Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:17:38.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cinna, Calvus, and the Ciris

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Richard F. Thomas
Richard F. Thomas
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Among other things, R. O. A. M. Lyne's recent edition and commentary of the Ciris (Cambridge, 1978) has established the general method of composition followed by this pseudo-neoteric poet: he demonstrably lifted wholesale and applied to his own poem words, phrases, lines, and even entire sequences from the works of the neoterics and the poets of the following generation. Accordingly, one of the poem's chief attributes is that it serves as a means for recovering the general content, and at times the actual wording, of earlier, more important poetry. This paper offers some additional areas in the Ciris where such influence may exist. I confine myself to Cinna and Calvus, whose poetry may justly be considered the missing two-thirds of the neoteric movement.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , December 1981 , pp. 371 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 With this poem it is a matter not merely of a poet's re-shaping literary tradition, but rather, to use Lyne's term (p. 47), of ‘pillaging’. Since the Ciris is so grossly derivative, there is complete justification for suspecting, and indeed for seeking, elements which may belong to other poetic contexts. For all of this, see Lyne pp. 36–7.

2 The day when such expressions needed an accompanying apology is now past. Although it is true that other poets (e.g. Valerius Cato or Cornificius) may qualify for this title, as Lyne has noted (‘The Neoteric Poets’, CQ n.s. 28 (1978), 171Google Scholar), programmatic reference to Cinna and Calvus in the poetry of Catullus' suggests an identifiably Callimachean faction of Catullus, Cinna, and I think Calvus'.

3 By Sudhaus, S., ‘Die Ciris und das römische Epyllion’, Hermes 42 (1907), 487 ff.Google Scholar; Ehlers, W., ‘Die Ciris und ihr Original’, MH 11 (1954), 81–2Google Scholar; Lyne, , Ciris, Introduction, pp. 40–4Google Scholar; also on lines 274, 324–5, 342–3.

4 Eur. Elec. 54, Andromeda fr. 114N, Hec. 68–72.

5 Other examples abound; for these see Thomas, R. F., ‘New Comedy, Callimachus, and Roman Poetry’, HSCP 83 (1979), 183–4, 195–206Google Scholar.

6 λύχνοτ, familiar in the setting of amatory ⋯γρυπνία, are absent from Callimachus' lines; the presence of lucernis in Cinna's version may stand as his acknowledgement of the tradition from which Callimachus drew.

7 Of the numerous examples (ThLL 6. 1649. 68 ff.; also s.v. furtivus, 6. 1644. 42 ff.), the following will suffice: Cat. 68. 136 (of Lesbia's lapses), 140 (of Jupiter's); perhaps most suggestive is Virg. Aen. 4. 171–2: nec iam furtivum Dido meditatur amorem: | coniugium vocat, hoc praetexit nomine culpam.

8 Lyne notes (Cir. ad loc.) that the genitive tabis is rare, and reports Charisius' observation: Cinna autem in Zmyrna huius tabis dixit nullo auctore (Gram. Lat. 193. 25 = Cinna, p. 89 Morel).

9 For a useful compilation and discussion of the poem's diminutives, together with other notable stylistic features of the poem, see Lyne, , Ciris, Introduction, pp. 25–31Google Scholar (‘Style’).

10 Generally, on diminutives in neoteric verse, Ross, D. O., Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 22–6Google Scholar.

11 Her. 14. 89 ff. (of Io), Met. 1. 635 ff. (of Io), Met. 14. 59 ff. (of Scylla the monster).

12 On the extent to which Virgil reworked the line of Calvus, see Thomas, , ‘Theocritus, Calvus and the Sixth Eclogue’, CP 74 (1979), 337–9Google Scholar.

13 At least by Ovid's time Io is consistently considered to have been white in colour. This detail in fact appears as early as Acusilaus of Argos (ap. [Apollod.] Bibl. 2. 1. 3 = FGH 2 fr. 26): εỉς δ⋯ Βο⋯ν μετεμóρɸωσε λευκήν. There were, however, variants, reflected in the Suda (s.v. Isis, 2. 669. 4 Adler); ποτ⋯ μ⋯ν εἰς λευκ⋯ν, βο⋯ν ποτ⋯ δ⋯ εỉς μ⋯λαιναν, ποτ⋯ δ⋯ ἰάζουσαν. For this, see Bömer, F., P. Ovidius Naso: Metamorphosen i–iii (Heidelberg, 1969)Google Scholar, ad 1. 610; he suggests solidification of the detail may have been Ovid's contribution, but its presence in Calvus' epyllion would also have ensured dissemination.

14 In 399, then, as in 81, miror would carry a more sinister force: ‘marvel at the strangeness of’ (cf. 81, novos, ‘new and strange’). It can have such a force, particularly in this type of poetry: aequoreae monstrum Nereides admirantes, Cat. 64. 15; mirantur et undae, | miratur nemus insuetum fulgentia longe | scuta virum fluvio pictasque innare carinas, Virg. Aen. 8. 91–3. In neither of these is there any sense of admiration; rather one of surprise at a new and unexperienced phenomenon. Since the context we claim for the Ciris is one of surprise at a transformed object, a third parallel is particularly relevant: Virg. Geo. 2. 82 (of a tree which has suffered grafting and subsequent transformation), miratastque novas frondes et non sua poma.

15 Ciris, ad loc. I suspect, in fact, that the whole couplet is Calvus'; it is just too good: in addition to the chiasmus noted by Lyne (dies…annus…annum…diem), there is the artful repetition in the second line (felices…annum…diemque). All of this in a strictly expanding tricolon, which Calvus (if, indeed, the couplet is his) will have perfected in his capacity as an orator. In this connection, Cicero's comments on him (Brut. 283) are not irrelevant.

16 Probably as early as Hesiod (fr. 125 Merkelbach and West), and at least by the time of Callimachus (fr. inc. sed. 769 Pf.), Io is given the epithet Καλλιθύεσσα. Whatever the precise meaning of the word (it appears only in the supplement of LSJ 9 and is given no translation), the suggestion seems to be that Io was in some way a successful priestess; cf. Anth. Pal. 6. 240, Καλλιθυτ⋯ν κάπρον ⋯ρειον⋯μον.

17 A possible reflection of this: Virgil used infelix (nom. or voc.) of Dido six times, three times in each of these two positions (Aen. 1. 749, 4. 68, 4. 450, 4. 529, 4. 596, 6. 450).

I am grateful for comments from my colleagues Professors W. V. Clausen and A. Henrichs who read these notes in draft.