Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:22:58.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Criminals in Virgil's Tartarus: Contemporary Allusions in Aeneid 6.621–4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

D. H. Berry
D. H. Berry
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At Aen. 6.562–627 the Sibyl gives Aeneas a description of the criminals in Tartarus and the punishments to which they are condemned. The criminals are presented to us in several groups. The first consists of mythical figures, the Titans (580–1), the sons of Aloeus (582–4), Salmoneus (585–94), Tityos (595–600) and Ixion and Pirithous (601–7). Next Virgil turns away from mythical figures to particular categories of criminal. He mentions those who hated their brothers, who assaulted a parent, who cheated a cliens, who gloated over wealth they had acquired without setting aside a part for their family, who were put to death for adultery, and those who, breaking their masters' (‘dominorum’, 613) trust, made war on their country (608–14). The reference to the contemporary scene is unmistakable. The mention of a cliens (609) indicates that we have moved from Greece to Rome. Moreover, ‘quique ob adulterium caesi’ (612) brings to mind Augustus' concern over moral standards, the subject of legislation in 28 B.c., 18 B.c. and A.d. 9; the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis (18 B.c., but no doubt in the air for some time previously) gave to fathers of adulteresses the right to put to death both guilty parties. Thirdly, ‘arma...impia’ (612–13) is an obvious reference to civil war (cf. Geo. 1.511–14; Aen. 1.294–6), which as Servius argues is more narrowly defined by ‘nee veriti dominorum fallere dextras’ (613) so as to exclude Caesar and Octavian: undoubtedly the allusion is to the war against Sextus Pompeius, which Augustan propaganda chose to represent as a war against runaway slaves. Virgil continues by sketching the penalties paid in Tartarus by such men (614–17). While doing so, however, he retreats once again into the realm of mythology: the punishments he describes are those more normally associated with Sisyphus and Ixion (rolling a stone uphill, suspension on a wheel). This reversion is completed at 617–20 where, confusingly, Virgil denies that he has been alluding to events of contemporary significance by naming two mythical personages, Theseus and Phlegyas (the father of Ixion). Virgil therefore implies, but then denies, contemporary relevance. It is this kind of protean elusiveness (most marked, perhaps, in the Eclogues) which makes the contemporary allusions in Virgil so difficult to pin down.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , December 1992 , pp. 416 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1992

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 On the mythological aspects of the passage see Radermacher, L., RhM 63 (1908), 531–55Google Scholar; and, most recently, Putnam, M. C. J., CQ 40 (1990), 562–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 ‘Eo bello servorum qui fugerant a dominis suis et arma contra rem publicam ceperant triginta fere milia capta dominis ad supplicium sumendum tradidi’, Aug. Anc. 25.1; cf. Hor. Epod. 9.9–10 (quoted by Servius); Veil. 2.73.3.

3 Horace regularly uses a similar technique: see Williams, G., The Third Book of Horace's Odes (Oxford, 1969), p. 42Google Scholar (on Carm. 3.3.1ff.).

4 For a recent and (to my mind) eminently successful attempt see Bowie, A. M., CQ 40 (1990), 470–81Google Scholar on the death of Priam in Aen. 2.

5 References at MRR ii. 249.

6 Lucan (4.819–24), on the other hand, appropriates the phraseology of Virgil and Varius fr. 1 (on which see below) when recounting Curio's mercenary betrayal of Rome to Caesar – thus ingeniously inverting the Augustanism of his models; cf. Dewar, M. J., CQ 38 (1988), 561–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Note also Phil. 1.23, 13.5; Att. 14.12.1; Fam. 12.1.1. Hollis, A. S. (CQ 27 (1977), 188CrossRefGoogle Scholar n. 12) suggests that ‘figere’ and ‘refigere’ were part of a ‘catchphrase’ used against Antony in 44–3.

8 Cf. Cic. Phil. 2.35, 3.8–12, 3.29, 3.34, 5.17; ‘M. Antonius consul cum impotenter dominaretur’, Liv. Per. 117; ‘torpebat oppressa dominatione Antonii civitas’, Vell. 2.61.1.

9 See Norden, E. on Aen. 6.621f. (p. 292).Google Scholar

10 See Rostagni, A., RFIC 87 (1959), 380–1Google Scholar; Hollis, A. S., CQ 27 (1977), 187–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Fr. 2 reads: ‘incubet ut Tyriis atque ex solido bibat auro’.

11 See J. Conington ad loc. and on Aen. 8.667. R. A. B. Mynors (ad loc.) presents the case clearly.

12 In G. Williams' terms (n. 3 above) these words would be a ‘poetical red-herring’.

13 See E. Norden on Aen. 6.623. Norden is mistaken in claiming that Thyestes' crime was also unintentional; cf. Apollod. Epit. 2.14; Hyg. Fab. 87–8. Thyestes would therefore remain a possibility; but it is argued above that Virgil is not likely to be thinking of mythical characters at this point.

14 Essais (Univ. de Lausanne Publ. de la Fac. des Lettres 15; 1963), pp. 205–10. Highet, G., The Speeches in Vergil's Aeneid (Princeton, 1972), pp. 142–4 hesitantly agrees.Google Scholar

15 See ‘verum, ut opinor, splendor domesticus tibi animos tollit, uxor sacrilega ac periuriis delibuta, filia matris paelex, tibi iucundior atque obsequentior quam parenti par est’, [Sal.] Cic. 2; τοσα⋯τῃ ⋯σελε⋯ᾳ κα⋯ ⋯καθαρσ⋯ᾳ παρ⋯ π⋯ντα τ⋯ν β⋯ον χρώμενος ὥστε μηδ⋯ των συγγενεστ⋯των ⋯π⋯χεσθαι, ⋯λλ⋯ τ⋯ν τε γυναικα προαγωγε⋯ειν κα⋯ τ⋯ν θυγατ⋯ρα μοιχε⋯ειν, Dio 46.18.6. Donatus was perhaps led to think of Cicero by the first of these passages.

16 See Plut. Cic. 49.3 (λ⋯γιος ⋯ν⋯ρ ὦ παι, λ⋯γιος κα⋯ φιλ⋯πατρις).

17 R. G. Austin (on Aen. 6.623) remarks, ‘Obviously here no identifiable allusiveness could be latent’.

18 K. W. Gransden's assertion (on Aen. 8.666–70) that Catiline was ‘put to death, despite Julius Caesar's plea for clemency’ needs to be corrected. This invalidates his contention that Virgil is here intending to criticise Caesar and perhaps to warn Augustus.

19 See M. C. Alexander, TLRR no. 217.

20 Catullus, in his denunciation of modern corruption (64.397–406), talks of a father wishing for his son's death, so that he may enjoy a new bride without hindrance (401–2), and of a mother knowingly committing incest with her son (403–4). While these crimes are intended to be taken primarily in a general sense, K. Quinn (on 402) has plausibly suspected a latent allusion to Catiline (cf. Sal. Cat. 15.2; V. Max. 9.1.9; App. BC 2.2).

21 Thus Syme, R., Sallust (Berkeley etc., 1964), p. 85Google Scholar; cf. Griffin, M. T., JRS 63 (1973), 201Google Scholar n. 50. On the date of their marriage see Marshall, B. A., RFIC 105 (1977), 151–4.Google Scholar

22 Phil. 2.1, 2.118, 4.15, 8.15, 13.22.

23 I am indebted to the Editors for comments.