Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-16T15:24:32.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gallus and The Culex*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Duncan F. Kennedy
Duncan F. Kennedy
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Culex remains the most bewildering of poems. The consensus of modern opinion holds that it is a deliberate forgery, post-Ovidian in date, purporting to be a work of the youthful Virgil and thus serving to fill the large biographical vacuum in the career of the poet before the publication of the Eclogues. If this is the case, it must be asked why the forger chose to fill that gap with a poem thematically and stylistically so idiosyncratic which nevertheless managed to gain ready acceptance as Virgilian by the end of the first century A.D. This is a very large question, but in postulating the close dependence of parts of the poem on Cornelius Gallus (I), particularly on his symbolism of poetic inspiration (II–V), I hope to go some of the way towards providing an answer (VI). If this article is directed primarily at the problem of the Culex, I would like to think it makes a contribution also to the much more important study of Gallus, whose reputation has suffered somewhat since the publication of those wretched lines from Qasr Ibrîm. Yet, if not a single line of his work had survived, the one thing we could say of his poetry with confidence is that it inspired. Anyone trying to make an assessment of Gallus' poetic achievement should first make a close study of Virgil's Sixth and Tenth Eclogues and then ask whether fragments have ever formed a firm basis for the evaluation of an author's work. Rehabilitation should not be necessary.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , December 1982 , pp. 371 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

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 Stated authoritatively by Fraenkel, E., ‘The Culex’, JRS 42 (1952), 1–9Google Scholar = Kleine Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie II (Rome, 1964), pp. 181–97,Google Scholar and argued for in greater detail by Güntzschel, D., Beiträge zur Datierung des Culex (Münister, 1972).Google Scholar The conclusions of the latter are conveniently summarized in the review of Courtney, E., Gnomon 46 (1974), 810–12.Google Scholar A dissenting voice: Barrett, A. A., ‘The Authorship of the Culex: an Evaluation of the Evidence’, Latomus 29 (1970), 348–62.Google Scholar

2 cf. Suet. Vita Lucani (ed. Reifferscheid, p. 50), Stat. Silv. 1 praef., 2. 7. 73 f., Mart. 8. 56. 19 f., 14. 185.

3 cf. Anderson, R. D., Parsons, P. J. and Nisbet, R. G. M., ‘Elegiacs by Gallus from Qasr Ibrîm’, JRS 69 (1979), 125–55.Google Scholar

4 A feature of high neoteric style, cf. Ross, D. O. Jr., Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy and Rome (Cambridge, 1975; hereafter: Ross, Backgrounds), pp. 54 f.Google Scholar on Catul. 64 and Prop. 1. 3, and Curran, L. C., ‘Greek Words and Myth in Propertius 1. 20’, GRBS 5 (1964), 281 ff.Google Scholar

5 cf. Ross, D. O. Jr., Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, Mass., 1969; hereafter: Ross, Style), pp. 132 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The percentage for the Culex as a whole is 10·6. which should be compared with the following (the figures are taken from Norden, E., P. Vergilius Maro: Aeneis Buch VI 3 (Berlin, 1926), p. 394): Lucr.(1+6),0·7;Cic. Arat.,7·7;Catul.64, 14·2; Verg.Ecl.,4·7;G.(1+4), 6·1 (in G. 4. 281–558, this rises to 11·9); A. (1+6), 2·3.Google Scholar

6 The only true parallel (noted by Bücheler, F., ‘Coniectanea’, RhM 45 (1890), 326) is Luc. 3. 295 ‘usque Paraetonias Eoa ad litora Syrtis’; cf. Housman ad loc.Google Scholar

7 cf. Thes. L. L. v. 2. 898. 2.

8 cf. Thes. L. L. vii. 2. 814. 6 ff.

9 cf. Enn. sc. 113, with Jocelyn's note ad loc.

10 cf. Macrob. Sat. 6. 4. 14 f., and R. D. Williams on Verg. A. 3. 699.

