¹ The title for the whole work is given by Avitus himself in a letter to Apollinaris, bishop of Auvergne (Ep. 51; ed. R. Peiper 80.21–22 — 1 use Peiper's edition, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 6.2, throughout). The individual books were also provided with titles by their author; they are preserved in the manuscripts and in Isidore's De viris illustribus 23.Google Scholar

² Hudson-Williams, A., ‘Virgil and the Christian Latin Poets,’ Papers of the Virgil Society 6 (1966–67) 15–16.Google Scholar

³ Peiper notes many such reminiscences in his edition. They are supplemented by Max Manitius, ‘Zu spätlateinischen Dichtern,’ Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 37 (1886) 244–50, and a complete and much enlarged conspectus is presented by Salvatore Costanza, Avitiana I: I modelli epici del ‘De spiritalis historiae gestis’ (Messina 1968). I have made extensive use of these collections, supplemented by my own observations wherever possible.Google Scholar

⁴ Prudentius, , Cath . 5.49–56, describes the military array of the Egyptians, but not of the Israelites. A fresco of the Exodus from Egypt from the third-century synagogue of Dura-Europos shows the Israelites armed, however. See Kraeling, Carl H., ‘The Synagogue,’ The Excavations of Dura-Europos , Final Report 8.1 (New Haven 1956) 80–81, who can cite no counterpart in Christian art.Google Scholar

⁵ The SHG was probably written in the last decade of the fifth century, when Avitus was bishop of Vienne.Google Scholar

⁶ For the constituents of Christian poetics in late antiquity see especially Jacques Fontaine, ‘Le mélange des genres dans la poésie de Prudence,’ Forma Futuri: Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Turin 1975) 755–77, especially 758–60, and ‘Unité et diversité du mélange des genres et des tons chez quelques écrivains latins de la fin du iv^e siècle: Ausone, Ambroise, Ammien,’ Christianisme et formes littéraires de l'antiquité tardive en occident (Fondation Hardt, Entretiens sur l'antiquité classique 23; Vandœuvres 1977) 431–37.Google Scholar

⁷ G sees to owe something to Exod. 14.25, ‘fugiamus Israelem,’ which is spoken by the Egyptians en masse.Google Scholar

⁸ Cannon Lipscomb, Herbert, Aspects of the Speech in the Later Roman Epic (diss. Johns Hopkins Univ. 1909) 6–10 and 26–30, and Alan Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (Oxford 1970) 266–68.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. Servius on Aen. 10.18, and the ethopoeia on a Virgilian theme recalled by Augustine (Conf. 1.17.27). For the tendency to see the Aeneid in general and its speeches in particular as model oratory see Gilbert Highet, The Speeches in Virgil's Aeneid (Princeton 1972) 3–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Thus Cameron (n. 8) 267 remarks, ‘In Claudian, speeches no longer arise naturally and frequently out of the narrative.’ For a statistical analysis of speeches in Virgil and post-Virgilian epic see Lipscomb (n. 8) 6–16.Google Scholar

¹¹ Direct speech makes up 22.4% of the SHG; the average length of the speeches is 14.6 lines. This compares with 17% and 14.6 in the Alethia of Claudius Marius Victorius, and 17.4% and 7.8 for the narrative sections of the Heptateuchos (for texts of these works see P. F. Hovingh, ed. CCL 128 [Turnhout 1960], and Rudolf Peiper, ed. CSEL 23 [Vienna 1891]). The complete figures for the Heptateuchos are 25.3% direct speech, average length 13.2 lines, but these are misleading since they include lengthy sections of legal and cultic prescriptions. My figures are based on Genesis, Exodus (excluding the long speech of God to Moses on Mt. Sinai, lines 754–1033), Joshua and Judges. It should be noted, however, that the poet's treatment of Genesis is unusually sparing in its use of direct speech.Google Scholar

¹² I include among ethopoeiae all speeches intended primarily to communicate the general character or immediate emotional condition of a speaker (cf. Hermogenes, Progymnasmata 9, for the most commonly accepted definition in late antiquity).Google Scholar

¹³ Cf. Hermogenes, Prog . 9 (21.19 Rabe): [sc. ] .Google Scholar

¹⁴ Quintilian 9.2.36: ‘Est et incerta persona ficta oratio: “hic aliquis” et “dicat aliquis”.’Google Scholar

