Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:22:52.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Life and Times of Calpurnius Siculus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Edward Champlin
Edward Champlin
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until the early nineteenth century it was agreed that the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus were products of the reign of Carinus, for the name of the poet Nemesianus appeared in the manuscripts and Nemesian was known as the author of the (partly surviving) Cynegetica, which explicitly praises the sons of the emperor Carus. However, in 1819 G. Sarpe first raised some of the arguments for setting the poems in the early years of the reign of Nero, and in 1854, in what Wilamowitz subsequently lauded as a model of scholarship, M. Haupt firmly distinguished the seven poems of Calpurnius from the four of Nemesian. With the link to Nemesian went the only support for a date in the later third century, and Haupt settled the identification of Calpurnius Siculus as a Neronian poet which has remained entrenched to this day. Attempts there have been to upset it, by seeing in the young Caesar praised a Domitian, a Commodus, a Severus Alexander, a Gordian III, even a Probus, but such attempts were clearly heterodox and obviously flawed. Those that were not refuted were ignored, and only isolated doubt remains today.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 68 , November 1978 , pp. 95 - 110
Copyright
Copyright ©Edward Champlin 1978. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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 Haupt, M., De carminibus bucolicis Calpurnii et Nemesiani (1854)Google Scholar = Opuscula 1 (1875), 358–406Google Scholar. The best summary is still that of C. H. Keene in his edition, The Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus and M. Aur. Nemesianus (1887), 2 f.; cf. also, Verdière, R., T. Calpurnii Siculi ‘De laude Pisonis et Bucolica’ et M. Annaei Lucani ‘De laude Caesaris’ Einsiedlensis quae dicuntur carmina, Coll. Latomus xix (1954), 15Google Scholar f. (the title is a fair indication of the contents), and the incisive comments of A. Momigliano, CQ 58 (1944), 97–9. Texts and translations are offered by J. W. and Duff, A. M., Minor Latin Poets (1935), 218 f. (Loeb)Google Scholar; R. Verdière, op. cit., 124–209; and Korzeniewski, D., Hirtengedichte aus neronischer Zeit (1971), 10–73Google Scholar. I have relied throughout on Korzeniekski's text.

Among those who have read earlier versions of this paper I must pick out for special thanks Professor James Zetzel and Mr. David Halperin, and Professor Millar and the Editorial Committee. As the reader will soon discover, none of these gentlemen could possibly be held responsible for its contents.

2 See for instance the article on Calpurnius by the man of letters Richard Garnett in the Encyclopaedia Britannica 9, defended at JPh 16 (1888), 216–19; or the remarks of a zoologist, G. Jennison, at CR 36 (1922), 23, greatly expanded in his Animals for show and pleasure in ancient Rome (1937), 188–9. For other attempts see Schanz-Hosius II4 (1935), 487.

3 Though strongly expressed by A. Chastagnol, BHAC 1972/4, 81–2.

4 cf. in this journal Cameron, A., ‘The date and identity of Macrobius’, JRS 56 (1966), 25–38,Google Scholar and Jones, C. P., ‘Aelius Aristides, Εἰς βασιλέα’, JRS 62 (1972). 134–52Google Scholar.

5 The exception is discussed below, in section IV; all of the individual passages are discussd at other points, passim. Easily the clearest exposition of the Neronian date is that by Momigliano, op. cit. (n. I). I exclude here any consideration of literary reminiscences or echoes between Calpurnius and Neronian writers, leaving them to others more qualified to comment. Such correlations strike me as, for the most part, quite inconclusive: they may indicate a contemporary writer, but they may also reveal the taste and erudition of one living several generations later (or the fantasy of a modern observer).

6 Form: Radke, A. E., ‘Zu Calpurnius und Nemesian’, Hermes 100 (1972), 615–23,Google Scholar arguing in fact for unity of authorship. Content: e.g., Damon, P., ‘Modes of analogy in ancient and medieval verse’, University of California Publications in Classical Philology 15. 6 (1961), 291–8Google Scholar.

7 Jennison, op. cit. (n. 2); cf., however, J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman life and art (1973), esp. 93–4.

8 Chastagnol, op. cit. (n. 3), 82.

9 Nock, A. D., ‘The emperor's divine comes’, in his Essays on religion and the ancient world, ed. Stewart, Z. (1972). 653–75Google Scholar (= JRS 37 (1947), 102–16).

10 Dio 48. 45. 1–2, the only record.

11 Source of a considerable bibliography. See most recently, Rachet, M., Rome et Us Berbères. Un problème militaire d'Auguste à Dioclétien, Coll. Latomus 110 (1970), 203–11;Google Scholar and Blásquez, J. M., ‘Hispania desde del año 138 al 235’, Hispania 36 (1976), 1–87,Google Scholar at 70–7.

12 Martial 1. 61 is the clearest recognition of a familiar theme.

13 Two readers have suggested to me a friendly gibe on the part of Calpurnius here and in the Moorish reference. I find this highly unlikely: Calpurnius is a writer desperately lacking in a sense of humour, and he was clearly too eager for patronage in high places to attempt any over-familiarity. However, the objection does rob my argument of any conclusiveness.

14 Dio 60. 35. 1, cf. Suetonius, Claudius 46.

15 Apoc. 2.

16 As at Momigliano, op. cit. (n. i), 97–8.

17 J. P. Postgate, CR 16 (1902), 38–40, contra Garnett, op. cit. (n. 2).

18 Keene, op. cit. (n. 1), recalling Tacitus, Ann. 13. 4.

19 Tacitus, Ann. 12. 58. i, cf. Suetonius, , Nero 7. 2Google Scholar.

20 On lulus and his history, see S. Weinstock, Divus Iulius (1971), 4–18. ‘Iulos’ in the Plural, singnifying the Julio-Claudian dynasty, is employed by Flaccus, Valerius at Argonautica 1. 9;Google Scholar for other occurrences of the name, consult Swanson's Names in Roman verse. Vergil, Aen. 1. 267–8, mentions the story that Iulus was originally ’Ilus’, that is, a homonym for the eponymous founder of Ilium. However, the equation Iuli = Ilienses is still an awkward problem.

21 See further below, Section v.

22 Dio 78. 38. 1, 4, 23. 1–6; Herodian 4. 13. 8, 5.3. 2, 10–11.

23 HA, Elagabalus 2. 1, 12. 3; Dio 79. 11, 17. 2; Herodian 5. 1. 1 f.; BMC Cat. v. 38–68, etx. E. Linkommies, Stud. Or. 11. 5 (1945). 6; Babelon, J., Les impératrices syriennes (1957)Google Scholar.

24 HA, Elagabalus 15. 6–7; Dio 79. 19. 2–4, 20. 1; Herodian 5. 7. 1–4, 8. 2–3, 10; BMC Cat. VI. 42–54. The continuity of ministers is significant: Comazon, the notorious creature of Elagabalus, turns up again as prefect of the city; while the virtuous Ulpian, now prefect of Alexander's guard, had also held high office under his predecessor.

25 AE 1912. 155 (Bulla Regia). Note also ILS 484, a dedication set up to the three in the atrium of Vesta at Rome, a place of special significance: cf. Section v, below.

26 Causam vincere: Ovid, , Heroides 16. 76;Google ScholarApuleius, , Florida 18. 24Google Scholar.

27 Most of the large critical bibliography on the poet and his poems is recorded in the recent essays of E. W. Leach, ‘Corydon revisited’, Ramus; (1973), 53–97, and ‘Neronian pastoral and the world of power’, Ramus 4 (1975), 204–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Dio 79. 7. Note also trouble in the Palmyrene cohort at Dura under Elagabalus: P. Dura 55.

29 Herodian 5. 6. 1; Dio 79. 3. 4–7. 4.

30 HA, Elagabalus 16. 1–4. R. Syme, BHAC 1968/9, 319–21, and Emperors and biography (1971), 118–21.

31 HA, Elagabalus 6. 1–2, 10. 3, 11. 1, 12. 1; Dio 79. 15. 3; Herodian 5. 7. 6–7. Is the Zoticus of CJ 5. 55. 1. (cf. 6. 6. 1) the creature of Elagabalus?

32 The evidence for these three is gathered at Pflaum, Carrières no. 290 + p. 996, PIR 2 c 770, and Pflaum, Carrières no. 293.

33 Dio 79. 15. 1.

34 CJ 9. 8. i, cf. 2. The chastity of the new reign was also declared, in obvious contrast with its predecessor: CJ 9. 9. 9.

35 Herodian 6. 1. 4; HA, Alexander 15. 6, 16. 1–2, 51. 4; Dio 80. 1. 1,2. 2, cf. 4. 2, and Zonaras 12. 15 in the Loeb Dio at p. 488).

36 Dio, loc. cit. On Ulpian see now G. Crifò, ANRW II. 15 (1976), 708–89.

37 HA, Elagabalus 16. 4; Digest 8. 37. 4, 4. 65. 4.

38 HA, Alexander 16. 1–2, 26. 5, 51. 4.

39 Dig. 31. 87. 3 and 49. 1. 25, taken from Paul's Responsa, quote replies of the emperor Alexander to the praefectus urbi Claudius Iulianus and to the koinon of Bithynia. Ap. Claudius Iulianus (cos. n 224) was probably prefect by late 223, and may have succeeded Comazon soon after the accession of Alexander in March 222; cf. Syme, Emperors and Biography, 151. 158.

40 HA, Elagabalus 1. 6, 3. 4, 6. 6–7. 5; Herodian 5. 6. 2–10,; and below. For the god Elagabalus see especially K. Gross, ‘Elagabalus’, RAC 4. 987–1000; also Halsberghe, G. H., The cult of Sol Invictus (1972)Google Scholar; and for the emperor's religious policy, T. D. Barnes, BHAC 1970, 60–2.

41 Elagabalus' buildings: Platner-Ashby 199, 248, 307, 379; Diz. Epig. III, 667.

42 HA, Alexander 13. 5. October 1: CIL I2, p. 55, 274, and to be deduced from III, 3524 and (by elimination) from the Feriale Duranum, which is complete to September and omits Alexander's birthday.

