No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Pastoral as a kind of poetry is a paradoxical combination of apparent naïveté and sophistication; William Empson refers to ‘the pastoral process of putting the complex into the simple’. The pastoral landscape in its more ideal moments is the stage for simple country folk who lead an easy and uncomplicated life. But landscape and shepherds appear in poems written by sophisticated poets, whose self-consciousness weighs heavily on the figures who speak in their poems. The picture of an idyllic world often conjured up by the words ‘pastoral’ or ‘bucolic’ is a trivializing and selective simplification of the full reading experience offered by the Eclogues. That simple image is presented to the reader in the first five lines of Eclogue 1 in Meliboeus’ description of his friend Tityrus’ happy situation: Tityrus reclines at ease in the shadow of a tree, composing ‘woodland music’ on his rustic pipe and teaching the sympathetic woods to echo the name of his girlfriend Amaryllis. But this description frames Meliboeus’ statement of his own plight: in contrast to his settled friend he is in motion, away from the boundaries of the idyllic Never Never Land, which in line 3 is already redefined with the very Roman word patria. Eclogue 1 quickly bursts the limits of a simple and timeless bucolicism to encompass the historical and social realities of the city of Rome, in the course of a brief exchange of experiences past and anticipated in which the humble herdsman Tityrus meets a man-god, and the smallholder Meliboeus foresees an exile as far distant as Britain (1.66), the limit of Julius Caesar’s imperialist adventuring a decade and a half before the time of composition. The first Eclogue is typical of the collection as a whole in this testing of limits and in the recurrent thwarting of the desire for fulfilment in an enclosed locus amoenus or ‘green cabinet’. Much of the energy and interest of the Eclogues derives from the constant tension between the limiting case of a static pastoral ‘idyll’ and the forces that threaten to destabilize the idyll.
Bucolica is the older title of the collection; ecloga ‘chosen piece’ denotes an individual poem regarded as an independent piece. On the title see N. M. Horsfall, BICS 28 (1981), 108–9; M. Geymonat, BICS 29 (1982), 17–18.
2 Empson, W., Some Versions of Pastoral (Harmondsworth, 1966 [1935]), 25 Google Scholar.
3 Michael Putnam uses the phrase ‘poetics of enclosure’: ‘Virgil’s first Eclogue: poetics of enclosure’, in Boyle (1975), 81–104. On Eclogue 1 see also Segal, C. P., ‘Tarnen cantabais, Arcades: exile and Arcadia in Eclogues 1 and 9’, in Segal, (1981), 271–300 Google Scholar; Dick, B. F., ‘Vergil’s pastoral poetic: a reading of the first Eclogue ’, AJP 91 (1970), 277-93Google Scholar; DuQuesnay (1981); Wright (1983).
4 See Coleman on Ecl. 1.1; Wright (1983), 108. On the question of editions of Theocritus in Virgi’s day see DuQuesnay (1979), 38; Vaughn, J. W., ‘Theocritus Vergilianus and Liber Bucolicon’, Aevum 55 (1981), 47–68 Google Scholar; Gutzwiller, K., ‘The evidence for Theocritean poetry books’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (eds.), Theocritus (Hellenistica Groningana 2) (Groningen, 1996), 119-48Google Scholar.
5 See esp. Halperin, D., Before Pastoral: Theocritus and the Ancient Tradition of Bucolic Poetry (New Haven and London, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Important works on the definition of pastoral poetry ancient and modern include Rosenmeyer (1969); Poggioli, R., ‘The oaten flute’, Harvard Library Bulletin 11 (1957), 147-84Google Scholar; Marx, L., The Machine in the Garden: Technology and the Pastoral Ideal in America (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar; Alpers, P. J., What is Pastoral? (Chicago, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
6 On the post-Theocritean development of bucolic see Rossi, L. E., ‘Mondo pastorale e poesia bucolica di maniera: l’idillio ottavo del corpus teocriteo’, SIFC 43 (1971), 5–25 Google Scholar; van Sickle, J., ‘Theocritus and the development of the conception of bucolic genre’, Ramus 5 (1976), 18–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 DuQuesnay (1979), 38. On Virgil’s imitation of Theocritus in general see Posch, S., Beobachtungen zur Theokritnachwirkung bei Vergil (Innsbruck and Munich, 1969)Google Scholar; Garson, R. W., ‘Theocritean elements in Virgi’s Eclogues ’, CQ 21 (1971), 188–203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Detailed studies of Virgil’s imitation of Theocritus in individual Eclogues: DuQuesnay (1977), 52–68 (Ecl. 4); id. (1976/77), 18–29 (Ecl. 5); id. (1979), 37–43 (Ecl. 2); id. (1981), 36–53 (Ecl. 1).