¹⁵ Pharaoh is described in the introduction to G as ‘ille ferus semper, iam mitis morte sub ipsa’ (671). The speeches D and G are emotionally antithetical. By contrast the short clauses and relative syntactic simplicity of F are perhaps intended to convey God's majesty.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Peiper prints manu, but this leaves inbellem without a substantive; hence manum.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Cf. Silius 7.100–15 and 8.265–77.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lipscomb (n. 8) 44–46.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Cf. the indignant appeals of Juturna in the Aeneid (12.229–37) and Scaeva in Lucan (6.150–65). Both appeal to what is honorable (non pudet: Aen. 12.229; Lucan 6.154), and both make extensive use of rhetorical questions.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. 495 ‘Inde ubi iam totos satiaverit ense furores / … dextera victrix,’ which recalls the introduction to the speech (470–71) ‘his vocibus armat / … furores.’ Furor is the proper response to an indignatio. So Lucan describes the effect of Scaeva's speech on his comrades: ‘movit tantum vox illa furorem’ (6.165). Compare with line 497 of the SHG the response of the Rutuli to Juturna: ‘talibus incensa est iuvenum sententia dictis’ (Aen. 12.238).Google Scholar

²¹ For instance, Sulpicius Severus, Vita S. Martini 13.6–9.Google Scholar

²² In this second case the imitation is established by similarity of situation and syntactical parallelism rather than verbal reminiscence.Google Scholar

²³ See n. 14.Google Scholar

²⁴ Quintilian 8.3.83: ‘emphasis, altiorem praebens intellectum quam quem verba per se ipsa declarant.’Google Scholar

²⁵ ‘Quid denique restat’ is a Virgilian locution (Aen. 12.793), imitated with a slight variation by Silius (5.633–34 ‘quid deinde … / restat’). Cf. also Virgil, Aen. 2.70.Google Scholar

²⁶ The vogue for poetic treatments of the seasons, months, and points of the compass is a familiar symptom of this taste.Google Scholar

²⁷ For the application of this term to the Christian Latin literature of late antiquity see especially Fontaine, ‘Le mélange’ (n. 6) 755–56. The comparision with Ovid is not incidental. It is striking how many of the characteristics of late antique poetry can be traced back to the first-century epics and ultimately to the example of Ovid's Metamorphoses. Much of Gordon Williams’ assessment of the stylistic qualities of first-century literature, Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (Berkeley 1978) 193–271, is immediately applicable to the poetry of late antiquity.Google Scholar

²⁸ Quintilian 6.2.32.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hermogenes, 2 (389.7–9 Rabe): . For other references see Theodore C. Burgess, ‘Epideictic Literature,’ University of Chicago Studies in Classical Philology 3 (1902) 166–94.Google Scholar

³⁰ For their frequency in pagan literature see Donato Gagliardi, Aspetti della poesia latina tardoantica: Linee evolutive e culturali dell’ ultima poesia pagana dai ‘novelli’ a R. Namaziano (Palermo 1972); for their use by a representative of Christian culture of late antiquity see André Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire et l'esprit précieux en Gaule aux derniers jours de l'empire (Collection d’études latines, série scientifique 20; Paris 1943) 114–15.Google Scholar

³¹ The criticism of rhetorical influence on post-Virgilian Latin poetry is, of course, a commonplace. For an exploration of the relevance of the classical aesthetic to biblical epic see Reinhart Herzog, Die Bibelepik der lateinischen Spätantike: Formegeschichte einer erbaulichen Gattung I (Munich 1975) lxvi–lxxiii, to whose conclusions I do not fully subscribe.Google Scholar

³² The language is Priscian's (Praeexercitamina 16; 558.25–26 Halm).Google Scholar

³³ The word exactor is biblical (Exod. 5.6, 10, and 14).Google Scholar

³⁴ See n. 26.Google Scholar

³⁵ 477 coeptis desistunt: Lucan 3.144 desistere coepto; Silius 15.315 ‘incepto … desistere vano’; Statius, Theb. 4.493 ‘inceptis … desistere sacris.’Google Scholar

oppida muris: Virgil, Ecl. 4.32–33, Aen. 8.355; Lucan 4.224; Silius 3.213; Claudian, III Cons. Hon. 121.

478 consurgit opus: Claudian 29.31 (Birt); cf. Lucan 2.679 surgit opus.

‘cultor in agris’: Virgil, Aen. 8.8 ‘vastant cultoribus agros’; Ovid, Met. 7.653 cultoribus agros; Lucan 9.161 ‘vacuos cultoribus agros’; Ausonius, Prof. Burd. 24.7 ‘cultor in agris.’

479 adtrito dente: cf. Virgil, G. 1.46 ‘attritus … vomer’ and 1.262 ‘vomeris … dentem’ (Georg Losgar, Studien zu Alcimus Avitus’ Gedicht: ‘De spiritalis historiae gestis’ [diss. Neuburg a.D. 1903] 16).

480 nulloque tumultu: Lucan 4.535 and 5.530 (cf. 6.11); Statius, Silv. 2.2.28 and 2.3.68 (with various inflections).

³⁶ Sons dying before the eyes of their fathers: Virgil, Aen. 2.531, 663, 11.887 (cf. G. 4.477; Aen. 1.95 and 6.308).Google Scholar

Battlefield invisible for the unburied bodies: Lucan 7.795 ‘campos sub clade latentes’; Silius 8.659–60 ‘iam stragis acervis / deficiunt campi,’ and 9.189 ‘strage virum mersus Trebia est.’

For further parallels to the language of 493 see Silius 4.424 ‘tota quam strage cadentum’ and 10.506 ‘media de strage iacentum’; Claudian, Stil. 1.172 ‘campi montesque latebant’ and Prudentius, Psych. 686 ‘media camporum in strage iacebant.’

494: cf. Lucr. 6.1215 ‘multaque humi cum inhumata iacerent corpora’; Virgil, Aen. 11.22 ‘inhumata corpora terrae / mandemus’; Prudentius, C. Symm. 2.719 ‘inhumata cadavera late.’

Other parallels to the passage as a whole: 490 ‘oblatis … iugulis’: Claudian, VI Cons. Hon. 257 ‘iugulum … offert.’

‘succurrere mortem’: Claudian, Ruf. 2.164 ‘nostrae succurrere morti.’

493 ultima sors: found in Lucan 5.692, 7.122 and 444, though not in the sense of ‘death’; cf. Prudentius, Perist. 1.54.

496 dextera victrix: Ovid, Met. 8.421, Fast. 1.335; Seneca, H.F. 800; Lucan 1.3; cf. Silius 11.195 dextera vindex; and Prudentius, C. Symm. 1.484.

Lines 488–89 and 495 are discussed in section three.

³⁷ Avitus, , C . 6, De Virginitate, 371–72.Google Scholar

³⁸ Avitus treats Pharaoh's order to kill the sons of the Israelites only summarily (5.19–32). But Pharaoh is described as a saevus tyrannus (5.23), a phrase used by the New Testament poets of Herod: Juvencus 1.252, Sedulius, C.P. 2.74, Arator 1.351.Google Scholar

³⁹ Quintilian 8.3.70.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ 372 praecedens agmina: Virgil, Aen. 9.47 ‘tardum praecesserat agmen’; Statius, Silv. 5.2.20–21 ‘praecedente … / agmine.’Google Scholar

375 arma ferunt humeris: Ovid, Fast. 5.565 ‘humeris … arma ferentem’; for arma ferunt see Ovid, Met. 15.783; Virgil, G. 1.511, Aen. 9.133, 12.586; Lucan 3.476.

375–76 ‘enses … laevo / dependent lateri’: Virgil, Aen. 2.393 ‘Laterique … accommodat ense,’ 8.459 ‘laterique … subligat ensem,’ 9.579 ‘laevo adfixa est lateri,’ 11.489 ‘laterique accinxerat ensem’; Seneca, Oed. 463 dependet lateri; Statius, Theb. 1.609–10 ‘lateri … dependent.’

376: ‘tum vertice cassis’: Silius 2.153 ‘non vertice cassis’; cf. Ovid, Met. 13.107 casside vertex.

377: lux ferrea: cf. Statius, Theb. 1.105.

378 clipeosque sinistris: Virgil, Aen. 2.443–44 ‘clipeosque ad tela sinistris / … obiciunt,’ 2.671 clipeoque sinistram, 11.10–11 ‘clipeumque ex aere sinistrae / subligat.’

Other parallels are discussed in section three.

⁴¹ Heinze, Richard, Virgils epische Technik (Leipzig 1903) 348–50.Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid. 197–200.Google Scholar

⁴³ 501 rapit arma: Virgil, Aen. 8.220; Silius 3.526.Google Scholar

502 ‘equi phalerisque potentes’: Virgil, Aen. 5.310 ‘equum phaleris insignem.’

504–5 ‘axes / aurato temone trahunt’: Virgil, G. 3.172–73 ‘axis / instrepat, et iunctos temo trahat aereus orbis’; Ovid, Met. 2.107 ‘ aureus axis erat, temo aureus.’

505 ‘tum cetera pubes’: Virgil, Aen. 5.74 ‘quos cetera pubes’ 7.614 ‘sequitur tum cetera pubes’; Valerius Flaccus 1.354; Statius, Theb. 4.608, 6.663.

506 ‘fulvo … aere’: Ovid, Met. 1.115; Lucan 9.669; Prudentius, C. Symm. 1.227.

⁴⁴ 507 loricarum vasto sub tegmine’: Lucan 7.498–99: ‘lorica … tutoque … sub tegmine’; Silius 15.755 and 16.110 loricae tegmine.Google Scholar

514 ‘cuncta inter tela’: Virgil, Aen. 7.673 ‘densa inter tela’; Statius, Theb. 8.443 ‘sparsa inter tela.’

516 ‘quas laetos … vultus’: cf. Ovid, Met. 10.5; Valerius Flaccus 5.570; Silius 3.298 ‘hos … laeto vultu,’ and 4.821, 5.227 and 15.98.

518 luce tenebras: Lucan 8.58–59 ‘lucemque tenebris / abstulit’; Valerius Flaccus 8.57; Silius 6.150 ‘tristes sine luce tenebrae’; it becomes a favorite antithetical iunctura of Christian poetry: Carm. de res. 319; Avitus 1.23, 6.455; Dracontius, Laudes Dei 1.419, 2.12.

⁴⁵ Cf. also Silius 2.401–2 and 5.140–41; Sidonius C. 2.321–22.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Servius, ad Aen. 3.467.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ For the two methods of construction see DS 3 (1904) 1315–16, s.v. ‘lorica’; for the armor of the cataphracti see DS 1 (1887) 966–67, s.v. ‘cataphracti.’Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Heinze (n. 41) 200. For a horse cf. 11.770–71, and Servius ad loc.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For other passages see Ramsay MacMullen, ‘Some Pictures in Ammianus Marcellinus,’ Art Bulletin 46 (1964) 440.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Isidore, , Et . 18.13.2: ‘squama est lorica ferrea ex lamminis ferreis et aereis concatenata.’Google Scholar

⁵¹ So circulus can be used also of the ‘lorica squamis conserta’ (Ammianus 16.10.8). Note also sutis (Psych. 675), adsuti (SHG 5.512), and the emphasis on the flexilibity of both types of armor (SHG 5.512; Claudian, In Ruf. 2.358; Ammianus 16.10.8).Google Scholar

⁵² But it should be noted that Silius 5.140–41, ‘tortos huic nexilis hamos / ferro squama rudi permixtoque asperat auro,’ which refers to both hamt and squamae, suggest that the two methods of construction might be combined.Google Scholar

⁵³ MacMullen, (n. 49) 441.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. Tacitus, Germ . 43.6, and Silius 7.683–90.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For the habit of ending a passage with a sententia see Theon, Proggmnasmata 4 (2.91. 11–14 Spengel) and Quintilian 8.5.2.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The figure of interpretatio. See Rhet. Her. 4.28.38, and Leonid Arbusow, Colores Rhetorici: Eine Auswahl rhetorischer Figuren und Gemeinplätze als Hilfsmittel für akademische Übungen an mittelalterlichen Texten, 2nd ed. (Göttingen 1963) 23–24 and 61–62.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ SHG 5.76, 295, 641.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. Prudentius, Cath. 5.69–72.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ 520 undique saeptus: Virgil, Aen. 9.783; Ovid, Tr. 3.11.13; Lucan 4.773; cf. Prudentius, Cath. 10.155.Google Scholar

552 ‘concutitur … pondere tellus’: Virgil, Aen. 9.752 ‘concussa est pondere tellus’; Lucan 4.115 concussaque tellus; Silius 4.199 ‘vasto quatitur sub pondere tellus.’

⁶⁰ Virgil, Compare, Aen . 7.673–77 and 12.444–45; Lucan 4.766; Silius 11.518.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The language is Virgilian:Google Scholar

686 morientia corpora: Aen. 11.665; Ovid, A.A. 3.743.

688 miseris complexibus: cf. Aen. 8.488 ‘complexu in misero’; Statius, Theb. 3.165.

691 brachia iactant: cf. Virgil, Aen. 5.376–77 ‘alternaque iactat / bracchia’; Ovid, Met. 5.596, Her. 18.58, 96, 19.48, Ep. 1.6.34; Lucan 3.651; Sidonius, C. 5.346; ThLL 7.1.52.9–16.

⁶² The same etymological play on the name in Georgius Pisides, Bellum Avaricum 493–94.Google Scholar

⁶³ 408 radiis fulgens: cf. Virgil, Aen. 8.623 ‘radiis … refulget,’ 9.374 ‘radiisque … refulsit’; Ovid, Her. 18.71 fulges radiis.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Cf. SHG 2.132 ‘dira micant oculi’ (of the serpent in the Garden of Eden) and Virgil, Aen. 1.90 ‘micat ignibus aether’ (of lightning). In both passages micare has ominous connotations. Note further in the present passage the contrast between ‘moto … in axe’ (405) and ‘stanti … insistens’ (403–4).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Diffugiunt: G. 3.150, 277; Aen. 2.399, 5.677, 9.756. obstipuere: G. 4.351; Aen. 2.120, 5.404, 8.530, 9.123.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ It is used of animals in the Georgics.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ For the association of the column of fire with Christ see Ambrose, In Ps. CXVIII, 18.29 ‘Moyses columnam sequebatur, ut nocturnas tenebras declinaret, Christus inluminabat’ (CSEL 62.412.13–14) and Sacr. 1.6.22 ‘columna lucis quis est nisi Christus dominus, qui tenebras infidelitatis depulit, lucem veritatis et gratiae adfectibus infudit humanis’ (CSEL 73.24.15–17).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ It is preceded by a four-line summary of the content of the ecphrasis (424–27). As we have seen, Avitus often prefaces an ecphrasis with such an introductory statement. This particular case is unusual because it involves a chronological advance in the narrative which must be reversed at the beginning of the ecphrasis proper (428). The passage would seem to suggest that Avitus, at least in this case, viewed the introductory statement as somewhat detached from its context, rather as a chapter-heading or a text to be commented on.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ ‘Caelo … sereno’ is, of course, a common locution. But note especially Georgics 1.487, where the context is the threatening portents that preceded the death of Julius Caesar.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ 306, note ad loc.Google Scholar

⁷¹ 1.151–53, 295–96, 2.367–70, 5.71–75, and 187–89.Google Scholar

⁷² Material has been accumulating for roughly a century. The fullest conspectus is provided by Costanza (n. 3).Google Scholar

⁷³ Quintilian, for example, recognizes both epithets (8.6.40) and periphrases (8.6.60) as typical of the idiom of poetry.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The apparently impressive catalogues of parallels provided by Costanza (n. 3), 63–114, will bear critical examination in this light. Further, it cannot be assumed that language found in or limited to poetry in the classical period would necessarily be considered poetic in late antiquity. It is well known that in the post-classical period prose increasingly appropriated to itself language that previously had been exclusively poetic. So much so that some scholars have questioned whether it is legitimate to talk about a poetic idiom at all in this period. This seems a counsel of despair: there remains a distinct sense of the poetic, if somewhat attenuated by classical standards. For a discussion of this problem see Harald Hagendahl, Studia Ammianea, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1921, Filosofi, Sprákvetenskap och Historiska Vetenskaper 3 (Uppsala 1921) 16–18, and L. J. Engels, Observations sur le vocabulaire de Paul Diacre (Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva 16; Nijmegen 1961) 96–106. Henri Goelzer and Alfred Mey, in their study of Avitus’ Latinity, Le latin de Saint Avit, évěque de Vienne (450?–526?) (Paris 1909) 10–11, believe that no distinction can be made between the style of poetry and prose in this period. Certainly many of the periphrases and verbal combinations found in Avitus and Virgilian and post-Virgilian poetry can also be paralleled in the prose of late antiquity and occasionally in classical prose authors. In such cases we should perhaps invoke a common idiom of late antiquity, without specifying prose or poetry. But there remain a significant number of usages that are at least predominantly poetic.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ A locus classicus for the susceptibility of the educated classes to the charm of poetry is Sedulius’ first letter to Macedonius, the dedicatory letter to the Carmen Paschale, where he speaks of those who prefer verse to prose: ‘quod autem versuum viderint blandimento mellitum, tanta cordis aviditate suscipiunt, ut in alta memoria saepius haec iterando constituant et reponant’ (5.8–10 Huemer). The charm of poetry is often seen as a consequence of poetic licence. According to classical theory, the licence consists in freedom of invention, especially the use of myths, and freedom in style, especially tropes and figures. The former is doctrinally offensive to Christians, and increasingly poetic charm is felt to inhere in its language.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ In the absence of such similarity, the potential evocation is neutralized by the new context. This type of imitation is most frequent in Avitus. It is from such neutralized locutions that the common poetic idiom is largely constituted. For the concept of neutralization see Reinhart Herzog (n. 31) 197; for the oversubtlety of some of these attempts at systematization, with particular reference to Klaus Thraede, ‘Epos,’ RAC 5 (1962) 1034–41, see Dieter Kartschoke, Bibeldichtung: Studien zur Geschichte der epischen Bibelparaphrase von Juvencus bis Otfrid von Weissenburg (Munich 1975) 82–83.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ We should not allow modern awareness of the ambiguity of moral values in the Aeneid to intrude here. No doubt the sympathies of a late antique Christian reader of the Aeneid would be wholly on the side of pius Aeneas.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ It is found in Virgil (Aen. 7.392, in addition to the passage cited), Ovid (Met. 3.125), Lucan (2.38; but cf. the picture of 3.351), Valerius Flaccus (1.348), and Statius (Theb. 3.126; 7.499; 8.437; 9.372, 584; 12.395; Silv. 5.5.13). A closer parallel to Avitus’ use is provided by Prudentius, Dittoch. 116, ‘pia pectora matrum,’ of the slaughter of the innocents. For confosso pectore see also Seneca, Tro. 559 ‘confossa telis pectus.’Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Silius 3.62–63 accords well with the two passages quoted in the text ‘curarum prima exercet, subducere bello / consortem thalami parvumque sub ubere natum.’ The combination ubere natos (nati) is also found in Valerius Flaccus (2.185 and 203). There too the normal associations are reversed. Children are dashed from the breast or their mothers’ milk dries up as a preliminary to the unnatural crimes of the Lemnian women. Cf. also Virgil, G. 3.178 ubera natos (of a cow with calves), Aen. 3.392 (= 8.45) ubera nati (of a sow with young), and Aen. 5.285 ‘sub ubere nati’ (of a slave woman), and Statius, Theb. 5.205 ‘avidique implorant ubera nati’ (of Hyrcanian lion cubs).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ For the reanimation of faded or dead metaphors see Winifred Nowottny, The Language Poets Use (London 1962) 70. Compare with the verse from Lucan, Sen., Thy. 828–29 ‘trepidant pectora magno / percussa metu.’Google Scholar

⁸¹ E.g. in Cicero, , Brut . 89.305, Tusc. 5.11.33.Google Scholar

⁸² Compare the phrase ‘ingratos deponite mente timores’ (SHG 5.558). This too is a periphrasis for human emotion, corresponding to ‘nolite timere’ in the Vulgate (Exod. 14.13), and contains a faded metaphor in the verb deponite. A similar phrase is found in Lucan (6.659) ‘ponite … trepida conceptos mente timores.’ The New Testament poets Juvencus (‘ponite terrorem mentis,’ 1.164 = nolite timere., Lk.2.10) and Sedulius (‘ponite sollicita conceptos mente dolores,’ 3.135 = nolite flere, Lk 8.52), like Avitus, use such language as a periphrasis for a prohibition. We can certainly speak of a common poetic idiom in these authors, but there is also a subtle degree of variation so that no two versions are exactly alike.Google Scholar

⁸³ The tradition goes back to Homer (Il. 23.365–66); cf. Ursula Keudel, Poetische Vorläufer und Vorbilder in Claudians De consulatu Stilichonis: Imitationskommentar (Hypomnemata 26; Göttingen 1970) 52, on Stil. 1.257.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ For the parallels to these verses see nn. 36 and 40. Another example of traditional details fixed by poetic locutions is in the successive line endings oppida muris and ‘non cultor in agris’ (477–78). Both are common iuncturae (n. 35, sometimes with minor variations). Normality is characterized by walled cities and cultivated fields. Avitus is not the first poet to indicate disruption of the normal state of things by denying these conditions (e.g. Lucan 4.224 and 9.161).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Quintilian 8.6.17–18.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ This is, of course, a standard epithet for silva in its literal sense (e.g. Lucan 3.362–63). For a discussion of the metaphor in first-century epic (it is also found in Statius, Theb. 5.533 ‘harundineam … silvam’) see Williams (n. 27) 203–4.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Cf. in particular Juvencus 2.24 (condere terrae) and 3.69 (condunt terrae). The phrase inhumata cadavera reinforces the hypothesis of Virgilian imitation. It should be noticed that in the SHG inhumata must be understood proleptically. This is further evidence of aemulatio of the Virgilian original.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ It is found in Virgil (G. 2.399; Aen. 4.589, 12.155), followed by Ovid, Seneca, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus, Silius, Ausonius, and Prudentius.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ The phrase ‘quid denique restat’ is found a little earlier in the SHG (623) in the speech of the anonymous Egyptian. This passage from the Aeneid may have already been in Avitus’ mind, although it is likely the phrase was part of the poetic idiom of late antiquity. The phrase iam finis erit is also imitated by Valerius Flaccus (1.350).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ For this possibility of mutual reinterpretation see Herzog (n. 31) 200. SHG 5.405 ‘micat ignis in axe’ is the only other passage that has been noted in this part of the SHG which appears to recall a Virgilian locution found exclusively in book one or twelve of the Aeneid: ‘micat ignibus aether’ (1.90), from the description of a storm with which the account of Aeneas’ journeys opens. It is just possible that the passage is intended to bring to mind the Virgilian context: whereas the Trojans must suffer through storms and Juno's displeasure, the Israelites are protected by God's fiery column; but, as I have already suggested, I think it is more likely that the poetic language is intended to suggest the omens that often accompany battle, and not to bring any particular context to mind.Google Scholar

⁹¹ The theme of divine pietas is the leitmotif of the Laudes Dei of Dracontius, a contemporary of Avitus. God's pietas is not inconsistent with the stern meting-out of justice to the recalcitrant (the Egyptians in the SHG), but takes the form of mercy to, and kindly protection of, the repentant and true believers. Thus Dracontius can say of the crossing of the Red Sea:Google Scholar

⁹² Tonare: 2 Sam. 22.14, Job 37.4 and 5, 40.4; intonare Ps. 17.14, Ecclus. 46.20, cf. ThLL 7.2.27.24–63. It is unusual for a pagan poet to use these verbs of a god's voice (but cf. Claudian, Rapt. 1.83–84 ‘celso / ore tonat,’ of Pluto).Google Scholar

⁹³ Avitus was apparently sensitive to the application of the verb tonare and its derivatives to the Christian God, perhaps because of the association of thunder with Jupiter. Thus he applies the word Tonans to God only once, and then it is put into the mouth of the fallen Eve (SHG 2.243); cf. Roberts, ‘The Prologue to Avitus’ De Spiritalis Historiae Gestis: Christian Poetry and Poetic License,’ Traditio 36 (1980) 399–407, especially 404–5. This despite the fact that it had been accepted usage in Christian poetry since Juvencus (ca. 329). This critical attitude to the pagan epic tradition and its assimilation by Christian poets is typical of Avitus. It is the spirit that pervades his whole account of the crossing of the Red Sea.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The Heptateuchos and De martyrio Maccabaeorum are edited by Rudolf Peiper (n. 11); the former is of the early fifth century, the latter also fifth century; the Carmen de Resurrectione is edited by J. N. Waszink, Carmen ad Flavium Felicem de resurrectione mortuorum et de iudicio Domini (Florilegium Patristicum, suppl. 1; Bonn 1937), and dates to ca. a.d. 500. Dracontius’ Laudes Dei is contemporary with Avitus, edited in MGH Auctores Antiquissimi 14 (Berlin 1905) by Friedrich Vollmer. The references are as follows: Prudentius: Cath. 5.37–88 and 109–12; 12.165–68; Psych. 650–64; Dittoch. 33–36; Paulinus: C. 22.90–93 and 98–103; 26.157–58; 27.39–42 and 630–35; 32.11–13; Hept. E 480–505, D 25–30, Jo 48–51, 184–86, 539, Ju 102–5; Sedulius : C.P. 1.136–47; De mart. Macc. 315–20; Sidonius: C. 16.7–10; Dracontius: L.D. 2.165–75, 795–808; Carm. de Res. 289–90.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ In fact, I have discovered none. Sedulius uses the phrase ‘mutavit natura viam’ (1.141) in his account of the crossing; Avitus has ‘mutavit natura vices’ (5.445), but in a different context, and ‘(deus) mutatque vices’ (5.621) of the opening of a path across the Red Sea. The Avitan locution recalls Horace, C. 4.7.3 ‘mutat terra vices.’Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Such mixed metaphors are not unusual in the poetry of late antiquity. They seem to reflect a tendency evident at every level of composition to view the units of composition as independent entities to be manipulated and arranged into pleasing patterns in the manner of jewels or pieces in a mosaic. The artist is less concerned with the harmony of contiguous elements than with the ‘brilliance’ of the individual constituents of which the whole is made up.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ On this passage see Goulon, Alain, ‘Les citations des poètes latins dans l’ǒuvre de Lactance,’ in J. Fontaine and M. Perrin, edd., Lactance et son temps: recherches actuelles, Actes du iv^e colloque d’études historiques et patristiques, Chantilly 21–23 septembre 1976 (Paris 1978) 144.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The passage is discussed, along with other references in the Hept. to the crossing of the Red Sea, by Herzog (n. 31) 135–37.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Fontaine, Jacques, in his review of Marion M. van Assendelft, Sol Ecce Surgit Igneus: A Commentary on the Morning and Evening Hymns of Prudentius (Cathemerinon 1, 2, 5 and 6) (Groningen 1976), in REL 56 (1978) 82–83, speaks of the poet's engagement with the context of the Georgics passage.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Frenare, it is true, is characteristically used of restraining the emotions; but it is used of physical restraint also, especially of the effect of ice on water (e.g. Virgil, G. 4.136; cf. Hept. Jo 101).Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Cf. Williams, R.D., The Aeneid of Virgil, Books 1–6 (London 1972) 341, ad. loc., who quotes Valerius Flaccus 6.383: ‘tunc ruit ut montis latus aut ut machina muri.’Google Scholar

¹⁰² The parallel is cited by Peiper, , ad loc . Its cogency depends on the syntactical parallelism of the two phrases, not on the repetition of pendentis. Pendeo, or verbs from the same root, are commonplace in poetic accounts of the crossing of the Red Sea (Hept. D 30, Jo 185; Carm. de Res. 289; Sidonius, C. 16.8).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ MacMullen, (n. 49) 437 and 453–54.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Fontaine, , ‘Unité et diversité’ (n. 6) 431, and ‘Le mélange’ (n. 6) 758–59. As Fontaine notes, the aesthetic values of late antiquity can be traced to certain long-established trends in Latin poetry, in particular that tradition of Latin Alexandrianism which can be detected in much of the poetry of the first century a.d. Thus Ovid's Metamorphoses already shows the influence of dramatic gesture and theatrical techniques of staging (cf. G. Karl Galinsky, Ovid's Metamorphoses: An Introduction to the Basic Aspects [Berkeley 1975] 67–69).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Too often criticism has not advanced beyond observation of the conventional idiom of late antique poetry. Evaluations of this poetry have often, therefore, been negative. For instance, Wilhelm Kroll, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur (Stuttgart 1924) 154, speaking of Christian Latin poetry: ‘Vielmehr kleidete man poetische Paraphrasen der heiligen Geschichte und der Heiligenlegende ohne grosse Bedenken in vergilianische Wendungen’ (mentioning particularly Corippus and Arator). He also cites with approval Hosius’ characterization of the majority of Ausonius’ Mosella as ‘ein aus Reminiszenzen an antike Muster zusammengestoppeltes Flickwerk.’ Michael von Albrecht, Silius Italicus: Freiheit und Gebundenheit römischer Epik (Amsterdam 1964) 185–89 esp. 188–89, has some valuable remarks on the concept of originality in a restricted poetic idiom.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ For the triple sense of the Scriptures, which often coexists in a single author with a fourfold schema, see Henri de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale: Les quatre sens de l'Écriture (Paris 1959–64) 1.1.139–43.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ For the history of Exodus exegesis, see Daniélou, J., ‘Exodus,’ RAC 7 (1969) 26–40. For the Exodus from Egypt as symbol of the journey of the soul see Ambrose, Myst. 3.12 (CSEL 73.94.48–50) and Jerome, Ep. 78; for baptismal allegory, Tertullian, Bapt. 9.1 ‘Primum quidem, cum populus de Aegypto expeditus vim regis Aegypti per aquam transgressus evadit, ipsum regem cum totis copiis aqua extinguit. Quae figura manifestior in baptismi sacramento? Liberantur de saeculo nationes, per aquam scilicet, et diabolum dominatorem pristinum in aqua obpressum derelinquunt’ (CCL 1.283.33–284.8). Tertullian equates Pharaoh with the devil (Daniélou 33).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ For the double aspect of the sensus moralis, literal and allegorical, see de Lubac (n. 106) 1.2.549–57.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ The immediate relevance of the biblical account to the individual experience of every Christian is summed up in a quotation from eighth-century Spain, Heterii et Sancti Beati ad Elipandum Ep. 1.51 (PL 96.924b): ‘licet illa in Aegypto corporaliter gesta sint, spiritualiter tamen nunc geruntur in nobis.’ The passage is quoted by de Lubac, 1.2.558.Google Scholar