contained in a faded ancient codex or in an intermediate copy made in some puzzling script like the Irish cursive,^ was full of errors that only the divining art of conjectural criticism can remove. The writer of the Aetna starts off with an invocation to Phoebus, not too poetical a beginning for an imitator of Lucretius, who called Venus to aid him in the building of his philosophical verse. There is no touch here of the Augustan significance of Apollo, Octavian's patron-saint at Actium. Apollo is invoked as leader of the Muses, whose help is need- ful in a journey on the higher levels of thought. But they must be sure of the direction ; their guide must lead the way.^ The poet's theme is novel and modern — not the Golden Age, which some poets appear to know better than their own times, nor any of the stale fables which everyone has sung. Among these is included the tale of Ariadne abandoned on the barren shore ; this looks like a glance at Catullus and the kind of poetry that the young philosopher himself had shortly before been writing. Such anti-mythological talk might seem unlike Virgil if there were not the same sort of thing in the Culex and the Georgics? The tone is milder, naturally, in these other passages. He perhaps would not later, or earlier, as here, call the poet's function the dissemination of false report. Yet Ovid blithely uses a similar phrase,* and Lucretius, of course, likes to harp on the splendid lies that are fed * The error of furtim for euri points to an archetype in rustic capitals. The right reading in the codex of Gyraldus is easy for an intelligent humanist to divine from the context. Another correct reading of G, likewise easily attained by emendation, is unde for una in v. 220. This suggests a misinterpretation of a parent manuscript containing the insular abbreviation tin for unde. So far as I can see, the most plausible lineage to assume for the text of the minor poems, is (A) an ancient, and perhaps faded, MS. in rustic capitals; (B) a copy of A, in some Insular hand; (C) a copy of B and the parent of all our extant codices. ' The Virgilian character of this invocation and its similarity to that in the Culex has often been remarked. See S. Sudhaus, Aetna. Erklaert. Leipzig, (1898), p. 96. The Apollo of the Culex, as of the third Georgic, is the pastoral divinity. ' See above, p. 116, note i. Incidentally, would anybody have felt like calling the theme of Aetna insolitum in the age of Nero? To Seneca it is sollemnis oi>t..ii-:iS poetis locus. See above, p. 155, note 4. * Fasti I, 6, 253. 158 Edward Kennard Rand to mankind by poets and allegorists.^ As early as Solon, in fact, a poet could declare of his brother-bards ToXXa \j/ev8ovTat, AotSol.^ However, the poet of the Aetna seems to speak out of the bitterness of a new experience; his words show the intensity of a youthful observer who has discovered that the utterances of Rehgion are not absolute truth. There are touches of a youthful irony in his account of the myth that he finds necessary to tell.' The subject of the poem, doubtless inspired by the sixth book of Lucretius, is the real cause of volcanoes. Here is a matter in which the gods are not involved, for free from sordid cares, they dwell in the palaces of the sky and mind not our concerns; the poet, like Lucretius and the author of the Ciris, is of the school of Epicurus.* This fact does not prevent him from taking a large part of his science from Posidonius; ^ his goal is eclectic truth and not merely Epicurean theory. The tale of Vulcan and the Cyclopes and of the fate of Encel- adus in the battle between gods and giants is an idle affair, our poet declares. He takes a certain pleasure in telling it, in very decent verse, only to cap the story with a vigorous denial of its veracity — haec est mendosae volgata licentia famae.* Most of the staging of life, he continues, is falsity. The poets have invented the realm of Pluto; they have pried into heaven itself and ^ See 5, 405 : scilicet ut veteres Graium cecinere poetae, which takes the pith out of the preceding story of Phaethon. The account of the rites of Ceres and their alle- gorical meaning, though flavored with an amount of ill-concealed interest, ends with a similar remark (2, 644). We have noted the same vein in Ciris: see above, p. 148, note 5. * Pgm. 26 Hiller. ' There is irony in the exclamatory nefas (v. 43) and in the description of the serpentine giant (vv. 46 f.). * Vv. 29 ff. ' See Sudhaus's careful study, op. cit., pp. 56 ff. He explains the striking coin- dences between Aetna and Seneca, of which advocates of a later date for Aetna have made much, as due to the use of a common source. This may weU be the case; I also see no reason why Seneca should not have borrowed directly from Aetna, especially if that be the work which, he says, Vergilius itnpleverat. See above, p. 155, note 4. * V. 74. This is exactly the fashion of Lucretius. See note i. Young Virgil's Poetry 159 recorded its scandals and its wars. That is well enough for poetry, but our present concern is truth — it would not be impossible, we feel, for our philosopher to turn to mere poetry again if occasion arose. The true explanation of Aetna, we are told, is that air works into the crevices of the earth, induces fire by its action, and thus ignites and sets in motion masses of earth and stones, particularly the lapis molaris which constitutes its chief fuel. The treatment of this subject is char- acterized by clarity and a sense of balance.^ It is constructed in a Virgilian fashion, with digressions or moral outbursts which effect an aesthetic reUef from the somewhat arid theme.^ The theme is high and difficult, the author asserts, but worthy of the dignity of man, who was born, not like the beasts to grovel in the earth, but to raise his head to the skies and to inquire proudly into the laws that govern the world — this noble passage has the flavor of both the Georgics and Lucretius.' Scientific discovery is a rare and sacred pleasure, the veritable thrill of religious awe that the vision of raining atoms inspired in Lucretius — divina est animi ac iucunda voluptas.* The ordinary pursuits of mankind are idle, the quest of gold in the veins of the earth, or the farmer's struggle for fertile soil and bursting crops and lusty herds, with the ignoble lure of wealth ever in the fore- ground. This disillusioned picture of the agricultural career suggests the toils of Lucretius's unhappy farmer rather than the cheerful gospel I of labor set forth in the Georgics, and yet the latter work contains an inconspicuous passage on that round of chores and calamities which justifies exasperation and prompts the wise maxim laudato ingentia rura, exiguum colito.' Read this passage with no knowledge of its context, and you would think it came from a satire on farm life in the vein of Aetna. ' Vessereau, op. cit., p. xliv. * Kruczkiewicz, op. cit., pp. 151 fif. He justly remarks that there is more of the aesthetic flavor in the digressions of the Georgics and more moral purp)ose in those of the Aetna and Lucretius. This is what we should expect in a poem inspired on Lucretius and written before the Georgics. * Georg. 4, 6: in tenui labor, at non tenuis non gloria. Lucretius, i, 62 ff. * Vv. 248 ff. Cf. Lucr. 3, 28: his ibi me rebus quaedam divina voluptas | per- cipit atque horror. » Georg. 2, 397. i6o Edward Kennard Rand The best cure for the ills of life, our author continues, is not sordid farming, but the cultivation of the richer soil of the intellect.^ Learn of science the secret of Aetna, and the fears of superstition flee apace.^ Your wonder at the incredible will give way to wonder at the true. Why go afar to visit the temples of fictitious gods, the fabled walls of Thebes, Sparta and its sacred band, Athens, loved of Minerva ? Science can show you better marvels near at hand, more thrilling than the ashes of Troy or ruined Pergamon, or the beauties of Greek art — Aphrodite of the dripping locks, Medea's children unsuspectingly at play, Aga- memnon veiled for the sacrifice of his own daughter, the living glory of Myron and a thousand other works, which you wander over lands and seas to gaze upon. There is a bit of epic in the poet's descriptions, especially in the lines on Troy. His appeal to the beauty or the marvel- lousness of the commonplace and the near is a familiar strain in Horace ^ and Virgil,* and is caught by both of them from Lucretius.