11 No fewer than four of the seven instances of this phrase in Virgil occur in the Aristaeus epyllion (G. 4. 360, 416, 446, 513), suggesting that it may have been characteristically neoteric.

12 Skutsch, F., Aus Vergils Frühzeit (Leipzig, 1901), p. 125 n., was the first to draw attention to the similarities between Ov. Rem. 178–81 and the Culex; they are, however, more widespread than he realized.Google Scholar

13 cf. the appositional hyperbaton in Culex 51.

14 First adduced by Plésent, C., Le Culex. Etude sur l'Alexandrinisme latin (Paris, 1910), p. 119.Google Scholar

15 Güntzschel, op. cit., pp. 73 ff. Even if direct dependence could be demonstrated, cumulatively the similarities noted would not suffice to explain the degree of stylistic peculiarity in Culex 48 ff.

16 These lines are closely paralleled by Tr. 4. 1. 11 f. ‘fessus ubi incubuit baculo saxove resedit/pastor, harundineo carmine mulcet oves’; cf. also Tr. 4. 1. 12 with Rem. 181 and Culex 100.

17 The motif occurs elsewhere only later, in Ilias 888 ‘tondent prata greges, pendent in rupe capellae’, and Mart. 13. 99. 1 f. ‘pendentem summa capream de rupe videbis:/casuram speres’.

18 The countryside and rural pursuits as a stock remedy for love were familiar to Roman poets by the time of Horace's Second Epode, cf. 37 f. ‘quis non malarum, quas amor curas habet/haec inter (sc. negotia rustica) obliviscitur?’. The theme derives ultimately from Greek poetry, cf. especially Eur. Hipp. 207 ff.

19 Ross, Backgrounds, pp. 86 f., has stated the case well for taking Servius' famous comment on Ecl. 10. 46 ff. (‘hi autem omnes versus Galli sunt, de ipsius translati carminibus’) to refer to more than just these lines, and for seeing the Tenth Eclogue as a reworking of themes already composed by Gallus. For Servius' use of transferre in this sense cf. Boucher, J.-P., Caius Cornélius Gallus (Paris, 1966), p. 80 n. 43. The Tenth Eclogue is, I think, a sincere though not, as many critics take it, solemn tribute to Gallus' recently appeared elegies (cf. 73 f. ‘cuius amor tantum mihi crescit in horas/quantum vere novo viridis se subicit alnus’ with 54 ‘crescent illae (sc. arbores), crescetis amores’; for the significance of this motif cf. section II below), and as such a reflection of them. Allusion to Gallus' poetry, as I hope will emerge in this paper, pervades the whole poem.Google Scholar

20 55–70 seem to be a rhapsody on the general theme of Gallus' attempts to forget his amatory troubles, perhaps combining allusions to a number of Gallan elegies, as seems to be the case earlier in the poem; thus his wistful invitation to his beloved to share life in the country (42–3) may reflect a poem like Tib. 1.1, while his pleas to Lycoris in 44–9 may derive from a propemptic poem like Prop. 1. 8, cf. F. Skutsch, op. cit., p. 12.

21 Ecl. 10.68 contains echoes of Theocr. 7.111–14, as F. Skutsch, op. cit., p. 16 noted. Perhaps Virgil is echoing Gallus, who is drawing on Theocritus (cf. Ecl. 10. 50 f., and F. Skutsch, op. cit., p. 21), rather than Virgil drawing directly on Theocritus to give the Eclogue more pastoral colouring.

22 All four passages treated (and cf. Hor. Epod. 2.11 f. and Ov. Tr. 4. 1. 11 f.) stress the pleasure or consolation to be derived from watching herds graze. This might well have been influenced by the context of a remedy for love.

23 Axelson, B., ‘Lygdamus und Ovid: zur Methodik der literarischen Prioritätsbestimmung’, Eranos 58 (1960), 110: ‘eine vernünftige Methode operiert nicht ohne weiteres mit den Kriterien “besser” und “schlechter”, sie fragt in erster Linie, um nun die Sache so kurz – und so streng – wie möglich auszudrücken, ob die verdächtige Fassung in ihrem organischen Zusammenhang (wenn sie überhaupt einen hat!) ohne die parallele Fassung genetisch denkbar ist oder nicht’.Google Scholar

24 For the likelihood, based on independent evidence, that archaism was a prominent feature of the style of Gallus, cf. Ross, Backgrounds, p. 79.

25 cf. elsewhere Verg. Ecl. 8. 16, Prop. 4. 2. 39, Ov. Met. 2. 218, 8. 218, 14. 655, Tr. 4. 1. 11.

26 cf. Thes.L.L. II. 1670. 75 ff.

27 cf. Smith, P. L., ‘Virgil's avena and the Pipes of Pastoral Poetry’, TAPA 101 (1970), 506.Google Scholar

28 For which cf. also Tib. 2. 1. 53 f., [Verg.] A. 1. 1 a–b, Calp. Ecl. 4. 63, V. Fl. 4. 386, Nemes. Eel. 1. 71 (Thes. L. L. vIII. 1247. 7ff.).

29 cf. however the similar use of meditari in Ecl. 1. 2 and 6. 8; modulari is found in the sense ‘play’ in Ecl. 5. 14 ‘modulans alterna notavi’.

30 cf. Gow on Theocr. 2. 142 and 8. 23.

31 The classic treatment of the subject in Latin poetry is still that of Haupt, M., Opuscula I (Leipzig, 1875), pp. 115 ff.Google Scholar; cf. too Norden, E., Aeneis VI 3 (Berlin, 1926), p. 402, Ross, Style, pp. 67 ff. and J. B. A. Hofmann in Thes. L. L. v. 2. 897. 52 ff.Google Scholar

32 The conjunctions involved being nam, namque, atque, nec/neque, at and sed, cf. Ross, Style, loc. cit.

33 cf. Thes. L. L. v. 2. 897. 74 f.

34 Again probably influenced by Hellenistic practice, cf. Pfeiffer on Call. fr. 6.

35 ‘Zu Vergils Eklogen’, RhM 99 (1956), 198 f.Google Scholar The new Gallus fragment (JRS 69 (1979), 140) does not contain an instance, but does at least (lines 4–5) indicate Gallus' freedom in altering accepted word-order. I would draw particular attention to the example of the schema in Ov. Rem. 182, particularly the use of turba, comparing Prop. 3. 3. 31, cited above.Google Scholar

36 cf. Thes. L. L. vI. 3. 2520. 73 ff.

37 ‘hoc autem ad superiora pertinet, quia dixerat “mixtis lustrabo Maenala nymphis”’.

38 Backgrounds, p. 95 n. 4.

39 cf. OLD s.v. 5 and Serv. on Ecl. 10. 1 ‘amorum suorum de Cytheride libros quattuor’; perhaps the title of his elegies, cf. Boucher, op. cit., p. 72 n. 10. The ambiguity was first noted by F. Skutsch, op. cit., p. 23.

40 cf. Verg. Ecl. 5. 13 f., Ov. Ep. 5. 27 ff., Nemes. Ecl. 1. 28 f.; Calpurnius quotes a poem of some 56 lines allegedly written on a tree (Ecl. 1. 33–88).

41 cf. too Serv. on Ecl. 10.62 ‘nymphae quae cum arboribus et nascuntur et pereunt’; similarly Probus on G. 1. 11.

42 For descriptions of the deaths of nymphs whose trees are cut down, cf. Hom. Hym. Aphr. 257 ff., Call. Hym. 4. 82 f., Apoll. Rh. 2. 476 ff., Ov. Met. 8. 761 ff.; also Fast. 4. 231 ff.

43 Boucher, J.-P., Etudes sur Properce (Paris, 1965), p. 285.Google Scholar

44 Although Virgil does not use the Hamadryads in the Eclogues independently of Gallus, we shall see in due course (section IV below) how closely Gallus' symbolism of poetic inspiration is linked to Virgil's in the Eclogues. Hence the ease with which Propertius can invoke Gallan symbolism to pass a critical judgement on the Eclogues as love poems.

45 I follow Bailey, D. R. Shackleton, Propertiana (Cambridge, 1956), p. 134,Google Scholar in taking ‘haec’ to refer to the Eclogues, against Butler and Barber, Camps (notes ad loc.), Vessey, D. W. T. C., ‘Nescio quid maius’, PVS 9 (1969/1970), 67,Google Scholar and Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘The Neoteric Poets’, CQ n.s. 28 (1978), 177, who understand it to refer to Propertius' own elegies. Propertius' claim to merit and prospective fame does not come until his survey of his predecessors is complete, that is, not until the last two lines of the poem (thus Enk, note ad loc.). That ‘haec’ refers to the Eclogues is surely clinched by the obvious echoes of Virgil's own hesitant claim for the Eclogues to be regarded as love poetry (6. 9 f.): ‘si quis tamen haec quoque, si quis/captus amore leget’.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Not Venus and Anchises, cf. the judicious note of Camps ad loc.

47 Propertius often seems to use ‘Cynthia’ to represent not only his mistress but his love poetry as well; cf. the demonstration of this for 2. 30 by Cairns, F., CQ n.s. 21 (1971), 204–13, and the remarks of Ross, Backgrounds, pp. 58 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 cf. Camps' note to line 37.

49 cf. Verg. Ecl. 6 passim. Prop. 3. 3. 29 and also Verg. G. 2. 494 ‘Silvanumque senem’, a passage dealing with the sources of Virgil's inspiration. For the assimilation of Silvanus and Silenus cf. Coleman's note to Verg. Ecl. 10. 24.

50 cf. Verg. Ecl. 6. 64 ff.

51 The story of Oenone was one of the tales of tragic love (no. 4) collected by Parthenius for Gallus. It seems to have been a subject rarely treated in Latin poetry; for full details cf. Jacobson, H., Ovid's Heroides (Princeton, 1974), pp. 176 ff., who comments: ‘It is surprising, indeed unaccountable, to me that Oenone is hardly mentioned in Latin poetry, not even in comedy or elegy’. One reason for Ovid's choice of the story for treatment in the Heroides may have been that it was already known in a famous literary version. Of particular interest is Ovid's introduction of the theme of carving the name of one's beloved on trees (Ep. 5. 21 ff.): ‘incisae servant a te mea nomina fagi/et legor Oenone falce notata tua/…/ (25) et quantum trunci, tantum mea nomina crescunt’. A short poem is inscribed on the bark in 29 f.; cf. 25 and Verg. Ecl. 10. 54; also Ep. 5. 13 ‘saepe greges inter requievimus arbore tecti’ with Prop. 2. 32. 36 ‘atque inter pecudes accubuisse deam’.Google Scholar

52 Again we shall see in due course (section IV below) that satyrs are an integral part of Gallus' symbolism of poetic inspiration.

53 cf. Anth. Pal. 6. 189. 1 , with Gow-Page's note ad loc.

54 Backgrounds, pp. 74–81. Whatever about the Gallus of Prop. 1. 5, 10 and 13, it is almost universally agreed that the addressee of 1. 20 is the poet. Almost, but not quite: cf. Syme, R., History in Ovid (Oxford, 1978), pp. 99 ff. But the application of strict historical reasoning to a poetic persona is not always appropriate.Google Scholar

