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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In Book 19, chapter 9 of the Nodes Atticae Gellius describes the birthday party of a young Greek of equestrian rank at which a group of professional singers entertained the guests by performing poems by Anacreon, Sappho, ‘et poetarum quoque recentium ⋯λεγεῖα quaedam erotica’ (4). After the singing, Gellius goes on, some of the Greek συμπόται present challenged Roman achievements in erotic poetry, excepting only Catullus and Calvus, and criticized in particular Laevius, Hortensius, Cinna, and Memmius. Rising to meet this charge, Gellius’ teacher of rhetoric, Antonius Julianus, admits the superiority of the Greeks in what he calls ‘cantilenarum mollitiae’ in general (8), but to show that the Romans too have some good erotic poets, he recites four early Latin love epigrams, by Valerius Aedituus (frs. 1 and 2), Porcius Licinus (fr. 6), and Lutatius Catulus (fr. I). The same three poets are listed in the same order in Apuleius’ Apology in a list of amatory poets which he provides in order to establish precedents and thus invalidate his prosecutors’ referral to his erotic poems in their accusation (Apul. Apol. 9). Catulus is also enumerated in Pliny's list of Roman dignitaries who composed ‘uersiculos seueros parum’ like his own (Ep. 5.3.5), and an amatory epigram of his is cited by Cicero in De Natura Deorum 1.79 (fr. 2). We possess no further evidence connecting the other two with the composition of either erotic or, more generally, ‘light’ verse, but a poem by Porcius Licinus on Roman literary history is attested by several sources including Varro, Suetonius, and Gellius himself.
1 Fragments are numbered according to Morel-Bländorf, FPL (Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1995).Google Scholar In Courtney, E., The Fragmentary Latin Poets (Oxford, 1993)Google Scholar Licinus’ epigram is numbered fr. 7.
2 FPL frs. 1–5 (Courtney 1–6).
3 M. J. Hertz in his 1883—5 edition of Gellius, vol. 2, p. vi, and especially Marache, R., La critique littèraire de langue latine et le dèveloppement du goût archaïsant au IF siécle de notre ére (Rennes, 1952), 331Google Scholar; id., ‘Fronton et A. Gellius (1938–1964)’, Lustrum 10 (1965), 229–31 (a survey of bibliography); and his edition of Gellius, vol. 1 (Paris, 1967), x-xii.
4 Usener, H., ‘Nochmals Valerius Aedituus’, RhM 20 (1865), 150–1 = Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1912–13; repr. Osnabriick, 1965)Google Scholar, 2.65; Alfonsi, L., Poetae Novi (Como, 1945), 11–12Google Scholar; Luiselli, B., ‘Apul. De Mag. 9; Gell. XIX,9,10 e Valerio Edituo, Porcio Licinio e Lutazio Catulo’, AFLC 28 (1960), 125–33.Google Scholar
5 Holford-Strevens, L. A., ‘Towards a chronology of Aulus Gellius’, Latomus 36 (1977), 93–109Google Scholar, at 102—4; id., Aulus Gellius (London, 1988), 16–19; Courtney (n. 1), 71. The connection between Gellius and Apuleius is, of course, confirmed if the ‘amicus meus, οὐκ ἄμουσος adulescens’ to whom Gellius ascribes a Latin adaptation of a Platonic distich (19.11.3) is Apuleius, as many now believe; for which see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius, 17, n. 57.
6 On Latin anthologies in general, see Riese, A., Anthologia Latina (Leipzig, 19062)Google Scholar, 1.1, viii-ix; Heyworth, S. J., ‘Propertius: division, transmission, and the editor's task’, PLLS 8 (1995), 165–85Google Scholar, at 170–1, 178.
7 see Goldberg, C. (ed.), Carmina Priapea: Einleitung, Übersetzung, Interpretation und Kommentar (Heidelberg, 1992), 30–4.Google Scholar
8 Lyne, R. O. A. M., ‘The dating of the Ciris’, CQ 21 (1971), 233–8.Google Scholar
9 Quint. Inst. 8.3.27–8. see Boerma, R. E. H. Westendorp, P. Vergili Maronis Catalepton (Assen, 1949)Google Scholar, xlviii-xlix; and on the Appendix in general, id., ‘Oú en est aujourd'hui l'ènigme de l'appendix Vergilana?’, in Bardon, H. et Vardiére, P. (edd.), Vergiliana, Recherches sur Virgile (Leiden, 1971), 386–421Google Scholar; Richmond, J. A., ‘De forma libelli qui Catalepton inscribitur’, Mnemosyne 28 (1975), 420–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 But see Tränkle, H., Appendix Tibulliana (Berlin and New York, 1990), 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who argues for a later date.
