Untersuchungel'1 zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte Herausgegeben von Gustav-Adolf Lehmann, Heinz-Gunther Nesselrath und Qtto Zwierlein
Band 60
WaIter de Gruyter . Berlin
2001
.
New York
Lan.guage in Vergil's Eclogues
by
Michael Lipka
\,\va. V.
At 2.25-27 Corydon comments on his outward appearance, as does
Polyphemus at Theoc. 6.34-36: nec swn adeo infonnis: nuper me in litore vidi, cwn placidwn ventis staret mare. non ego Daphnin iudice te metuam...
(2.25-27)
lCai 'Yap !lllV oMi' doov / EKj.LatVEt· Atnapa O E nap' a;'XEva aetE't' eBEtpa. The throwing of apples i s a traditional erotic motif.69 The structure of the fIrst sentence of the second couplet is identical in both cases: the beloved stranger offers himself to the singer (sese offert / tmaV'tci>v). Vergil particularly stresses the aspect of consent of the beloved (ultro) and thus amplifIes Theocritus. Furthermore, Vergil's at mihi (67) amplifIes Theocritus' Kftj.LE (the closer translation et mihi would have been metrically possible) indicating "(in my case it is not as you just described) but (much better)". The Greek particle 'Yap is omitted.70 (b) Theoc. 6.6f.: I3w..AEt 'COt, IIoA\xpaj.L£, 'to Mtj.LVtOV a raAa-CEta / j.LMotcnV .. . The connection with Theocritus is suggested by the similar theme of throwing apples in association with the coincidence of the name Galatea (cf. p. 62). (c) Theoc. 6. 1 7: Kat <proyEt . Characteristic of Vergil's translation is (1) the omission of the 'smaller' word, i.e. pronouns ('COt twice) and particles (ftvtO£, 6 8 Pace 69
70
Schopsdau 1974. 275·277 [sceptical about a strong Theocritean influence]. Gow n. 107. A comparably traditional theme can be found at 3.68f. and Theoc. 5.96f. [tbe lover presents a dove to !be beloved]. Cartault 1897. 141f.
2. Theocritus
43
'Kat), even where these could be easily rendered in Latin;7! (2) the epithet aurea
which is hardly influenced by Theocritus and serves to ampJify the notion of the quality and desirability of the apples;72 (3) the change of tense from present (jlOlo to montesque fen silvaeque, changing its syntactical context at the same time. Out of one Theocritean line Vergil makes twO.81
76 It has often been argued on the grounds of Vergil's fonte, that Vergil read the alternative "pav� (= fonte) instead of A.il1va� in Theocritus (e.g. Barigazzi 1 975, 77), hardly
convincingly. Vergil's scene is set on a river bank (cf. 3.96) which implies a spring, not a lake. Besides, lakes play no part in Vergil's bucolic scenery, whereas springs (and rivers) do extensively. Hence, lacus is not attested even once in the Eclogues (though frequently in the Georgics and the Aeneid), whilefonus are found 9 times in the Eclogues, e.g. 1 .39, 7.45 al. In short, even if Vergil had read (the correct, I trust) A.{JlV� in Theocritus, he would have almost certainly changed it in the context of the Eclogues. 7 7 See pp. 54f., 182 n. 77. 78 Schol. in Theoc. 1 .72. 7 9 Du Quesnay 1 977, 19 (preceded by R. BUrgers, 'Eine Elegie des Gallus' Bermes 38 ( 1903), 20 n. 1); contra Wende1 1 920, 70. 80 Similarly already Cartault 1897, 173. 8 1 Pace Du Quesnay 1977. 19 who claimed that montes feri silvaeqlu was inspired by Theoc. 7.72-74 and that we are thus dealing here with a contamination of two Tbeocritean models.
2. Theocritus
45
• At 5.43f. Daphnis' epitaph is mentioned: Daphnis ego in si/vis, hinc usque ad sidera notus I formosi pecoris custos, formosior ipse. The model is Theoc. 1 . 120f.: M