43 T. D. Barnes, BHAC 1968/9, 32–9.

44 Stern, H., ‘L'image du mois d'Octobre sur un mosaique d'El-Djem’, Journal des Savants 1965, 117–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Translations of the text as it stands: ‘and that Rome will not regard the dead as deified in accord with merit ere the dawn of one reign can look back on the setting of the last’ (Duff); ‘et que Rome ne décrétera, sur leurs mérites, l'apothéose de ses empereurs morts que lorsque le couchant aura vu derrière lui se lever les aurores’ (Verdière); ‘Rom wird nicht früher dies göttliche Haus des verdienstvollen Wirkens ledig erachten, bis abends die Sonne im Osten sich neiget’ (Korzeniewski). That is with an agreed text, but there have been numerous attempts at emendation: see the apparatus criticus of Verdière. For puzzled exegesis, Verdière 239–40, Korzeniewski 89.

46 A. D. Nock, ‘A diis electa: a chapter in the religious history of the third century’, Essays 252–70 (= HTR 23 (1930), 251–74).

47 For extensive re-ordering, see Verdière and Korzeniewski. Some lines have dropped out, but the standard order does seem to make consecutive sense.

48 It has been suggested, cf. Keene, op. cit. (n. 1), that the ‘spellbound tree’ refers to the decayed ficus ruminalis which marvellously sent forth new shoots in 57: Tacitus, Ann. 13. 58. That might well be, but the three stanzas in which it occurs are a paean to the spring which is aroused by Caesar's presence, and stupefacta arbos need signify no more than a tree dormant for the winter.

49 The standard treatment of thesaurus is that of P. Bonfante in Mélanges P. Girard (1912), 1. 123 f.; cf., on Calpurnius in particular, J. Hubaux and M. Hicter, ‘Le fouilleur et le trésor’, RIDA 2 (1949), 425 f. However, the problems before Hadrian are still unresolved: Buckland, W. W. and Stein, P., A textbook of Roman law from Augustus to Justinian3 (1966), 218–20Google Scholar.

50 HA, Alexander 46. 2. The text continues, incomprehensibly, ‘… et, si multi essent, addidit his eos, quos in suis habebat officiis.’

I am very tempted to see here a reference (in exaggerated and pastoral terms) to Alexander's edict of remission concerning the aurum coronarium, on the nature of which see especially A. K. Bowman, BASP 4 (1967), 50–74. The document concerned, P. Fay. 20, is dated very early in the reign (24 June 222), and is full of pointed references to the Elagabalan chaos.

51 Keene, op. cit. (n. 1), 197 f., has a valuable appendix on the amphitheatre of Calpurnius. His objection that the Colosseum is too far from the Tarpeian rock is unfounded: the poet's words ‘Tarpeium prope despectantia culmen’ need simply be taken as a description of the height of the structure. Nero built in 57 a large wooden amphitheatre in the Campus Martius and celebrated games in it. These spectacles answer to those in the Seventh Eclogue in that they were primarily venationes; the poet's account of the spectacula rising to the sky ‘trabibus textis’ certainly corresponds to a wooden structure; and his description of it does compare to the great size implied by Tacitus (Ann. 13. 31, cf. Suetonius, , Nero 12. 1–2)Google Scholar. However there is room for doubt. For Calpurnius the theatre glitters with gold and gilt, gems and ivory and marble (VII. 36, 41, 47–9, 53–6), and it is operated by ingenious and elaborate mechanisms (49–53, 69–72). But Suetonius is concerned only to say of Nero's structure that it was built of wood and in less than a year, Tacitus merely that it was large and wooden. The difference between the two accounts might be ascribed to poetic and panegyrical licence, but Calpurnius’ structure certainly does sound more permanent. And for those who object that ‘trabibus textis’ should refer to a wooden structure, it could be answered that Alexander's was not apparently the final restoration of the Colosseum: Platner-Ashby 6. In the end, there is nothing to distinguish the building described by the poet from any other imperial construction.

52 Dio 78. 25. 2–3.

53 HA, Elagabalus 17. 8, cf. Herodian 5. 6. 7; HA Alexander 24. 3; BMC Cat. VI. 156–8.

54 See the discussion at Verdière, 16–17. However, the surname just might have been adopted as appropriate by the poet himself.

55 For the manuscripts and their contents, see the edition of C. Giarratano, Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica 3 (1943), vii–xxxix.

56 P. Monceaux, Les africains, Études sur la littérature latine d'Afrique. Les paiens (1894).

57 Bibliography at Verdière 49–50, and most recently at RPh 51 (1977), 15–21.

58 On his career and writings, see Syme, , Emperors and biography, 112–43Google Scholar, and Birley, A. R., Septimius Severus, the African emperor (1971), 308–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 On the closeness of Calpurnius and Nemesian, see the works cited in n. 6, above.

60 For an optimistic view, see especially Jardé, A., Études critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre (1925), 21–62Google Scholar.