Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T02:18:43.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patronage, Poetic Lineage, and Wordplay: A New Dedicatory Acronym in Vergil's Sixth Eclogue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2020

Frances M. Bernstein
Frances M. Bernstein*
Affiliation:
Princeton [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article identifies and defends a previously unobserved dedicatory acronym to Maecenas in the second half of Ecl. 6.69 (MAEC- in reverse: Calamos, En Accipe, Musae) and contextualizes the specific linguistic choices and central themes of that acronym within a broader network of Vergilian word games. I argue that the dedicatory acronym in Ecl. 6.69 shares linguistic and thematic features with numerous previously identified Vergilian word games, and that from this network of wordplay emerges a common discourse on poetic lineage, genre, and patronage. An awareness of this network of wordplay in Vergil's corpus provides a starting point for a more comprehensive and nuanced interpretation both of individual Vergilian word games and of Vergilian wordplay as a general phenomenon. On a literary level, the conclusions I draw from the MAEC- acronym and the relationship between wordplay and various thematic issues inform a clearer picture of generic shifts and expectations in Eclogue 6, the Eclogues in general, and Vergil's corpus more broadly, and contribute to an understanding of the subtle ways in which Vergil negotiates issues of patronage in his first collection.

Keywords

VergilwordplayacronymsacrosticsEclogues
Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 54 , 2020 , pp. 32 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © The Australasian Society for Classical Studies 2020