11 I admit that Porphyio's ‘saturarum scriptor, cuius sunt electae… saturae’ is not altogether clear. Dr S. J. Heyworth has suggested to me that this might mean a composition in imitation of selected passages from the earlier authors of Saturae, but though a possessive with verbs of composition may carry this meaning (e.g. Gell. 9.9.3 ‘Vergilius cum aut Homeri… locos effingeret”), I am not sure the combination with electae could have been understood in this sense. The possibility that Florus made a pastiche of passages from the authors is not to be ruled out, but in that case he would have produced a sort of miscellaneous anthology just the same.
12 For Suffenus cf. Cat. 22, and for his possible identification with Alfenus Varus, Frank, T., ‘Catullus and Horace on Suffenus and Alfenus’, CQ 14 (1920), 160–2.Google Scholar
13 Fordyce, C. J., Catullus. A Commentary (Oxford, 1961, repr. 1965), 135.Google Scholar The view that Calvus compiled the collection himself is also held by E. T. Merrill (Cambridge, MA, 1893), and Ferguson, J., Catullus (Lawrence, KS, 1985).Google Scholar Among scholars who assume a published anthology are Kroll, W., Catullus (Stuttgart, 19593), 30Google Scholar; Quinn, K., Catullus: The Poems (London, 1970)Google Scholar, and Thomson, D. F. S., Catullus, Edited with a Textual and Interpretative Commentary (Toronto, 1997).Google Scholar
14 For this meaning of litterator, see Suet. Gram. 4.
15 For the ‘practical joke’ interpretation, see Kroll (n. 13), Merrill (n. 13), Ellis, R., A Commentary on Catullus (Oxford, 1889)Google Scholar, Ferguson (n. 13), and Fraenkel, E., ‘Catulls Trostgedicht fur Calvus’, WS 69 (1956), 278–88Google Scholar, at 281. That Catullus regarded Calvus’ gift as a practical joke is implied by salse in line 16, but, as Thomson (n. 13), 244, observes, the joke could just as well consist of choosing to send his friend a published anthology of particularly bad poems.
16 For example, Quint. Inst. 2.15.24; Plin. Ep. 6.20.5; Fro. M. Caes. 2.8.3,3.9.3, 3.19.2;Ant.Imp. 3.8.2, 4.1.1. For the use of such anthologies in education, see Marrou, H.-I., Histoire de l'èducation dans l'antiquitè (Paris, 1965), 233Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Endofthe Hellenistic Age (Oxford, 1968), 145.Google Scholar
17 Cavenaile, CPL 24, Pack2 2918.
18 see Reynolds, L. D., Texts and Transmission (Oxford, 1983), 343.Google Scholar
19 On the Gallus fragments, Heyworth, S. J., ‘A note on the Gallus fragment’, LCM 9 (1984), 63–4Google Scholar; Courtney (n. 1), 264. On Propertius’ Monobiblos, Heyworth (n. 6), 175–8.
20 see Gallazzi, C., ‘P. Narm. inv. 66.362: Vergilius, Eclogue VIII53–62’, ZPE4 (1982), 75–8.Google Scholar
21 see Friedrich, O., Publilii Syri Mimi Sententiae (Berlin, 1880), 4–8Google Scholar; K. Horna, RE Suppl. 6, 74ff.; Barns, J., ‘A new gnomologium with some remarks on gnomic anthologies’, CQ 44 (1950), 126–37Google Scholar (esp. 133–7) and CQ 1 (1951), 1–19.
22 For example, Knoche, U., ‘Erlebnis und dichterischer Ausdruck in der lateinischen Poesie’, Gymnasium 65 (1958), 146–65 at 151–2.Google Scholar
23 Quint, Inst. 8.6.73 ‘Et quod Cicero [est] in quodam ioculari libello.’ Tac. Dial. 21.6 ‘nisi qui et carmina eorundem (= Caesaris et Bruti) miratur. fecerunt enim et carmina et in bibliothecas rettulerunt, non melius quam Cicero, sed felicius, quia illos fecisse pauciores sciunt'Anna, ‘Alcune osservazioni sulle fonti di Gellio, N.A. XVII.21 e sulla cronologia geronimiana dei poeti latini arcaici’, ArchClass 25/6 (1973/4), 166–237 at 196–8.
25 see Coleman, R., Vergil: Eclogues (Cambridge, 1911)Google Scholarad Ecl. 6.12; Geymonat, M., ‘Ancorasul titolo delle Bucoliche’, BICS 29 (1982), 17–18.Google Scholar
26 see Von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker (Berlin, 1906), 127–9Google Scholar; A. S. F. Gow's edition of Theocritus (Cambridge, 1952), lix-lxii; K. Gutzwiller, ‘The evidence for Theocritean poetry books’, in Harder, M. A., Regtuit, R. F., and Wakker, G. C. (edd.), Theocritus—Hellenistica Groningana II (Groningen, 1996), 119–48Google Scholar, esp 138.
27 Dahlmann, H., ‘Studien zu Varro “de poetis”’, AAWM (1962), no. 10, 602.Google Scholar
28 This possibility is suggested by Dahlmann, H., ‘Varros Schrift “de Poematis” und die hellenistisch-römische Poetik’, AAWM (1953), no. 3,147, n. 2.Google Scholar
29 ‘Negat Cicero si duplicitur sibi aetas, habiturum se tempus quo legat lyricos.’ The term lyricus was used by Romans to designate all types of light verse: Porphyr. ad Hor. C. 3.1.2–3 (on Laevius’ Erotopaegnia); Diom. Keil, GL 1.483.5–6 (on Archilochus’ poetry). See Cicero, Hortensius, ed. A. Grilli (Milano-Varese, 1962), firs. 4, 6, 8–12.
30 See n. 4 above.
31 Buttner, R., Porcius Licinus und der litterarische Kreis des Q. Lutatius Catulus (Leipzig, 1893).Google Scholar
32 Catulus’ connection with Antias: Cic. Brut. 132; with Archias: Cic. Arch. 5; with Antipater of Sidon: Cic. de Oral. 3.194. 33 For discussions of Büttner's theory, see Bardon, H., ‘Q. Lutatius Catulus et son ”cercle littèraire”’, LEC 18 (1950), 145–64Google Scholar; id., La litterature latine incomue (Paris, 1952), 1.115–32; M. Pinto, ‘II “circolo lettèrario” di Q. Lutazio Catulo’, GIF 9 (1956), 210–33; Alfonsi, L., ‘Sul “circolo” di Lutazio Catulo’, in Hommages á Lèon Herrmann (Brussels, 1960), 61–7Google Scholar; Granarolo, J., D'Ennius á Catulle (Paris, 1971), 32–6.Google Scholar Against the identification of Licinus with Licinius, a client of Catulus and a litteratus homo, who is mentioned by Cicero in de Oral. 3.225, see Rawson, E., Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (London, 1985), 4–5, n. 7.Google Scholar
34 Ross, D. O. Jr, Style and Tradition in Catullus (Cambridge, MA, 1969), 139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Cameron, A., The Greek Anthology from Meleager to Planudes (Oxford, 1993), 51–6Google Scholar; also Day, A. A., The Origins of Latin Love-Elegy (Oxford, 1938), 102–4.Google Scholar Note that Gellius’ Julianus calls all three poets ‘antiquiores ante eos’ in 9. The naming of Laevius among the disapproved poets of Catullus’ generation in 7 does not hamper this dating, since Gellius might have overlooked strict chronology in drawing a distinction between the studied and intricate poetry of the Novi and the directness and simplicity he often associates with ancient literature. See e.g. 9.13.4 ‘[Quadrigarius] simplicique et incompta orationis antiquae suauitate descripsit’; 13.27.3 ‘Homeri simplicior et sincerior, Vergilii autem νεωτερικώτερος et quodam quasi ferumine inmisso fucatior’; and, with some reservations, 10.3.15 ‘si quis… amat… priora idcirco, quod incompta et breuia et non operosa’. See also F. Leo, ‘Die romische Poesie in der sullanischen Zeit’, Hermes 44 (1914), 161–95 at 180, n. 1; and for similar modern views of Laevius’ position in the history of Roman poetry, Ross (n. 34), 155–60.