55 As he appears to be doing also in 1. 20. 45 f., cf. n. 89 below.

56 The subject-matter of Prop. 1. 20 immediately brings to mind the introduction of homosexual themes into love poetry. Verg. Ecl. 10. 37 f. ‘certe sive mihi Phyllis sive esset Amyntas/seu quicumque furor…’ would seem to indicate a homosexual element in Gallus' poetry. It has long been seen that Prop. 1. 20. 32 is similar to a line of Alexander of Aetolus preserved in Parthenius Erot. 14 αὐ;***⋯ς (viz. a bucket).The context of the line concerns a boy, Antheus, who crawls down a well to retrieve a golden bucket, a striking coincidence with the scene described in Propertius. We known from Aulus Gellius (13. 27) that Virgil once translated a line from Parthenius (viz. G. 1. 437). Gallus may have done the same sometimes with his Greek sources – especially those singled out for his special consideration. If so, he will have written Ephydriasin (as conjectured by E. Baehrens for Prop. 1. 20. 32, cf. Ross, Backgrounds, p. 80). Propertius will then have been parodying the line, and by introducing Gallus' own Hamadryads, will have been making a pointed literary remark, perhaps about the effect of Gallus' choice of subject-matter on his literary reputation.

57 ‘rura mihi et rigui placeant in vallibus amnes,/flumina amem silvasque inglorius. o ubi campi/Spercheosque et virginibus bacchata Lacaenis/Taygeta! o qui me gelidis con vallibus Haemi/sistat, et ingenti ramorum protegat umbra!’

58 cf. Culex 76 ff., where we are told that the herdsman finds pleasing ‘rorantes lacte capellae’ (cf. ‘pecudes’, 94), ‘fecunda Pales’ (cf. ‘Panes’, rural deities) and ‘vallibus intus/semper opaca novis manantia fontibus antra’ (cf. ‘gratissima tempe’).

59 cf. Thes. L. L. II. 772. 40 f.

60 Propertius' other allusive references to Hesiod in programmatic passages (2. 10. 25, 2. 13. 4) may have their origins in Gallan poetics, cf. Ross, Backgrounds, pp. 32, 119 f.

61 Housman, A. E., ‘Remarks on the Culex’, CR 16 (1902), 340 = Classical Papers II (ed. J. Diggle and F. R. D. Goodyear, Cambridge, 1972), p. 565.Google Scholar

62 Leo, F., Culex: carmen Vergilio adscriptum (Berlin, 1891), p. 46.Google Scholar

63 ‘On Culex 93, 94 (sic)’, CR 16 (1902), 416.Google Scholar

64 Publii Virgilii Maronis quae vulgo feruntur carmina Culex Ciris Copa Moretum recensuit et Heynii suasque observationes addidit Julius Sillig (Leipzig/London, 1832),Google Scholar ad loc.; supported by Helm, R., ‘Beiträge zum Culex’, Hermes 81 (1953), 59.Google Scholar

65 ‘Ciris v. 48’, RhM 68 (1913), 457;Google Scholar cf. Schmidt, M.,‘Textkritisches zum Culex’, Philologus 99 (1955), 317, who proposed fana<et>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 cf. Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Carm. 1. 26. 6.

67 cf. Skutsch, O., ‘Culex 59’, HSPh 72 (1967), 309 f.Google Scholar

68 Who were originally water nymphs, cf. RE (s.v. Musai) xvi. 692. 11 ff.

69 cf. Roscher, W. H. (ed.), Ausführliches Lexicon der griech. u. röm. Mythologie II (Leipzig/Berlin, 1884–1937) (s.v. Musagetes) 3233. 57 ff.Google Scholar

70 The date of Lygdamus is a vexing problem; there is even now no communis opinio. Some (most prominently A. G. Lee, ‘The Date of Lygdamus, and his Relationship to Ovid’, PCPhS n.s. 5 (1958/9), 15–22,Google Scholar and Axelson, B., ‘Lygdamus und Ovid: zur Methodik der literanschen Prioritätsbestimmung’, Eranos 58 (1960), 92–111Google Scholar) put the date of his birth as late as A.D. 69. More recently there has been a reaction to this view, and his apparent claim (5. 17 f.) to be a contemporary of Ovid has been given wider credence, cf. Büchner, K., ‘Die Elegien des Lygdamus’, Hermes 93 (1965), 65–112Google Scholar and Erath, W., Die Dichtung des Lygdamus (diss. Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1971), pp. 297–9. However, the problem is relevant here only if there is a direct connection between him and the Culex.Google Scholar

71 ‘De Lygdamo poeta deque eius sodalicio’, Mnemosyne 45 (1917), 104, 111 f.Google Scholar

72 To the bibliography cited by Güntzschel, op. cit., p. 66 n. 30, add Erath, op. cit., p. 37.

73 Erath, loc. cit.

74 For bibliography cf. Güntzschel, op. cit., p. 66 n. 30.

75 cf. Call. Hym. 4. 7, Lycophr. 275.

76 Naiads are also invoked in Grat. 17 f. and Stat. Silv. 1. 5. 6.

77 cf. Ross, Backgrounds, pp. 87 ff., 97.

78 cf. Hor. Carm. 1. 12. 6, with Nisbet-Hubbard's note ad loc, and Brown, A. D. Fitton, ‘Muses on Pindos’, G&R n.s. 8 (1961), 22–6.Google Scholar

79 The identification gains corroboration from the fact that Virgil, drawing on Hellenistic precedents (e.g. Lycophr. 274), can elsewhere call the Muses ‘Nymphae’ (Ecl. 7. 21, with Coleman's note ad loc.).

80 cf. too Ov. Met. 3. 505 f., Sil. 6. 288 f.

81 The ecphrasis of a grove was one of the most common themes throughout the history of Roman poetry (cf. Hor. Ars 16, Persius 1. 70 f.), cf. the rudimentary examples at Verg. A. 1. 441 ff., 3. 679 ff., 8. 597 ff., Prop. 4. 4. 3 ft., Ov. Met. 3. 155 f., Luc. 3. 399 ff., Sil. 6. 146 ff. Such ecphrases could be very elaborate, cf. Enn. Ann. 187–91 V2, Var. Men. 389 ff., Verg. A. 6. 179 ff., 11. 135 ff., Ov. Met. 10. 90 ff. (27 species), Luc. 3. 440 ff, Sen. Oed. 530 ff. (8 species), [Sen.] Her. O. 1618 ff., Sil. 10. 529 ff., Stat. Theb. 6. 98 ff. (13 species), Claud, de Rapt. Pros.2. 107 ff. (9 species).

82 cf. Clausen, W. V., ‘The Textual Tradition of the Culex’, HSPh 68 (1964), 129.Google Scholar

83 cf. Culex 151 f. ‘hac querulae referunt voces quis nantia limo/corpora lympha fovet’.

84 cf. especially Verg. G. 4. 510 ‘agentem carmine quercus’, Ecl. 3. 46 and Ov. Met. 10. 88 ff.

85 Pan (17) and Silvanus (20) are also invoked.

86 cf. Verg. G. 1. 17 f. ‘Pan…/…o Tegeaee’.

87 Compare Calpurnius' estimate of Virgil (Ecl. 4. 64 ff.) ‘magna petis, Corydon, si Tityrus esse laboras./ille fuit vates sacer et qui posset avena/praesonuisse chelyn, blandae cui saepe canenti/allusere ferae, cui substitit advena quercus’; also Ecl. 2. 12 ff. (the spectators at the singing match of Idas and Astacus) ‘convenit umbrosa quicumque sub ilice lentas/pascit oves, Faunusque pater Satyrique bicornes;/adfuerunt sicco Dryades pede, Naides udo,/et tenuere suos properantia flumina cursus’. Cf. also Verg. Ecl. 5. 73‘ saltantis Satyros imitabitur Alphesiboeus’ and Hor. Carm. 1. 1. 30 ff. ‘me gelidum nemus/nympharumque leves cum satyris chori/secernunt’.