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

Adkin, N. (2014), ‘“Read the Edge”: Acrostics in Virgil's Sinon Episode’, ACD 50, 45–72.Google Scholar
Adkin, N. (2015), ‘Quam est ludus in undis? (Virgil, Eclogue IX 39–43)’, ACD 51, 43–58.Google Scholar
Ahl, F. (1985), Metaformations: Sound and Wordplay in Ovid and Other Classical Poets. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, L. (1972), ‘Pollio and the Date of the Fourth Eclogue’, CSCA 5, 21–38.Google Scholar
Bing, P. (1990), ‘A Pun on Aratus’ Name in Verse 2 of the Phainomena?’, HSCPh 93, 281–5.Google Scholar
Bing, P. (1993), ‘Aratus and his Audiences’, MD 31, 99–109.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. (1971), ‘A Date in the Eighth Eclogue’, HSCPh 75, 73–80.Google Scholar
Bowersock, G. W. (1978), ‘The Addressee of the Eighth Eclogue: A Response’, HSCPh 82, 201–2.Google Scholar
Breed, B. W. (2000), ‘Imitations of Originality: Theocritus and Lucretius at the Start of the Eclogues’, Vergilius 46, 3–20.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. (1963), Numeri Vergiliani: Studies in the Eclogues and Georgics. Brussels.Google Scholar
Cairns, F. (2008), ‘C. Asinius Pollio and the Eclogues’, PCPhS 54, 49–79.Google Scholar
Capponi, L. (2002), ‘Maecenas and Pollio’, ZPE 140, 181–4.Google Scholar
Carter, M. A. S. (2002), ‘Vergilium vestigare: Aeneid 12.587–8’, CQ 52, 615–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelletti, C. (2012), ‘Following Aratus’ Plow: Vergil's Signature in the Aeneid’, MH 69, 83–95.Google Scholar
Castelletti, C. (2014), ‘Aratus and the Aratean Tradition in Valerius’ Argonautica’, in Augoustakis, A. (ed.), Flavian Poetry and its Greek Past. Leiden, 49–72.Google Scholar
Clausen, W. (1994), A Commentary on Virgil, Eclogues. Oxford.Google Scholar
Clauss, J. J. (1997), ‘An Acrostic in Vergil (Eclogues 1.5–8): The Chance that Mimics Choice?’, Aevum(ant) 10, 267–87.Google Scholar
Clauss, J. J. (2002), ‘Large and Illyrical Waters in Vergil's Eighth Eclogue’, Hermathena 173/174, 165–73.Google Scholar
Coffey, M. (1976), Roman Satire. London.Google Scholar
Coleman, R. (1962), ‘Gallus, the Bucolics, and the Ending of the Fourth Georgic’, AJP 83, 55–71.Google Scholar
Damschen, G. (2004), ‘Das lateinische Akrostichon: neue Funde bei Ovid sowie Vergil, Grattius, Manilius und Silius Italicus’, Philologus 148, 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielewicz, J. (2013), ‘Vergil's certissima signa Reinterpreted: The Aratean LEPTE-Acrostic in Georgics I’, Eos 100, 287–95.Google Scholar
Elder, J. P. (1961), ‘Non iniussa cano: Virgil's Sixth Eclogue’, HSCPh 65, 109–25.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. (1991), Vergil's Georgics and the Traditions of Ancient Epic: The Art of Allusion in Literary History. Oxford.Google Scholar
Feeney, D., and Nelis, D. (2005), ‘Two Virgilian Acrostics: Certissima signa?’, CQ 55, 644–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, D. P. (1983), ‘An Acrostic in Vergil (Aeneid 7. 601–4)?’, CQ 33, 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grishin, A. A. (2008), ‘Ludus in undis: An Acrostic in Eclogue 9’, HSCPh 104, 237–40.Google Scholar
Grishin, A. A. (2009), Acrostics in Virgil's Poetry: The Problem of Authentication. MA thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Hejduk, J. D. (2018), ‘Was Vergil Reading the Bible? Original Sin and an Astonishing Acrostic in the Orpheus and Eurydice’, Vergilius 64, 71–102.Google Scholar
Jacques, J. M. (1960), ‘Sur un acrostiche d'Aratos (Phén. 783–787)’, REA 62, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. T. (2008a), ‘Vergil Translates Aratus: Phaenomena 1–2 and Georgics 1.1–2’, MD 60, 105–23.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. (2008b), ‘An Acrostic Ant Road in Aeneid’, MD 59, 77–86.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. (2013), ‘The Muse at Play: An Introduction’, in Kwapisz, J., Petrain, D., and Szymanski, M. (eds.), The Muse at Play: Riddles and Wordplay in Greek and Latin Poetry. Berlin, 1–30.Google Scholar
Katz, J. T. (2016), ‘Another Vergilian Signature in the Georgics?’, in Mitsis, P. and Ziogas, I. (eds.) Wordplay and Powerplay in Latin Poetry. Berlin, 69–85.Google Scholar
Kraggerud, E. (2010), ‘Vergil's Introduction to his Sixth Eclogue’, SO 84, 111–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kronenberg, L. (2017), ‘The Tenth Age of Apollo and a New Acrostic in Eclogue 4’, Philologus 161, 337–9.Google Scholar
Mankin, D. (1988), ‘The Addressee of Virgil's Eighth Eclogue: A Reconsideration’, Hermes 116, 63–76.Google Scholar
Mayer, R. (1983), ‘Missing Persons in the Eclogues’, BICS 30, 17–30.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (2019a), ‘Arms and a Mouse: Approaching Acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, MD 82, 23–73.Google Scholar
Robinson, M. (2019b), ‘Looking Edgeways: Pursuing Acrostics in Ovid and Vergil’, CQ 69, 290–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, D. O. (2008), ‘The Sixth Eclogue: Virgil's Poetic Genealogy’, in Volk, K. (ed.), Vergil's Eclogues. Oxford, 189–215. Originally published in D. O. Ross (1975), Backgrounds to Augustan Poetry: Gallus, Elegy, and Rome. Cambridge, 18–38.Google Scholar
Seng, H. (1999), Vergils Eklogenbuch. Aufbau, Chronologie und Zahlenverhältnisse. Hildesheim.Google Scholar
Somerville, T. (2010), ‘Note on a Reversed Acrostic in Vergil Georgics 1.429–33’, CPh 105, 202–9.Google Scholar
Stewart, Z. (1959), ‘The Song of Silenus’, HSCPh 64, 179–205.Google Scholar
Tarrant, R. J. (1978), ‘The Addressee of Virgil's Eighth Eclogue’, HSCPh 82, 197–9.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. (2006), ‘The Addressee of Vergil's Eighth Eclogue’, CQ 56, 618–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar