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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2016
Scholarship on Grattius’ Cynegetica, a minor Augustan didactic poem on hunting, has done a laudable job of finding allusions in the text or other ancient passages that elaborate the sometimes-obscure information that Grattius provides. Such scholarship has not led to a floruit for Grattian research, although the June 2015 conference ‘Grattius in context(s): Hunting an Augustan Poet’ indicates that there is more to the poem than meets the eye, for those who are willing to spend time with the text. One area particularly open to research is the influence of Greek authors, a subject not addressed even in the aforementioned conference. To demonstrate what work can be done, as well as to speculate on the underlying themes of Grattius’ Cynegetica, I wish to discuss one unnoticed allusion to the Greek epinician poet Pindar. These two authors are not often or obviously read in conjunction to one another, but there are moments of contact: a recognized reference occurs at Grat. 527, cantatus Graiis Acragas. One unrecognized moment of contact is when Grattius quotes Olympian 1.13 when discussing dog-breeding (Grat. 198). The allusion highlights that there is still literary work to be done on the Cynegetica to appreciate fully Grattius’ poetic agenda and how he establishes his authority—not to mention the idea that Grattius has an agenda at all. To discuss this reference, I will first focus on the technical aspects of the translation before discussing interpretations of the line and the allusion.
A version of this paper was presented at the 2013 CAAS Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, PA. My thanks to all readers and reviewers, particularly the help of the Classical Quarterly editor and anonymous reader.
1 Choice examples for the beginning Grattian scholar would include Formicola, C., Il Cynegeticon di Grattio: Introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e commento (Bologna, 1988)Google Scholar, which contains a particularly useful running list of intertextual references above the apparatus criticus, and Henderson, J., ‘Going to the dogs / Grattius <&> the Augustan subject’, PCPhS 47 (2001), 1–22 Google Scholar, which puts Grattius in the context of the Augustan age, particularly Lucretius’ and Virgil's didactic poems. For the text, I have chosen to follow the edition of Enk, P.J., Gratti Cynegeticon quae supersunt (Thieme, 1918)Google Scholar, although I follow the manuscript's order of the lines in the proem. The text of Pindar is from H. Maehler post Snell, B., Pindari carmina cum fragmentis (Leipzig, 1971)Google Scholar. All translations are my own.
2 ‘Acragas sung by the Greeks,’ noted by Enk (n. 1), 2.143 and Duff, J.W. and Duff, A.M., Minor Latin Poets (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar, 1.203 n. b. Sicily's largest role in the Cynegetica is the discussion of a religious sanctuary (427–66), although this passage would likely remind the reader more of the historical shrine (Plin. NH 35.179) than of Pindar. This article's anonymous reader has also pointed out that Boeotian Hagnon may prime the reader for Pindar (Grat. 214–63).
3 SHA Max. 14.2.
4 OLD s.v. ex 14, LSJ s.v. ἀπό III, TLL s.v. omnis IX.2.610.69 compares with πᾶς, OLD s.v. uirtus 2 and 5, LSJ s.v. ἀρετή I.
5 LSJ s.v. δρέπω I, OLD s.v. carpo 1, LSJ s.v. κορυφή II.2, OLD s.v. cacumen 6, OLD s.v. caput 9, OLD s.v. summus 13.
6 Gerber, D., Pindar's Olympian One: A Commentary (Toronto, 1982), 35 Google Scholar.
7 Of the ten times Pindar uses δρέπω (Ol. 1.13, Pyth. 1.49, Pyth. 4.130, Pyth. 6.48, fr. 6b.f, 12.5, fr. 209, Nem. 2.9, fr. 123.1 and fr. 122.8, as observed by W.J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar [Berlin, 1969], 139, and labelled according to his use of Pindar's editions, explained at VII-VIII), four times he uses flower or garden as the object. LSJ list examples of ἄνθεα as direct object first in the entry for δρέπω, followed mostly by other flora.
8 TLL s.v. flos VI.1.936.19–22.
9 TLL s.v. capesso III.310.39–41, Hor. Carm. 1.11.8. Nisbet, R.G.M. and Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace Odes Book I (Oxford, 1970), 141–2Google Scholar discuss the verb's agricultural, erotic and philosophical undertones. These undertones are less appropriate than the militant undertones of capesso for the Cynegetica.
10 OLD s.v. capesso 1, 2 and 8 particularly.
11 Grattius uses uirtus 11 times: 3, 167, 173, 179, 198, 210, 254, 323, 325, 500, 506.
12 Another more tenuous reason for the use of scilicet is not to translate the words of Pindar but to pun on the sounds of the Pindaric original. Scholars have noted Grattius’ interest in puns with at least one pun elsewhere between the author's name and gratia at Grat. 216: Formicola (n. 1), 154–5. Henderson (n. 1), 4 himself puns on the name: ‘ars Grattia artis’. Scilicet contains many of the same sounds as Σικελίᾳ, which immediately precedes the participial phrase of interest. With the translation to follow, it is possible that Grattius used aural resonance to alert the reader.
13 The other five uses are: Grat. 317, 326, 349, 391, 508. Grat. 508 is the only instance that seems out of place with the others, as it starts a line but is understood to work with the preceding clause instead of the clause that follows: see Enk (n. 1), 2.138. For now, it is the exception that proves the rule, but I would expect that the lines are nevertheless an allusion or commonplace statement yet to be identified.
14 LSJ s.v. μέν II, OLD s.v. scilicet 2c, LSJ s.v. δέ I, OLD s.v. at 3.
15 Race, W.H., ‘Horace's debt to Pindar,’ in Davis, G. (ed.), A Companion to Horace (West Sussex, 2010), 147–73, at 155–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Thematic connections to Olympian 1 include a uates/σοφός comparison noted by Kennedy, N.T., ‘Pindar and Horace,’ Acta Classica 18 (1975), 9–24, at 13Google Scholar, and topics in Odes 4.2 (Race [this note], 172 n. 16) and Odes 4.4 (Race [this note], 172 n. 24).
16 Tarrant, R., ‘Ancient receptions of Horace’, in Harrison, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Horace (Cambridge, 2007), 277–90, at 280CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Verg. G. 3.16–39 and Pind. Ol. 6.1–5.
18 This interpretation also follows the understanding of Enk (n. 1), 2.68 and Duff (n. 2), 1.170–1.
19 Grat. 194, 195 and 197.
20 The process is described most clearly in Arrian, Cyn. 15.
21 I would argue that this magister is more of a Platonic ideal leader than the historical Augustus, although other interpretations differ, such as Henderson (n. 1), 20–1 and Henderson, J., ‘Fighting for Augustus’, Omnibus 37 (1998), 21–2Google Scholar. If Grattius were a writer for Augustus or wanted to represent the political figure in poetry, he was not as explicitly concerned as other Augustan writers and he did not learn about patronage from Pindar. It can be argued, therefore, that Grattius is very Augustan for believing in Augustus’ rhetoric, but I would prefer to read Grattius as pro-Roman rather than as pro-Augustus, as evinced e.g. by his praise for the Republican figures Camillus and Serranus at 321–2.
22 Examples of Grattius’ self-praise include his description of the poem as a great work that could help even mythological people (Grat. 61–8), the trustworthiness of his work (Grat. 300), and a reference to himself as experienced (Grat. 350).