* This is not the Stoic contempt of art, else the poet would not speak of the gloria viva Myronis; his real censure is not of the enjoyment of art but of the indifference to nature. The poem ends, as the last book of Lucretius ends, with an episode. During an eruption of Aetna, everybody was hastily carrying off his dearest possessions, one groaning under gold, one loading his stupid neck with swords, and one staggering under the weight of his poems — a terrible satire on the Muses, of whom our author, we saw, is the lasting foe. All these greedy folk were overtaken by the hot lava, but Amphion and his brother, catching up their best treasures, their aged parents, brought them through the flames, which yielded at their approach; science apparently has room for a few miracles. The poet exclaims, in words recalling one of the mystic raptures of the Ciris, felix ilia dies, ilia est innoxia terra.' Fihal devotion like that shall live forever and bards shall sing its praise — there seems to be a use for the poet after all. ^ Vv. 274 ff. • Carm. i, 7. * Vv. 279 ff. * Georg. 2, 136 ff. * 2, 1026 ff., on the miracles of the heavens and all that in them is, which for most people fade into the common light of day. The sense of wonder comes to expression in Aetna in v. 156. * V. 637. Cf. Ciris, 27 f. Young Virgil's Poetry i6i This little work is primarily a Lucretian affair, with Lucretian at- titudes and catch-phrases, but its author is not a profound scientist; Humboldt ^ thought him a bit obvious. He is also, as we have seen, no rigid Epicurean. Like the author of the Ciris, he is more tolerant and eclectic than Lucretius; he speaks of " the truest words of the book obscure " of Heraclitus,^ whereas Lucretius charged HeracUtus with using obscure words to conceal poverty of thought.^ We see the same spirit at work as in the Ciris — that of a youthful thinker, who starts his philosophical wanderings in the garden of Epicurus,* but soon builds him a high tower on the foundations of all four schools.* For all that, the flavoring of the poem is rather Epicurean than any- thing else, notwithstanding the borrowings from Posidonius and others, for the reason that it is so penetrated with Lucretius.^ That the poem was written not long after the death of Lucretius may possibly be inferred from certain incidental allusions.^ In the passage in which the wonders of nature are exalted above those of art, several well-known works of art are described — the painting of Venus Anadyomene by Apelles, the Medea of Timomachus, the Iphigenia of Timanthes, and the bronze cow of Myron.^ When Cicero wrote the Verrine orations,' the Venus was at Cos, the Medea at Cyzicus, and the cow at Athens. The cow was brought to Rome sometime after this date, 70 b.c, and before the reign of Antoninus Pius."* The Venus was taken from Cos by Augustus and put up in the temple of Caesar.^^ ^ Kosmos, (fid. of 1847), ii, 21. See also Vessereau, pp. xliii ff. » V. 538. * Ciris, 3. » I, 638. * Ibid., vv. IS S. • I cannot follow Sudhaus in calling our poet a Stoic (p. ix, etc.). The different varieties of what he calls the bitterness of the Stoic diatribe may be found in Lu- cretius. L. Alzinger, Studia in Aetnam collala, Lipsiae (1896), pp. 3 ff., has an ex- cellent collection of parallels with Lucretius; see also pp. 35 ff. Several additions might be made, e. g., the intransitive use of lurbare; cf. v. 168 and Lucr. 2, 126. ' The only testimony of like nature that indicates a later date is the allusion to certain hydraulic devices (vv. 294, 297 ff., 328), of which descriptions exist in post-Augustan writers. See e. g., C. Catholy, De Aelnae Aetate, Gryphiae (1908), p. 15. But these devices were certainly known in the year 50 B.C. also. See Al- zinger, Blaeiterf. d. bayer. Gymnnasialsch., xxxvi (1900), 649 ff. « Vv. S94 ff. See Alzinger, Studia, etc., pp. 45 ff.; Ellis's notes on w. 593 ff. ' 4, 60, 135. ^° See Kruczkiewicz, p. 157. " Pliny, Nat. Hist. 35, 91. 1 62 Edward Kennard Rand The Medea was bought by JuHus Caesar and put up in the temple of Venus Genetrix.^ Here we have a very definite date, between the years 46 B.C., when the temple was dedicated, and 44 B.C., when Caesar was put to death. Kruczkiewicz ^ was the first to point out that the date of the poem could not be later than the Augustan age, and Alzinger ^ that it preceded the transfer of the Medea to Rome in the period between 46 and 44 B.C. The hnes in the Aetna could scarcely have been written after the Medea was a familiar object in Rome. An American writing today would not say to New Yorkers, " Why cross the ocean to see the chariot of Mother Cybele when you can behold on this side the greater wonder of Niagara Falls?" at a time when the chariot of Mother Cybele is preserved in the Metropolitan Museum. Advocates of a later date for the Aetna have brushed aside this argument by taking the poet's apostrophe as addressed not to Romans or Sicilians but to mankind in general;* but the repeated emphasis on crossing the seas to visit foreign scenes is too plain. ^ Another mode of attack is to declare the description too general to be associated with particular works of art. Such is probably the im- pression of anybody who reads the passage for the first time; one does not feel disposed to limit the gloria viva Myronis to his cow. But the writer is concerned with popular masterpieces. He may not have studied Greek art in the country of its makers,^ but is rather following some traditional statement like that in the Verrines, which Cicero would not have lugged in had it meant nothing to his hearers. So Ovid^ selects as typical subjects in art, Ajax (also the subject of a noted painting by Timomachus), Medea and Venus Anadyomene.* 1 Pliny, Nai. Hist. 35, 136. 2 P. 158. » Studia, p. 46. * F.R.WagleT, Berliner Stt4dienf. klass. Philol. in Arch. ,{{1884), 557. E. Herr, De Aetnae Carminis Sermone, Marburg (191 1), p. 2. * Cf. w. 571 {traducti maria) and 600 {haec visenda putas terrae dubiusque ma- risque), the latter immediately after the description of the works of art. ' Virgil might possibly have been in Greece in his youth, as Catal. 13 speaks of travels by sea. See above, p. 139. Horace's propempticon {Cartn. i, 3) written at a later time, refers to a voyage to Greece that Virgil at least had some thought of taking. ^ Trist. 2, 525. * Authorities like Haupt and Brunn agree on the identification of the works of art described in Aetna. See Alzinger, Studia, p. 45. Young Virgil's Poetry 163 Another solution suggested^ is that the author of the poem is copying sources, not writing from life ; his source was composed be- fore the period 46-44 B.C., and he bhndly incorporates it. This argu- ment really admits the main point in Alzinger's contention, only that it presupposes a writer of exceeding woodenness of soul, of the char- acter that the traditional Quellenforscher imputes to most subjects of his analyses. Our poet, whatever his feelings, has not sunk to such a depth. If in our hypothesized American production, the writer had cribbed his lines on Mother Cybele from a poet of fifty years ago, the result would seem doubly inept. Let us credit the author of the Aetna with a minimum of common sense. Still another view is that all the works alluded to might have been in Rome when the passage was written. The author is presenting well-known tj^s, and for this reason selects specimens that his readers had seen with their own eyes.'^ But cultivated readers, as the passage in the Verrines proves, knew these particular specimens be- fore they were actually brought to Rome. I still think it incredible, if they were there, that a writer should take them and not other works as examples of what one makes long journeys to see. Another bit of contemporary evidence is perhaps furnished by the history of the volcano. No eruption is recorded between the years 122 and 50 B.C., and none between 32 B.C. and 40 a.d. Between 50 and 32 B.C., however, there were four vigorous eruptions, in 50, 44, 38, and 32.' The first of these, after seventy-two years of quiet in Aetna, would have been a considerable, not to say an ominous event in the Roman world. It might have roused young Virgil, who, by our hypothesis, had finished, or was writing, the Ciris and was longing for a proper inspiration from Science. The following eruption in 44 B.C., which portended the death of Julius Caesar, certainly appealed to the poet's imagination.* On the style of Aetna, the oracles have spoken diversely. Munro, no mean judge, declared that the work had no claim to be Virgil's,' and * Catholy, op. cit., p. 14. ' Sudhaus, p. 82. * Alzinger, Studia, pp. 46 S. * Georg. I, 471 S. * Aetna, p. 32. 164 Edward Kennard Rand that the style is exactly that of Lucan.^ ScaUger, also no mean judge, considered the style Augustan .^ Sudhaus, in his valuable edition asserts that the author has not passed through the school of Ovid.' Ellis balances what he calls the only two possible datings — one shortly after Virgil's death, the other in the Silver Age — without rendering a decision; ^ he is certain only that the work is not pre- Virgilian.^ But some there are, with whom I concur, who find it, we will not say pre-Virgilian, but pre-Bucolic, They see nothing in the style that does not comport with the usage of 50-45 b.c.