88 Note that they are requested to honour Apollo ‘ludente chorea’ (19).

89 It is possible to be more specific about a number of details. The plural form Panes (Culex 115, cf. 94, another passage influenced by Gallus) may be Gallan. It never occurs in Virgil and is found elsewhere in Latin poetry only in Ov. Ep. 4. 171 (see below), Met. 14. 638, Fast. 1. 397, Luc. 3. 399 (cf. note 100 below), Sen. Phaed. 784 (in the company of Naiads and Dryads), Stat. Silv. 2. 2. 106 and Col. 10. 427. ‘Dryadesque. …puellae’ (Culex 116) may also reflect Gallus, cf. the only other occurrences of this phrase (Thes. L. L. Onom. in. 260. 54), Verg. Ecl. 5. 58 f. ‘ergo alacris silvas et cetera rura voluptas/Panaque pastoresque tenet Dryadasque puellas’, G. 1. 11 (cited above), Prop. 1. 20. 45 f. ‘cuius ut accensae Dryades candore puellae/miratae solitos destituere choros’. This, together with the importance of the dance of the nymphs for Gallus, adds some weight to the argument that sees Prop. 1. 20 as a critique of certain aspects of Gallus' poetry. Bearing in mind Gallus' conjectured partiality for appositional hyperbaton and his use of minor rural deities, the following lines of Ovid would appear to look back to Gallan prototypes: Ep. 4. 171 ‘sic faveant Satyri montanaque numina Panes’, Met. 1. 192 f. ‘rustica numina Nymphae/Faunique Satyrique et monticolae Silvani’ and 6. 392 f. ‘ruricolae, silvarum numina, Fauni/et Satyri fratres’. Cf. too Verg. G. 1. 10.

90 And influenced in turn by Moschus 3. 26–9, where Satyrs, Pans and Priapi mourn for the poet Bion. It is from sources such as this that Gallus will have developed his symbolism.

91 Orpheus must have played a prominent role in the poetry of Gallus, not only as a singer, but also as a lover whose sorrow was reflected by his wild surroundings: compare Verg. G. 4.

92 cf. Culex 20 f., 77 ‘fecunda Pales’ (= Calp. Ecl. 7. 22) and RE (s.v. Pales) xvIII. 3. 89–97. The ancients connected the name of the festival of Pales, the Parilia, etymologically with parere, cf. Paul. Fest. 248L.

93 cf. the useful collection of material in Engel, G., De antiquorum epicorum didacticorum historicorum prooemiis (diss. Marburg, 1910).Google Scholar

94 cf. Baehrens, W. A., ‘Zum Prooemium des Culex”, Philologus 81 (1926), 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

95 cf. Nisbet-Hubbard on Hor. Carm. 1. 1. 30.

96 Calp. Ecl. 2. 36, 4. 106, 5. 25, 7. 22, Nemes. Ecl. 1. 68, 2. 52, 55.

97 1. 1. 36, 2. 5. 28 and cf. K. F. Smith's note on Tib. 1. 2. 48.

98 i.e. Hamadryads.

99 cf. Culex 23‘te cultrice vagus saltus feror inter et antra’. errare is found a few times elsewhere to suggest a state of poetic inspiration, cf. Verg. Ecl. 6.64 ‘errantem Permessi ad flumina Gallum’, Hor. Carm. 3. 4. 6 f. ‘videor pios/errare per lucos’, and perhaps also Nemes. Cyn. 53 f. ‘nos flumineas errare per umbras/malumus’. In view of Verg. Ecl. 6. 64 and the influence of Gallus on the invocation of Pales in Culex 20 ff., it is likely that he lies behind the use of vagus in Culex 23. Norden (on Verg. A. 6. 10) notes that antrum, a loan-word from Greek, is found first in Verg. Ecl. 1.75, and suggests that it was introduced into Latin by the neoterics. The possibility of Gallan influence on Verg. Ecl. 1. 75 (cf. section I) and on the invocation of Pales in Culex 20 ff. would tend to confirm the conjecture of Ross (Backgrounds, p. 63) that its introduction was the work of Gallus.

100 Luc. 3. 399 f. may conceal a polemical overtone: ‘hunc (sc. lucum) non ruricolae Panes nemorumque potentes/Silvani Nymphaeque tenent’.

101 cf. Serv. on Ecl. 6. 72; for reservations about Servius' knowledge of the poem, cf. Lyne, op. cit. (n. 45 above), 186 n. 68.