8 Names: A. Permeili in Horsfall (1995), 42–3.
9 On the personal dynamics of Ecl. 5 see Lee, G., ‘A reading of Virgil’s fifth Ecbgue ’, PCPS 23 (1977), 62–70 Google Scholar.
10 As in the combination of Idylls 3 and 11 as models for Eclogue 2: DuQuesnay (1979), 43–63.
11 Ross (1975), 69.
12 For a good survey of work on Virgilian allusion and intertextuality see Farrell (1991), 4–25; see also Farrell in Martindale (1997), 222–38. Important recent theoretical studies of allusion in Latin poetry: Conte (1986); Hinds, S., Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry (Cambridge, 1998)Google Scholar.
13 DuQuesnay (1977), 52–68, analysing the components of the βασιλικόν; see also DuQuesnay (1981), 41–2 on the parallels between Id. 14, an urban mime, and Ecl. 1.
14 On the echoes of Id. 18 in Ecl. 5 see DuQuesnay (1976/77), 20.
15 Segal, C. P., ‘Alphesiboeus’ song and Simaetha’s magic: Virgil’s eighth Ecbgue and Theocritus’s second Idyll ’, GB 14 (1987), 167-85Google Scholar. On Eclogue 8 see also Richter, A., Virgile. La huitième bucolique (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar.
16 See Highet, G., ‘Performances of Vergil’s Bucolics ’, Vergilius 20 (1974), 24-5Google Scholar; Horsfall (1995), 17; Coleiro (1979), 66–70. On the dramatic quality of the Eclogues see Steinmetz, P., ‘Eclogen Vergils als dramatische Dichtungen’, A&A 14 (1968), 115-25Google Scholar.
17 Most prominently in the first words of Ecl. 3, dic mihi, Damoeta, cuium pecus?: see Clausen ad loc.; Currie, H. MacL., ‘The third Eclogue and the Roman comic spirit’, Mnemos. 29 (1976), 411-20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Wills, J., ‘Virgil’s cuium ’, Vergilius 39 (1993), 3–11 Google Scholar points out that cuium is also an attempt to catch the flavour of Theocritus’ dialectal ψϵ (Id. 4.3); the use of dialects is a rich poetic resource for Theocritus, but one not available to a Latin poet; Virgil makes do with a liberal use of colloquialisms.
18 On Theocritean realism see Zanker, G., Realism in Alexandrian Poetry: A Literature and its Audience (London, etc., 1987)Google Scholar, index s.v. ‘Theocritus’; on Virgilian realism see Hubaux, J., Le Réalisme dans les Bucoliques de Virgile (Liège and Paris, 1927)Google Scholar.
19 See Bowie, E. L., ‘Theocritus’ seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus’, CQ 35 (1985), 67–91, at 80–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
20 DuQuesnay (1976/77), 23–9; Schmidt (1972), 69–92 ‘Die hellenistische Bukolik (Bionepitaph)’. See also Paschalis, M., ‘Virgil’s sixth Eclogue and the Lament for Bion ,’ AJP 116 (1995), 617-21Google Scholar.
21 Virgil and the neoterics: Otis (1964), 99–105; Farrell (1991), 278–314.
22 Eclogues and Lucretius: Castelli, G., ‘Echi lucreziani nelle Ecbghe virgiliane’, RSC 14 (1966), 313-2Google Scholar; (1967), 14–39, 176–216; Ġalinsky, G. K., ‘Vergi’s second Eclogue: its theme and relation to the Eclogue book’, C&M 26 (1965), 161-91, at 165–8Google Scholar; van Sickle (1978), 88–9; Mizera, S. M., ‘Lucretian elements in Menalcas’ song, Eclogue 5’, Hermes 110 (1982), 367-71Google Scholar.
23 Echo: Desport (1952), 63–91; Boyle, A. J., ‘Virgil’s pastoral echo’, Ramus 6 (1977), 121-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Note especially the Lucretian language in the descriptions of the universe at Ecl. 4.51-2; 5.56- 7; 6.31-40. Cosmic themes are already adumbrated in Ecl. 3.40-2, 104–5; on the ‘interplay of opposites’ in Ecl. 3 see Segal, C. P., ‘Vergil’s caelatum opus: an interpretation of the third Eclogue ’, in Segal, (1981), 235-64Google Scholar.
25 On the ‘pastoral hero’ in the Eclogues see Berg (1974), tracing the way in which the ‘pastoral hero’ turns into the ‘Roman hero’, and is also paralleled in the figure of the diuinus poeta (Ecl. 5.45; 10.17; cf. 6.67 Linus . . . diuino carmine pastor).
26 Cf. esp. De rerum natura 5.8 deus Ule fuit, deus, inclute Memmi with Ecl. 5.64 deus, deus ille, Menalca! (and cf. Ecl. 1.6-7).
27 The ‘Heilsproblematik’ is central to Klingner’s, F. interpretation of Virgil: see his ‘Virgils erste Ekloge’, Hermes 62 (1927), 129-53Google Scholar.
28 Virgil and Epicureanism: de Witt, N., ‘Vergil and Epicureanism’, CW 25 (1932), 89–96 Google Scholar; Wilkinson (1969), 20–4; Coleiro (1979), 37–9.
29 The analogy is developed at length in Rosenmeyer (1969).
30 E.g. Ecl. 2.27 si numquam fallii imago, alluding to the Epicurean doctrine of the infallibility of the senses: see Traina, A., ‘ Si numquam fallii imago. Riflessioni sulle Bucoliche e l’epicureismo’, A&R 10 (1965), 72-8Google Scholar.
31 Notably Putnam (1970), e.g. 345. Alfonsi, L., ‘Dalla II alla X ecloga’, Aevum 35 (1961), 193-8Google Scholar argues that Ecl. 2 takes an Epicurean perspective on destructive love. In general on love in the Eclogues see Fantazzi, C., ‘Virgilian pastoral and Roman love poetry’, AJP 87 (1966), 171-91Google Scholar.
32 On the extensive reworking of Catullus 64 in Ecl. 4 see below.
33 ‘Dichtung der Dichtung’ in the phrase of Schmidt (1972), 107. The poems of the second half of the book are more explicitly about poetry, but Wright (1983) argues that Tityrus’ encounter with the young ‘god’ in Ecl. 1 already conceals an account of poetic initiation; Galinsky (n. 22) focuses on the Eclogues’ thematization of poetry and its functions.
34 Zetzel, J. E. G., rev. Ross (1975), CP 72 (1977), 249-60Google Scholar at 259. The game of reconstructing Gallus was started in earnest by Skutsch, F., Aus Vergib Frühzeit i. (Leipzig, 1901)Google Scholar; Aus Vergib Frühzeit ii. Gallus und Vergil (Leipzig, 1906), in the tradition of nineteenth-century Quellen forschung. The most ambitious recent attempt is Ross (1975), still very thought-provoking despite the unfortunate accident of its publication shortly before the discovery of the new Gallus ( Courtney, E., The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993), 259-68Google Scholar), which was first published with full discussion by Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J., and Nisbet, R. G. M., JRS 69 (1979), 125-55Google Scholar. See also Kennedy, D. F., ‘ Arcades ambo. Virgil, Gallus and Arcadia’, Hermathena 143 (1987), 47–59 Google Scholar; Rosen, R. M. and Farrell, J., ‘Acontius, Milanion, and Gallus: Vergil, Ecl. 10.52-61’, TAPA 116 (1986), 241-54Google Scholar; Perkell, C. G., ‘The “dying Gallus” and the design of Eclogue 10’, CP 91 (1996), 128-40Google Scholar. Gallan allusion is probably present in many other Eclogues: DuQuesnay (1981), 40 suspects it in the opening lines of Ecl. 1; DuQuesnay (1979), 60–3 in Ecl. 2 (on the elegiac quality of Corydon’s passion see also Kenney, E. J., ‘Virgil and the elegiac sensibility’, ICS 8 (1983), 44–64, at 49–52Google Scholar; DuQuesnay (1976/77), 33–4 hypothesizes a poem by Gallus celebrating the triumph of Julius Caesar as one of the models for Ecl. 5.
35 The attempt to disentangle pastoral and elegiac elements in Ecl. 10 is made by Kidd, D. A., ‘Imitation in the tenth Eclogue ’, BICS 11 (1964), 54–64 Google Scholar, but is complicated by the possibility that Gallus himself used the countryside as a setting in his elegy, still an open question despite the negative conclusion of Whitaker, R., ‘Did Gallus write “pastoral” elegies?’, CQ 38 (1988), 454-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a searching analysis of the generic play by a leading theorist of genre in Latin poetry see Conte (1986), 100–29; fundamental on generic manipulation in Augustan poetry is Hinds (1987).
36 Ross (1975), ch. 2.
37 See Thomas, R. F., ‘Theocritus, Calvus, and Eclogue 6’, CP 74 (1979), 337-9Google Scholar.
38 On Parthenius and his importance for the ‘neoterics’ see Ross (1975), passim; Clausen (1964b), 181–96.
39 Knox, P. E., Ovid’s Metamorphoses and the Traditions of Augustan Poetry (Cambridge, 1986), 10–14 Google Scholar.
40 Interpretations of Eclogue 6: F. Skutsch (n. 34) (catalogue of subjects of Gallus’ poetry); Stewart, Z., ‘The Song of Silenus’, HSCP 64 (1959), 179–205 Google Scholar (catalogue of Alexandrian themes); Elder, J. P., ‘ Non iniussa cano: Virgi’s sixth Eclogue ’, HSCP 65 (1961), 109-25Google Scholar (a brief for Virgil’s own brand of bucolic poetry). Attempts to discover what Ecl. 6 tells us about the actual or potential development of Gallus’ poetic career are made by Ross (1975), ch. 2; Courtney, E., ‘Vergil’s sixth Eclogue ’ QUCC 34 (1990), 99–112 Google Scholar. Attempts to read a plot or unified pattern into the Song of Silenus: Otis (1964), 130 (degeneration from age of Saturn, reversing the progress of Ecl. 4); Segal, C. P., ‘Vergil’s sixth Eclogue and the problem of evil’, in Segal, (1981), 301-29Google Scholar; Leach, E. W., ‘The unity of Eclogue 6’, Latomus 27 (1968), 13–32 Google Scholar.
41 Conte, G. B., ‘Proems in the middle’, YCS 29 (1992), 147-59Google Scholar.
42 Roman Callimacheanism: Clausen (1964b); id., ‘Cynthius,’ AJP 97 (1976), 245–7; Hutchinson, G., Hellenistic Poetry (Oxford, 1988), ch. 6 Google Scholar. The revisionist reading of the Aitia prologue in Cameron, A., Callimachus and his Critics (Princeton, 1995), ch. 12 Google Scholar need not materially affect our understanding of the use of the Callimachean passage by Roman poets.
43 ludere is often used in Callimachean and neoteric contexts of composing light or playful verse, programmatically at Ecl. 1.10 ludere quae uellem calamo permisit agresti; cf. e.g. Cat. 50.1-2 hesterno, Liciniy die otiosi | multum lusimus in mets tabellis (otium is the precondition for Catullan versifying, as it is for the singing of Virgil’s shepherds).
44 The contest in Ecl. 3 is adjudged a draw by the umpire Palaemon; in Ecl. 7 Meliboeus recalls that Corydon defeated Thyrsis, inevitably provoking readers into their own attempt to judge the contest on points: see Clausen (1994), 210–13. The jury is still out. On Ecl. 3 see also Segal (n. 24); Monteleone, C., Palaemon. L’ecloga III di Virgilio: lusus intertestuale ed esegesi (Naples, 1994)Google Scholar. On Ecl. 7 see Frischer, B. D., At tu aureus esto. Eine Interpretation von Vergib 7. Ekloge (Bonn, 1975)Google Scholar.
45 On imitatio and aemulatio see Russell, D. A., ‘De imitatione ’ in West, and Woodman, (1979), 1–16 Google Scholar.
46 Mopsus’ song ends with another reference to writing, the inscription to be placed on Daphnis’ tomb. At Ecl. 6.10-12 Virgil archly refers to his poems as both sung and written. The other instance of writing in the pastoral world is Gallus’ resolve to write his amores (very possibly the title of his collection of love elegies) on trees at Ecl. 10.52-4, a motif derived from Callimachus’ story of Acontius and Cydippe (Ait. fr. 73 Pfeiffer; on Virgil’s use of this Callimachean episode see Kenney, E. J., ICS 8 (1983), 49–52 Google Scholar. On writing in the pastoral world see Putnam (1970), 169–70, 372–4.
47 Ecl. 9: Segal (n. 3); Schmidt, E. A., ‘Poesia e politica nella nona ecloga di Virgilio’, Maia 24 (1972), 99–119 Google Scholar.
48 Newman, J. K., The Concept of Vates in Augustan Poetry (Brussels, 1967)Google Scholar; Hardie (1986), 16–22.
49 The Orphic power of poetry is the subject of Desport (1952); the futility of poetry is stressed by Boyle (1986); Boyle’s title ‘The Chaonian dove’ is a quotation from Ecl. 9.13. Leech (1974), ch. 5 explores the theme of unsuccessful song; see also Solodow, J. B., ‘ Poeta impotens: the last three Eclogues ’, Latomus 36 (1977), 757-71Google Scholar.
50 Wright (1983), 112, referring to Berg (1974), 114–6. In a departure from Theocritean practice Virgil introduces actual riddles into his shepherds’ songs at Ecl. 3.104-7 (and cf. 3.40-2). No answers are given in the text, and for each riddle scholars have come up with more than one answer; see Clausen ad loc.,; Dix, T. K., ‘Vergil in the Grynean grove: two riddles in the third Echgue ’, CP 90 (1995), 256-62Google Scholar (citing earlier solutions at 260, n. 13).
51 The tradition that in Ecl. 2 Alexis conceals a slave-boy loved by Virgil = Corydon goes back to Martial (see Clausen on 2.1). See Starr, R. J., ‘Vergil’s seventh Eclogue and its readers: biographical allegory as an interpretative strategy in antiquity and late antiquity’, CP 90 (1995), 129-38Google Scholar. On the impact of Servius’ allegory on the later reception of the Eclogues see Patterson, A., Pastoral and Ideology. Virgil to Valéry (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1987), 24-5Google Scholar. In general on allegory see Rose (1942), ch. 6.
52 The biographical-historical approach (which had already been criticized by Leo, F., ‘Vergils erste und neunte Ecloge’, Hermes 38 (1903), 1–18 Google Scholar) underlies the discussion of Rose (1942). Wilkinson, L. P., ‘Virgil and the evictions’, Hermes 94 (1966), 320-4Google Scholar extracts ‘an intelligible story’ from Eclogues 1 and 9; for a clear-headed reexamination of the issues see Winterbottom, M., ‘Virgil and the confiscations’, in McAuslan, and Walcot, (1990), 65-8Google Scholar. For a recent example of an attempt to make historical sense of the riddles in the text see DuQuesnay (1981), 115–30, who rejects the biographical approach, but applies the utmost ingenuity to accommodate Tityrus’ oblique answers to Meliboeus’ questions in Ecl. 1 to the Realien of Roman slavery and manumission.
53 The tourists: e.g. Rand, E. K., In Quest of Vergi’s Birthplace (Cambridge, Mass., 1930)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
54 The extreme approach is exemplified in Herrmann, L., Les masques et les visages dans les Bucoliques de Virgile (Brussels, 1930)Google Scholar, reading the Eclogues as ‘poésies à clef, and in the articles by Savage, J. J. H., e.g. TAPA 89 (1958), 142-58Google Scholar (Ecl. 3): TAPA 91 (1960), 353–75 (Ecl. 2); 94 (1963), 248–67 (Ecl.7).