^ The latest and most elaborate study of the style of the Aetna is by E. Herr7 The author has collected his material, which is some- times valuable, with industry, but the dissertation as a whole is a good specimen of sham science, built up of irrelevant details, multi- tudinous categories and illegitimate conclusions. The first heading is De hyperbato coniunctionum, and the first topic discussed under it is particulae et liberior collocatio. Five instances are given of post- positive et; e. g., v. 59: impius et miles . . . provocat. But the read- ing, or the interpretation, in two of these passages (w. 133, 164) is doubtful, and in another (v. 140), as Herr admits, et may have the force of etiam. The statement is then made, after Haupt, that Virgil has only forty-three such instances in all, and only two in the second Georgic, which the writer has selected for comparison with the Aetna.^ Horace is declared to be bolder in his use of the postpositive et, and Manilius very fond of it. Videmus igitur hac in re Aetnae auctorem Vergilium longe superare, propius ad Horatii proxime ad Manilii con- suetudinem accedere? The proper conclusion is, that this section of the argument is worthless. So says Herr himself later ;^° he declares that the evidence not only of postpositive et but of neque, sed and namque is ^ Aetna, p. 34. It is little short of amazing that the noted editor of Lucretius should not have appreciated the Lucretian coloring of Aetna. ^ Pub. Virgilii Maronis Appendix (1595), p. 86. He quotes Seneca and ascribes the work, which he highly esteems, to Cornelius Severus. ^ P. 93. ^ P. xxxiii. * P. xlvii. ' Vessereau, pp. xviii fT. ' Op. cit., above, p. 162, note 4. * As we are playing with statistics, we should not forget that this book, treated by Herr as an equivalent amount, is only five-sixths of the size of Aetna. » P. 7. "> P. 8. Young Virgil's Poetry 165 inconclusive — '' tanten omittere nolui." This beginning does not impress us with the writer's power of suppressing the non-essential. Let us turn to evidence that he regards as serious, the substantival use of neuter adjectives. His first announcement is :^ Demonstratur in Aetna hunc usum saepius inveniri quam apud optimos. There follow 58 instances of the usage found in the Aetna, one in Catullus, 21 in the second Georgic, and 57 in the first book of Manilius. The infer- ence, obvious to an arithmetically trained mind, is that substantival neuter adjectives for brevity I will call them neuter substantives were a rarity before Virgil, came in with him, and were plentifully de- veloped by ManiUus, whose tendency is also illustrated in the Aetna. I can help this case a bit, on the principle of proportionate represen- tation. As there are 542 lines in the second Georgic, 646 in the Aetna, 926 in the first book of Manilius, the number of substantival neuter adjectives in the Georgics being 21, the proportionate number for Manilius would be t,^ and for the Aetna 48; this reckoning might get the Aetna down to the time of Pliny, where Herr would like to put it. But we must apply other analyses. If we count not the number of instances of any substantival neuter adjective, whether repeated or not, but the number of different neuter substantives, we find 19 in the Georgics, 38 in Manilius, and 37 in the Aetna. This reckoning puts ^e/wa and Manilius together, being the proportionate figures 19, 22, and 32. Furthermore, in seven of the passages in the Aetna, (involving seven substantival neuter adjectives), the reading is uncertain or other interpretation is possible.^ If we rule these cases out, there remains no noticeable difference in style betw;een the Aetna and the other two works. More than this, Herr fails to note one of the most important elements in the question. He does not record the testimony of an author generally reckoned inter optimos, namely Lucretius. At least ten of the thirty-eight substantival neuter adjectives of the Aetna occur in Lucretius,' seven of these reappearing in Virgil. Ten more ^ P. 33- * See Ellis and Vollmer on abscondita, 409 hausH, 411 Mum, 458 haud equidem mirum, 463 idaque, 466 collis, 638 dexlera. * Altum, cava, falsum, imum, malum, plenum, profundum, solidum, tantum, totum. The Italicized words are also found in Buc., Georg., or Aen. Cava occurs in Culex. i66 Edward Kennard Rand are found in the accepted works of Virgil/ and one in the Ciris? Those remaining, nine in number, are aridiora, in artum, in breve (brevia, brevibus are in Virgil), cari, in commune, declivia, in inclusis (incluso), in occulta, singula (!). But let us put Lucretius to another test, of the kind applied by Herr to the other works. Taking the first 542 Unes of Book i, the equivalent of the second Georgic, I count no less than 79 cases. On this scoring, it would be natural for Herr to welcome Lucretius, likewise, to the entourage of the elder Pliny. Preferring another kind of analysis, and counting now the different substantival neuter adjectives, I find 28,' virtually the number noted in the Aetna. This apparently curious result is due to the fact that Lucretius, who up to v. 329 has 11 va- rieties and only 16 instances of substantival neuter adjectives, now begins to talk about the inane; he adds 17 varieties and 63 instances in the remainder of the passage. In brief, the above evidence comports with the assimiption that Virgil wrote the Aetna not long after Lucretius, and before the Bu- colics, Georgics, and Aeneid. His use of neuter substantives agrees in the main with that in the De Rerum Natura and in his own later works. Being a writer of individuaUty, he uses some expressions that he does not elsewhere use, just as in the second Georgic we find some rather striking cases not foimd in his other works or in Lucretius.* As for ManiUus, some of the substantives recorded by Herr occur in the accepted works of Virgil,^ some are Lucretian,^ some are the ^ Augusta, densum, in longum, muUis, in obliquum, per omnia, parva, proxitna, rapia (raptis Aet., rapto Aen.), in tenui. Herr remarks on in tenui (p. 35): hoc adiectivum Aetnae auctor solus substantive usurpasse videtur. He \W11 find it in Georg. 4, 6. ^ Insolitutn. ' Bina, clausa, coepium, coniunctum, cuUa, deserta, diversa, gravius, inane (inania), omtie (omnia), multa, nulla, pingui, de plena, prima, quantum, reperta, saepta, solidi, strata, sublimia, tantum, tantundem, totum, unum, vacans, vacuum, verum. On ex pleno, Herr observes (p. 35): hoc enim apud classicos non exstare videtur: apud Plinium accusativum huius adiectivi saepius legimus. Lucretius's de pleno is much more to the point. * Longinqua Tarenti, iusto laelior, in teneris, in piano, per purum, exiguo. In adversum, convexa, contraria, diversa, extrema, media, serenum, summum, supremum. * Altum, in commime bonum, imum, inane (inania), minimum, omne, profun' dum, ultima. Young Virgil's Poetry 167 veriest commonplaces, used by almost any writer.^ There are but six not found in the other works under discussion. Two of these are in the verses: ^ frigida nee calidis (in Lucretius) desint ant umida siccis (in Virgil) | spiritus out solidis (in Lucretius and Virgil). The remaining four are acdivia, in longius, ex simUi and vulgata. The only substantival neuter adjectives found also in the Aetna, which is sup- posed to "congruere accurate" with the Manilius, are: in breve (brevia in Aeneid), declivia,in longum (in Eel.), per obliquum (in obliquum in Aetna and Georgics) , per omnia (in A eneid) , parvis (general) , singula ( !) . This is about what we should expect from Manilius. Both he and the author of the Aetna find a fairly large number of neuter substantives necessary in their technical subjects, but while Manihus plods on in beaten tracks, the poet of Aetna, like the poet of the Bucolics, the Georgics and the Aeneid, creates. The history of the substantival use of the neuter adjective is a profitable matter for investigation, but nothing whatever can be learned about it from the method pursued by Herr. I have gone through others of his categories with similar care, but one specimen is enough. His effort, easily accompUshed by his plan, is to align the style of the Aetna with that of the elder Pliny, whom Birt, by a curious lapse of taste, had suggested some years ago as the author of the poem.* This dissertation, like that of Holtschmidt on the CtUex, does little credit to the author of Jugendverse und Heimatpoesie Vergils. Another elaborate production of the school of Birt is devoted to the metre of the Aetna by J. Franke.