36 Hutton, J., The Greek Anthology in Italy to the Year 1800 (Ithaca, NY, 1935), 10–19Google Scholar; Ross, D. O. Jr, ‘Nine epigrams from Pompeii (CIL 4.4966–73)’, ITS 21 (1969), 127–42.Google Scholar
37 See e.g. Hubaux, J., Les thémes bucoliques dans la poèsie latine (Brussels, 1930), 26–32Google Scholar; Day (n. 35), 102–4; A. Perutelli, ‘Lutazio Catulo Poeta’, RFIC 118 (1990), 257–81; Cameron (n. 35), 52.
38 Cameron (n. 35), 50.
39 See n. 33 above.
40 Gell. 9.4; see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (n. 5), 50–1.
41 ‘D. Chr.’ Or. 31.21: οὐδ⋯ν τò παιδευθ⋯ναι το⋯ φ⋯ναι πρòς τò δοκεῖν διαφ⋯ρει; see Barigazzi, A., Favorino di Arelate: Opere (Florence, 1966), 77–8, 329.Google Scholar
42 The attribution of harsh sound to Iberian Latin poetry is traditional; see Cic. Arch. 26.
43 See especially Perutelli (n. 37).
44 For the manner in which Gellius uses his sources, see Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (n. 5), 52–8.
45 see West, M. L., Carmina Anacreontea (Leipzig, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, ix-x; id., ‘The Anacreontea’, in Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposium (Oxford, 1990), 272–3Google Scholar; and for epigrams ascribed to Anacreon in the Greek Anthology, Page, D. L., Further Greek Epigrams (Cambridge, 1981), 123–1.Google Scholar
46 Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum, ed. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin (Göttingen, 1839), 1.148–9; Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius (n. 5), 62 and n. 6. See also ibid., 53–4, 175, for a line Gellius ascribes to Parthenius in 13.27.1 which is imitated in AP 6.164.1.
47 Or perhaps in Favorinus’ Παντοδαπ⋯ ‘Iστορία, as suggested by E. Maas, De Biographis Graecis Quaestiones Selectae (Berlin, 1880), 105, n. 112. See also Page (n. 45), 129.
48 see Mejer, J., Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background (Wiesbaden, 1978), 86–7Google Scholar; Cameron, (n. 35), 37; Hunink, V., Apuleius of Madaurus, Pro se de Magia (Amsterdam, 1997), 2.49–50.Google Scholar
49 Butrica, J. L., ‘Hellenistic erotic elegy: the evidence of the papyri’, PLLS 9 (1996), 297–322.Google Scholar
50 Quint. Inst. 10.1.58 ‘quod in cenis grandibus saepe facimus, ut, cum optimis satiati sumus, uarietas tamen nobis ex uilioribus grata sit. Tune et elegiam uacabit in manus sumere, cuius princeps habetur Callimachus, secundas confessione plurimorum Philetas occupauit.’
51 If, as I believe, the text in Gell. 19.9.10 should read ‘quibus mundius, uenustius, limatius, pressius Graecum Latinumue nihil quicquam reperiri puto’ (pressius Fγ: persius Q: pessius Z: tersius Salmasius followed by most editors; see A. D. Vardi, ‘Brevity, conciseness and compression in Roman poetic criticism and the text of Gellius, Nodes Atticae 19.9.10’, AJPh 121 [2000], forthcoming), the mention of the quality of conciseness (pressius), characteristic of epigrams, lends further support to the assumption that the chapter deals with Greek and Latin erotic epigrams.
52 Cameron (n. 35), 26–33. One aspect in which Meleager's thematic arrangement differed from later collections is that it did not separate heteroerotic poems from paidika, a distinction which Gellius’ source certainly did not maintain either. Of the four epigrams Gellius cites, the first is addressed to a woman, the fourth is homoerotic, and the second and third do not disclose the gender of the beloved, Phileros the torch-bearer in Aedituus’ second epigram being probably a slave accompanying the lover rather than his beloved.
53 For the text of this line, see Holford-Strevens, L. A., ‘Adversaria minora Gelliana et Apuleianum’, LCM 10 (1985), 112.Google Scholar