55 A more attractive variant of the allegorical approach is the interpretation of the characters of the Eclogues as ‘figures for aspects of Virgil himself in the Jungian reading of the ‘inner autobiography’ of the poems by Lee, M. Owen, Death and Rebirth in Virgil’s Arcadia (Albany, NY, 1989)Google Scholar.
56 The bibliography on Ecl. 4 is vast. The candidates for the identity of the child are conveniently surveyed by Coleman (1977), 150–2; see e.g. Slater, D. A., CR 26 (1912), 114-19Google Scholar (the son of Antony and Octavia, with a useful listing of the parallels with Cat. 64, on which see also Williams (1968), 281–3; DuQuesnay (1977), 68–75); Tarn, W. W., JRS 22 (1932), 135-60Google Scholar; Rose (1942), ch. 8. The question of Virgil’s possible use of Eastern sources (a thesis argued with vast erudition by Norden, E., Die Geburt des Kindes. Geschichte einer religiösen Idee [Leipzig and Berlin, 1924]Google Scholar) is scrupulously weighed by Nisbet, R. G. M., ‘Virgil’s fourth Eclogue: easterners and westerners’, BICS 25 (1978), 59–78 Google Scholar. The ‘generic’ structures of the poem are discussed by DuQuesnay (1977) (who here and in his other writings on the Eclogues makes powerful use of the methodology of Cairns [1972]). There is further useful discussion of the Greco-Roman models in Leach, E. W., ‘ Eclogue 4: symbolism and sources’, Arethusa 4 (1971), 167-84Google Scholar. On the Christian reading see Benko, S., ‘Virgil’s fourth Eclogue in Christian interpretation’, ANRW II 31.1 (1980), 646–705 Google Scholar. On the issue of the relative priority of Eclogue 4 and Horace Epode 16 see recently Clausen (1994), 145–51 (although Clausen is in a minority in holding that Virgil imitates Horace).
57 Golden Age: Ryberg, I. S., ‘Vergil’s Golden Age’, TAPA 89 (1958), 112-31Google Scholar; Gatz, B., Weltalter, goldene Zeit, und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen (Hildesheim, 1967)Google Scholar; Fantazzi, C., ‘Golden age in Arcadia’, Latomus 33 (1974), 280–305 Google Scholar; Galinsky (1996), 91–121; for later returns of the Golden Age see Yates, F. A., Astraea. The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1975)Google Scholar, index s.w. ‘Golden Age, symbol of imperial renovatio’; Levin, H., The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance (London, 1969)Google Scholar.
58 Ecl. 5 and Julius Caesar: Otis (1964), 133–5; DuQuesnay (1976/77), 30–4. Perret, J., ‘Daphnis pâtre et héros: perspectives sur un âge d’or’, REL 60 (1982), 216-33Google Scholar attempts unsuccessfully to close off the historical allegory.
59 In the equivalence of Imperator Caesar and the poet-as-triumphator at the beginning of the third Georgic. The ultimate example of this self-promotion is Ovid’s assertion for himself of an immortality that outbids the divinity of Julius Caesar and Augustus at the end of the Metamorphoses. Berg (1974), ch. 4 takes the Daphnis of Ecl. 5 as a figure of the poet.
60 Although the belief that this is how Alexandrian poets operated is largely hypothetical given the fragmentary state of the evidence. For the arrangement of the one (certainly) surviving Alexandrian poetry book, Callimachus’ Hymns, see Hopkinson, N., Callimachus. Hymn to Demeter (Cambridge, 1984), 13 Google Scholar; in general see N. Krevans, The Poet as Editor: The Poetic Collection from Callimachus to Ovid (forthcoming). Much has been written on the organization of Catullus’ poetry book(s), but the issue is bedevilled by uncertainty as to whether we have Catullus’ own edition of his poems: see W. Clausen in Kenney and Clausen (1982), 193–7. On the structure of the Roman poetry book see Santirocco, M. S., Unity and Design in Horace’s Odes (Chapel Hill and London, 1986), ch. 1 Google Scholar.
61 For a useful survey and critical discussion see Rudd, N., Lines of Enquiry: Studies in Latin Poetry (Cambridge, 1976), ch. 5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clausen 1994, pp. xx-xxvi. Particularly elaborate are the patterns discerned by J. B. van Sickle in various works, e.g. van Sickle (1978).
62 Otis (1964), 130–1, followed by Segal (n. 40).
63 This line begins with Maury, P., ‘Le secret de Virgile et l’architecture des Bucoliques’, Lettres d’Humanité 3 (1944), 71–147 Google Scholar (whose analyses are conveniently accessible in Perret, J., Virgile, rev. edn. (Paris, 1965), 15–30 Google Scholar), and continues with e.g. Brown (1963); Skutsch, O., ‘Symmetry and sense in the Eclogues ’, HSCP 73 (1969), 153-68Google Scholar; cf. the clear-headed discussion in Wilkinson (1969), 316–22.
64 A useful overview of the issues in Coleman (1977), 14–21. Coleiro (1979), 93 lists 20 different orderings. See also Schmidt, E. A., Zur Chronologie der Eklogen Vergib (Heidelberg, 1974)Google Scholar.
65 A continuing debate: see Mankin, D., ‘The addressee of Virgil’s eighth Eclogue: a reconsideration’, Hermes 116 (1988), 63–76 Google Scholar (Octavian); Farrell, J., ‘Asinius Pollio in Vergil Eclogue 8’, CP 86 (1991), 204-11Google Scholar (Pollio); Clausen (1994), 233–9 (Octavian).
66 Cf. the comparable arrangement of Horace’s first book of Satires, whose first three poems conform to an acerbic Lucilian manner, which is then subjected to examination and rethinking in the fourth and subsequent satires: see Zetzel, J. E. G., ‘Horace’s Liber Sermonum: the structure of ambiguity’, Arethusa 13 (1980), 59–77, at 63–5Google Scholar. Hubbard, T. K., ‘Allusive artistry and Vergil’s revisionary program: Eclogues 1–3’, MD 34 (1995), 37–67 Google Scholar reads Eclogues 1–3 ‘as the first act in an intertextual drama of Vergil’s poetic self-emergence’.
67 In The Discovery of the Mind (tr. Rosenmeyer, T. G., Oxford, 1953), ch. 13 Google Scholar (first published in German in 1945) = Commager (1966), 14–27.
68 Jenkyns, R., ‘Virgil and Arcadia’, JRS 79 (1989), 26–39 Google Scholar may go too far in denying that Arcadia is in any sense one of Virgil’s pastoral landscapes, but his scepticism is salutary (his criticism of Snell is anticipated by Jachmann, G., Maia 5 (1952), 161-74Google Scholar). See also Kennedy (n. 34). On the history of the Arcadian ideal see Panofsky, E., ‘ Et in Arcadia ego: Poussin and the elegiac tradition’, in Meaning in the Visual Arts (Garden City, 1955), ch. 7 Google Scholar; Beard, M. and Henderson, J., Classics. A Very Short Introduction (Cambridge, 1995), 102-5, 113–19Google Scholar.
69 On the landscapes of the Eclogues see Flintoff, E., ‘The setting of Virgil’s Eclogues ’, Latomus 33 (1974), 814-6Google Scholar; Clausen (1994), pp. xxvi-xxx.
70 E.g. the various articles by DuQuesnay; Berg (1974).
71 The pessimists include Putnam and Boyle.
72 Leach (1974), 24; Perkell, C. G., CP 91 (1996), 136 Google Scholar ‘The relationship between the poet of the whole poem and individual speakers is one of difference or distance, and therefore of irony.’
73 For an excellent account of the importance of framing in pastoral poetics see Goldhill (1991), ch. 4 ‘Framing, polyphony and desire: Theocritus and Hellenistic poetics’. The notion of the frame is central to the penetrating study of Virgil’s definition of his poetic self and of the relationship between poetry and reality by Rumpf, L., Extremus labor. Vergib 10. Ekbge und die Poetik der Bucolica (Göttingen, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
74 Pöschl, V., Die Hirtendichtung Virgils, (Heidelberg, 1964), 29 Google Scholar.
75 Alpers (1979), 245; 96–103 for a survey of earlier essays in this kind of approach.