Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Kenney, E. J.
and
Clausen, W. V.
1982.
The Cambridge History of Classical Literature.
Article contents
The Copa—II
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In common with other poems of the Appendix Vergiliana, Copa has incurred the a priori suspicion of forgery or post-Virgilian imitation. But if, as I have tried to show, Copa was written under the direct and immediate influence of Theocritus, that suspicion can no longer be permitted to colour and confuse the enquiry into Copa's date and authorship. The poem has acquired the right to do battle with the Eclogues on equal terms for the palm of priority.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1925
References
page 37 note 1 Moreover, both Copa and Eclogues II. bring closely together the lizards and cicalae which are found at a considerable interval apart in Theoc. VII. 21–22 and 138–139.
page 38 note 1 The same argument does not hold good in favour of priority of Eclogues II. against Copa in regard to their imitations of Theoc. XI.
page 38 note 2 At least, I have found no others; though it is hazardous to be dogmatic on the point.
page 39 note 1 See pp. 40, 41, 42.
page 40 note 1 Direct imitation of Theoc. XI. is perhaps shown by ‘lilia lucida’ (v. 30), the adjective reproducing that of κρίνα λευκ⋯ (Theoc. XI. 56): certainly by ‘uacuam pastoris in aulam dux aries saturas ipse reduxit oues,’ which is a translation of Theoc. XI. 12 πολλ⋯κι τα⋯ οῐες ποτ⋯ τ ω ὔ λ ι ο ν α ὐ τ α ⋯ ⋯π⋯νθον, with, I should say, the memory of Virgilian pastoral works in Propertius' head. Propertius is thinking here of the simple Cyclops cave and his offerings to Galatea—hence ‘furtiua per antra’ of v. 33.
Direct imitation of Eclogues II. 45–48 is shown by ‘nunc uiolas tondere manu, nunc mixta referre lilia uirgineos lucida per calathos’ (vv. 29–30): for, while Eclogues II. imitates Theoc. XI. (which Propertius also has in mind), the Virgilian violets are culled from Theoc. VII. 63–64. Virgil combined Theoc. XI. and VII. for his list of garland-flowers, and so came to bring violets and lilies (inter alia) together. Propertius, who makes no direct use of Theoc. VII. and whose plan is very far away from that poem, simply takes over what he finds in Virgil. The violets are not of Theoc. XI. It is easy enough to see how Propertius was led to Eclogues II. and Theoc. XI.
His poem is an elaboration of the Virgilian ‘sordent tibi munera nostra’: Eclogues II. uses Theoc. XI. as a primary source. Without doubt Propertius knew of this fact.
Direct imitation of the Georgics is shown by ‘dique deaeque omnes, quibus est tutela per agros’ (cf. Georgics I. 21 ‘dique deaeque omnes, studium quibus arua tueri’).
Thus, Propertius III. [IV.] xiii. (xii.) 25–42 may fairly be said to constitute a rehash of Theocritean and Virgilian pastoral motives.
- 1
- Cited by