Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:59:17.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Sugaring the Pill’: Gregory of Nazianzus' Advice to Olympias (Carm. 2.2.6)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Mary Whitby
Mary Whitby*
Affiliation:
Merton College, Oxford
Get access

Extract

Advice on marriage and the proper deportment for wives begins with the earliest Greek literature. While Homer's Andromache and Penelope provide practical role models, Hesiod (Works and Days 695-705, Theogony 568-612), followed (in iambics) by Semonides (frr. 6, 7), forcefully articulates male concerns about evil wives and women's wicked wiles. Hesiod's imperatival infinitives as well as his viewpoint reverberate more than a millennium later in a poem of advice composed, probably in the early 380s, by the Christian Gregory of Nazianzus for the marriage (νῦν μὲν σοὶ τόδ' ἔδωκα γαμήλιον, ‘now I have given you this wedding gift’, 2.2.6.108) of Olympias, elder daughter of Vitalian, a local Nazianzene worthy. This paper seeks to contribute to recent revaluations of Gregory's poetry—and hence of his place in the larger development of later Greek hexameter poetry—by illustrating how reading of the Olympias poem is enriched by exploration of its literary allusions and intertexts and its poetic craftsmanship. My title adopts Gregory's own image of ‘sugaring the pill’ of instruction for the young by writing in verse, but I extend the expression to include the pleasure that any reader may obtain in recognising Gregory's literary artistry, even when unpalatable prescriptions for female married life are the theme. Since the corpus is not well known, I begin by locating the poem within the context of Gregory's verse.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 37 , Issue 1-2 , 2008 , pp. 79 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 2008

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

I am very grateful to Katerina Carvounis and Richard Hunter for inviting me to speak at their conference ‘Signs of Life? New contexts for later Greek hexameter poetry’ in Cambridge in April 2007, and for their constructive and detailed feedback on the written version of this paper. Members of the audience, especially Ewen Bowie and Michael Reeve, offered valuable comments. Christos Simelidis and Kristoffel Demoen generously sent me unpublished work and both also kindly read and commented on versions of the paper.

1. Imperatival infinitives: Hes. WD 695, 699, 700, etc.; Greg. Naz. 2.2.6.5, 14, 17, etc. Gregory’s poem is edited with Italian translation, introduction and commentary by Bacci (1996). Olympias and Vitalian and date of composition: McLynn (1998a) 227–46.

2. E.g. Edwards (2003); Simelidis (2006a); Demoen (2009); see also n.22 below.

3. Conveniently, Alan Cameron (2004) 333.

4. Estimates vary, partly because the authenticity of some pieces is disputed, e.g. 1.2.32 and 1.2.3 which are purely accentual in metre. More than 16,000 verses: Keydell (1953) 134 = (1982) 291; 17,000: Demoen (1993) 238, Edwards (2003) 1, Simelidis (2006a) iv, xv; 18,000: Alan Cameron (2004) 333, Demoen (2009); 19,000: Pellegrino (1932) 5.

5. More than 5000 hexameters: Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 371.

6. Frendo (2006) 275 estimates 21,300 verses for the Dionysiaca. Other long poems were certainly written: e.g. Pisander of Laranda’s Marriages of Gods and Heroes in sixty books, which is almost entirely lost.

7. Transmission of poems in twenty groups: Simelidis (2006a) lxxxvi–xcix.

8. Simelidis (2006a) lxxii–lxxxv discusses the lexica and paraphrases: the arrangement of many manuscripts in two columns, one for the poem and one for the paraphrase is clear evidence of school use. Cf. Wilson (1983) 22f.

9. See further Simelidis (2006a) li–lxxi. It has also been pointed out that the Aldine edition of Gregory’s verse in 1504 predated Aldus’ editions of Plato, Pindar and Aeschylus and was intended as a school text: Edwards (2003) 23f.; cf. Simelidis (2006a) iv.

10. Caillau’s edition of the poems is in the second volume of the Maurist edition of Gregory’s entire works (Paris 1778, 1840), repr. J.-P. Migne, PG 37–8. In addition coverage of Gregory’s linguistic usage in existing lexica is inadequate: Simelidis (2006a) xvii.

11. Christos Simelidis is currently preparing a critical edition for the Corpus Christianorum series, building on work by Martin Sicherl and his team in Germany, which has produced a new edition of poem 2.1.12 and critical commentaries on other poems for the series Forschungen zu Gregor von Nazianz (Paderborn). In addition the long autobiographical De uita sua (1,949 lines, in iambics) has been variously edited and translated in Europe and America, Moreschini and Sykes edited the sequence of eight Poemata arcana with translation and commentary a decade ago (1997), while in France the first volume of a projected complete new Budé edition appeared in 2004: Tuilier, Bady and Bernhardi (2004); review: Simelidis (2004). Simelidis (2006a) 169–71 gives a complete list of editions and commentaries, to which add now Moroni (2006).

12. Keydell (1953).

13. Hoilis (2002); Demoen (1997, 2009); Edwards (2003); Simelidis (2003, 2005, 2006a).

14. Particularly of programmatic material: the Aetia prologue is so pervasive that Hoilis (2002) 56 suggests Gregory probably knew it by heart.

15. E.g. Simelidis (2006b), on an echo of Gregory in Theodore Prodromos.

16. E.g. Hinterberger (1999); Bazzani (2003,2006); Simelidis (2006a) lxi–lxiii.

17. Alan Cameron (2004) 333–39.

18. This arrangement does not correspond to the original edition of the poems, as far as one can tell from the manuscript tradition, e.g. Demoen (2009) n.13.

19. McLynn (1998a) 227; cf. McLynn (1998b); Elm (2000).

20. Demoen (2009) sec. 1.

21. Cf. Demoen (1996) 325 on the biblical paradeigmata prominent in the autobiographical poems: ‘Gregory presents his own history as a repetition, a constituent of salvation history.’

22. Sykes (1989); Demoen (1997, 2006, 2009); McLynn (1998a and forthcoming); Edwards (2003) ch. 2.

23. Keydell (1953) 140; cf. Bacci (1996) 25 and Demoen (2009) sec. 4, who notes that for these poems Gregory chooses hexameters and elegiac distichs (poems 1 and 2), respectively the metres of Horace’s and Ovid’s verse epistles.

24. Sykes (1989) 55If. Demoen (1997) 2f. observes that the character addressed within text and intended reader may be different, speaking character and author may not coincide.

25. Demoen (1997) 3f.; cf. PLRE 1, S.v. Hellenius 1.

26. McLynn (forthcoming).

27. Demoen (1997) 9f.; PLRE 1, s.v. Nemesius 2.

28. Demoen (1997) 4; PLRE 1, s.v. Ioulianus 17.

29. Addressee of Gregory’s letters 193 and 194.

30. Demoen (2006); cf. Demoen (1997) 4f.; McLynn (1998a).

31. McLynn (1998a),cf. Demoen (1997) 6–9.

32. Now edited by Moroni (2006); discussion: Edwards (2003) ch. 2, with English translation, 134–54; excellent analysis, Demoen (2009) sec. 4, id. (1997) 5f.; PLRE 1, s.v. Nicobulus 1 and Nicobulus 2.

33. Cameron (2004) 333f. Demoen (2009) at n.51 notes Gregory’s own problematic relationship with his homonymous father.

34. Demoen (2009); Demoen (1997) 4.

35. Demoen (2006) 436,439f.

36. These and other self-references are pointed out by Demoen (2009) sec. 4.

37. Demoen (2009) sec. 4 suggests that the two Nicobuli are vehicles for Gregory’s own views, in a kind of dramatic irony. Peter in the Vitalian poem also mentions Gregory in flattering terms (lines 229–57, esp. 240f. where Gregory is named).

38. Moreschini and Sykes (1997) 57–59.

39. Bacci (1996).

40. Bacci (1996) 40f.

41. Cf. Propertius 1.2, Tibullus 1.8.9–16, etc. McLynn (1998a) 233f. offers a shrewd analysis of the poem in terms of late Roman upper-class values.

42. Od. 7.122, 24.221.

43. See further below.

44. See PLRE 1, 1140, stemma 17. Analogous networks in other poems: the Nicobuli of poems 4 and 5 are Gregory’s nephew and great-nephew, the Julian of poem 2 his fellow-student, and so on.

45. See further Bacci (1996) 41–45, who traces the themes to popular pagan philosophy.

46. Oec. 7.3–10.13; slaves: Oec. 131.

47. 1 am grateful to Ewen Bowie for drawing my attention to this text.

48. Discussed by Menander Rhetor, 395–99 Spengel (= 126–34 Russell and Wilson). On , see Bacci (1996) 76.

49. With this passage, Carm. 2.2.5.7f. (‘…my tale. A father’s exhortation is best and age is weightier than youth’), cf. Carm. 1.2.2.5 (‘…my tale. Age’s exhortation is best’). Carm. 1.2.2 ‘Precepts for virgins’ is identified by Bacci (1996) 40f. as the source for many lines of the Olympias poem. But Gregory adjusts the maxim slightly to suit the different contexts in which he uses it.

50. Ep. 439.4.5, 1233.4.4.

51. 1 thank Katerina Carvounis for this observation.

52. First in a hexameter oracle in the presocratic Musaeus DK 2 B 22 (p.27.17); A.R. 2.324, 3.554 , at line-end, referring to the advice of Phineus and Mopsus respectively; also plural in this sedes in Euphorion, Supplementum Hellenisticum 415, col. 2.10 and (at line-opening) Anon, in Supplementum Hellenisticum 956.3.

53. Heitsch (1963/4) 92–94. The quotations are preserved in Stobaeus’ sections ‘On marriage’, ‘Precepts for marriage’ and ‘On wealth’. Naumachius may be the mid-fourth-century philosopher from Epirus mentioned by Proclus In remp. 2.115 and 329 Kroll: PLRE 1.618, .v.v. Naumachius 2.

54. Discussed by Bacci (1990), who notes that the thought (but not the language) of Naumachius 16–20 parallels that of Carm. 2.2.6.41–46, and collects other parallels. Gregory echoes parts of Naumachius 7–26 also in 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.29: cf. p.83 above. Since Gregory has scattered echoes of a relatively short section of Naumachius, it is likely that Naumachius wrote first.

55. Cf. il. 21.23; Od. 4.358, 9.136; [Hes.] Scut. 207; also Q.S. 14.623.

56. See further appendix on metre pp.93f. below.

57. Cf. διαλά㮼πω, ‘shine through’ used chiefly in prose authors of light, either literally or metaphorically, and of people who are conspicuous or prominent: see LSJ and Lampe (1961) .s.v.

58. Cf. p.83 above.

59. E.g. A.R. 2.1104, of stars shining through clouds, 4.1575 of surf; AP 5.205.3 (Anon.) of amethyst.

60. Call. Lav. Pall. 17–22, , ‘And do not bring a mirror: her face is ever fair. Even when the Phrygian judged the contest on Ida, the great goddess looked neither into orichalc nor the transparent eddy of the Simoeis; nor yet did Hera. But Cypris oft taking the translucent bronze twice rearranged the same lock.’

61. AP 6.210.3f. = Gow and Page (1965) 3024f. See the discussion of Bulloch (1985) on Call. 5.21.

62. Cf., e.g., Basil Horn. 1.9 (2.8D, PG 31.180c), , ‘he made his soul more translucent by fasting’ (of Daniel, who was hence more receptive to visions); other examples, Lampe (1961). s.v.

63. ‘Deceptively’: Σbl on il. 4.6, Hesychius and Suda. s.v.; ‘making a comparison’: Eustathius 1.692.11 ff. van der Valk. The paraphrases of Gregory differ in interpreting this passage: see further Bacci (1996) ad loc.

64. R. Hunter (1988) 446f. and (1989) ad locc. argues for ‘deceptively’ at 2.621, 3.107, 1028.

65. In addition to παρίϕασια and παριϕασία discussed above, Gregory also uses παρϕασιη, apparently a neologism, at Carm. 1.2.29.132,2.2.1.13, 2.2.3.237: see Bacci (1996) on line 2.

66. See appendix on metre pp.93f. below.

67. Simelidis (2006a) ii.

68. See McLynn (1998a) 241 f. on Gregory’s political manoeuvring in the reference to Amphilochius in this passage.

69. Apollonius uses only of Medea and her sister Chalciope, daughters of Ae-etes: 3.642,647,741,984,4.369.

70. Cf. also Orph. Lith. 764, (‘the lord of the silver bow, wrathful at his own sister’) and (later) Colluthus 21, (‘white-armed own sister of Amphitrite’, of Thetis).

71. Substantival Χειρωνίϛ occurs only here, though the form is found at Call. Hymn 4.104 (), where the reference is topographical; cf. also AP 7.158.9 (Anon., ?2nd c. CE), (‘in forty wise Chironian books’) of Marcellus’ verse medical handbook. This passage in praise of Theodosia is echoed by Gregory at Carm. 2.2.3.168, describing Vitalian’s education of his daughters at home: see further Bacci (1996) ad loc, McLynn (1998a) 229.

72. So Bacci (1996) ad toe, with her n. on 68, and Pulleyn (2000) on Iliad. 1.92 for a summary of the debate on the Homeric meaning.

73. See further below.

74. On this form, see further Bacci (1996) ad loc.

75. Cf. Iliad 6.358 and see further Bacci (1996) ad toe. for discussion of Gregory’s Christian use of .

76. Gregory uses the same phrase twice elsewhere with an allusion also to Matthew 20.1–16, the story of the rich man who hired labourers for his vineyard, Carm. 2.1.45.219 and AP 8.18.1; see Bacci’s (1996) discussion ad loc.

77. Other examples from this poem: tetrasyllable (6); syncopated παρβλήδην (35); cf. n.65 above.

78. See in general Whitby (2007b).

79. Lexical rarities: Wyss (1983) 854; also Dubedout (1901) 86 and Bacci (1996) on line 26. Other similarities of taste: Gonnelli, in Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 407f.; Simelidis (2006a) xlix.

80. Gregory also uses it ai Carm A .2.2.633, where the context is similar, and Or. 43.33.

81. Cyn. 1.472 in eadem sede (a tetracolon); Cyn. 1.438 , at line-end.

82. Bacci (1996) notes the following in the Olympias poem: πεμπτήριον, 1; διαλαμπέα, 7; , 16; βρυχαλέοισι, 27; παρβλήδην, 35; , 73; , 74; , 76; πηγά, 79; , 106; see further Pellegrino (1932) 86f. Variant forms: n.77 above.

83. On ps.-Oppian’s technique, see Whitby (1994) 111–14; Whitby (2007b).

84. See further appendix on metre pp.93f. below.

85. See further Bacci’s (1996) notes ad toe.

86. E.g. rhyme/assonance: 22, 40, 79, 81f., 89, 94; chiasmus: 24, 53; anaphora: 38f., 61, 70, 80f.; word-play: 41f., 65; alliteration: 47,58,68,73, 83; polyptoton: 49.

87. E.g. the ‘translucent life’ (8), marriage as a ‘second voyage’ (44). The striking simile at 66 is also noteworthy: , ‘as a sunbeam pierces rapidly through wax’, describing the seductive pleasures of parties, even on a sensible person. Bacci (1996) 109 rightly suggests an allusion to Homer’s Sirens episode at Od. 12.39ff., esp. 40 and 41.

88. A recent collection of studies: Amato and Schamp (2005).

89. Keydell (1953) 142, cited by Alan Cameron (2004) 338. Gregory sometimes treats an accented short syllable as long or an unaccented long as short: West (1982) 164, cited by Simelidis (2006a) xlvii. Elsewhere he allows more than one scansion, sometimes repeating the same word with different scansion within a few lines: Cameron (2004) 338. Michael Reeve points out to me that Kai is scanned in more than one way in poem 2.2.6.

90. Cameron (2004) 338f. Lauxtermann (1999) 43 has noted that, when unprosodic octosyllables supersede anacreontic rhythms in the tenth century, they are written by highly educated intellectuals who could have written prosodic verse, but apparently chose not to.

91. Maas (1962) sec.20.

92. Metrical analysis of Gregory’s iambic poem ‘Against Anger’ (1.2.25) in Oberhaus (1991) 26–36, discussed by Simelidis (2006a) xlviii–ix. ‘Long’ syllables with a short vowel almost always occur before ν, ρ, and σ.

93. Simelidis (2006a) xxx.

94. E.g. Whitby (2007a) 206.

95. Simelidis (2006a) xlviii–ix.

96. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995). The other three poets are Dorotheus (author of the papyrus Vision of Dorotheus), the Empress Eudocia and the Psalm paraphrase attributed to Apollinarius; all are assessed against Nonnian statistics.

97. Cf. n.79 above.

98. Based on Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) and West (1982) 153–57, 177–80. Where figures differ, I have preferred the more recent study of Agosti and Gonnelli. A gap in the table means that no figure is available.

99. E.g. James and Lee (2000) 5.

100. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 317, 377f. The figure for Callimachus may be higher: West (1982) 153 has 74% and Hollis (1990) 10 calculates 78% for Hecale alone. 1 take the figure for Quintus (not included in Agosti and Gonnelli’s study) from West (1982) 177. Quintus’ preference for feminine caesura is one of his most prominent differences from Homeric metrical practice: James and Lee (2000) 30.

101. Bucolic caesura: ‘a conspicuous feature of Alexandrian versification’ West (1982) 154. The figure for Homer is 47% (West loc. dr.), those for Dorotheus and Eudc…, 6.36% and 40.6% respectively: Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 321.

102. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 372; the ‘traditionalists’ Dorotheus and Eudocia have figures of 4.37 (close to Gregory) and 3.45 respectively.

103. Here Gregory is aligned with the ‘traditionalists’, Dorotheus (42.55) and Eudocia (32.30) (Agosti and Gonnelli [1995] 313) and the imperial didactic poets, Dionysius Periegetes (40) and Oppian, Hal. (39) (West [1982] 178).

104. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 375. The figures for Dorotheus (19) and Eudocia (24) are similar to Gregory’s: Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 315.

105. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 381; cf. 322–24, noting that Callimachus and Theocritus are exceptions to the general trend of increasing tetracola. Different figures are quoted for Nonn. Par. on pp. 324 (1:30) and 382 (1:34), but in any case the difference in this respect from the Dionysiaca is remarkable.

106. For example in the Orphic Hymns it occurs at a rate of once every eight lines: Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 381 n.346.

107. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 381; on the other hand, Gregory does not use the tetracolon at all in his poem 1.1.29, a hymn to God.

108. Agosti and Gonnelli (1995) 377, for example, hesitantly accept the date of 374 for Ad Vitalianum, whereas McLynn (1998a) convincingly puts it in the early 380s.

109. E.g. masculine caesuras do not predominate in the didactic poems, even though they are a recognised feature of didactic: ps.-Oppian produces only 55% feminine caesura.

110. Based partly on my own calculations and partly on Bacci (1996) 55f., who includes additional material.

111. Of the 111 lines of To Olympias, 87 have feminine caesuras and 24 masculine, giving a figure of 78.3% as opposed to Gonnelli’s 78.8% for lines selected from Gregory’s whole corpus.

112. 76 lines have bucolic caesura: 68.46% as against Gonnelli’s 65.52%.

113. Cf. Moroni (2006), 62–65 for analysis of the metre of the two Nicobulus poems (2.2.4 and 2.2.5) which have slightly lower figures for trochaic caesura (74.52 and 71.28 respectively) and a low ratio of dactyls to spondees (3.41 and 3.68).