* His starting-point is Birt's classifi- cation of the dactylic hexameter into six forms according to the caesurae employed. In F(orm) I, the masculine caesura in the third foot is found, either with or without a supplementary trithemimeral or hepthemimeral caesura. In F II, there are only the trithemimeral and ^ Cuncta, magna, maiora, omnia, sua, talia, tanta, tantum. » Vv. 141 f. * See Philologus, Ivii (1898), 607 ff. Herr's study of parataxis (pp. 62 ff.) reaches the conclusion that the manner of Aetna agrees to a T with that of the elder Pliny. What is breviloqiienlia Pliniana to the school of Birt, Naeke called antiqua simplicitas. The peculiarities discussed by Herr may be found either in Catullus (e. g., see above, p. 150, note 3), or, as he sufficiently shows, in Virgil himself. ^ Res Metrica Aetnae Carminis, Marburg, 1898. 1 68 Edward Kennard Rand hepthemimeral caesurae. In F III, besides these two, there is a femi- nine caesura after the third trochee. In F IV, there is a caesura after the third trochee and also a hepthemimeral caesura. In F V, a caesura after the third trochee is preceded by a trithemimeral. In F VI, only the caesura after the third trochee is found. The most desirable forms, according to Birt, are F I and F III. The writer sums up his results in three lists. The first contains seventeen points in which the metre of the Aetna is declared superior to that of the Georgks,^ the second has fourteen points of inferiority, and the third, sixteen points of general similarity. The conclusion, which smacks of the arithmetical flavor rehshed by the pupils of Birt, is that the Aetna was written after the Georgics. As in matters of style, some of these supposed metrical habits deserve a closer analysis than the counting of their occurrences. Cer- tain of them, the writer admits, are of minor importance. Among the metrical superiorities of the Aetna, there are eleven to which he at- taches special significance. I will examine two of these, by way of illustration. No. i is thus stated. " I. Forma II exstat in Aetna semel in vv. 80 f , in Georg. I in w. 36^^; F II: F III in Aetna i: io|, i: 3f in Georg. 7." Form II, we learned from Birt, is an inferior form. Ergo, the Georgics is inferior, which has it twice as often as Aetna. But surely this is no defect of the Georgics; rather we see the hand of the master who consciously varies his effects. We are not surprised to find that Aetna is surpassed in the supposed virtue only by that sublime artist Avienus, who attains the proportion of i in 235 vv.)^ Another " superiority " of Aetna is its avoidance of hiatus. The proportion is i in 646 verses, but in the first book of the Georgics, i in 85!. In other words, there is but one case of hiatus in the Aetna, the rough verse hospitium fluvium, aut semita, nulla profectc' In the first Georgic, there are six cases. In two, the hiatus occurs in verses containing Greek names,* a device of which Virgil is fond and I P. 45. * P. 14- ' V. 129. The hiatus is emended away by most recent editors. ♦ Vv. 221, 437. Young Virgil's Poetry 169 which he introduced into his verse as early as the Ciris} The first of these has a spondee in the fifth foot — a rare occurrence in Virgil. In Virgil, metrical exceptions never rain but they pour. So in v. 281, there is another hiatus in the middle of the line; it helps in slowing the pace of the verse to that of the action. A similarly effective hiatus occurs at the beginning of the poem, a place which the poet certainly did not leave unfinished. The breaking in of the hiatus in v. 4 both prevents the introductory Ust from becoming monotonous, and serves, by the necessary pause, to emphasize the topic that caps the poet's climax — the story of the bees. On more case remains, v. 341 : turn pingues agni et turn mollissima vina, turn somni dulces densaeque in montibus umbrae. I submit that a reader who finds any defect here has not attuned his ear to the subtle music of Virgil's hexameters. The way to treat his discords is not to catalogue them as eccentricities, but to note how they are resolved into some larger harmony. Other points adduced by Franke, particularly the matter of eUsion, deserve a similar scrutiny. Many of his collections are valuable. The conclusion to draw from them, I beUeve, is that the metre of the Aetna resembles that of the Georgics and the Bucolics, but is the work of a less practised hand. This result talhes with our hypothesis that Aetna was written before the Bucolics, and by the same writer.^ 1 474: Nereidum matri et Neptuno Aegaeo (i4e«. 3, 74). This habit, so far as I can ascertain is one of Virgil's inventions. Catullus is fond of ending a line with a spondaic Greek name (e. g., 64. 3, 11, 28, 36, 74, 79, 96, 252, 358), and Virgil picks up this manner in Ciris (73, 113, 239, 326, 413, 486), sometimes having the same name, as Amphitrite, 73, Cat. 11). Hiatus is first introduced in such a line in v. 474. Virgil liked the effect, and in the later poems where he gave art free rein, he has a number of these verses. One of the earliest examples, and one of the best, is Ed. 2, 24: Amphion Dircaeus in Actaeo Aracyntho. There are no cases in Culex — an- other sign that this f)oem is not the work of a later imitator, who might well have shown by a touch or two that he understood the refinements of the Virgilian ehxa- meter; Ovid, at least, has understood (cf. e. g.. Met. 2, 244; 4, 535). Lucretius uses Greek names when he has to, but he does not roll them under his tongue, like that blessed word Mesopotamia, in the fashion of the Neoterics and of their perfecter, Virgil. Lucretius has no combinations of Greek names, spondees and hiatus. * For excellent remarks on the verse of Aetna, see Vessereau, p. xlviii. 170 Edward Kennard Rand As has been hinted in the foregoing paragraphs, the Virgilian ele- ment in Aetna is only less prominent than the Lucretian.^ The poem opens in a manner resembling the first Georgic or the third. Not long thereafter we come upon an admirably hissing line describing a snake: ^ squameus intortos sinuat vestigia serpens. Proper names are woven into a line, but not yet with the full Virgilian skill.^ There is good poetry in the account of the soldier's battle with the stars.* There is good climax, a particularly Virgilian quaUty, in the line, and the word that closes the line, at the end of a lengthy simile,* exilit atque furens tota vomit igneus Aetna. A passage, cited by editors of Ovid for the similarity of the matter, presents no less striking a contrast in manner:® It is a thoroughly Virgilian bit, Virgil somewhat in the raw, one of the bear-cubs not licked into shape.'' The passage has no touch of the easy elegance of Ovid's lines.^ We have, therefore, in different guise, the problem of the Ciris again; Catullus and Virgil, with a touch of Lucretius, too, were mingled in that poem, Lucretius and Virgil, with only a reminiscence of Catullus,* in this. Instead of pointing in either case to the work of a later imi- tator of Virgil, the evidence, for aught that I have observed, permits us to assume that Virgil wrote both poems under the spell of different influences but in the same period of his career. The Ciris marks the beginning of that period; he is paying his farewell to poetry, poetry of CatuUus's style, and longing for the day when he can achieve a De Rerum Natura. The Aetna marks the moment when that wish is ful- filled, as well as it could be then. Yet for all his immaturity, for all his ^ Kruczkiewicz discusses the similarity in subject-matter (p. 155 ff.), and in various detail of style (pp. 160 ff.). Alzinger's collections are also most valuable (pp. 3 ff .) ; they contain references to the minor poems as well as to the greater. ^ V, 47. See above, p. 117, note i. ' See v. 49. * Vv. 51 ff. ' V. 329. For similar climax, see Ciris, 272. « Vv. 359 ff. ^ Vita Donatiana, 6, 81, Brummer. ' Ovid Met. 15, 340 ff. See Sudhaus, p. 93 ; Vessereau, p. xlviii. » V. 21. Young VirgiVs Poetry 171 studied aversion to rhetoric, the call to poetry is audible enough.^ This impulse succeeds here and there in brushing away the scientific manner which yoimg Virgil has now appropriately assumed, exactly as he had worn the mantle of Catullus in the Ciris. There is a maturer quality in the present poem. The poet's revolt from the singers of Euphorion, his very determination to have done with poetry give a Lucretian strength and dignity to his lines. Thus the old quarrel between philosophy and poetry, not settled by Lucretius, took possession of Virgil's mind. He thought he had found his career — to prove a second Lucretius. The Aetna is the final memorial of his scientific period. Every youth of imagination goes through some telling intellectual experience which he afterwards looks back upon with kindly amusement — an HegeUan period, a Walter Pater period, a SymboUstic period. Such experiences are educating; they teach developing genius what its goal is not. Virgil had not yet known what was in him; he had not seen that science was a subordi- nate element in his vision of Ufe. He soon was to discover himself. And yet, though poetry triumphed in the end, science was not wholly routed. Touches of his youthful passion for science appear in all of Virgil's greater works. He had intended, on returning from his last and fatal voyage to Greece, to devote the remainder of his days to philosophy .2 Mr. Santayana, in his brilliant essay on Lucretius,' remarks, ' Imagine a poet who, to the freedom and simplicity of Homer, should have added the more reverent idealism of a later age. . . . Rationalized paganism might have had its Dante, a Dante who should have been the pupil not of Virgil and Aquinas, but of Homer and Plato." There is more, perhaps, of Mr. Santayana's programme in the Aeneid than he has here conceded. At any rate, had Virgil's dream come true, he would have given the world a new De Rerutn Natura, built, in the main, on Plato. ^ Vessereau, p. xlvi. Sudhaus, p. 93, remarks: "Alle diese Eigentumlichkeiten des Stils zeigen nun, wie sich der Dichter bemiiht, die breite, bequeme Art des Lucrez durch gedrungene Diction und komige Kiirze zu uberholen, ohne sich von ihm loslosen zu konnen." I should rather say that his object was to hold fast to Lucretius but that he obeyed perforce the workings of his own temperament. * Vita Donatiana, 8, 125: ut reliqua vita tantum philosophiae vacaret. * Three Philosophical Poets. Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe. (1910), p. 63 ff. 172 Edward Kennard Rand Vessereau, whose discussion of the problem of the Aetna is, in my opinion, unsurpassed,^ stops short of attributing the work to Virgil.^ He balks at associating its crudity with the perfection of the Bucolics, which were shortly to follow. The Aetna, he would agree, appeared between 50 and 44 B.C. The earliest of the Bucolics was written in 42.' Regarding 50 or 48 as the approximate date of the Ciris, I am incUned to put Aetna not too long after it — say early in 48. Now great things can happen in four or five years at a period when a genius is coming to his own. Misdirected essays, while ultimately beneficial, momentarily do not head one towards the goal, but dammed for a time, the flow of poetry bursts with the greater suddenness when the barriers are removed. The subject of Aetna, like that of the De Rerum Natura, was not an easy one for poetry.* Moreover, like master Luc- retius, Virgil was doing his best not to be a poet. He did not, as later, lavish all the golden day to make ten lines wealthier in his readers' eyes. Given a golden day while he was writing the Georgics, he could have made the lines that I have cited as Virgilian^ as splendid as those that describe the pastoral storm .^ Further, we must look at the matter not only from the summit of Virgil's later achievement, but from the level that he had thus far attained. There is nothing in Aetna, I think Vessereau would admit, that the author of Culex, Catalepton, and Ciris might not have done. We have also to consider certain other pieces that fill in the stretch of years between Aetna and the Bucolics and make the transition easier to understand. Nor is it an absolute perfection that is reached in the Bucohcs. There is something youthful even in that triumph — at least so it seemed to their author himself.^ * Only one scholar since Kruczkiewicz, so far as I am aware, has come out un- reservedly for the Virgilian authorship of Aetna; see F. Walter, in Blatter f. das bayer. Gymnasialsch., xxxv (1899), 5^5 ff- Alzinger, Studia, p. 49, placed the poem before 44 B.C., and suggested, though with bated breath, that the ancient testimony to the VirgiUan authorship may be confirmed by what the poem contains. That was heresy enough in the year 1896. * Pp. xxxviii f . ' Vita Probiana, 73, 12, Brummer: scripsit Bucolica annos natus viii et xx. * See Vessereau's remarks, p. xlvi. ' See above, p. 170, note 6. ^ Georg. i, 316 ff. ^ Georg. 4, 565 : carmina qui lusi pastor um audax . . . iuventa. Young VirgWs Poetry 173 VI The Epic on Res Romanae Thus far the spell of Catullus has prevailed. After Culex, the prod- uct of the poet's school days, comes a CatuUan period with Nugae and an epyllion. This is followed by a philosophic or Lucretian period, of which the crowning effort is Aetna. Neither of these paths led to genuine success; both gave experience of value. Virgil's quest in life was for the real. He was a great artist and for the expression of his thought tolerated nothing but the best that he could fashion. But his art was not for the sake of art. He abandoned it in youth, when rhet- oric seemed stale. He sought reality in science, but something within him called for a larger outlet. His thought now took a new turn. His biographer tells us that not long before the Bucolics, he planned an epic on Rome, but finding the subject difficult, abandoned it in disgust.* What the subject of the unfortunate epic was, we can only guess. Servius and Donatus, it seems, could do no better.^ They find it either the Aeneid, doubtless meaning an early form of that work, or the deeds of the Alban kings; Virgil was diverted from the attempt, they gravely add, " asperitate nominum deterritus." Donatus, in the part of the note not taken by Servius, adds other surmises,' in particular, " alii de hellis civilibus dicunt." This comes nearest to the res Romanae mentioned in the Vita. The mighty events of the years of civil war in 48 B.C. and thereafter would naturally impel to epic a spirit that had been feeling the way towards it. There is epic material in the mock- heroic of Culex, particularly in its Inferno. There is epic spirit in pas- sages of Ciris and Aetna — rudis Calliope, as Virgil's editors called it.* But the moment had not yet come. It is hard to write epic on a contemporary theme. The Augustan epic that Virgil had partly planned when he was writing the third Georgic ^ was concerned with contemporary history — the actual triumphs of his hero over the foes of the state, whom he doomed to an epic Inferno. As the poem gradually took shape in its creator's mind, * Vita Donatiana, 5, 65, Brummer. * Catal., Epilogue. » See Servius (Donatus) on Ed. 6, 3. * Vv. 22 ff. * See above, p. 146, note 3. 174 Edward Kennard Rand the contemporary and historical elements faded into the background, while the mythical and ideal succeeded to their place. The finished work, informed with the imagination of the poet, became all the more immediate and Roman. There are two bits of contemporary history in the poem; one is pictured on the shield of Aeneas, the other is tucked into the Inferno in the form of a prophecy. But young Virgil was not ripe for such an achievement. He might have started his early epic, say in 46 B.C., and worked at it intermittently up to the moment when " qffensus materia, ad Bucolica transiity VII COPA Apart from Virgil's reaction from epic, two motives prompted the Bucolics, resulting in two different kinds of eclogue. One is the simple expression of his fondness of the country and of poems about the country. This pastoral interest already conspicuous in the earliest of his works, appears again in the Copa, if we may attribute this poem to him. It is attested by manuscripts of the ninth century and later, being found in the same sources as Dirae and Lydia; it doubtless formed part of that ancient codex whence all our manuscripts of the minor poems are derived.^ Although not in Donatus's hst, it is in that of Servius, and may have been carelessly omitted by the writer of the archetype of our manuscripts of the Vita Donatiana? Further, Copa is cited as Virgil's by the grammarian Charisius in the fourth century,' and in the preceding century, the pastoral poet Nemesian borrowed a verse of the poem almost without change.* Another witness in the ninth century is Micon, who cites one of the verses in his prosodic dic- tionary.* This, then, is satisfactory evidence of an external kind. However much scholars differ as to the authorship of the poem, they agree that its charm is unique.^ It represents the proprietress of a ^ See above, pp. iioff. ^ gee above, pp. 106 f. * Gramm. Lai. i, 63, 11 K. * 4, 46: Hie age pampinea mecum requiesce sub umbra. Cf. Copa 31. * See Vollmer, Silzungsberichte, etc. (1907), p. 349. * See Cruttwell, History 0} Roman Literature (ed. 1893), p. 257. Vollmer, Sitzungs- berichte, etc. (1907), p. 255, de Gubernatis, op. cit., pp. 215, 220, and C. Giussani, Letteratura Rotnana, Milano (1898-99), p. 247, are the only scholars who have Young VirgiVs Poetry 175 humble tavern performing a seductive tarantella outside the door and plying the wayfarer with inducements to turn in. In the manner of the pastoral swain, she enumerates the attractions of the place — the rose, the bowl and the lute, a cool and shady pergola, the sweet sound of the shepherd's pipe in a Maenalian grotto, country wine just broached, sparkhng water and heaps and heaps of posies brought in a basket by the n)miph Achelois from the stream. Cheeses and plums and chest- nuts and sweet blushing apples are there. Priapus watches the garden, which is stocked with grapes and mulberries and cucumbers. Come in, then, try a summer bumper and twining your brow with roses, gather sweets from the Ups of a pretty girl. Why save up garlands to crown your tombstone ? Yielding to this appeal, the traveller calls for wine and dice and bids the morrow look out for itself; for Death, plucking us by the ear, cries, " Live ye; I come! " Some have thought this poem a bit too jovial for Virgil.^ Is Copa more jovial than the picture of two satyr-lads and a fair nymph steaUng up to the drowsy and still tipsy Silenus and binding him with gar- lands ? Is there anything in Copa that the p)oet would not have ven- tured who makes Silenus promise the lads the songs they desire, and adds for the benefit of the nymph that hers shall be a different reward ? Servius who has a rather solemn note on this passage from the sixth Eclogue,^ is not bUnd to its Epicurean flavor — indeed he finds Epicu- rean dogma in it.^ Surely Virgil could interpret dramatically the lower sort of Epicureanism, as the character of Anna in the Aeneid shows.* There is boisterous ribaldry enough in the third Eclogue, and the sen- recently come out for the Virgilian authorship of the poem. It has been attributed to various authors of the Augustan age — Valgius Rufus, Propertius, and, with proper gallantry, to Propertius's sweetheart, CjTithia (Hostia); for the last- named hypothesis, F. Keppler, Ueber Copa, Leipzig, 1908, is responsible. Some put the poem in the second century of our era, ascribing it to Florus or to Septimius Serenus. For a review of these opinions, see C. Morelli, in Stitdi di Filol. Class., xix (1912), 228 f. 1 So A. Gudeman, op. cit. (above p. 104), 2. Birt, Jugendverse, etc., p. 10. * Onv. 26: nymphaeminatur stuprumlatenter: quod verecunde dixit Vergilius. Little verecundia on the part of Silenus, I fear; there is a difference between modesty and innuendo. There is also a little more humor in Virgil than in some of his illustrious commentators ancient and modem. * On Ed. 6, 13: ut ostendat plenam sectam Epicuream, etc * Cf. Aen. 4, 32 and Copa, 35. 176 Edward Kennard Rand suous joy of living is written on many pages of the Bucolics and Georgics. And Virgil composed love poems, like everybody else.^ Before thinking the Copa too riotous for the saintly Virgil, we may turn to one of thePriapean poems ^ on a barmaid — apparently a favorite subject in works of this kind. The Copa, for length and subject, might almost have a place among the tributes to the scarecrow god.^ The god himself is described in open language, but not more open than that in the second of Virgil's poems on Priapus. It may be that Virgil, intending another Priapean, proceeded to refine the material in his way, and ended by writing a different poem, in which the barmaid, not the scarecrow god is the central figure.* The art of the poem is firmer and more mature than that of the poems examined thus far. Naeke,* for this reason, put it in the age of Ovid, not reckoning with the pre-Ovidian character of the elegiac pentamenter.^ This is the most important fact to observe about the metre; in the case of so short a poem, elaborate comparative sta- tistics are labor lost.^ Coincidences with Virgil and Propertius are patent; but, as we have learned from the other minor works, that is no cause for putting Copa after the dates of these poets.* * See above, p. 132. * Priapea, 27. ' No. 67, the longest in the collection, has, like the Copa, 38 verses. * Morelli, loc. cit., p. 235, thinks that the author of Priap. 27 parodies Copa. This may be so. I am assuming that Virgil knew the subject-matter of No. 27, not necessarily that poem itself, which might have been later. If it contains parody of Copa, we may infer the existence of that work in the earlier part of the Augustan age. ' Op. cit., p. 239. " See above, p. 142, and for other details, K. Mras, in Wiener Sttidien, xxiii (1901), 252 ff., esp. 254 f., 265. Another early sign is the heaping of adjectives and parti- ciples on the same noun (vv. 1-4). See above, pp. 121 f. ^ See Morelli, loc. cit., p. 228, N. 4; Vollmer Sitzungsberichte, etc. (1907) p. 351. 8 See Mras, loc. cit., pp. 264 ff.; VoUmer, loc. cit., pp. 355 ff. On account of the " imitations " of Virgil and Propertius, Mras would date Copa after the latter's death in 15 B.C. But owing to the pre-Ovidian metre, it must antedate Ovid. The only possible date, therefore, according to Mras, is the latter part of 15 B.C. Now Ovid had begim his elegies on Corinna at least as early as 22 B.C., and published the first edition of the Amores probably in 19 or 18 B.C.; see the writer's article in Amer. Journ. Philol., xxviii (1907), 287 ff., the results of which have been accepted by R. Ehwald in Bursian's Jahresberichte, cixvi (1914), 75. One might, then, Young Virgil's Poetry 177 The chief excellence of Copa is the easy grace with which diverse ele- ments are combined in a novel literary form of notable unity. The suggestion of pastoral is immediate. Our author, who showed no sign of Theocritus in Culex, has by this time read his Greek Bucolic poets with care/ and appHes their devices to a novel situation; he will soon, in the second Eclogue, apply them to a strictly pastoral theme. He uses the elegiac metre, however; elegy had developed pastoral ten- dencies in Hellenistic literature, and it had a fascination for Virgil. One critic, however,^ declares that Copa is not elegy, but epigramma dimostrativo. Whether it be elegy or something that looks like elegy, the infusion of the pastoral element into the elegiac form is an achieve- ment with which Tibullus is generally credited; ' this is the reverse of the process carried out by the successors of Theocritus, who swamped the pastoral with the erotic elegy. If Copa is Virgil's, then he paved the way for Tibullus just as he did for Horace in his Epodes.* But again, with its bit of dialogue and its realism, like that of some Pom- peian scene, the poem recalls the Uttle one-scene plays or mimes which had been popular in both Alexandria and Rome. It is not entirely realistic; the ordinary barmaid would not be familiar with Maenalian grottoes or the nymph Achelois. In this very commingling of art and nature, the piece is characteristic of Virgil.^ Finally, the immediate suggestion was perhaps given by a Priapean topic. In brief, this httle poem is a fable for the departmental critics of literature, who do not Uke to see poets trangress their Gebiet;^ like Ciris and Aetna, it repre- argue that the brillant author of Copa, if writing as late as 15 B.C., would have known and utilized the metrical improvements perfected by Ovid. We should, therefore, date the poem before Ovid's work was well known, that is, before the Aeneid was published. Hence, it is the author of the Aeneid who borrowed from Copa and not vice versa. 1 See Morelli, op. cit., for parallels in Greek authors. * Ibid., p. 231. ' See, e. g., Norden, in Neue Jahrbb.f. d. klass. Altert., etc., vii (1901), 269, F. Jacoby, Rhein. Mus., Ix (1905), 81 ff., would attribute the innovation to Gallus, particularly on the strength of Ed. 10, but a careful reading of that piece will show that pastoral is precisely what Gallus had not been writing. * See above, pp. 140, * See above, p. 116. * See Hack's refreshing article. The Doctrine of Literary Forms, in Harv. Studies Class. PhiM., xxvii (1916), i ff. 178 Edward Kennard Rand sents a confluence of literary tendencies in its form and a confluence of emotional interests in the mind of the poet. Copa is an Epicure9.n document of a sort, though not, like the sixth Eclogue as allegorized by Servius, a text of Epicurean dogma. Epicurean philosophy, as its founder preached it, stands nearer to monasticism than to riotous pleasure. Perhaps, indeed, the poem marks Virgil's reaction from Epicurean science, when, ofensus materia, he turned again to the sheer joy of living and of art.^ MORETUM A poem of equal finish and equal, if different, interest is the Moreium, or ' Salad.' It has won the plaudits of competent judges,^ and has been translated by poets as diverse as Cowper and Leopardi. It is simply the description of a peasant's morning meal. If this be a sufficiently epic subject, the poem is an epyllion. Simylus, probably a slave, or a recent slave, owns a cottage and a bit of a garden. He gets up while it is still dark, finds the hearth by stumbling on it, starts the fire, grinds his meal to the accompaniment of a song and calls to his helpmate, Scybale, or ' Trash,' a very knowingly portrayed negress. After mixing his bread, he allows Scybale to bake it, and proceeds to the great act of the story, the creation of the salad. Getting the proper herbs from the garden, not forgetting four cloves of garlic, he seasons them with salt and cheese, stirring them with a httle oil and vinegar into a homoge- neous mixture, in which the individual ingredients lose their original virtues to form the new harmonious whole, the perfect salad. Scybale, meanwhile, has taken out the bread and breakfast is ready. Fortified therewith for that day, Simylus draws on his boots, drives his team to the cornland and plunges the plough in the soil. The art of this delightful and original production is not Virgilian. It does not, like Culex and Copa and Bucolics and Georgics, present a harmony of realistic observation and literary allusion. It is all realism ; the names of gods are used for the substances that they represent,^ but this common device does not affect the prevaiHng tone of matter-of- ^ I would, therefore, date Copa about 45 B.C., though ready to admit that it might have been done earlier, perhaps with the Priapea, in the CatuUan period. 2 E. g., Naeke, op. cit., p. 238; Mackail, op. cit., p. 70; Giussani, op. cit.,p. 247. » V. 113: Palladii guttas olivi. Cf. vv. 52, $5- Young VirgiVs Poetry 179 fact veracity. The author is not, like Virgil in the Georgics, concerned with country life as a symbol of simplicity; he is interested in a situa- tion, which he sets before us with vividness and charm. Virgil may have passed through a brief period of realism in the prelude of his career, or he may at almost any time have amused himself with trans- lating a piece of his master Parthenius.^ Supposing that unquestion- able external evidence vouched for the Moretum, we could add it to his experiments. The fact is, that though the poem is ascribed to Virgil in manuscripts as early as the ninth century, it is not in the ancient Ust.^ We are reUeved of the necessity of adjusting it to the other poems. The quest of its talented author, presumably a writer of the Augustan age, need not engage us here. VIII DiRAE Virgil's interest in the simpler type of pastoral is illustrated by Copa; the more elaborate form appears in the Dirae, or * Curses,' the last of the works mentioned in the ancient list. These curses are pro- nounced by the poet on his own estate of which he has been robbed for the benefit of an old soldier. Battarus, a fellow-shepherd, who, Uke Mopsus in the fifth Eclogue, is skilled in accompaniment, plays his pipe while the poet deUvers the imprecation, or, rather, a kind of siunmary and reminiscence of an imprecation already delivered;' he changes his tones from Uvely to severe at the other's bidding. The poet prays that the pleasant breezes and the sweet breath of the soil may change to pestential heat and fell poison; he invites fires and floods to do their worst with his favorite grove and all of his Uttle estate that the impious surveying-rod has measured off. The' pipe ^ The latter point is well made by Giussani, op. cit., p. 247. However, the sup- posed facts in the case have been called in question, with good reason, by R. Sab- badini in Rivista di Filol. xxmi (1903), 471; xliii (1915), 80. ' See above, p. i loff . Its position in the Libellus after the Ausonian works De Est et Non, De Institutione Viri Boni, and De Rosis Nascentibus arouses suspicion. Nettleship (revision of Conington's Virgil by Haverfield, i (1898), xx) sought to show that there is a faint chance of its having been in the ancient list. Vollmer (Sitzungsberichle, etc. (1907), p. 341) evidently would like to accept Moretum on the basis of the Murbach list. * Vv. 1-3 : Battare, cycneas repetamus carmine voces, etc. i8o Edward Kennard Rand plays a more cheerful note as he imagines the new occupant gathering rushes in the swamps where grain flourished before and hearing the croak of a garrulous frog in the ancient domain of the grasshopper. With the thought that the curse of civil war has brought the evil to pass, the shepherd prepares to leave his estate and his beloved Lydia. His sheep climb slowly down the hills, as he takes a farewell look and vows that nothing can drive from his heart the love of his little farm. This poem seems to me altogether in Virgil's manner, and not far removed in time from the Bucolics. There are various coincidences in phrase with several of the Eclogues, and the closing scene notably re- calls that of the first of them.^ The verse is firm and strong, the de- scription contains touches of Virgil, like the Une hinc aurae dukes, hinc sua vis spiritus agri (22) or the exact observation of nature in praecipitent altis fumantes montibus imbres (76), But these bucolic and realistic elements are combined, in a more elaborate kind of pastoral, with actual history. The poem reflects the woes of the Mantuan district, rather after Mutina in 43 b.c.^ than after Philippi in 42, as the art of Dirae is less perfect than that of the Bucolics, which Virgil began to publish in the latter year. Dirae helps us understand the motive for historical allegory in those works. A real disaster has come to the poet — perhaps not to Virgil himself, but at least to his townsfolk. For the purpose of his poem, he plays the r61e of a shepherd who has lost his farm. He looks for an appro- priate medium of indignation, and selects the poet's curse — 'Apd — which Ovid also found useful in his exile.^ Naturally, the curse is 1 For a list of Virgilian parallels, see G. Eskuche, De Valerio Catone deque Dirts et Lydia, Marburg, (1889), pp. 63 ff. * So the Vita Probiana, 73, 5 (Brummer). Conditions were unsettled in Cisalpine Gaul in 43 B.C. as well as in 42. Antony arrived there about the end of November, 44, and made at once for Mutina, where he found Decimus Brutus besieged. The battle of Mutina was fought at the end of April, 43. It was thenceforth a period of much commotion for the inhabitants. Even if no formal orders were given, cases of misappropriation of the rustics' lands by soldiers would have been possible enough. Later, after Philippi, fresh allotments were made. Virgil's townsmen might have suffered on both occasions. * Callimachus's Ibis is one of the various Hellenistic models with which both Ovid and the author of Dirae were doubtless familiar. Young Virgil's Poetry i8i fitted to the situation. Shepherds have lost their farms; it is a pas- toral curse. The next step is to write an actual bucoUc on the same theme. In this way contemporary history creeps into the pastoral, not because the poet, starting with the pastoral convention, seeks to em- beUish it with a rather questionable novelty, but because impelled by a lively sense of wrong to write of contemporary events, he adapts these to an appropriate poetical form. The one undertaking is artificial; the other is sincere. But the actuaUties do not loom too large in the Dirae. Virgil is never crassly historical; that is the secret of the Bucolics and the Aeneid alike. So here, it is hard to locaUze the poet's farm at either Mantua or Cremona. In fact, it lies on the shore of the sea,^ and if the curse avails, will be deluged with salt waves and be called another Syrtis — a disconsolate shepherd in the Bucolics makes the same prayer, which is taken by condescending editors for a mis- translation of Theocritus.^ It is ever Virgil's way to merge the actual in the typical and ideal, and thus to make its reaUty the brighter. Except for VoUmer, who finds nothing in Dirae to contradict the ancient testimony, there are few today who would ascribe the poem to Virgil.' A discovery, now universally accepted, was made in 1792 by F. Jacobs,^ who saw that the text called Dirae in the manuscripts really contains two poems; the latter of these, from the name of the shepherdess from whom her swain is parted, is called Lydia by recent editors. Scaliger, developing a remark of Gyraldus's, was the first to propound the attractive theory that the author of both pieces was Valerius Cato, who, Suetonius tells us,* lost his inheritance in the troubled days of Sulla, sang of a love named Lydia, and also com- posed a work evidently charged with the sentiment of the Dirae, as it was entitled Indignatio. But Suetonius also suggests enough of the » Vv. 48-53- ^ See Conington's note on Eel. 8, 58. ' The manuscript tradition is the same as that of Copa. VoUmer thinks that the poem was not included in the Bucolics because of its bitter tone. The reason is rather, that in the first Eclogue, Virgil worked up the same material in a new form. Dirae, after all, is an 'Apd and not a pastoral. * Vermischle Schriften, 5, 639. Naeke, op. cii., p. 250, who in an early publica- tion gave Jacobs the credit for the observation, says that when that vir praestantis- simus et maxime amabilis later visited Bonn, he remarked, stiari et plane sua tno- desiia, that he had quite forgotten his little discovery. ' De Cramm. 11. i82 Edward Kennard Rand contents of the Indignatio to show that it was an entirely different affair.^ The latest tendency is to treat both poems as anonymous.^ Lydia The Lydia offers crucial evidence for the views that I have been setting forth. As the work is not mentioned in the ancient list, we have no a priori right to call it Virgil's. As it is found agglutinated to Dirae, however, one naturally assumes a common authorship, es- pecially as Lydia figures in both poems. But the vaUdity of our test is apparent the moment that the two poems are compared. They cannot be by the same hand. In the latter piece, we are presented with a shepherd who envies certain meadows because they can enjoy the presence of Lydia, from whom, for some unstated reason, he is now parted. There is none of the atmosphere of Dirae here — no lost estate, no intruding soldier. The meadows, whose-ever they were, will continue to blossom like the rose, especially if Lydia be playing in them. The poet repeats his envy in a love- sick refrain — invideo vobis, agri. The maiden, meanwhile, is coquettishly, perhaps symbolically, plucking green grapes with rosy fingers or crushing the soft grass on which she lies, as she warbles pretty nothings to meadow, stream and grove. Never maiden prettier or wittier than she, fit mate for Jove himself — but hold! This message is not intended for Jove's ear. She is not destined, evidently, to be the poet's mate, for he is slowly but surely melting into death. Disappointed love, not exile, seems to be his malady; his career has been a string of amatory failures. The happy animals are all mated. The moon has her Endymion and Phoebus his Daphne. The sky is populated with the sweethearts of the gods. Why, then, has so dreary a lot befallen humankind ? Or is the lover's ^ See Teuffel, § 200, 2. Naeke, p. 264, makes a desperate attempt to fit the matter described by Suetonius into such a frame as that of the Dirae. It is not even sure that the Indignatio was a poem. * Teuffel, he. cit. Schanz, §99, continues to look with favor on Scaliger's hy- pothesis. The best presentation of this view was made by Naeke, op. cit., and is further supported by Eskuche, who reviews the literature of the controversy, p. 50. Stylistic and metrical characteristics (Naeke, 317; Eskuche, 52 ff.), present nothing glaringly xm-Virgilian. These scholars have proved, I believe, that both Dirae and Lydia antedate the Bucolics. Young VirgiVs Poetry 183 passion a sin? Was he the first to know the joys of stolen sweets? Would, indeed, that he had gained this proud distinction! His name would go ringing down the corridors of time. There follows another series of divine exempla, the amours of gods and heroes in the golden age. Ah, why was not the poet born then, when passion was not out of date ? Such is the rack and ruin wrought on him by pitiless fate, that scarce enough of hin! remains to make out with the eye. With that, this belated Jupiter melts Uterally into an ounce or two of decadence. His separation from the meadows is now explained; he is not an ejected tenant but a dying swain. Virgil did not disdain the theme of the present poem, but he could exalt it to serious poetry. A reading of the eighth Eclogue and the Lydia will show what is Virgil and what is not. The author of the latter work could not have been Virgil in any period. He is a de- scendant of the later Hellenistic poets, in whose work pastoral was submerged in the erotic. He is dehcately erotic in the description of the dainty maiden and the green grapes; there is deUcacy in the pic- ture of the pale stars in the green firmament — he rather runs to green. There is a flavor of humor in his appeal to Jupiter not to listen too closely to the praise of Lydia, and there is a startling paucity of humor elsewhere. Morbid refinement, romantic yearnings and lack of humor are not Virgihan.^ The two poems cemented together agree only in their general theme and in the name of the shepherd's love. That does not prove it is the same shepherd, or the same Lydia.^ If Valerius Cato, as seems certain, had won fame for a poem about Lydia, Virgil might well adopt a name that had acquired typical value. Whether by Valerius Cato or not,' the Lydia gives us an important glimpse into the literary history of the day and puts the originaUty of Virgil's achievement in higher relief. As the ninth Eclogue indi- cates, he probably found a group of pastoral poets in existence,* * There is a vein of Catullan romanticism in the poem. See Eskuche, p. 73. * Schanz, §99, cannot imagine that three different poets could sing of three dif- ferent Lydias. But Horace can furnish from one to four more Lydias, and Martial one or two. * W. M. Lindsay, Notes on the Lydia in Class. Rev., xxxii (1918), 62 ff., would call Valerius Cato the author. At any rate, the Lydia seems the earlier poem. * On the brotherhood of poets to which Virgil belonged, see the admirable re- marks by Mackail, Lectures on Poetry, pp. 52 ff. 184 Edward Kennard Rand amongst whom he came, as Theocritus amongst contemporary idyllists, like a refreshing wind, blowing aside the vapors of decadence and sentimentaUty. ^ IX Our survey of the minor poems has revealed nothing, so far as I can see, that cannot be reconciled with the testimony of the ancient life of the poet. Few wish, at first reading, to associate Cidex, Ciris, and the rest with the author of Bucolics, Georgics, and Aeneid. But careful pondering discovers many a flash of genius, many a similar trait of temperament or of art that impel us, or impel me, to conclude that here, too we find our Virgil. A pastoral mock heroic at the age of sixteen; CatuUan Nugae and a Catullan epylUon; a period of stern Lucretian science and revolt from poetry, culminating in a poem on a 1 volcano; a frustrated epic during the civil wars and epic stirrings in the I other poems; pure pastoral dehght expressed in various forms; a pastoral imprecation inspired by an actual grievance and reflecting '' contemporary affairs — such is the prelude to Virgil's Bucolics. It is I an Alexandrian prelude, with signs of a larger impulse. Neither the temperament nor the art of the poet is fixed. He reflects, without harmonizing, the various literary and philosophical tendencies of the day. With an imagination kindled by the appeal of the moment, he follows now the Muses, and now the sterner daughters of science; it is that ancient battle of which Plato speaks between philosophy and poetry, a battle that Virgil fought till his dying day. Such is the record, not of a series of impeccable masterpieces, but of the essays of a slowly flowering genius, that lies outspread in the minor poems. The process of flowering is slow, but the changes in any natural evolution are instantaneous and, when one compares the two states, apparently miraculous. The first of the Bucolics pub- lished — it was probably the second of the collection — must have come like a miracle upon Roman readers; it announced a literary creation in which the essentia^ genius of the poet had a more normal scope for its expression than before — the epic pastoral. This event is no more startUng than what we know was true of Horace. The gap between Dirae, the last of the minor poems, and Eclogue i, the last of the Bucolics, is less wide than that between the very youthful Young Virgil's Poetry 185 invectives of certain Epodes and the wise urbanity of the Satires. Suppose that we knew the early works of Horace only from the first book of the Satires and a selection of the daintier Epodes, and that a little volume were discovered, bearing the name of Horace as its au- thor and containing Lupis et agnis, At deorum, Quid immerenti, Rogare longo, Mala soluta, and Quid tibi vis mulier. What higher critic worthy of his calling would not condemn this bad Uttle book as un-Horatian? And yet Book i of the Satires appeared in 35 B.C., and the Epodes, unquestionably genuine, in 30 B.C. Some of the pieces in the collection must be among the earUest things that Horace did. He knew their youthfulness, but he meant posterity to see all his life votiva descriptam tahella. Virgil destined for the world nothing but his best. Both records, luckily, are preserved, and both include the same event — youthful crudity magically giving place to mature perfection. The call to epic, which sounded its first challenge in the Bucolics, came clearer and clearer thereafter and ultimately was heard in the national and universal tones of the Aeneid. As that achievement is set in a plainer fight by the prophecies of it in the Bucolics and the Georgics, so these works are rendered more intelfigible by the poems that preceded them. Sudden creations seem less abrupt when one considers the entire development of the poet. With the minor poems to guide us, we can follow, better than before, the course of Virgil's art, as it proceeds, Uke the fife of St. Augustine,^ di malo in buono, e di buono in migliore, e di migliore in ottimo. ^ Dante, Conv. i, 2, 106. Oaylord Bros. Makers Syracuse. N. Y. rAT. JM.21,1908 4iF,126 UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY